In re Gilbert P. Hyatt
| Decision Date | 12 May 2000 |
| Citation | 54 USPQ2d 1664,211 F.3d 1367 |
| Parties | (Fed. Cir. 2000) IN RE GILBERT P. HYATT 99-1182 DECIDED: |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Appealed from: Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
[Copyrighted Material Omitted] Raphael V. Lupo, McDermott, Will & Emery, of Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Of counsel was Paul Devinsky.
John M. Whealan, Acting Deputy Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, of Arlington, Virginia, argued for appellee, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks. With him on the brief were Albin F. Drost, Acting Solicitor, and Raymond T. Chen, Associate Solicitor. Of counsel was Nancy C. Slutter.
Before LOURIE, RADER, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Patent and Trademark Office's Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. The appellant, Gilbert P. Hyatt, seeks review of the Board's decision upholding a patent examiner's action rejecting several claims of Mr. Hyatt's patent application. We affirm the decision of the Board.
Mr. Hyatt's application addresses the problem of defects or faults in certain systems, including illumination systems. In an illumination system using display panels with many display devices, the invention compensates for a defect in one of the devices by using the surrounding devices to generate the intensity that was supposed to be generated by the defective device. Mr. Hyatt refers to that aspect of his invention as "device detection and intensity sharing." According to the written description, the invention produces an acceptable image "even when 10% to 50% or more" of the devices are faulty.
The four claims at issue are claims 1, 8, 24, and 30. The claims read as follows:
1. A sharing system comprising:
an intensity signal generator generating input intensity signals;
a device detector generating device condition signals;
a sharing generator coupled to the intensity signal generator and to the device detector and generating shared intensity signals in response to the input intensity signals and in response to the device condition signals; and a plurality of devices coupled to the sharing generator and excited by the shared intensity signals.
8. An array system comprising:
an intensity signal generator generating input intensity signals;
a device detector generating device condition signals;
a sharing generator coupled to the intensity signal generator and to the device detector and generating shared intensity signals in response to the input intensity signals and in response to the device condition signals;
and an array of devices coupled to the sharing generator and excited by the shared intensity signals.
24. A display system comprising:
a display signal generator generating input illumination intensity display signals;
a fault detector generating fault condition signals;
a sharing generator coupled to the display signal generator and to the fault detector and generating shared illumination intensity display signals in response to the input illumination intensity display signals and in response to the fault condition signals; and
a plurality of display devices coupled to the sharing generator and excited by the shared illumination intensity display signals.
30. A liquid crystal display system comprising:
a display signal generator generating input illumination intensity display signals a degraded device memory storing degraded liquid crystal device condition signals to identify a degraded liquid crystal device;
a sharing generator coupled to the display signal generator and to the degraded device and generating shared illumination intensity display signals in response to the input illumination intensity display signals and in response to the degraded liquid crystal device condition signals; and
a plurality of liquid crystal display devices coupled to the sharing generator and excited by the shared illumination intensity display signals.
In reviewing the prior art, the examiner focused on U.S. Patent No. 4,825,201 to Watanabe et al., which discloses a display error detection and correction system. The examiner found many of the claims of the application distinguishable over Watanabe because they explicitly recite limitations "directed to changing the intensity of devices adjacent to the defective device to compensate for the intensity of the defective device." The examiner, however, rejected the four claims at issue in this appeal on the ground of anticipation, finding that because they do not expressly recite the limitations of changing the intensity of adjacent devices to correct for a defect, they are not distinguishable over the second embodiment disclosed in Watanabe.
The Watanabe patent discloses an "optical measuring device" positioned in front of an array of display units. The optical measuring device measures various optical properties of the display units, including brightness and color tone. The optical measuring device generates a signal that is sent to the "correction-value determining device," which calculates both the position of the display unit that needs correction and the "correction value" to be applied to that display unit. The correction-value determining device includes a central processing unit, a read-only memory, and a random access memory. Based on the signal from the optical measuring device and on stored data for running the program, the correction-value determining device generates a "correction signal" that is sent to a controller, which in turn transmits a correction data signal to correction circuits connected to the display units. Although the correction data signal is available to all of the correction circuits, the controller enables only the particular correction circuit corresponding to the display unit that needs correction. Thus, the correction data from the controller is transmitted through only the correction circuit corresponding to the display unit that needs correcting.
On appeal, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences upheld the rejections. The Board adopted the examiner's findings that various features in Watanabe anticipate the claimed intensity signal generator, the claimed device detector, the claimed sharing generator, and the claimed plurality of devices. With respect to the "sharing" limitation, the Board found that Watanabe's correction data signal is shared by all of the display devices -- and thus meets the sharing limitation found in all four claims -- because it is available to all of the correction circuits, even though it is transmitted through only that correction circuit corresponding to the display unit that needs correction. The Board agreed with the examiner in rejecting Mr. Hyatt's argument that the sharing limitation in each of the rejected claims incorporates the requirement for changing the intensity of the devices adjacent to the defective device in order to compensate for the intensity of the defective device. Because it found that the correction data signal in Watanabe is available to all of the correction circuits at the same time, the Board found that Watanabe discloses the "sharing" limitation of all four rejected claims when that limitation is given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.
In challenging the Board's decision, Mr. Hyatt first argues that the examiner and the Board failed to analyze the claims on an element-by-element and claim-by-claim basis. That failure, according to Mr. Hyatt, renders the Board's decision inadequate under our holding in Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 43 USPQ2d 1030 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The central thrust of Gechter is that the Board must explain the basis for its rulings sufficiently to enable meaningful judicial review. Gechter, 116 F.3d at 1458, 43 USPQ2d at 1033. As we stated, "For an appellate court to fulfill its role of judicial review, it must have a clear understanding of the grounds for the decision being reviewed," which requires that "[n]ecessary findings must be expressed with sufficient particularity to enable [the] court, without resort to speculation, to understand the reasoning of the Board, and to determine whether it applied the law correctly and whether the evidence supported the underlying and ultimate fact findings." Id. at 1457, 43 USPQ2d at 1033. Under that standard, the court in Gechter concluded that it could not properly review the Board's decision to reject the claim at issue for anticipation because the Board's decision addressed only one of several limitations in the claim. In addition, the court found that it was not clear from the Board's discussion what construction it had placed on the one limitation that it did discuss. Id. at 1459-60, 43 USPQ2d at 1035.
In this case, the Board addressed the limitations of each claim in a manner adequate to permit judicial review. In particular, in his answer to Mr. Hyatt's appeal before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, the examiner explained which aspects of Watanabe anticipate each of the limitations of claim 1. With respect to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC
...that claims, finally allowed, will be given broader scope than is justified.” Yamamoto, 740 F.2d at 1571 ; see In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed.Cir.2000) (the broadest interpretation “is not unfair to applicants, because ‘before a patent is granted the claims are readily amended as par......
-
Hyatt v. Doll
...944 (Fed.Cir. 2008); Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir.2007); In re Hyatt, 243 F.3d 554 (Table) (Fed.Cir.2000); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367 (Fed.Cir.2000); Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348 (Fed.Cir. 1998); In re Hyatt, 108 F.3d 1393 (Table) (Fed.Cir. 1997); In re Hyatt, 106 F.3d 424 (Tabl......
-
In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC.
...reducing the possibility that claims, finally allowed, will be given broader scope than is justified”); see also, e.g., In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed.Cir.2000); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 322 (Fed.Cir.1989). The broadest reasonable interpretation is an examination expedient, not a c......
-
In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC.
...reducing the possibility that claims, finally allowed, will be given broader scope than is justified”); see also, e.g., In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed.Cir.2000); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 322 (Fed.Cir.1989). The broadest reasonable interpretation is an examination expedient, not a c......
-
Chapter §19.04 Unenforceability
...may be ascertainable by reference to the description." 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1). 415 F.3d at 1316, 75 USPQ2d at 1329. See also In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000). [438] The USPTO specifies that in patent examination, "[t]he standard to be applied in all cases i......
-
Chapter §2.01 Introduction
...§ 1.75(d)(1). Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316–1317. See also In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995); United States Pat. & Trademark Office, Manual of Patent Examining P......
-
The failure of public notice in patent prosecution.
...(14.) See 35 U.S.C. § 131 (2000). The general criteria are novelty and nonobviousness. See id. § § 102-103. (15.) E.g., In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05 (C.C.P.A. 1969); MPEP, supra note 13, § (16.) See 35 U.S.C. § 102 (defining pr......
-
Is the Federal Circuit succeeding? An empirical assessment of judicial performance.
...the pending claims must be 'given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.'" (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000))); infra note 142 (describing in further detail the PTO's use of the "broadest reasonable interpretation" (44) Some comm......