Federal Circuit Affirms PTO Finding that Claims of Morsa Patent Application are Anticipated by Press Release Reference

Oct 21, 2015

Reading Time : 1 min

The pertinent claims of the ’228 Application are directed to a benefit information match mechanism. In comparing the claims of the ’228 Application to the prior art reference, the court found that each of the four limitations map directly to the reference. The court further found the specification of the ’228 Application disclosed that a skilled artisan at the time would have understood how to use central processing units and memories to process requests for benefit information, and that the system claimed in the patent could be implemented by any programmer of ordinary skill using commercially available tools. Because the reference disclosed the claim limitations and the specification indicated that one of ordinary skill would be capable of programming the invention, the court held the board correctly concluded the reference was enabling.

Chief Judge Prost wrote for a majority of the panel. Judge Newman issued a dissenting opinion in which she challenged the determinations of the majority as confusing “the laws of anticipation and obviousness and the role of enablement as applied to prior art references.” In particular, Judge Newman stated that it was improper for the board to take “Official Notice” of matter not disclosed in the prior art and equally improper for the majority to fill the gaps in the Board’s decision by relying on disclosures in the ’228 Application. 

In re: Steve Morsa, Case No. 2015-1107 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 19, 2015).

Share This Insight

Categories

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

February 24, 2026

The Southern District of Florida recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice because the allegations used a form of “shotgun pleading.” The court explained that a shotgun pleading includes those where every count incorporates every preceding paragraph into each cause of action, and that dismissal of such pleadings was required under Eleventh Circuit precedent.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 20, 2026

The Federal Circuit recently addressed whether the PTO must conduct notice‑and‑comment rulemaking before issuing instructions that guide how the Board should exercise discretion at the institution stage of IPRs. The court held that no such rulemaking is required. Instructions to the Board regarding its use of the Director’s delegated discretionary authority not to institute review are merely general statements of policy exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking.  

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 18, 2026

The District Court for the District of Delaware recently invalidated claims directed to a panoramic objective lens for lack of enablement, holding the claims impermissibly recited a single element in means‑plus‑function form. Under § 112, ¶ 6, “[a]n element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function….” By its plain terms, the statute permits means‑plus‑function claiming only in the context of a “combination.” In other words, a claim may not consist solely of a single means‑plus‑function element. Claims drafted as a single means are invalid for lack of enablement as a matter of law.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 13, 2026

In an ANDA litigation, the District of Delaware recently denied the defendants’ motion to compel the production of correspondence between the plaintiffs’ testifying expert and a third-party analyst who had performed experiments and provided data used by the testifying expert. The court found that the scope of material sought by the motion was overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of the case.

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.