"The CAFC explained that reversal is warranted where only one answer is supported by substantial evidence and there is neither a request nor an apparent reason to grant a second record-making opportunity."
"The PTAB determined that Keysight Technologies, Inc. met its burden of showing claims 1 through 3, 5, 11 through 13, 15, and 20 would have been obvious over a prior art reference known as Sourcefire alone."
"Centripetal Networks argued the PTAB erred by construing a term that the parties had not briefed, specifically the term 'packet flow entry.'"
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a decision by the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board regarding Centripetal Networks' patent. Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 were deemed unpatentable for obviousness, while claims 4 and 14 were reversed. The patent involves a packet-filtering device for network threat detection. The PTAB found that Keysight Technologies met its burden of proof for several claims based on prior art, but not for claims 4 and 14, which Centripetal argued were misinterpreted by the PTAB.
Read at IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]