Four cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in November attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is In re Blaze Mobile, Inc., a patent case. In this case, Blaze Mobile, Inc. appeals a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirming an examiner’s rejection of every claim in a patent during an ex parte reexamination. This case presents questions related to claim construction and non-obviousness. This is our argument preview.
In its opening brief, Blaze argued reversal of the Board’s obviousness decision “is justified because the Board’s decision is based on erroneous claim constructions.” Blaze first contended the Board improperly construed “user login information/user authentication claim limitations so broadly as to encompass information . . . used for the entirely different process of authorizing charges” through use of a PIN. Second, Blaze argued the Board erroneously construed claim limitations relating to the “identification of one or more products” “so broadly as to encompass [the prior art’s] teachings of [] free music samples,” which, according to Blaze, “do not have prices and cannot be purchased.” Third, Blaze maintained the Board erred by “broadly construing” claim limitations concerning interactions with a “remote management server” and a “transaction server.” Blaze argued the Board’s decision regarding that language “disregards important claim limitations.” Moreover, according to Blaze, “the Board did not present any documentary evidence that it would have been obvious to modify” systems like the servers described in the prior art.
In its response brief, the Patent and Trademark Office maintained the Board properly “rejected Blaze’s constructions as both unsupported by the intrinsic record and unnecessary for resolving any obviousness disputes.” The PTO argued “the Board’s interpretation of the login and authentication terms—encompassing using a PIN—is correct because the specification itself discloses using a PIN for authentication.” The PTO also contended “the Board properly rejected Blaze’s construction of ‘one or more products’ as requiring a price,” first, because “the specification does not require a price,” and, second, because “a price would not overcome the prior art.” The PTO argued “Blaze’s attempt to construe ‘remote management server’ and ‘transaction server’ fails” because such a construction “merely includes limitations already present in the claim and does not distinguish over prior art.” Finally, the PTO maintained, Blaze’s arguments against a motivation to combine the prior art “are forfeited, rely on an incorrect bodily incorporation standard of obviousness, and wrongly interpret the two references as being fundamentally different from one another.”
In its reply brief, Blaze noted the PTO did not “dispute that the claims would not have been obvious under Blaze’s claim construction.” Thus, according to Blaze, if the panel “agrees with any one” of Blaze’s three claim constructions, “the Board’s decision should be reversed.” Blaze argued its constructions are supported by “the claim language, dictionary definitions, numerous citations to the specification, and expert testimony.” Blaze maintained that, in its response brief, the PTO did “not even mention the expert testimony or any of Blaze’s citations to the specification, let alone explain how the Board’s construction could possible be correct in light of this evidence.”
This case attracted an amicus brief filed by Samsung Electronics Co., the party that “submitted the request for ex parte reexamination that led to the proceedings below,” in support of the PTO and affirmance. Samsung argued “Blaze’s construction is grounded in language and requirements that do not exist in the claims” and ignores “the clear intrinsic record” as well as “common sense.” According to Samsung, however, should Blaze’s “incorrect” construction be adopted, one source of prior art nevertheless “discloses” the relevant limitation.
Oral argument is scheduled to be heard on Monday, November 9 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 402.