Inre: Rambus, Inc.
753 F.3d 1253
| Fed. Cir. | 2014Background
- This is an appeal from an inter partes reexamination of claims 26 and 28 of the ’916 patent.
- The PTO Board found Bennett anticipated by disclosing a value representative of time to transpire before data output.
- Rambus challenges that Bennett’s Figure 25a/25b do not disclose a definite, known delay due to arbitration and busy devices.
- Micron moved to withdraw; Rambus retains appeal rights; the court reverses the Board’s anticipation finding.
- The court applies Phillips claim construction standards in reexamination of an expired patent; parameters in Bennett are not a definite time value.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Bennett disclose a value representative of time to transpire before data output? | Rambus contends no; Parameter VI does not fix a definite delay. | Board and Micron contend yes; Parameter VI represents the time delay. | No; Bennett does not disclose a definite time value. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm., 339 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (antiquated standard for anticipation must disclose all claims elements)
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claim construction in reexamination context)
- In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (broadest reasonable interpretation principle applied)
- In re Rambus, Inc., 694 F.3d 42 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (claim construction applicable where patent is expired)
- In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (anticipation standard and substantial evidence review)