From my review:
7181690 - Thus, “synchronously disseminating” in claims 9, 18, and 20 is amenable to more than one plausible construction and fails to inform a skilled artisan about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty
7493558 - Here, Petitioner proffers claim terms for construction. Pet. 11–14.Patent Owner responds to the asserted grounds using Petitioner’s proposed constructions. Prelim. Resp. 10. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that none of the claim terms requires an express construction to resolve the issues currently presented by the patentability challenges.
7945856 - Accordingly, on this record, we determine that the “determining” step need not be performed by the “first client process.” Instead, the step is broad enough to encompass the “determining” being performed by at least the “first client process,” the “server process,” or both.
8082501 - Here, Petitioner proffers claim terms for construction. Pet. 9–12. Patent Owner responds to the asserted grounds using Petitioner’s proposed constructions. Prelim. Resp. 9–10. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that none of the claim terms requires an express construction to resolve the issues currently presented by the patentability challenges.
8145998(1) - Prelim. Resp. 9–10. For the purposes of
this Decision, and on this record, we determine that no claim term needs express construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only those claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve
the controversy).
8145998(2) - Petitioner proffers proposed constructions of several claim terms. Pet. 11–13. At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s construction. Prelim. Resp. 10–11. For the purposes of this Decision, and on this record, we determine that no claim term needs express construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only those claim terms that are in
This footnote is on every decision:
The parties agree that the broadest reasonable interpretation standard applies to the ’856 patent. See id.; Prelim. Resp. 7. Based on our review of the patent, however, the patent may have expired recently or may be expiring shortly. See Ex. 1001, [60], [63]. For expired patents, we apply the claim construction standard in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed.
Cir. 2005). Our analysis in this Decision is not impacted by whether we apply the broadest reasonable interpretation or the Phillips standard. We, however, expect the parties to address, with particularity, in their future briefing the expiration date of claim 1 of the ’856 patent and if necessary to address this issue, to file Provisional Application No. 60/020,296 as an exhibit.
So out of the six reviews only 2 patents actually had claim constructions in them with a footnote that the decision is not impacted by BRI or Phillips along with future briefing on the issue available.
