Instead the Board stated in a footnote that they would “address only those grounds of unpatentability asserted under §§ 102 and 103.” IPR2013-00252, No.
In contrast, , the Board refused to acknowledge petitioner’s argument that a claim lacked antecedent basis.
Patent claims establish the boundaries or scope of an invention.
They are the standard by which patent rights are measured.
However, the fact that the Board can deny proposed substitute claims for failing to meet § 112 requirements, ensures that § 112 issues will continue to arise in IPR proceedings.A divided panel on that court has provided insights into where things stand with regards to obviousness post- the patent at issue claims a method for processing liver cells that involves subjecting frozen and thawed liver cells to “density gradient fractionation” in order to separate viable cells from non-viable ones.The viable cells are then frozen and thawed again “without requiring” a second density gradient step.In other words, when a patent owner sues for infringement it is because someone has made, used, or sold an invention that has all of the elements in one of the claims, or that closely fits the description in the claims.In this manner, claims function like the boundaries in a deed for real estate.