A CAFC case on searching prior art, In re Yeager
Yeager is a good case for release on a Friday. There was relevant prior art: U.S. Patent No. 6,694,331 (“Lee”), which describes a method of “formulating and facilitating searches for intellectual property.”
As to legal standards: We review the Board’s legal conclusions de novo. In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Factual determinations are reviewed for substantial evidence. Id. Anticipation is a question of fact. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334–35 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The CAFC affirms a large majority of Board decisions, and this was no exception.
Lovin was cited:
As we held in In re Lovin, however, a party that offers only “a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the proper art” waives any argument with respect to those claim elements. 652 F.3d 1349, 1356–57 (Fed. Cir. 2011). We therefore see no error in the Board’s rejection of Yeager’s arguments regarding the “noting,” “disclosing,” and “without conducting a substantive review of the items within [the] database” limitations.