In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) upheld a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruling that all claims of a patent related to voice command technology were unpatentable. Unified Patents had filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) of Voice Tech Corp.’s U.S. Patent No. 10,491,679, arguing that the claims were obvious. The PTAB agreed with Unified and found the claims unpatentable based on prior art references.
Voice Tech raised several arguments on appeal, including a claim that Unified’s petition failed to identify certain disclosures in the prior art references. However, both the PTAB and the CAFC disagreed with Voice Tech’s interpretation, stating that Unified’s analysis did address the relevant aspects of the prior art. The CAFC also noted that the Board did not rely on any new theories that were not included in the petition.
Voice Tech also claimed that the PTAB misinterpreted certain claim terms, but Unified argued that these arguments were forfeited because Voice Tech did not raise them in a request for rehearing. The CAFC clarified that filing a request for rehearing is optional and not required to preserve the right to appeal. Therefore, Voice Tech’s claim construction arguments were not considered forfeited.
While the CAFC agreed that the claim construction arguments were not forfeited, they ultimately found that the proposed new constructions would not change the outcome of the PTAB’s decision. The court also rejected Voice Tech’s arguments regarding the obviousness of the claims, stating that there was substantial evidence to support the PTAB’s findings.
Overall, the CAFC’s decision clarified the requirements for requesting rehearing in PTAB proceedings and emphasized that filing such a request is optional. The court also underscored the importance of providing thorough analysis and evidence to support arguments related to claim construction and obviousness in patent cases.