Zaxcom, Inc. v. Lectrosonics, Inc.

 
APPEAL NO.
20-1922
OP. BELOW
OPINION
TBD
SUBJECT
Patent
AUTHOR
TBD

Issue(s) Presented

  1. “Whether the Board erred by rejecting Petitioner’s own expert’s claim construction of ‘wearable’ in the Patents’ context as ‘unobtrusive and easily hidden’ (like performer bodypacks are), and further erred by rejecting a construction that a device is ‘wearable’ only if smaller (not larger) than the device identified by both applicant and examiner during prosecution (Nagra V) as too big to be ‘wearable.’”
  2. “Whether the Board erred by finding the prior art combination disclosed the construed ‘master timecode generator,’ in the absence of substantial (or any) evidence that the prior art, singly or in combination, disclosed any purported ‘master’ controlling any local audio device’s timecode generator in any way.”
  3. “Whether the Board erred by misconstruing the claims to be broad enough to cover both a Dropout Embodiment and a Multitrack Embodiment, and by misconstruing the claims to be broad enough so that the two types of ‘audio data’ that must be ‘combined’ may come originally from different audio sources.”
  4. “Regardless of the outcome of Issues 1, 2, and 3, whether the Board erred in its application of industry praise law to the facts that exist in the record, leading it to analyze the ultimate question of obviousness without weighing evidence of nonobviousness that this Court’s precedents require it to weigh.”

Posts About this Case