pre-AIA Archives - IP UPDATE

Detour Ahead: New Approach to Assessing Prior Art Rejections Under § 102(e)

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit established a more demanding test for determining whether a published patent application claiming priority to a provisional application is considered prior art under pre-America Invents Act (AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as of the provisional filing date, explaining that all portions of the published patent application that are relied upon by the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) to reject the claims must be sufficiently supported in the provisional application. In re Riggs, Case No. 22-1945 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 24, 2025) (Moore, Stoll, Cunningham, JJ.)

Several inventors who work for Odyssey Logistics filed a patent application directed to logistics systems and methods for the transportation of goods from various shippers by various carriers across different modes of transport (e.g., by rail, truck, ship, or air). PTO rejected the application under § 102(e) in view of Lettich, which claimed the benefit of a provisional application (Lettich provisional), and as obvious in view of Lettich in combination with the Rojek reference.

The inventors appealed the Lettich rejections to the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, arguing that Lettich did not qualify as prior art under § 102(e). The Board initially agreed with the inventors, but the Examiner assigned to the application requested a rehearing, asserting that the Board applied the incorrect standard for § 102(e) prior art. The Board ultimately issued its decision on the Request for Rehearing, stating that it had jurisdiction over the Examiner’s request and that the Examiner’s arguments regarding Lettich’s status as prior art under § 102(e) “[we]re well taken.” The Board amended its original decision “to determine that Lettich is proper prior art against the instant claims.” The Board then reviewed and affirmed the Examiner’s anticipation and obviousness rejections. The inventors appealed.

The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the Board’s decision. With respect to whether Lettich qualified as § 102(e) prior art, the Court found that the Board’s analysis was incomplete. The Court concluded that the Board correctly applied the test set forth in the Federal Circuit’s 2015 decision in Dynamic Drinkware v. National Graphics by determining that the Lettich provisional supported at least one of Lettich’s as-published claims. However, the Court found that this test was insufficient because all portions of the disclosure that are relied upon by the PTO to reject the claims must also be sufficiently supported in the priority document. Although the PTO asserted that the Board had conducted this additional analysis, the Federal Circuit disagreed and vacated and remanded for the Board to determine whether the Lettich provisional supported the entirety of the Lettich disclosure that the Examiner relied on in rejecting the claims.

Co-Authorship ≠ Co-Inventorship but Can Be Supportive of Inventive Contribution

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) decision because it failed to resolve fundamental testimonial conflict relating to inventive contribution and complete the Duncan Parking analysis. Google LLC v. IPA Technologies Inc., Case Nos. 21-1179; -1180; -1185 (Fed. Cir. May 19, 2022) (Dyk, Schall, Taranto, JJ.)

Under Duncan Parking, analyzing whether a reference patent is “by another” requires the following three steps:

Determining what portions were relied on as prior art to anticipate the claim limitations at issue
Evaluating the degree to which those portions were conceived by another
Deciding whether that other person’s contribution is significant enough to render them a joint inventor of the applied portions of the reference patent.

SRI International filed two patent applications in 1999 related to the software-based Open Agent Architecture (OAA) and listed Martin and Cheyer as the inventors. In March 1998, an academic paper describing the OAA project was published and named these inventors and Moran as co-authors (Martin reference). During prosecution, the examiner identified the Martin reference as prior art and rejected the claims. SRI asserted that the Martin reference was not prior art because it was made by the same inventive entity as the patents. The patents were granted and assigned to IPA.

Google petitioned the Board for inter partes review of the patent claims. Google argued obviousness in view of the Martin reference and asserted that since the authors of the Martin reference (Martin, Cheyer, Moran) were not the same as the named inventive entity (Martin, Cheyer), the Martin reference was prior art “by others.” The Board instituted review but decided that Google did not meet its burden to provide sufficient support in establishing the correct inventive entity of the claimed subject matter and concluded that Moran’s testimony was insufficiently corroborated. Google appealed.

First, the Federal Circuit discussed the differences between burdens of persuasion and production and responded to Google’s argument that the Board improperly imposed a burden of proof. The Court found no error in the Board requiring Google to establish that the Martin reference was prior art “by another” by showing that Moran made a significant-enough contribution to qualify as a joint inventor on the relevant portions of the Martin reference.

Second, the Federal Circuit explained that the issue in this case was not the lack of corroboration for Moran’s testimony but rather whether his testimony should be credited over Cheyer and Martin’s conflicting testimony. The Court explained that to address joint inventorship under Duncan Parking, Moran “must have made an inventive contribution to the portions of the reference relied on and relevant to establishing obviousness.” Moran’s testimony could support co-inventorship of portions in the Martin reference relied on by Google and relevant to the challenged claims.

The Federal Circuit explained that although most corroboration cases involve issued patents, corroboration is also required for testimony that an individual is an inventor of a potentially invalidating, non-patent prior art reference. The record contained “more [...]

Continue Reading