Wednesday, May 04, 2016

The CAFC and the case of the misleading ellipsis

From a footnote in the Rhoads case (lost by appellant Rhoads):

Rhoads uses a somewhat misleading ellipsis to
suggest that the Examiner conceded that Davis did not
transmit electronic information to the device to cause the
device to execute an instruction. See Appellant’s Br. at 22.
That is not accurate. The Examiner found that Davis did
disclose that function, but that Davis did not disclose
signaling to the user that an instruction had been successfully
performed. A123; see also Davis at ¶ 97 (“In applications
where the object is a machine, the object reference
may also facilitate remote control and remote updating of
control instructions for the machine.”).

general link:

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 12/498,709


Post a Comment

<< Home