Takeaway: A request for rehearing was granted where the Board mistakenly found a claim unpatentable when it included all of the limitations of a broader claim that had been found not to be unpatentable.

In its Decision, the Board granted Patent Owner’s request for rehearing of the Final Written Decision on the grounds that “the Board overlooked that claim 9, being narrower than claim 7, should not have been held unpatentable for the same reasons that claim 7 was not held unpatentable.” Patent Owner explained that claim 9 includes all of the language of claim 7 and adds the phrase “at least as a function of vehicle speed.” Patent Owner argued that because claim 9 includes all of the limitations of claim 7 and the Board found claim 7 to not be unpatentable, then claim 9 should be found to not be unpatentable for the same reasons as for claim 7. The Board agreed and overturned its decision on the patentability of claim 9.

Valeo North America. Inc. v. Magna Electronics, Inc., IPR2014-00220
Paper 61: Decision on Request for Rehearing Final Written Decision
Dated: July 14, 2015
Patent: 7,859,565 B2
Before: Jameson Lee, Phillip J. Kauffman, and Matthew R. Clements
Written by: Clements