Digest of In re Imes, No. 2014-1206 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 29, 2015) (precedential). On appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Before Lourie, Moore and Chen.

Procedural Posture: Applicant appealed rejections of certain claims in Application No. 09/874,423. CAFC reversed and remanded.

  • Claim Construction: The PTO erred in construing “wireless” under a broadest reasonable interpretation to include use of a removable memory card to transfer data from one device to another without using wires.  The Federal Circuit concluded that “wireless” required the use of “electromagnetic or acoustic waves” in view of the specification.  The PTO correctly construed “operable to wirelessly communicate streaming video to a destination” as “capable of wirelessly communicating continuous video transmission.”
  • Obviousness: The PTO erred in concluding that the prior art discloses a “communications module . . . operable to wirelessly communicate streaming video” where the prior art merely discloses sending a video file as an attachment to an e-mail.