October 3, 2019
Authored and Edited by Michelle (Yongyuan) Rice; Sydney R. Kestle; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, No. 2018-1596 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 12, 2019), the Federal Circuit held the Board did not abuse its discretion in rejecting a petitioner’s obviousness theory raised for the first time in reply.
HPC filed an IPR petition challenging Frymaster’s patent related to measuring cooking oil degradation in a deep fryer. In its petition, HPC argued a POSA would have been motivated to incorporate a sensor disclosed in a secondary reference into a primary reference. In reply, it instead argued it would have been obvious to use the sensor already disclosed in the primary reference for a different purpose based on general teachings in the secondary reference. The Board held the latter was a new obviousness theory improperly raised for the first time in reply and disregarded it. It then determined the claims were nonobvious because a POSA would not have been motivated to incorporate the sensor from the secondary reference into the primary reference. And the Board found secondary considerations supported its determination.
The Federal Circuit held that the Board did not abuse its discretion in rejecting HPC’s reply argument, stressing that a petitioner cannot raise a new rationale in reply that it failed to first raise in the petition. The Court then affirmed the Board’s nonobviousness determination.
Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), Obviousness (35 USC § 103), secondary considerations of non-obviousness
Copyright © 2019 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.