717 Madison Place

Repair/

Reconstruction

Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 365 U.S. 336 (1961).

For if anything is settled in the patent law, it is that the combination patent covers only the totality of the elements in the claim and that no element, separately viewed, is within the grant. See the Mercoid cases, supra, 320 U. S., at 667; 320 U. S., at 684.[10] The basic fallacy in respondent’s position is that it requires the ascribing to one element of the patented combination the status of patented invention in itself. Yet this Court has made it clear in the two Mercoid cases that there is no legally recognizable or protected “essential” element, “gist” or “heart” of the invention in a combination patent. In Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continent Co., supra, the Court said:

“That result may not be obviated in the present case by calling the combustion stoker switch the `heart of the invention’ or the `advance in the art.’ The patent is for a combination only. Since none of the separate elements of the combination is claimed as the invention, none of them when dealt with separately is protected by the patent monopoly.” 320 U. S., at 667.

And in Mercoid Corp. v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Co., supra, the Court said:

“The fact that an unpatented part of a combination patent may distinguish the invention does not draw to it the privileges of a patent. That may be done only in the manner provided by law. However worthy it may be, however essential to the patent, an unpatented part of a combination patent is no more entitled to monopolistic protection than any other unpatented device.” 320 U. S., at 684.

No element, not itself separately patented, that constitutes one of the elements of a combination patent is entitled to patent monopoly, however essential it may be to the patented combination and no matter how costly or difficult replacement may be.

§101

Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188-89 (1981).

In determining the eligibility of respondents’ claimed process for patent protection under § 101, their claims must be considered as a whole. It is inappropriate to dissect the claims into old and new elements and then to ignore the presence of the old elements in the analysis. This is particularly true in a process claim because a new combination of steps in a process may be patentable even though all the constituents of the combination were well known and in common use before the combination was made. The “novelty” of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.

§101

Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 3230 (2010).

Diehr emphasized the need to consider the invention as a whole, rather than “dissect[ing] the claims into old and new elements and then . . . ignor[ing] the presence of the old elements in the analysis.”

§102

Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 774 F.2d 1082, 1101 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

“Concepts” do not anticipate. The law looks to the particular inquiries set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)-(g), which focus on knowledge, use, sale, disclosure, etc., of the invention. Notions of “concept”, “essence”, “key”, “gist”, etc., are no more useful in the context of § 102 than elsewhere, because they divert the fact-finder’s attention from the subject matter of the invention as a whole.

“Anticipation” for the purposes of § 102 requires “the presence in a single prior art disclosure of all elements of a claimed invention arranged as in that claim”. Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220 USPQ 193, 198 (Fed.Cir.1983).

§103

WL Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548  (Fed. Cir. 1983).

Each claimed invention must be considered as a whole. 35 U.S.C. § 103; Schenck, A.G. v. Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782, 218 USPQ 698, 700 (Fed.Cir.1983). In determining obviousness, there is “no legally recognizable or protected `essential’, `gist’, or `heart’ of the invention”. Aro, 365 U.S. at 345, 81 S.Ct. at 604. A court’s restriction of a claimed multi-step process to one step constitutes error, whether done at the behest of a patentee relying on that restriction to establish infringement by one who employs only that one step in a process otherwise distinct, or at the behest of an accused infringer relying on that restriction to establish invalidity by showing that one step in a prior art process otherwise distinct.

§112

Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

There is “no legally recognizable or protected `essential’ element, `gist’ or `heart’ of the invention in a combination patent.” Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 365 U.S. 336, 345, 81 S.Ct. 599, 604, 5 L.Ed.2d 592 (1961). “The invention” is defined by the claims on appeal. The instant claims do not recite only a pair of semi-circular lumens, or a conical tip, or a ratio at which the tip tapers, or the shape, size, and placement of the inlets and outlets; they claim a double lumen catheter having a combination of those features.

§271

Allen Engineering Corp. v. Bartell Industries, 299 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

The district court’s opinion gives little consideration to the claim limitations of the asserted ‘220 patent. The court identifies the alleged “enhanced steering characteristics” of the ‘220 patent, which it implies are attributable to the “offset torque rod means,” as the “heart” of the invention. Allen Engineering, slip op. at 9. This is erroneous. It is well settled that “there is no legally recognizable or protected `essential’ element, gist or `heart’ of the invention in a combination patent.” Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 365 U.S. 336, 345, 81 S.Ct. 599, 5 L.Ed.2d 592, 128 USPQ 354, 359 (1961). Rather, “`[t]he invention’ is defined by the claims.” Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1565, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1118 (Fed.Cir.1991).

Doctrine of Equivalents

Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 29 (1997).

Each element contained in a patent claim is deemed material to defining the scope of the patented invention, and thus the doctrine of equivalents must be applied to individual elements of the claim, not to the invention as a whole. It is important to ensure that the application of the doctrine, even as to an individual element, is not allowed such broad play as to effectively eliminate that element in its entirety.

Doctrine of Equivalents

Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 40 (1997).

In our view, the particular linguistic framework used is less important than whether the test is probative of the essential inquiry: Does the accused product or process contain elements identical or equivalent to each claimed element of the patented invention?