Summary: PTAB’s anticipation decision unsupported by substantial evidence and reversed.

Case: In re Rambus, Inc., No. 2013-1192 (Fed. Cir. June 4, 2014) (precedential). On appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Reexamination Nos. 95/000,166 and 95/001,122. Before Rader, Moore and Reyna.

Procedural Posture: Patentee appealed PTAB decision of anticipation. CAFC reversed.

  • Anticipation: The CAFC reversed the PTAB’s decision that the claims are anticipated as not supported by substantial evidence. When the prior art invention actually functions, it has an indefinite delay time after which data is transferred such that it is not “representative” of an “amount of time,” as required by the claims. Instead, it is just one factor that could affect the amount of time before data is transferred.

Aryn Conrad