{"id":3565,"date":"2011-01-15T18:36:51","date_gmt":"2011-01-16T00:36:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=3565"},"modified":"2011-01-15T18:36:51","modified_gmt":"2011-01-16T00:36:51","slug":"if-then-claims","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=3565","title":{"rendered":"“If … then” Claims"},"content":{"rendered":"

If you are currently\u00a0dealing with patents that recite\u00a0“if …then” claim limitations, you might find the oral argument in Sutton v. Nokia<\/span>, 2010-1218 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 15, 2010) to be of interest.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit only issued a Rule 36 opinion in the case; so, for background, the district court opinion in\u00a0Sutton v. Nokia<\/span>, 647 F.Supp.2d 737 (E.D. Texas 2009)\u00a0is available here [Link<\/a>].<\/p>\n

\u00a0The claim language\u00a0discussed in the oral argument\u00a0is\u00a0shown below.\u00a0 Most of the oral argument focuses on whether the claim can logically satisfy both steps (1) and (2) or whether\u00a0the claim\u00a0fails for impossibility:\u00a0<\/p>\n

(1) if the received packet has a predetermined header and the receiver is configured to receive unmodified messages, then processing the packet as a modified packet according to steps (2) to (8), otherwise sending the packet to a user’s application as an unmodified paging message,<\/p>\n

(2) if the receiver is configured to receive only data information messages processing the packet according to steps (3) to (8),<\/p>\n

(3) treating the packet as 7 bit characters and reconstituting any characters indicated by a predetermined flag,<\/p>\n

(4) packing the 7 bit characters into 8 bit characters,<\/p>\n

(5) checking a frame byte for type of packet and compression,<\/p>\n

(6) decompressing the packet to data,<\/p>\n

(7) validating the subchannel and if valid releasing security passing the data to an end user application, and<\/p>\n

(8) if the message is a control message parsing and processing the control message.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Arguing contingent claim limitations requires a flair for\u00a0formal logic, such as this statement by the patent owner’s counsel [Listen<\/a>]:<\/p>\n

\n

That\u2019s denying the antecedent fallacy, where you read into the contingent step that if the contingent is false then the negative of the consequent must be true.\u00a0 <\/span>You\u2019re basically saying if the receiver is not configured as in step 2 then don\u2019t do step (3) to (8).\u00a0 <\/span>And, that\u2019s the logical fallacy that we pointed out in our briefing . . . .<\/span>\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Another case mentioned during the oral argument is Cybersettle v. National Arbitration Forum<\/span>, 2007-1092 (Fed. Cir. July 24, 2007).\u00a0 That opinion is availble here for reference: [Link<\/a>].\u00a0 That non-precedential case makes the following statement about “if . . . then” claims without citation of any precedent:<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

It is of course true that method steps may be contingent. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed.<\/p>\n

Id.<\/span> at page 7 of slip opinion.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

You can listen to the entire oral argument in Sutton v. Nokia<\/span> here: [Listen<\/a>].<\/p>\n

You can read the court’s opinion in Sutton v. Nokia<\/span>\u00a0here: [Read<\/a>].<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

If you are currently\u00a0dealing with patents that recite\u00a0“if …then” claim limitations, you might find the oral argument in Sutton v. Nokia, 2010-1218 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 15, 2010) to be of interest.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit only issued a Rule 36 opinion in the case; so, for background, the district court opinion in\u00a0Sutton v. Nokia, 647 F.Supp.2d […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3565"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3565"}],"version-history":[{"count":33,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3565\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3599,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3565\/revisions\/3599"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3565"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3565"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3565"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}