from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent
Trial and Appeal Board in No. 13/241, 865.
Cooper Doerre, Tillman Wright PLLC, Charlotte, NC, argued for
Gerard Piccolo, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent
and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee
Joseph Matal. Also represented by Nathan K. Kelley, Thomas W.
Krause, William LaMarca.
Moore, Taranto, and Stoll, Circuit Judges.
Development Co., LLC appeals the Patent Trial and Appeal
Board's decision affirming an examiner's rejection of
claims 1 and 14 of U.S. Patent Application No. 13/241, 865.
Ex Parte Nordt, No. 2015-001233, 2016 WL 6560183
(P.T.A.B. Nov. 1, 2016). For the reasons below, we disagree
with the Board's claim construction of "injection
molded" as a process limitation with no patentable
weight, vacate the Board's finding of anticipation, and
remand for additional proceedings consistent with this
'865 application is directed to an elastic knee brace
having a framework (106) and a hinge (108) with a strut (112)
and arm components (114, 116). Application Figure 1 is shown
below and illustrates a side perspective view of the front of
the knee brace. The elastic nature of the knee brace allows
for and aids in the flexing of the knee.
is representative of the two claims at issue on appeal:
1. A support for an area of a body that includes a hinge
(a) a hinge mechanism comprising an injection molded
strut component and injection molded first and
second arm components;
(b) an elastically stretchable framework injection
molded about the strut and arm components of the hinge
mechanism, the framework being configured to extend across
the hinge joint of the area of the body, and the framework
defining a flexible, elastically stretchable web of
elastomeric interconnecting members;
(c) wherein the first arm component is connected to the strut
component such that the first arm component is rotatable
relative to the strut component ...