Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

In re NTP, Inc.

In re NTP, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

August 1, 2011, Decided

2010-1243, 2010-1254, 2010-1263, 2010-1274, 2010-1275, 2010-1276, 2010-1278

Opinion

 [***1484]   [*1285]  Moore, Circuit Judge.

NTP, Inc. (NTP) appeals from decisions of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (Board) affirming the rejections of claims in United States patent nos. 5,436,960 ('960 patent), 5,438,611 ('611 patent), 5,479,472 ('472 patent), 5,625,670 ('670 patent), 5,631,946 ('946 patent), 5,819,172 ('172 patent), and 6,067,451 ('451 patent). We address these seven appeals in a single opinion because there are common issues throughout. Related Appeal No. 2010-1277 presents unique issues addressed in a separate opinion. For the reasons set forth below, we vacate-in-part, reverse-in-part, and remand.

Background

The parties agree that the patents involved in this appeal share substantially identical specifications. 2010-1243 Appellant's Br. 2; 2010-1243 Dir. Br. vi. The patents  [**3] describe a system for sending information (such as electronic mail) from an originating processor (i.e., a personal computer) to a destination processor (i.e., a mobile computer) using an intermediary, an RF receiver. '960 patent col.18 ll.32-39. Prior art systems such as the one shown in figure 1 of the '960 patent required a portable computer to connect to a public switched phone line in order to access electronic messages. Because it was difficult to locate a telephone jack, the mobile computer user was often unable to receive electronic mail. Id. col.3 ll.62-66. The inventors set out to solve this problem by introducing a Radio Frequency (RF) network 302. Figure 8 illustrates the invention:

 [*1286]  

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

654 F.3d 1279 *; 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15814 **; 99 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1481 ***

IN RE NTP, INC.IN RE NTP, INC.IN RE NTP, INC.IN RE NTP, INC.IN RE NTP, INC.IN RE NTP, INC.IN RE NTP, INC.IN RE NTP, INC.

Subsequent History: Decision reached on appeal by In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15816 (Fed. Cir., 2011)

Rehearing denied by, Rehearing, en banc, denied by In re NTP, Inc., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24882 (Fed. Cir., Nov. 17, 2011)

Rehearing denied by, Rehearing, en banc, denied by In re NTP, Inc., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24884 (Fed. Cir., Nov. 17, 2011)

Rehearing denied by, Rehearing, en banc, denied by In re NTP, Inc., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24871 (Fed. Cir., Nov. 17, 2011)

Rehearing denied by, Rehearing, en banc, denied by In re NTP, Inc., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24873 (Fed. Cir., Nov. 17, 2011)

Rehearing denied by, Rehearing, en banc, denied by In re NTP, Inc., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24880 (Fed. Cir., Nov. 17, 2011)

Rehearing denied by, Rehearing, en banc, denied by In re NTP, Inc., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 25052 (Fed. Cir., Nov. 17, 2011)

Rehearing denied by, Rehearing, en banc, denied by In re NTP, Inc., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 25053 (Fed. Cir., Nov. 17, 2011)

Prior History:  [**1] (Reexamination No. 90/006,676). Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. (Reexamination Nos. 90/006,494, 90/006,681, 90/007,726). Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. (Reexamination Nos. 90/006,491, 90/006,678, 90/007,723). Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. (Reexamination Nos. 90/006,533, 90/006,675, 90/007,731). Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. (Reexamination No. 90/006,677). Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. (Reexamination Nos. 90/006,492, 90/006,679). Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. (Reexamination Nos. 90/006,493, 90/006,680, 90/007,735). Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.

Tavory v. NTP, Inc., 297 Fed. Appx. 986, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 23092 (Fed. Cir., 2008)

Disposition: VACATED-IN-PART, REVERSED-IN-PART, AND REMANDED.

CORE TERMS

electronic mail, message, originated, processor, network, destination, transmission, patents, argues, interface, invention, mobile, transmitted, teaches, references, plurality, critical date, discloses, receiver, prior art, inventors, portable, switch, user, documents, connect, communications, Host, specification, station

Business & Corporate Compliance, Patent Law, US Patent & Trademark Office Proceedings, Reexamination Proceedings, Patent Law, Jurisdiction & Review, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Appeals, Claims, Claim Language, Elements & Limitations, General Overview, Communications Law, Rules & Regulations, Regulated Entities, Internet Services, Substantial Evidence, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Allocation, Invention Date & Priority, Antedating Prior Art References, Reduction to Practice, Authentication, Admissibility, Conduct Evidence, Habit & Routine Practices, Anticipation & Novelty, Description in Publications, Fact & Law Issues, Nonobviousness, Elements & Tests, Hindsight, Prior Art, Prior Knowledge & Use of Invention, Elements