(Prost, Plager, Taranto)
We agree with the district court that because intermediate U.S. Applications 6 and 8 failed to specifically reference the earlier filed applications in the priority chain, the ′281 patent is not entitled to claim the priority date of International Application 2b under § 120.
...
Medtronic's proposed meaning of “this application” is an attempt at linguistic gymnastics and makes little sense relative to the straightforward, plain language meaning of the phrase.
...
Because Medtronic failed to specifically reference each earlier filed application in the intervening applications in the chain of priority for the ′281 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 120, the district court was correct to limit the priority date of the patent to no earlier than April 10, 2003 and thereafter find the Asserted Claims invalid as anticipated.
We agree with the district court that because intermediate U.S. Applications 6 and 8 failed to specifically reference the earlier filed applications in the priority chain, the ′281 patent is not entitled to claim the priority date of International Application 2b under § 120.
...
Medtronic's proposed meaning of “this application” is an attempt at linguistic gymnastics and makes little sense relative to the straightforward, plain language meaning of the phrase.
...
Because Medtronic failed to specifically reference each earlier filed application in the intervening applications in the chain of priority for the ′281 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 120, the district court was correct to limit the priority date of the patent to no earlier than April 10, 2003 and thereafter find the Asserted Claims invalid as anticipated.
No comments:
Post a Comment