In re Man Mach. Interface Techs. LLC
Citation | 822 F.3d 1282,118 U.S.P.Q.2d 1615 |
Decision Date | 19 April 2016 |
Docket Number | No. 2015–1562.,2015–1562. |
Parties | In re MAN MACHINE INTERFACE TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Appellant. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit |
Kelly W. Cunningham, Cislo & Thomas LLP, Los Angeles, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by Daniel M. Cislo.
Jeremiah Helm, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Michelle K. Lee. Also represented by Thomas W. Krause, Farheena Yasmeen Rasheed.
Before LOURIE, O'MALLEY, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
STOLL
, Circuit Judge.
Man Machine Interface Technologies (“Man Machine”) appeals the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) affirming the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4, 7–10, and 17 of Man Machine's U.S. Patent No. 6,069,614 (“'614 patent”)
. For the reasons below, we affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand.
Man Machine's '614 patent
, titled “Man Machine Interface via Display Peripheral” is directed to a remote control device for making selections on television or computer screens. Claim 1 requires that the body of the device be “adapted to be held by the human hand.” Claim 1 also requires a multi-function “thumb switch being adapted for activation by a human thumb.” The thumb switch, which controls cursor movement and object selection on the screen, includes an annular switch (4) including four switches that surround a center switch (3), as shown below in Figure 2A.
'614 patent
Fig. 2A.
Claim 1, which is representative of the challenged claims, reads as follows:
'614 patent
(reexamination certificate) col. 1 ll. 26–45 (emphases added).
A third party requested ex parte reexamination of the '614 patent
, which the PTO granted. The examiner rejected the claims as anticipated and obvious, relying primarily on Japanese Patent No. 58–219634 (“JP '634”), which, as depicted in Figures 1 and 2, discloses a desk-bound mouse. JP '634 further discloses a “cursor locking key” surrounded by four “cursor moving keys” operable by a user's finger to control cursor movement on a screen.
JP '634 Figs. 1, 2.
The examiner construed the claim term “adapted to be held by the human hand” in the '614 patent
broadly to include various “forms of grasp or grasping by a user's hand,” such as the grasping of the mouse disclosed in JP 634 and claims 1, 4, 7–10, and 17 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by JP ' 634 in combination with one or more secondary references.1 Man Machine appealed to the Board, which affirmed the examiner's rejections. The Board held that (1) the claim term “adapted to be held by the human hand” did not exclude various forms of grasp by the human hand, including grasping of a desk-bound mouse; and (2) the claim term “thumb switch” did not exclude switch activation by another digit or item such as a pen “so long as the switch of the device is capable of being enabled by a user's thumb.” J.A. 10. In so holding, the Board emphasized that “Appellant has not cited to a definition of ‘a body adapted to be held by the human hand’ or ‘thumb switch’ in the Specification that would preclude the Examiner's broader reading.” J.A. 11. This appeal followed, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
Discussion
––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 831, 841–42, ––– L.Ed.2d –––– (2015) ). In this case, “because the intrinsic record fully determines the proper construction, we review the Board's claim constructions de novo.” Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1297 (Fed.Cir.2015). In reexamination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) consistent with the specification. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed.Cir.1984). “While the Board must give the terms their broadest reasonable construction, the construction cannot be divorced from the specification and the record evidence.” In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed.Cir.2011).
We have noted that the phrase “adapted to” generally means “made to,” “designed to,” or “configured to,” though it can also be used more broadly to mean “capable of” or “suitable for.” In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed.Cir.2014)
(quoting Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed.Cir.2012) (referencing dictionaries)). Here, “adapted to,” as used in the '614 claims and specification, has the narrower meaning, viz., that the claimed remote control device is made or designed to be held in the human hand and the thumb switch is made or designed for activation by a human thumb.
The '614 specification describes how the body of the remote control device is preferably elongated and rounded to be held in the hand. See '614 patent
col. 2 ll. 29–31, id. col. 6 ll. 5–7, id. Figs. 1, 2A. It further describes how the hand “with the help of palm and its fingers grips the Remote control device body.” Id. col. 7 ll. 34–35. The specification also discusses that “the index finger switch is positioned on the opposite side of the thumb switch, to naturally align with the index finger position when the remote control device is held in the hand.” Id. col. 2 ll. 35–38.
Moreover, the specification expressly distinguishes the remote control device from a desk-bound device like the one disclosed in JP '634. The Summary of the Invention touts that “a user would employ a casual and relaxed attitude as the remote control device is not desk [bound] and therefore position bound by where it is placed on the desk.” Id. col. 4 ll. 33–36. Rather, it is “conveniently held in user's left or right hand,” where it is “thus free to be held and moved around.” Id. col. 4 ll. 37–39. Continuing, the Summary of the Invention states that the benefits of the invention include “ease of use as the device is not desk bound, while being used or not used, [and] therefore can be kept and held in more user convenient positions and postures.” Id. col. 4 ll. 41–43. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim term cannot be so broad as to include a configuration expressly disclaimed in the specification.
Based on the language in the specification, we reject the Board's unreasonably broad construction and construe “adapted to be held by the human hand” to mean “designed or made to be held by the human hand.” The proper understanding of “adapted to be held by the human hand” would not include gripping a desk-bound device such as, for example, the desk-bound mouse disclosed in JP '634.
Similarly, we reject the Board's overly broad construction of “thumb switch being adapted for activation by the human thumb.” Claim 1 expressly requires a thumb switch, not a finger switch; the Board's construction ignores the term “thumb” in “thumb switch.” And the claim goes on to further require that the thumb switch be “adapted for activation by a human thumb.” '614 patent
(reexamination certificate) col. 1 ll. 32–33.
The Board also erred by not interpreting “thumb switch” in light of the specification. This court's cases on BRI make clear that the proper BRI construction is not just the broadest construction, but rather the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification. Proxyconn, 789 F.3d at 1298
. Here, the Summary of the Invention states that the thumb switch is a “slightly bigger than thumb size circle or oval that is contoured to the contours of a thumb.” '614 patent col. 2 ll. 3–5. The specification repeatedly refers to the multi-function switch as a “thumb switch.” See, e.g., id. col. 6 ll. 13–17, 29–65. The specification further states that the multi-function thumb switch is sized “such that it enables a human thumb to activate by pushing one or other of the switch's functions without physically separating the thumb from the multi-function switch.” Id. col. 5 l. 67–col. 6 l. 4. And the specification repeatedly refers to pressure applied to the thumb switch as “thumb pressure.” See, e.g., id. col. 2 ll. 8–13, 14–26, id. col. 8 ll. 44–49. Activation of the switch by another finger is simply not contemplated by...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Daniel v. Comm'r, Alab. Dep't of Corr.
-
MPHJ Tech. Invs., LLC v. Ricoh Ams. Corp.
...Board, we determine questions of anticipation and obviousness under our claim construction. See, e.g. , In re Man Mach. Interface Techs. LLC , 822 F.3d 1282, 1287–89 (Fed. Cir. 2016).i. Anticipation by XNS2 a. XNS Anticipates Claims 1–3The Board found that XNS anticipated claims 1–3 because......
-
Cochlear Bone Anchored Solutions AB v. Oticon Med. AB
...stated function, and we have not introduced a subjective element into the construction of the phrase. See In re Man Machine Interface Techs. LLC , 822 F.3d 1282, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ; In re Giannelli , 739 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ; Aspex Eyewear , 672 F.3d at 1349. To the extent ......
-
Ex parte Karschnia
... ... v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, ... 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Genetic Techs. Ltd. v ... Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016); ... Enfish, LLC v ... 'capable of or 'suitable for.'" In re ... Man Machine Interface Techs. LLC, 822 F.3d 1282, 1286 ... (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d ... ...
-
I Lost at the USPTO, What Are My Chances on Appeal?
...combine two or more of vacatur, reversal, afirmance, and remand in a single opinion. See, e.g. , In re Man Machine Interface Techs., LLC, 822 F.3d 1282, 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“afirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part, remanded”). 4. For an in-depth discussion of standards of revi......