by Dennis Crouch <\/p>\n
Shamoon v. Resideo Technologies, Inc., No. 2021-1813 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 8, 2023) (opinion by Judge Newman; joined by Judges Reyna, and Cunningham) (non-precedential) <\/p>\n
Charles Shamoon is the inventor and owner of U.S. Patent No. 8,064,935. The patentrelates to a remote access system that allows users to monitor and control environmental devices like alarm and HVAC systems in their home using a base control unit and a remote unit. Resideo challenged the patent in a pair of IPR petitions, and the PTAB eventually found the challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over a combination of two\/three prior art references. <\/p>\n
On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed and rejected Shamoons three challenges. <\/p>\n
The claims require a microcontroller, and Shamoon argued that the term should be construed as requiring a particular type of microcontroller that included certain memory elements. That narrowed definition might have helped Shamoon avoid the prior art. But, the Federal Circuit upheld the PTABs broad claim construction of microcontroller finding that it was broadly used both in the claims and the specification. <\/p>\n
Some of the claims required a confirmation message be sent once an instruction had been executed, and Shamoon argued that the prior art failed to teach a confirmation message related to an environmental device command. On appeal though, the court found that it was proper to combine the teaching of a confirmation message from a reference not related to environmental devices. Because Oinonen and Whitley disclose the environmental devices and commands, it does not avail Mr. Shamoon to complain that Menard does not. Slip Opinion. Shamoons argument here <\/p>\n
Finally, Shamoon argued that applying AIA proceedings to his pre-AIA patent wasimpermissible taking by the United States without just compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The court quickly rejected this argument based upon its prior precedent in Celgene Corp. v. Peter, 931 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (retroactive application of IPR proceedings to pre-AIA patents is not an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment.). <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Link: by Dennis Crouch Shamoon v. Continue reading
\nShamoon v. Resideo: Obviousness affirmed - Patently-O<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"