top of page

Lone Star Silicon Innovations LLC v. Iancu (Fed. Cir. May 14, 2020)

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's dismissal of a claim construction asserted by the patentee and its determination of obviousness.

Regarding the claim term "a channel region formed in the semiconductor substrate," the patentee had asserted that the claims and the specification require a dopant to be implanted in the channel region.

However, the Federal Circuit pointed out that "because references to an implanted channel region consistently were in the context of describing “one embodiment” or a “preferred embodiment” of the invention, the Board found these references to be only “exemplary in nature” and declined to read the limitation of implanting a dopant into the claimed channel region."

The court thus agreed with "the Board that the specification does not show a clear intent, either expressly or implicitly, to redefine the “channel region” limitation to require an additional dopant," and agreed with the Board's conclusion of obviousness.

Read the case here.

Recent Posts

See All

U.S. Supreme Court opinion of Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi

Post by Paul Serbinowski What must the specification disclose to enable broad functional claim language? A week ago in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, the U.S. Supreme Court considered what the specification mu


Les commentaires ont été désactivés.
bottom of page