- Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Rfcyber Corp.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 14, 2021 · IPR2021-00978 · APJ Kristi L R Sawert · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the asserted combinations teach or suggest the server-initiated fund transfer limitation in claims 1 and 9.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“institute an inter partes review. The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Reply, the Sur-Reply, and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’855 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’855 patent on the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDenied
“Although Petitioner contends that “it was obvious” for the WCM to initiate the fund transfer request to a financial institution, Pet. 34, Petitioner presents insufficient evidence as to why this would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of the ’855 patent based on the combined teachings of Dua and Davis. Petitioner states only in a conclusory manner that, “after the WCM receives an indication that the ‘load request’ is verified, it was obvious to send additional information identifying the credential and for the request to the ICMS, thus allowing the WCM to initiate the fund transfer request to the financial institution/bank.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 182–188). In Davis, however, the client terminal, rather than the load server,” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Although Petitioner contends that “it was obvious” for the WCM to initiate the fund transfer request to a financial institution, Pet. 34, Petitioner presents insufficient evidence as to why this would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of the ’855 patent based on the combined teachings of Dua and Davis. Petitioner states only in a conclusory manner that, “after the WCM receives an indication that the ‘load request’ is verified, it was obvious to send additional information identifying the credential and for the request to the ICMS, thus allowing the WCM to initiate the fund transfer request to the financial institution/bank.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 182–188). In Davis, however, the client terminal, rather than the load server,” slip op. at 25
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialNot reached
“V. DISCRETIONARY ISSUES Because we deny institution on the merits, we do not reach the discretionary issues raised by Patent Owner. See Prelim. Resp. 17–25.” slip op. at 29
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,448,855 - PTAB · Mar 13, 2020 · IPR2019-01502 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Bentley’s rehearing request and left the denial of institution in place because the petition lacked persuasive evidence that the Porsche 959 art taught or suggested multiple subsystems.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“petition decision is abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The party seeking rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- BurdenInstitution denied meritsInstitution denied
“analysis, and that under the proper claim construction the center and rear differential are separate “subsystems.” Req. 3–6. Neither party sought a construction of the “subsystem.” See Pet. 12–15 (seeking only a claim construction of the term “off-road modes”); Prelim. Resp. Instead, Petitioner chose to rely on Dr. Bower’s conclusory testimony that the differentials of the Porsche 959 met this limitation. See Pet. 20–23 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 48). We found such testimony to be not persuasive and entitled to no weight. See Dec. 13–14. Without any evidence to support it, we concluded that Petitioner’s conclusory explanation did not meet the “reasonable likelihood of prevailing” standard of 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Thus, we disagree that we should have engaged in claim construction of the term “subsystem,” when Petitioner itself chose not to. Petitioner cannot salvage Dr. Bower’s conclusory analysis by requesting a claim construction after the fact.” slip op. at 2
- Expert testimonyDecided for patent owner
“analysis, and that under the proper claim construction the center and rear differential are separate “subsystems.” Req. 3–6. Neither party sought a construction of the “subsystem.” See Pet. 12–15 (seeking only a claim construction of the term “off-road modes”); Prelim. Resp. Instead, Petitioner chose to rely on Dr. Bower’s conclusory testimony that the differentials of the Porsche 959 met this limitation. See Pet. 20–23 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 48). We found such testimony to be not persuasive and entitled to no weight. See Dec. 13–14. Without any evidence to support it, we concluded that Petitioner’s conclusory explanation did not meet the “reasonable likelihood of prevailing” standard of 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Thus, we disagree that we should have engaged in claim construction of the term “subsystem,” when Petitioner itself chose not to. Petitioner cannot salvage Dr. Bower’s conclusory analysis by requesting a claim construction after the fact.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Not reached
“analysis, and that under the proper claim construction the center and rear differential are separate “subsystems.” Req. 3–6. Neither party sought a construction of the “subsystem.” See Pet. 12–15 (seeking only a claim construction of the term “off-road modes”); Prelim. Resp. Instead, Petitioner chose to rely on Dr. Bower’s conclusory testimony that the differentials of the Porsche 959 met this limitation. See Pet. 20–23 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 48). We found such testimony to be not persuasive and entitled to no weight. See Dec. 13–14. Without any evidence to support it, we concluded that Petitioner’s conclusory explanation did not meet the “reasonable likelihood of prevailing” standard of 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Thus, we disagree that we should have engaged in claim construction of the term “subsystem,” when Petitioner itself chose not to. Petitioner cannot salvage Dr. Bower’s conclusory analysis by requesting a claim construction after the fact.” slip op. at 2
Claim construction - PTAB · Jul 1, 2019 · IPR2018-01743 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing of its decision denying institution of inter partes review of claims 1–25, finding Petitioner had not shown an abuse of discretion.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); see also Dec. 11 (citing statute). Petitioner also has the burden to “specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3
- Prior constructionPrior construction not adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Petition for the limitation of “application . . . that include interactive services.” See generally Req. Our own review of the Petition results in the same. See generally Pet. Pages 12–17 of the Petition provide constructions for several terms, including “application,” but not for the entirety of the limitation identified above. Indeed, Petitioner relied on the Board’s previous decisions for both explicit and implicit constructions of other claim limitations. See Pet. 13–15, 86, 93, 96, 104 (citing Ex. 1004, 40–41, 137– 138, 146–147, 151–152, 157–158, 161, 171). Noticeably absent, however, is the same for “application . . . that include interactive services.” We could not have misapprehended or overlooked a claim construction that was not made. Even if we delve somewhat into the cited portion of the Board’s previous decision, however, we remain unpersuaded. Specifically, while Petitioner’s quotation of the Decision is correct, the Decision later states: “We agree that the body of claim 4 does not require applications with interactive services, but ‘interactive services’ must be one kind of application that can be requested.” Ex. 1004, 136. So, while our analysis may have been altered somewhat, we are unpersuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of showing that maintaining the same result, denial of institution on this basis, would have been an abuse of discretion.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“and, Orbitz, LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–25 of U.S. Patent 7,072,849 B1 (Ex. 1002, “the ’849 Patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). International Business Machines Corp. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). On March 19, 2019, we issued a Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review. Paper 8 (“Decision”). On May 1, 2019, Petitioner filed a Request for Rehearing. Paper 11 (“Req.”).1” slip op. at 2
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 7,072,849 - HTC Corporation / HTC America, Inc. v. Joe Andrew SalazarRehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 25, 2019 · IPR2018-00273 · APJ Matthew J Mcneill · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied HTC’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied on the Goldstein and Keenan ground for claims 1–7, 27–30, and 34 because the Petition did not explain how the references taught the reprogrammable limitation.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“We did not misapprehend or overlook any evidence or argument presented by Petitioner in the Petition. It is Petitioner’s burden to explain how challenged claims are to be construed and how the claims read on the prior art. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)‒(5). Petitioner did not propose construing the term “reprogrammable” to include “that which can be programmed anew or differently” in the Petition. See Paper 1. Nor did Petitioner seek leave to file a reply to the construction for “reprogrammable” proposed by Patent Owner in its Preliminary Response. Instead, these arguments have been raised in the Request for Rehearing for the first time. We could not have misapprehended or overlooked evidence that was not presented by Petitioner in the context of the limitation at issue. Moreover, as explained in the Decision, Petitioner failed to present any analysis or testimony in the Petition that Goldstein and Keenan teach “reprogrammable” IR codes under Patent Owner’s proposed construction, Petitioner’s newly-proposed construction, or any other interpretation of the term “reprogrammable.” Dec. 12‒16. Indeed, Petitioner failed to provide any explicit analysis for the “reprogrammable” limitation in the Petition. See id. As explained in the Decision, Petitioner’s mere citation to Goldstein’s teaching that its universal remote control device is bidirectional and can receive data for programming the device without any explanation as to how this teaching satisfies the “reprogrammable communication protocols” limitation is not sufficient to render obvious claim 1. Id. The Petition is deficient in this manner regardless of the construction of the “reprogrammable” limitation. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that we misapprehended or overlooked any evidence or argument presented by Petitioner in the Petition.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Moreover, as explained in the Decision, Petitioner failed to present any analysis or testimony in the Petition that Goldstein and Keenan teach “reprogrammable” IR codes under Patent Owner’s proposed construction, Petitioner’s newly-proposed construction, or any other interpretation of the term “reprogrammable.” Dec. 12‒16. Indeed, Petitioner failed to provide any explicit analysis for the “reprogrammable” limitation in the Petition. See id. As explained in the Decision, Petitioner’s mere citation to Goldstein’s teaching that its universal remote control device is bidirectional and can receive data for programming the device without any explanation as to how this teaching satisfies the “reprogrammable communication protocols” limitation is not sufficient to render obvious claim 1. Id. The Petition is deficient in this manner regardless of the construction of the “reprogrammable” limitation. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that we misapprehended or overlooked any evidence or argument presented by Petitioner in the Petition.” slip op. at 4
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “said microprocessor creating a plurality of reprogrammable communication protocols for transmission to said external devices” (emphasis added). In our Decision, we noted Petitioner had not proposed an explicit definition of the term “reprogrammable,” but had maintained the term within a proposed construction for a larger claim phrase, which is consistent with construing the term according to its plain and ordinary meaning. Dec. 9. We adopted Patent Owner’s proposed construction, “a program that can be replaced by another” as the plain and ordinary meaning of “reprogrammable.” Id. at 9‒ 10. Petitioner contends the Board’s interpretation of the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “reprogrammable” is incomplete and should include “to program anew or differently.” Req. for Reh’g 6. Petitioner argues this additional language is required for the construction to be consistent with Patent Owner’s Infringement Contentions in related litigation (id. at 6‒9), the ordinary meaning of the term (id. at 9‒11), and the teachings of the ’467 patent (id. at 11‒12).” slip op. at 3
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“presented by Petitioner in the Petition. It is Petitioner’s burden to explain how challenged claims are to be construed and how the claims read on the prior art. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)‒(5). Petitioner did not propose construing the term “reprogrammable” to include “that which can be programmed anew or differently” in the Petition. See Paper 1. Nor did Petitioner seek leave to file a reply to the construction for “reprogrammable” proposed by Patent Owner in its Preliminary Response. Instead, these arguments have been raised in the Request for Rehearing for the first time. We could not have misapprehended or overlooked evidence that was not presented by Petitioner in the context of the limitation at issue. Moreover, as explained in the Decision, Petitioner failed to present any analysis or testimony in the Petition that Goldstein and Keenan teach “reprogrammable” IR codes under Patent Owner’s proposed construction, Petitioner’s newly-proposed construction, or any other interpretation of the term “reprogrammable.” Dec. 12‒16. Indeed, Petitioner failed to provide any explicit analysis for the “reprogrammable” limitation in the Petition. See id. As explained in the Decision, Petitioner’s mere citation to Goldstein’s teaching that its universal remote control device is bidirectional and can receive data for programming the device without any explanation as to how this teaching satisfies the “reprogrammable communication protocols” limitation is not sufficient to render obvious claim 1. Id. The Petition is deficient in this manner regardless of the construction of the “reprogrammable” limitation. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that we misapprehended or overlooked any evidence or argument presented by Petitioner in the Petition.” slip op. at 3
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 5,802,467 - Abiomed, Inc., Abiomed R&D, Inc., And Abiomed Europe GmbH v. Maquet Cardiovascular, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 7, 2018 · IPR2017-01209 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place the denial of institution because the petition did not sufficiently show that Aboul-Hosn disclosed or supported combining the challenged embodiments.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW When considering a request for rehearing, the Board reviews its decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of 2 The ’1025 Petition challenges claims 16–18 of the ’100 patent. 3 The ’1208 Petition challenges claims 7–9 and 11–15 of the ’437 patent. 4 The ’1209 Petition challenges claims 5, 10, 16, and 25 of the ’437 patent. 5 Petitioner filed a Request for Rehearing in each of the above-captioned proceedings. The Requests for Rehearing effectively are identical. This Decision specifically references the Request from IPR2017-01025 although the discussion applies equally to Petitioner’s Requests in IPR2017-01208 and IPR2017-01209. Citations are to IPR2017-01025, unless otherwise indicated. law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if an unreasonable judgment is made in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). We further note that 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) states: The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“assessment of all evidence in the record to determine whether the challenged claims would have been obvious. Rather, the Decision to deny institution of inter partes review was based on Petitioner’s failure to establish a reasonable likelihood of success at trial based on the arguments presented in the Petition, and the evidence relied upon in support of those particular arguments. Petitioner has the burden of showing, in its petition, a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). That reasonable likelihood is measured by considering the analysis offered by Petitioner. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) (setting forth the requirements of a petition, including specificity and identification of support).” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“There is no express disclosure from Aboul-Hosn identified by Petitioner, in the Petition, or even in its Request, that the pump in Figures 1– 13 is included in Figure 23. In fact, and as noted in our Decision (Dec. 9), Aboul-Hosn expressly states that “Figure[] 23 . . . illustrate[s a] different embodiment[] of the present invention” (Ex. 1004, 30:20–21). Petitioner faults our characterization of the above passage from Aboul-Hosn, noting “[t]he ellipses, missing language and brackets are materially important.” Req. Reh’g 12. Petitioner contends that “[t]he Board’s errant paraphrase gives the misimpression that Figure 23 is an entirely different invention than any other in Aboul-Hosn. But, in context, the meaning is different. Figure 23 is a different embodiment than Figure 24. . . .” Id. at 12–13. The entire sentence spanning lines 20–21 on page 30 of Aboul-Hosn reads: “Figures 23 and 24 illustrate two different embodiments of the present invention.” Ex. 1004, 30:20–21. We are not persuaded that we misread that sentence. That sentence specifically references Figures 23 and 24 as two different embodiments, meaning that Figures 23 and 24 are each different embodiments, not only with respect to one another, but also with respect to the other embodiments disclosed.6” slip op. at 4
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,597,437 - PTAB · Feb 7, 2018 · IPR2017-01208 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied the rehearing request, leaving institution denied because Petitioner did not sufficiently show that Aboul-Hosn disclosed or supported combining the cited embodiments.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW When considering a request for rehearing, the Board reviews its decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of 2 The ’1025 Petition challenges claims 16–18 of the ’100 patent. 3 The ’1208 Petition challenges claims 7–9 and 11–15 of the ’437 patent. 4 The ’1209 Petition challenges claims 5, 10, 16, and 25 of the ’437 patent. 5 Petitioner filed a Request for Rehearing in each of the above-captioned proceedings. The Requests for Rehearing effectively are identical. This Decision specifically references the Request from IPR2017-01025 although the discussion applies equally to Petitioner’s Requests in IPR2017-01208 and IPR2017-01209. Citations are to IPR2017-01025, unless otherwise indicated. law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if an unreasonable judgment is made in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). We further note that 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) states: The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“assessment of all evidence in the record to determine whether the challenged claims would have been obvious. Rather, the Decision to deny institution of inter partes review was based on Petitioner’s failure to establish a reasonable likelihood of success at trial based on the arguments presented in the Petition, and the evidence relied upon in support of those particular arguments. Petitioner has the burden of showing, in its petition, a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). That reasonable likelihood is measured by considering the analysis offered by Petitioner. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) (setting forth the requirements of a petition, including specificity and identification of support).” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“There is no express disclosure from Aboul-Hosn identified by Petitioner, in the Petition, or even in its Request, that the pump in Figures 1– 13 is included in Figure 23. In fact, and as noted in our Decision (Dec. 9), Aboul-Hosn expressly states that “Figure[] 23 . . . illustrate[s a] different embodiment[] of the present invention” (Ex. 1004, 30:20–21). Petitioner faults our characterization of the above passage from Aboul-Hosn, noting “[t]he ellipses, missing language and brackets are materially important.” Req. Reh’g 12. Petitioner contends that “[t]he Board’s errant paraphrase gives the misimpression that Figure 23 is an entirely different invention than any other in Aboul-Hosn. But, in context, the meaning is different. Figure 23 is a different embodiment than Figure 24. . . .” Id. at 12–13. The entire sentence spanning lines 20–21 on page 30 of Aboul-Hosn reads: “Figures 23 and 24 illustrate two different embodiments of the present invention.” Ex. 1004, 30:20–21. We are not persuaded that we misread that sentence. That sentence specifically references Figures 23 and 24 as two different embodiments, meaning that Figures 23 and 24 are each different embodiments, not only with respect to one another, but also with respect to the other embodiments disclosed.6 Contrary to Petitioner’s contentions, we considered the arguments and supporting evidence presented in the Petition and determined it insufficient to institute trial. See, e.g., Dec. 10 (“Ultimately, the Petition is deficient because of the failure to explain sufficiently and support the challenges therein.”). We are not persuaded that we abused our discretion in reaching that determination.7 Disagreeing with our Decision is not, by itself, an appropriate basis for rehearing.” slip op. at 4
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,597,437 - PTAB · Feb 7, 2018 · IPR2017-01025 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing of its decision denying institution because the petition did not sufficiently show that Aboul-Hosn linked the pump embodiments or provide a rationale to combine them.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW When considering a request for rehearing, the Board reviews its decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of 2 The ’1025 Petition challenges claims 16–18 of the ’100 patent. 3 The ’1208 Petition challenges claims 7–9 and 11–15 of the ’437 patent. 4 The ’1209 Petition challenges claims 5, 10, 16, and 25 of the ’437 patent. 5 Petitioner filed a Request for Rehearing in each of the above-captioned proceedings. The Requests for Rehearing effectively are identical. This Decision specifically references the Request from IPR2017-01025 although the discussion applies equally to Petitioner’s Requests in IPR2017-01208 and IPR2017-01209. Citations are to IPR2017-01025, unless otherwise indicated. law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if an unreasonable judgment is made in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). We further note that 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) states: The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“assessment of all evidence in the record to determine whether the challenged claims would have been obvious. Rather, the Decision to deny institution of inter partes review was based on Petitioner’s failure to establish a reasonable likelihood of success at trial based on the arguments presented in the Petition, and the evidence relied upon in support of those particular arguments. Petitioner has the burden of showing, in its petition, a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). That reasonable likelihood is measured by considering the analysis offered by Petitioner. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) (setting forth the requirements of a petition, including specificity and identification of support).” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner, in the Petition, or even in its Request, that the pump in Figures 1– 13 is included in Figure 23. In fact, and as noted in our Decision (Dec. 9), Aboul-Hosn expressly states that “Figure[] 23 . . . illustrate[s a] different embodiment[] of the present invention” (Ex. 1004, 30:20–21). Petitioner faults our characterization of the above passage from Aboul-Hosn, noting “[t]he ellipses, missing language and brackets are materially important.” Req. Reh’g 12. Petitioner contends that “[t]he Board’s errant paraphrase gives the misimpression that Figure 23 is an entirely different invention than any other in Aboul-Hosn. But, in context, the meaning is different. Figure 23 is a different embodiment than Figure 24. . . .” Id. at 12–13. The entire sentence spanning lines 20–21 on page 30 of Aboul-Hosn reads: “Figures 23 and 24 illustrate two different embodiments of the present invention.” Ex. 1004, 30:20–21. We are not persuaded that we misread that sentence. That sentence specifically references Figures 23 and 24 as two different embodiments, meaning that Figures 23 and 24 are each different embodiments, not only with respect to one another, but also with respect to the other embodiments disclosed.6” slip op. at 4
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,022,100 - PTAB · Jan 3, 2018 · IPR2017-01205 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing in five proceedings, upholding denial of institution because the petitions did not sufficiently support the asserted obviousness challenges.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if an unreasonable judgment is made in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). We further note that 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) states: The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“assessment of all evidence in the record to determine whether the challenged claims would have been obvious. Rather, the Decision to deny institution of inter partes review was based on Petitioner’s failure to establish a reasonable likelihood of success at trial based on the arguments presented in the Petition, and the evidence relied upon in support of those particular arguments. Petitioner has the burden of showing, in its petition, a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). That reasonable likelihood is measured by considering the analysis offered by Petitioner. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) (setting forth the requirements of a petition, including specificity and identification of support).” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached
“assessment of all evidence in the record to determine whether the challenged claims would have been obvious. Rather, the Decision to deny institution of inter partes review was based on Petitioner’s failure to establish a reasonable likelihood of success at trial based on the arguments presented in the Petition, and the evidence relied upon in support of those particular arguments. Petitioner has the burden of showing, in its petition, a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). That reasonable likelihood is measured by considering the analysis offered by Petitioner. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) (setting forth the requirements of a petition, including specificity and identification of support).” slip op. at 3
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,561,314 - PTAB · Jan 3, 2018 · IPR2017-01202 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Petitioner’s rehearing requests, finding no abuse of discretion in denying institution because the petitions did not sufficiently support their challenges.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if an unreasonable judgment is made in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). We further note that 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) states: The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“assessment of all evidence in the record to determine whether the challenged claims would have been obvious. Rather, the Decision to deny institution of inter partes review was based on Petitioner’s failure to establish a reasonable likelihood of success at trial based on the arguments presented in the Petition, and the evidence relied upon in support of those particular arguments. Petitioner has the burden of showing, in its petition, a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). That reasonable likelihood is measured by considering the analysis offered by Petitioner. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) (setting forth the requirements of a petition, including specificity and identification of support).” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner, in the Petition, or even in its Request, that the pump in Figures 1– 13 is included in Figure 23. In fact, and as noted in our Decision (Dec. 11), Aboul-Hosn expressly states that “Figure[] 23 . . . illustrate[s a] different embodiment[] of the present invention” (Ex. 1004, 30:20–21). Petitioner faults our characterization of the above passage from Aboul-Hosn, noting “[t]he ellipses, missing language and brackets are materially important.” Req. 12. Petitioner contends that “[t]he Board’s errant paraphrase gives the misimpression that Figure 23 is an entirely different invention than any other in Aboul-Hosn. But, in context, the meaning is different. Figure 23 is a different embodiment than Figure 24.” Id. The entire sentence spanning lines 20–21 on page 30 of Aboul-Hosn reads: “Figures 23 and 24 illustrate two different embodiments of the present invention.” Ex. 1004, 30:20–21. We are not persuaded that we misread that sentence. That sentence specifically references Figures 23 and 24 as two different embodiments, meaning that Figures 23 and 24 are each different embodiments, not only with respect to one another, but also with respect to the other embodiments disclosed.7” slip op. at 4
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,545,468 - PTAB · Jan 3, 2018 · IPR2017-01201 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place the denial of institution because the petitions did not sufficiently support the asserted challenges.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if an unreasonable judgment is made in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). We further note that 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) states: The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“There is no express disclosure from Aboul-Hosn identified by Petitioner, in the Petition, or even in its Request, that the pump in Figures 1– 13 is included in Figure 23. In fact, and as noted in our Decision (Dec. 11), Aboul-Hosn expressly states that “Figure[] 23 . . . illustrate[s a] different embodiment[] of the present invention” (Ex. 1004, 30:20–21). Petitioner faults our characterization of the above passage from Aboul-Hosn, noting “[t]he ellipses, missing language and brackets are materially important.” Req. 12. Petitioner contends that “[t]he Board’s errant paraphrase gives the misimpression that Figure 23 is an entirely different invention than any other in Aboul-Hosn. But, in context, the meaning is different. Figure 23 is a different embodiment than Figure 24.” Id. The entire sentence spanning lines 20–21 on page 30 of Aboul-Hosn reads: “Figures 23 and 24 illustrate two different embodiments of the present invention.” Ex. 1004, 30:20–21. We are not persuaded that we misread that sentence. That sentence specifically references Figures 23 and 24 as two different embodiments, meaning that Figures 23 and 24 are each different embodiments, not only with respect to one another, but also with respect to the other embodiments disclosed.7” slip op. at 4
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,545,468
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.