- Parse Biosciences, Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 14, 2023 · IPR2023-01030 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–29 would have been obvious over the asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). The Supreme Court has held that a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, and for the reasons explained below, we determine that the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to any claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we deny the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 15–16. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal about the POSA’s qualifications. See generally, Prelim. Resp. For this Decision, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposal for the level of skill in the art, which does not appear to be inconsistent with the level of skill reflected in the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner proposes constructions of four limitations: “insertional enzyme complex,” “nucleic acid insert element,” “adapter sequence,” “barcode sequence,” and “tagged fragments.” Pet. 20–23. Patent Owner, for its part, states that “[n]o terms require construction for considering institution.” Prelim. Resp. 15. We determine that none of the four limitations identified by Petitioner requires an express construction for purposes of this Decision. It bears” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“express construction of the term “chromatin.” The ’207 patent itself provides a definition, stating: The term “chromatin,” as used herein, refers to a complex of molecules including proteins and polynucleotides (e.g. DNA, RNA), as found in a nucleus of a eukaryotic cell. Chromatin is composed in part of histone proteins that form nucleosomes, genomic DNA, and other DNA binding proteins (e.g., transcription factors) that are generally bound to the genomic DNA. Ex. 1001, 12:58–64. This is the meaning that we apply in this Decision.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,619,207 - Parse Biosciences, Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 19, 2023 · IPR2023-00878 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Grunenwald anticipates claim 1 or that the asserted combinations cure its failure to disclose contacting chromatin.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Institution of an inter partes review requires that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Determining whether to institute has been delegated to the Board. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, and for the reasons explained below, we determine that the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to any claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we deny the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“Petitioner proposes constructions of four limitations: “insertional enzyme complex,” “nucleic acid insert element,” “adapter sequence,” and “barcode sequence.” Pet. 21–25. Patent Owner, for its part, states that “[n]o terms require construction for considering institution.” Prelim. Resp. 16. We determine that none of the four limitations identified by Petitioner requires an express construction for purposes of this Decision. It bears mentioning, however, that the ’995 patent states that “[t]he insertional enzyme can be a transposase.” Ex. 1001, 3:41–42. There is no dispute that Grunenwald discloses the use of a transposase and, thus, an insertional enzyme complex. See Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶98, 161); Prelim. Resp. 34 (“Grunenwald defines ‘transposase’ to include any transposase, thus including those that comprise antibodies that are specific to a protein that is part of said chromatin.” (citing Ex. 1003 ¶93)).” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“express construction of the term “chromatin.” The ’995 patent itself provides a definition, stating: The term “chromatin,” as used herein, refers to a complex of molecules including proteins and polynucleotides (e.g. DNA, RNA), as found in a nucleus of a eukaryotic cell. Chromatin is composed in part of histone proteins that form nucleosomes, genomic DNA, and other DNA binding proteins (e.g., transcription factors) that are generally bound to the genomic DNA. Ex. 1001, 12:54–60. This is the meaning that we apply in this Decision.” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“B. Ground 1 Petitioner asserts that Grunenwald anticipates independent claim 1, as well some of the dependent claims. Pet. 25. “Anticipation requires that all of the claim elements and their limitations are shown in a single prior art reference.” In re Skvorecz, 580 F.3d 1262, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Patent Owner argues that Grunenwald fails to anticipate claim 1, which failure undermines the entire Petition. Prelim. Resp. 16–17 (“Petitioner has failed to show that Grunenwald discloses each and every limitation as arranged in the claims, including, e.g., ‘contacting chromatin of a genome region,’ and thus cannot meet its burden as to any claim in Ground 1.” (quoting claim 1)), 38 (“Petitioner cannot meet its burden as to Grounds 2–8 for the same reasons Petitioner cannot meet its burden for Ground 1.”). Accordingly, we turn first to claim 1.” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 10,150,995 - Ademco Inc. v. Ecofactor, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jul 21, 2023 · IPR2023-00409 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim obvious over the asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“under the statutory ground advanced. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). Thus, the Petition must identify how “the claimed invention [of each challenged claim] as a whole would have been obvious . . . to a person having ordinary skill in the art” in view of Leen, Trundle, and Ehlers. 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petition does not do this. In particular, and as Patent Owner argues and as we explain below, the Petition fails to show what it maps to the recited “thermostat system”/“thermostat” includes, or would have been modified to include, a processor configured to “receive geo-positioning data from the location-aware mobile device and automatically adjust a temperature value based on the geo-positioning data,” as recited in claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 11–19.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least (1) an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a comparable field of study and (2) at least two years of experience with (i) process control, (ii) automation systems, (iii) or a comparable field of work.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶12). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition. Prelim. Resp. 7–8. Because Petitioner’s formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art appears consistent with the ’890 patent and the asserted prior art and is not challenged by Patent Owner, we apply it in our analysis below.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for petitioner
“(Ex. 1021 at 2) in a related civil action, but neither party offers an express construction of the preamble. Pet. 3; Prelim. Resp. 8. In fact, both parties state that Petitioner’s grounds of unpatentability do not turn on whether the preamble is limiting. Pet. 3; Prelim. Resp. 8. We do not explicitly construe any limitations, as it unnecessary to decide the Petition. However, we agree with the court and the parties that the preamble of claim 1 is limiting. “When limitations in the body of the claim rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed invention.” Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003). This is the case here as the body of claim 1 twice refers to “the thermostat” for which the only antecedent basis could be “A thermostat system.” Ex. 1001, at claim 1.” slip op. at 7
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“E. Analysis of Ground I (Petition Ground “1A”) A Petition must “identify” how a challenged claim is unpatentable under the statutory ground advanced. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). Thus, the Petition must identify how “the claimed invention [of each challenged claim] as a whole would have been obvious . . . to a person having ordinary skill in the art” in view of Leen, Trundle, and Ehlers. 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petition does not do this. In particular, and as Patent Owner argues and as we explain below, the Petition fails to show what it maps to the recited “thermostat system”/“thermostat” includes, or would have been modified to include, a processor configured to “receive geo-positioning data from the location-aware mobile device and automatically adjust a temperature value based on the geo-positioning data,” as recited in claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 11–19.” slip op. at 11
Claim constructioncites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,584,890 - C&D Zodiac, Inc. v. B/E Aerospace, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 9, 2018 · IPR2017-01274 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied C&D Zodiac’s rehearing request and left in place its denial of institution because the hypothetical forward wall limitation did not provide ascertainable claim scope.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision[,]” which party “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“In the Institution Decision, we explained that we were unable to determine the metes and bounds of the hypothetical enclosure unit limitation required by all the challenged claims. Inst. Dec. 7–12. Specifically, we found that “[a]s a whole, the claim language does not in any comprehensible way tie the relative position of the seat support to the shape of the wall, be it “substantially not flat” or, hypothetically speaking, “substantially flat.”” Inst. Dec. 10. In light of this uncertainty, we found that “Petitioner has not provided sufficient information for a determination of the scope of certain limitations, such as the ‘additional space’ and, therefore, we cannot conduct the necessary factual inquiry for determining whether the prior art meets this limitation.” Id. at 16.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In the Institution Decision, we explained that we were unable to determine the metes and bounds of the hypothetical enclosure unit limitation required by all the challenged claims. Inst. Dec. 7–12. Specifically, we found that “[a]s a whole, the claim language does not in any comprehensible way tie the relative position of the seat support to the shape of the wall, be it “substantially not flat” or, hypothetically speaking, “substantially flat.”” Inst. Dec. 10. In light of this uncertainty, we found that “Petitioner has not provided sufficient information for a determination of the scope of certain limitations, such as the ‘additional space’ and, therefore, we cannot conduct the necessary factual inquiry for determining whether the prior art meets this limitation.” Id. at 16.” slip op. at 3
Claim constructioncites MarkmanPatents in suitUS 9,365,292 - C&D Zodiac, Inc. v. B/E Aerospace, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 8, 2018 · IPR2017-01273 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing of its decision denying institution because Petitioner did not show an abuse of discretion in finding claims 1–6 indefinite in scope.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision[,]” which party “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.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In the Institution Decision, we explained that we were unable to determine the metes and bounds of the hypothetical enclosure unit limitation required by all the challenged claims. Inst. Dec. 7–9. Specifically, we found that the claim language “leaves us to compare the claimed enclosure unit with a configuration that we know nothing about, except that it has an alternative hypothetical enclosure unit with ‘a substantially flat front wall located in the substantially the same position in the cabin as the forward wall.’” Inst. Dec. 8. In light of this uncertainty, we found that “Petitioner has not provided sufficient information for a determination of the scope of the hypothetical enclosure unit limitation and, therefore, we cannot conduct the necessary factual inquiry for determining whether the prior art meets this limitation.” Id. at 9.” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“determine the metes and bounds of the hypothetical enclosure unit limitation required by all the challenged claims. Inst. Dec. 7–9. Specifically, we found that the claim language “leaves us to compare the claimed enclosure unit with a configuration that we know nothing about, except that it has an alternative hypothetical enclosure unit with ‘a substantially flat front wall located in the substantially the same position in the cabin as the forward wall.’” Inst. Dec. 8. In light of this uncertainty, we found that “Petitioner has not provided sufficient information for a determination of the scope of the hypothetical enclosure unit limitation and, therefore, we cannot conduct the necessary factual inquiry for determining whether the prior art meets this limitation.” Id. at 9.” slip op. at 3
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 9,434,476 - CSL Behring GmbH / CSL Behring LLC v. Shire Viropharma Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 7, 2017 · IPR2017-01512 · APJ Lora M Green · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied for claims 1-18: Schranz was not shown to be prior art, and the Jiang ground was denied under §325(d) because the same art and arguments were previously presented.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“may request to cancel . . . claims of a patent only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” Before considering the ground before us based on Schranz, we must address whether Petitioner has provided a sufficient threshold showing that Schranz constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102—a legal question based on underlying factual determinations. Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1568” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“As was the case in Dep’t of Justice, the use of a joint declaration “invites innumerable practical difficulties in cross-examining the witnesses, in assessing the reliability of the statements made, and in evaluating the weight to be accorded to the opinions expressed.” Dep’t of Justice 10. For example, Dr. Machnig and Mr. Waldhauser declare in “our recollection.” Ex. 1013-A ¶ 4. It is unclear how two different declarants can have the same “recollection.” In addition, the declarants state that “[h]andouts of the poster . . . [were] picked up by us.” Id. ¶ 5. It is unclear from the Joint Declaration, however, if both declarants were together when the hand-out was picked-up, or if each declarant picked up the handout at separate times. We, therefore, afford the Joint Declaration of Dr. Machnig and Mr. Waldhauser little weight. See Dep’t of Justice 11. As it is the primary evidence on which Petitioner relies to demonstrate that Schranz is prior art, we determine that Petitioner has not made a threshold showing that Schranz is prior art to the ’111 patent. As Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that Schranz is prior art to the ’111 patent, we determine that the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that challenged claims 1‒18 are rendered obvious by the combination of Schranz (as evidenced by Cinryze Label and Bock), Gatlin, Pharming, and Levi.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“In the instant proceeding, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner is essentially making the same arguments as to obviousness over Jiang that the Examiner already considered. The prosecution history demonstrates that the Examiner considered many of the same issues with respect to the Schranz Declaration as Petitioner is arguing here. Although the Examiner noted in allowing the claims that Applicant Shire had established the secondary consideration of long-felt need and failure of others, the Examiner also stated that the art did not suggest the claimed dosage. We determine, therefore, that the Examiner did address the Schranz Declaration, and the Examiner’s concerns are similar to those raised by Petitioner in the instant proceeding. That is, as the Examiner stated: The Examiner has considered the arguments found in Dr. Schranz’s declaration concerning difficulty in higher concentration formulation. However, Dr. Schranz’s declaration provides little more than an assertion that it is difficult to reach such a concentration formulation, as opposed to actual evidence establishing that this (1) was a recognized problem in the art and (2) was generally not achievable via other means. Ex. 1001-B, 3041. Thus, the Examiner did acknowledge the lack of supporting evidence in the Schranz Declaration demonstrating that it was difficult to reach the claimed concentration.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“As was the case in Dep’t of Justice, the use of a joint declaration “invites innumerable practical difficulties in cross-examining the witnesses, in assessing the reliability of the statements made, and in evaluating the weight to be accorded to the opinions expressed.” Dep’t of Justice 10. For example, Dr. Machnig and Mr. Waldhauser declare in “our recollection.” Ex. 1013-A ¶ 4. It is unclear how two different declarants can have the same “recollection.” In addition, the declarants state that “[h]andouts of the poster . . . [were] picked up by us.” Id. ¶ 5. It is unclear from the Joint Declaration, however, if both declarants were together when the hand-out was picked-up, or if each declarant picked up the handout at separate times. We, therefore, afford the Joint Declaration of Dr. Machnig and Mr. Waldhauser little weight. See Dep’t of Justice 11. As it is the primary evidence on which Petitioner relies to demonstrate that Schranz is prior art, we determine that Petitioner has not made a threshold showing that Schranz is prior art to the ’111 patent. As Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that Schranz is prior art to the ’111 patent, we determine that the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that challenged claims 1‒18 are rendered obvious by the combination of Schranz (as evidenced by Cinryze Label and Bock), Gatlin, Pharming, and Levi.” slip op. at 9
§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,616,111 - Incyte Corporation v. Concert Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 19, 2017 · IPR2017-01256 · APJ Tina E Hulse · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–15 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving anticipation by Rodgers or obviousness over either asserted combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314, 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (stating Director has delegated institution authority to Board). Upon considering the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of claims 1–15 of the ’149 patent. Accordingly, we decline to institute an inter partes review of those claims.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“15, 2012, would have had a “master’s degree or a Ph.D. in chemistry, biochemistry, pharmaceutics, pharmaceutical sciences, physical organic chemistry or a related discipline,” or a lesser degree with more experience.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“unexpired patent according to the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016) (affirming applicability of broadest reasonable construction standard to inter partes review proceedings). Under that standard, and absent any special definitions, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definitions for claim terms must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We determine that it is unnecessary to expressly construe any claim terms for purposes of this Decision. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentable
“2. Analysis Anticipation requires that “each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Anticipation may arise where a reference describes a “definite and limited class,” and a person of ordinary skill in the art would “at once envisage each member of this limited class.” In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681 (CCPA 1962).” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,249,149 - Globalfoundries U.S. Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 11, 2017 · IPR2017-00935 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“requesting inter partes review of claims 1, 4, 8–11, 13, 17–24, 26–28, 43, 46, 49, 50, and 52–62 of U.S. Patent No. 8,354,726 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’726 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311(a). Patent Owner Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 8, “Prelim. Resp.”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 313. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Director may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we have decided not to institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)
“limitation of claim 1. Petitioner does not point to any express disclosure in the Intel 90 nm Report of the relevant distance and thicknesses, instead relying on averages of various measurements made by Dr. Fair. See Pet. 39–40; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 93–99. Petitioner and Dr. Fair, however, do not explain any basis for why it is appropriate to rely on averages of measurements of different components at different locations—as opposed to actual measurements of each component asserted to be the “first gate electrode,” “auxiliary pattern,” “first side-wall insulating film,” “second side-wall insulating film,” and “stress-containing insulating film” recited in the claim—for purposes of calculating the distance limitation. For example, Petitioner does not contend that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have calculated averages and understood the reference to disclose certain values based on such a methodology. “Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in issue be disclosed, either expressly or under principles of inherency, in a single prior art reference,” Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1255–56 (Fed. Cir. 1989), and that the claim limitations be “arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim[],” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Petitioner’s reliance on averages of various measurements, without any supporting explanation, is insufficient to show that the Intel 90 nm Report discloses the distance limitation of claim 1.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“D. Other Asserted Grounds (Claims 20, 22, 54, and 56) Petitioner contends that claims 20 and 54 are unpatentable over the Intel 90 nm Report and the Intel IEEE Paper, claims 22 and 56 are unpatentable over the Intel 90 nm Report and Doris, and claims 22 and 56 are unpatentable over the Intel 65 nm Report and Doris, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Pet. 77–83. Claims 20 and 22 depend from claim 1, and claims 54 and 56 depend from claim 43. Petitioner does not argue that the distance limitation of claims 1 and 43 is taught by the Intel IEEE Paper or Doris, alone or in combination with the Intel reports. Id. We are not persuaded that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its asserted grounds for the reasons explained above with respect to parent claims 1 and 43. See supra Sections II.B, II.C.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“E. Claim Interpretation The Board interprets claims using the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which [they] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard as the claim interpretation standard to be applied in inter partes reviews). The parties do not provide proposed interpretations for any claim terms, but Petitioner refers to a district court decision interpreting certain terms. See Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1008). For purposes of this Decision, we conclude that no claim terms require interpretation.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,354,726 - Globalfoundries U.S. Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 5, 2017 · IPR2017-00903 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim obvious over the asserted Cheung- or Chiang-based grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, and for the reasons explained below, we determine that the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to any claim challenged in the Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); 37 C.F.R § 42.108. The Petition is denied.” slip op. at 2
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Independent claims 18 and 35 both recite an “interlayer insulating film.” In Cases IPR2016-01331 and IPR2016-01367, we6 construed “interlayer insulating film” to mean “an insulating film located between but not within other layers.” See, e.g., Ex. 1010 (IPR2016-01331, Paper 9), 8. Petitioner applies that construction here, with which Patent Owner agrees. Pet. 33; Prelim. Resp. 10. 6 The instant panel is the same as that in Cases IPR2016-01331 and IPR2016-01367. No other express constructions are necessary for purposes of this” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“(i.e., “an insulating film located between but not within other layers”). Petitioner does not identify any express disclosure in Cheung that purportedly meets this limitation. Instead, to meet this limitation, Petitioner asserts the following: A [person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)] would understand from the disclosure [in Cheung] of a “multilayer interconnect structure” that each layer of interconnects must be separated by an insulating film to ensure interconnects between different layers do not short with one another and to reduce parasitic capacitance between interconnect layers. Ex. 1003, ¶ 48. Although Fig. 2D depicts wires 14 directly on “integrated circuit structure 10,” a POSITA would understand that “integrated circuit structure 10” includes an insulating film (not shown) between the layer of wires 12 and the components of integrated circuit structure 10—i.e., transistor components and lower level interconnects that are in contact with the semiconductor substrate. Ex. 1003, ¶ 62. Pet. 34. We are not persuaded by this argument. First, Cheung neither mentions nor illustrates such an insulating film. Second, even assuming Petitioner is correct that some form of insulation is necessary between copper interconnects 12 and integrated circuit structure 10 in Cheung Figure 2D, it does not follow (as Petitioner implies) that such insulation necessarily would be in the form of an interlayer insulating film. As Patent Owner points out, it could alternatively be in the form of a buried insulating film.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Section V.B. of the Petition begins with arguments that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the asserted references generally, without explaining what teachings within those references would be combined. Pet. 28 (“A POSITA would be motivated to combine Cheung with Chiang and/or Shinoda because each reference focuses on a portion of integrated circuit manufacturing related to fabrication of interconnects, bonding pads, and a moisture-blocking passivating layer, which protects the integrated circuit from the surrounding environment.”), id. (“Chiang, Cheung, and Shinoda all relate to BEOL[7] and a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to combine them.”), id. at 29 (“A POSITA would be motivated to combine Cheung and Chiang as designing and manufacturing a semiconductor device requires knowledge of both bonding pads for external connection and the various lower layers that comprise a semiconductor device.”). These initial and general arguments are insufficient, as they fail to 7 “The portion of integrated circuit fabrication regarding interconnects, bonding pads, and passivation layers (as opposed to the fabrication of transistors) is called Back-End-of-Line (‘BEOL’).” Pet. 28. identify specific teachings from the asserted references that allegedly would have been combined and what the result of that combination would be.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham - Xilinx, Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 28, 2017 · IPR2017-00841 · APJ Jennifer Meyer Chagnon · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 4, or 5 were obvious over the asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have authority to determine whether to institute inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, and for the reasons explained below, we determine that the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to any of the challenged claims. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the ’189 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Electronics Terms,2 which defines a “terminal” in the semiconductor device context as “[a]n externally available point of connection to one or more electrodes or elements within the device.” See id. at 27 (citing Ex. 2001, 1351) (emphasis added). Thus, according to Patent Owner, the Specification of the ’189 patent uses the term “terminal,” consistently with the ordinary meaning of the term in the art, as an “electrically conductive portion . . . used to connect to another device.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 5:9–17, 5:34–38). Patent Owner argues that “the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification of ‘connecting terminals’ requires exposed points of connection that allow connection, such as via a solder ball.” Id. (emphasis added). Petitioner has not presented any evidence or argument that the construction of “connecting terminal” should be broader than the ordinary meaning of the term in the art, as discussed above. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) (“[T]he petition must set forth . . . [h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed.”). We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument and evidence discussed above and, for purposes of this Decision, construe “connecting terminal” to require an externally available/exposed point of connection.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Yamaguchi expressly states that “multi-wiring layer 3 comprises at least one layer of thin film wiring layer 2,” and “[w]hether the multi-layered wiring layer 3 may be formed as a single layer or two or more layers is determined depending on the logic scale of the semiconductor device 9 and the layout therefor, or required high speed signal characteristics.” Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 60, 99 (emphases added). We discern no suggestion in Yamaguchi to remove entirely the top multi-wiring layer, and are not persuaded by Dr. Qu’s conclusory statement that a “[person of ordinary skill in the art] reading Yamaguchi in view of Lin would have understood the thin film wiring layers 2 over substrate 1 are optional and can be removed as a matter of design choice.” Ex. 1002, claim chart at page 107; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). For the reasons discussed, we are not persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to remove top multi-wiring layer 3 on the primary side of substrate 1 of Yamaguchi. Petitioner’s assertions for its alternative theory of obviousness in view of Yamaguchi and Lin are premised on this modification. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing that claims 1 and 4 are rendered obvious by the combination of Yamaguchi and Lin, under its second theory, and do not institute review on this asserted ground.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,525,189
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.