""The CAFC held that, after comparing the amended text to the original, 'a system comparing an actual rate of change would not have infringed the original patent, but it would infringe the amended patent.' The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB's) decision sustaining an examiner's rejection in an ex parte reexamination of claims of EcoFactor, Inc.'s patent relating to smart thermostat technology.""
""EcoFactor amended its two independent claims, 1 and 9, in response to the non-final rejection. Original claim 1 "compare[d] [i] an inside temperature recorded inside the first structure with [ii] said estimation for the rate of change in inside temperature," whereas amended claim 1 "compare[d] [i] an actual rate of change in inside temperature recorded inside the first structure with [ii] said estimation for the rate of change in inside temperature." Claim 9 contained similar amendments.""
""Google filed for reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 8,412,488 in 2021, which was originally granted in 2013, and the reexamination request was granted. An examiner then rejected claims 1, 3 through 9 and 11 through 16 in a non-final office action as unpatentable over the combination of U.S. Patent No. 2004/0117330 ("Ehlers") and U.S. Patent No. 2005/0159846 ) ("Van Ostrand") and claims 2 and 10 as unpatentable over Ehlers, Van Ostrand, and a third patent, No. 6,789,739 ("Rosen").""
The CAFC affirmed the PTAB's decision sustaining an examiner's rejection in an ex parte reexamination of EcoFactor's smart‑thermostat patent claims. Google sought reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 8,412,488 in 2021. An examiner rejected multiple claims as unpatentable over Ehlers and Van Ostrand, and additional claims over Rosen. EcoFactor amended independent claims 1 and 9 to replace comparison of an inside temperature with comparison of an actual rate of change in inside temperature. The examiner issued a Final Office Action rejecting all claims for impermissible enlargement and sustaining obviousness rejections under pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. §103(a). The PTAB and CAFC affirmed those rejections.
Read at IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]