In Knowles Electronics. v. Iancu, [2016-1954] (April 6, 2018), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s affirmance of the Examiner’s determination that claims 1–2, 5–6, 9, 11–12, 15–16, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 8,018,049 were anticipated, and claims 21–23 and 25–26 would have been obvious.
The claims were directed to a silicon condenser microphone and manufacturing method. Knowles argued that the PTAB erred by improperly construing “package,” including by failing to consider the Federal Circuit construction of package in a related patent, and by improperly relying on a new ground of rejection to sustain the Examiner’s obviousness findings.
The Federal Circuit noted that it has held that, in some circumstances, previous judicial interpretations of a disputed claim term may be relevant to the PTAB’s later construction of that same disputed term. While the PTAB is not generally bound by a previous judicial interpretation of a disputed claim term does not mean that it has no obligation to acknowledge that interpretation or to assess whether it is consistent with the BRI. The Federal Circuit found that the PTAB considered a previous interpretation of the term and properly determined its claim construction was consistent with the term’s BRI, and the PTAB adequately explained its adoption a claim construction relative to the prior construction.
On the question of whether the Board relied upon a new ground of rejection, the Federal Circuit said that the PTAB is not limited to reciting and agreeing with the examiner’s rejection in haec verba, and can further explain the examiner’s rejection and thoroughly respond to an applicant’s argument. Knowles argued that the the PTAB’s finding regarding the motivation to combine, based upon the principles of operation of the references, does not appear anywhere in the Examiner’s decision. However, after examining the decisions of the Examiner and the Board, the Federal Circuit found that the PTAB’s rejection relied on the same reasons provided by the Examiner, albeit using slightly different verbiage. The Federal Circuit noted that Knowles was given, and actually used its opportunity to respond to the theory of unpatentability before the Board.