Case: 18-1070 Document: 67 Page: 1 Filed: 04/03/2020
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
WILLIAM MICHAEL FREDERICK TAYLOR,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
ANDREI IANCU, UNDER SECRETARY OF
COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2018-1070
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia in No. 1:15-cv-01684-LMB-
JFA, United States District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema.
______________________
Decided: April 3, 2020
______________________
WILLIAM MICHAEL FREDERICK TAYLOR, Chiddingfold,
Surrey, United Kingdom, pro se.
THOMAS W. KRAUSE, Office of the Solicitor, United
States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for
defendant-appellee. Also represented by JOSEPH MATAL,
MEREDITH HOPE SCHOENFELD, MAI-TRANG DUC DANG.
Case: 18-1070 Document: 67 Page: 2 Filed: 04/03/2020
2 TAYLOR v. IANCU
______________________
Before DYK, CHEN, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
William Michael Frederick Taylor (“Mr. Taylor”) sued
the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“Pa-
tent Office”) under 35 U.S.C. § 145, challenging the Patent
Office’s rejection of U.S. Application Serial No. 11/391,501
(“the ’501 application”), of which Mr. Taylor is the inven-
tor. 1 The district court granted summary judgment to the
Patent Office, concluding that all of the ’501 application’s
claims are indefinite and lack written description. We af-
firm on the ground that the ’501 application’s claims lack
written description.
BACKGROUND
The ’501 application claims priority to United Kingdom
Patent Application No. GB9310175.6, filed on May 18,
1993. The specification describes a system called “GPS Ex-
plorer.” J.A. 277. GPS Explorer “is designed to provide
information [to a user] on the move,” such as “while driv-
ing, flying, sailing, riding or walking.” J.A. 277, 278. The
specification explains that in a “real time version” of GPS
Explorer:
1 Mr. Taylor also challenged, in separate cases, the
Patent Office’s rejection of two of his related applications:
U.S. Application Serial Nos. 10/425,553 (“the ’553 applica-
tion”) and 11/807,860 (“the ’860 application”). The district
court consolidated the three cases, and concluded that each
of the applications was unpatentable. Mr. Taylor sepa-
rately appeals the district court’s decision as to the ’553 ap-
plication (Case No. 18-1048) and as to the ’860 application
(Case No. 18-1047). Our decisions on those appeals are be-
ing issued concurrently with this decision.
Case: 18-1070 Document: 67 Page: 3 Filed: 04/03/2020
TAYLOR v. IANCU 3
The system selects incoming data relevant to the
chosen mode of use and location based on GPS cal-
culated position. Selected data items are stored in
memory in the device on receipt and then handled
in the same way as other database data described
earlier.
The real time data system could provide the user
with access to and automatically search a wide
range of information sources: local weather,
weather reports for pilots and yachtsmen, sched-
uled flight delays, details of special events, hotel
room availability, road conditions, audio guided di-
versions, financial market updates for example.
J.A. 286–87 (emphasis added). The specification also de-
scribes an “audio visual version” of GPS Explorer that in-
cludes a “Simulation Mode.” J.A. 285–86. In this mode:
[h]aving arrived at a physical location or identified
it in pre-view mode, the user may access [a] data-
base to obtain a computer[-]based simulation of
some aspect of the location. . . . By walking around
the physical site, as the GPS data changes so will
the simulation to illustrate the simulated views
from the new physical position taking into consid-
eration the user[’]s orientation, height, direction of
view, view angle of azimuth and time of day.
J.A. 286. The independent claims of the ’501 application—
claims 1 and 35—are directed to storing data based on a
sensed position, searching that data to select information,
and presenting a simulation of that information. Claim 1
recites:
1. A system for mobile searching of information by
a portable device comprising:
an input component providing data re-
trieval criteria from a user to a computing
component of the portable device;
Case: 18-1070 Document: 67 Page: 4 Filed: 04/03/2020
4 TAYLOR v. IANCU
a position determining component sensing
a position of the portable device and provid-
ing the sensed position to the computing
component of the portable device;
a receiving component which receives data
from data transmissions;
the computing component which selectively
stores the received data based on the
sensed position and the computing compo-
nent is operable to access and search the
selectively stored data by selecting, from
the selectively stored data, information
based on the sensed position and the pro-
vided data retrieval criteria; and
a presentation component coupled to the
computing component presenting to the
user a simulated representation, as an as-
pect of the sensed position, of the selected
information.
J.A. 72 (emphasis added). Claim 35 recites:
35. A method of mobile searching of information us-
ing a portable device, the method comprising:
receiving data retrieval criteria from a
user;
sensing a position of the portable device;
receiving data from data transmissions;
selectively storing the received data based
on the sensed position;
accessing and searching the selectively
stored data by selecting, from the selec-
tively stored data, information on the
sensed position and the received data re-
trieval criteria; and
Case: 18-1070 Document: 67 Page: 5 Filed: 04/03/2020
TAYLOR v. IANCU 5
presenting to the user on the portable de-
vice a simulated representation, as an as-
pect of the sensed position, of the selected
information.
J.A. 74 (emphasis added).
The examiner rejected claims 1 and 35 as obvious in
light of several prior art references. On appeal, the Patent
Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) further rejected the
claims as lacking written description and as indefinite.
The Board reversed the examiner’s obviousness rejections,
reasoning that the claims were too indefinite for the Board
to “make a proper review of the prior art rejections.” J.A.
5162. The Board denied Mr. Taylor’s request for rehearing.
Mr. Taylor then filed a complaint under 35 U.S.C. § 145
in district court, seeking judgment that the ’501 applica-
tion’s claims were patentable. J.A. 2. The district court
granted summary judgment to the Patent Office, conclud-
ing that “the ’501 [a]pplication is both indefinite and lacks
written description,” J.A. 54, and denied Mr. Taylor’s mo-
tion for reconsideration.
Mr. Taylor appeals. We have jurisdiction to review the
district court’s decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(C).
We reach only the written description issue.
DISCUSSION
We review the district court’s grant or denial of sum-
mary judgment de novo. MicroStrategy Inc. v. Bus. Objects,
S.A.,
429 F.3d 1344, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Under the writ-
ten description requirement for patentability, the specifi-
cation “must ‘clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the
art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is
claimed.’” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
598 F.3d
1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (quoting Vas-Cath
Inc. v. Mahurkar,
935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991)) (al-
teration in original). Written description is a question of
Case: 18-1070 Document: 67 Page: 6 Filed: 04/03/2020
6 TAYLOR v. IANCU
fact.
Id. (citing Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc.,
772
F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
We agree with the district court that the specification
does not provide written description for the pending claims.
For instance, the claims recite “selectively stor[ing] . . . re-
ceived data based on the sensed position” and “access[ing]
and search[ing] the selectively stored data by selecting,
from the selectively stored data, information on the sensed
position.” The specification provides examples of data that
could be retrieved: “local weather, weather reports for pi-
lots and yachtsmen, scheduled flight delays, details of spe-
cial events, hotel room availability, road conditions, audio
guided diversions, [and] financial market updates.” J.A.
287. But the specification does not explain how the claimed
“selective[] storing,” “accessing,” and “searching” of this
data is achieved. The Patent Office’s expert, Dr. Peter
Dana, testified that, without this explanation, the claims
lack written description:
While sorting and searching techniques had been
well studied and published (For example, Knuth,
Donald E. 1973. The Art of Computer Program-
ming, Volume 3: Sorting and Searching. Menlo
Park: Addison Wesley.), the specification does not
discuss or describe any approach to large-scale
sorting and searching required in a complex data-
base with information that covers the wide variety
of user needs alluded to.
Expert Report of Peter Dana, Ph.D., Taylor v. Matal, No.
1:16-cv-12, ECF No. 81-1, at 14–15. None of Mr. Taylor’s
experts has testified to the contrary.
The specification also does not describe the claimed
combination of two versions of GPS Explorer. Both inde-
pendent claims (claims 1 and 35) recite two distinct fea-
tures. The first feature—captured by the claim limitations
of “selectively stor[ing]” data “based on the sensed
Case: 18-1070 Document: 67 Page: 7 Filed: 04/03/2020
TAYLOR v. IANCU 7
position,” and “search[ing] the selectively stored data by se-
lecting, from the selectively stored data, information based
on the sensed position”—has to do with retrieving location-
based information as disclosed for the “real time version”
of GPS Explorer. J.A. 286–87. The second feature—cap-
tured by the claim limitation of “presenting to the user on
the portable device a simulated representation, as an as-
pect of the sensed position, of the selected information”—
has to do with the “[s]imulation [m]ode” of GPS Explorer’s
“audio visual version.” J.A. 285–86.
For instance, the specification does not describe how
GPS Explorer would “tak[e] into consideration the user[’]s
orientation, height, direction of view, view angle of azimuth
and time of day” to convert the real-time version’s location-
based “information sources” (e.g., “scheduled flight delays,”
“details of special events,” or “hotel room availability”) into
the simulation mode’s “simulated views.” See J.A. 286–87.
Moreover, some “information sources” described in the
specification—for example, “audio guided diversions”—
seem inherently non-visual. And although Mr. Taylor pro-
vides the testimony of several experts, none of these ex-
perts testified that a person of ordinary skill would
recognize the specification to be demonstrating the inven-
tion of the claimed combination. Accordingly, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would not understand that the in-
ventor possessed the subject matter claimed.
Mr. Taylor’s own experience in attempting to imple-
ment the invention further supports finding a lack of writ-
ten description here. Mr. Taylor admitted that in 1993,
when he filed his initial application, “there was no inter-
net,” and that once the internet was developed he “at-
tempt[ed] to play catch-up and move from [his] previous
conception [of the invention] to [one] having more of an in-
volvement in the internet.” Deposition of William Michael
Frederick Taylor (day 2), Taylor v. Matal, No. 16-cv-12,
ECF No. 51-3, at 11–12. Mr. Taylor also admitted that
Case: 18-1070 Document: 67 Page: 8 Filed: 04/03/2020
8 TAYLOR v. IANCU
even after filing his application he was “waiting and wait-
ing and waiting” for “a suitable platform to become availa-
ble” to allow him to implement his idea.
Id. at 12. Indeed,
as the district court found, Mr. Taylor’s “first prototype was
not operational until 1998 and neither that prototype nor
the 2001 version contained all the features described in the
specification, much less the claims.” J.A. 65. Mr. Taylor’s
experience thus shows that the specification did not
demonstrate possession of the claimed invention but was
instead “a ‘mere wish or plan’ for obtaining the claimed in-
vention.” See Novozymes A/S v. DuPont Nutrition Biosci-
ences APS,
723 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting
Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
119 F.3d
1559, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
Because no reasonable factfinder could conclude that
the ’501 application’s claims meet the written description
requirement, the district court did not err in holding the
claims unpatentable. We need not reach the district court’s
decision with respect to indefiniteness.
AFFIRMED
