Main Menu

The court reversed the Board’s decision affirming the rejection of claims requiring a “wireless” communication interface.  The prior art disclosed a removable memory card, which the Board interpreted as being “wireless.”  The court reversed, holding that the Board’s construction of “wireless” was incorrect, because the patent defined “wireless” as electromagnetic or acoustic waves that carry a signal through atmospheric space rather than along a wire, but the metal contacts of a memory card do not carry a signal in this manner.  Similarly, the court reversed the Board’s decision affirming the rejection of claims requiring the wireless transmission of “streaming video.”  The court held that the prior art’s disclosure of emailing consecutive still images was not the same as “streaming video,” which is the continuous transmission of video.

In Re Kevin R. Imes, Case No. 2014-1206 (January 29, 2015); Opinion by: Moore, joined by Lourie and Chen; Appealed From: USPTO, Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  To read the full opinion, click here.

Back to Page