Rackspace Hosting, Inc. v. Clouding IP, LLC, Denying Request for Rehearing of Decision on Institution CBM2014-00034
Friday, July 11, 2014

Takeaway: To show inherent anticipation, one must show that one of ordinary skill in the art would find that the prior art necessarily includes the limitations. Showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would find that the prior art generally includes the limitations is not enough.

In its Decision, the Board denied Petitioner’s request for rehearing of the Board’s decision not to institute trial as to claims 2-4 and 11 as anticipated by Reed or claims 2 and 11 as anticipated by London. Petitioner asserted that the Board’s decision misapprehended and overlooked evidence that showed that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that an update feature was necessarily present in Reed and London.  The Board stated that it considered the evidence and argument presented in the Petition, and that Petitioner’s argument is merely a disagreement with the Board’s findings and conclusions.  Therefore, it was not a sufficient basis on which to request a rehearing.

The Board further noted that Petitioner relied on its expert’s statement that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that updating is generally tied to deployment and distribution, but this does not support the conclusion that such a system necessarily includes the ability to update a user’s application. Therefore, it is insufficient to show that either Reed or London inherently anticipated the limitations recited in claims 2-4 and 11.

Rackspace Hosting, Inc. v. Clouding IP, LLC, CBM2014-00034
Paper 14: Decision on Request for Rehearing
Dated: July 8, 2014
Patent 7,596,784
Before: Jameson Lee, Justin Busch, and David C. McKone
Written by: Busch

 

NLR Logo

We collaborate with the world's leading lawyers to deliver news tailored for you. Sign Up to receive our free e-Newsbulletins

 

Sign Up for e-NewsBulletins