The patents at issue in this case were:
Sample claim ( 4,979,029 col. 68, ll. 6-24):
A method for inspecting an image field to determine if a select
image phenomenon is present in said image field, comprising:
(a) scanning an image field containing at least one contrasting image portion which is detectable with an electronic scanning device,
(b) generating first electrical signals which vary in accordance with variations in detected contrasting image portions of the image field scanned,
(c) analyzing said first electrical signals and generating first information signals corresponding to the detected contrasting image portions of the image field scanned,
(d) electrically comparing said first information signals from recordings in a memory which are indicative of said select image phenomenon, and
(e) generating electrical signals indicative of the presence of said select image phenomenon in said scanned image field.
“Lemelson's asserted patent claims are invalid for lack of enablement, unenforceable under the doctrine of prosecution laches, and not infringed.”
“We agree with Symbol that the court did not abuse its discretion in holding that Lemelson's patents are unenforceable under the doctrine of prosecution laches.”
“Because we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that 76 claims of Lemelson's patents are unenforceable under the doctrine of prosecution laches, we affirm that judgment and extend it to apply to all of the claims in the asserted patents.”