• Supercell OY v. Gree, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 12, 2020 · PGR2020-00063 · APJ Lynne H Browne · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of PGR on claims 1–9, finding the § 101 arguments previously presented to the Office and the other grounds insufficient to show likely unpatentability.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “In determining whether to institute or order a proceeding under this chapter, chapter 30, or chapter 31, the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office. The Board recently explained a two-part framework that the Board uses under § 325(d): (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or 4 “ObjectLabel” (Ex. 1007, “ObjectLabel”). 5 US 2015/0153913 A1, issued June 4, 2015 (Ex. 1008, “Ballard”). substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). The Board further explained that “[i]f a condition in the first part of the framework is satisfied and the petitioner fails to make a showing of material error, the Director generally will exercise discretion not to institute.” Id. at 8–9. “If reasonable minds can disagree regarding the purported treatment of the art or arguments, it cannot be said that the Office erred in a manner material to patentability.” Id. at 9. The Becton, Dickinson6 factors, which address discretion to deny when a Petition presents the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously presented to the Office, are instructive. Id. (“[T]he Becton, Dickinson factors provide useful insight into how to apply the framework under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” (Footnote omitted)).” slip op. at 7

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “(“the ’432 patent”). Supercell Oy (“Supercell”) filed a petition requesting post-grant review of claims 1–9 of the ’432 patent. Paper 2 (“Pet.”). GREE, in turn, filed a preliminary response. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”). After considering the petition and the preliminary response, as well as all supporting evidence, we determine the petition does not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’432 patent is unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). Thus, we do not institute post-grant review of claims 1–9 of the ’432 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable

    “‘“the disclosure as originally filed does not have to provide in haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue.’” Prelim. Resp. 11 (citing Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Rather, ‘the test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had ‘possession’ of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.’” Id. (citing Ariad Pharms, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)).” slip op. at 13

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “information.” Id. at 7:34–41. In particular, Ross explains that “[t]he user may interact with the secondary, tertiary, etc., virtual reality content and then return his view back to the movie wherein the movie has been adjusted to reflect the user’s interaction with the secondary, tertiary, etc., virtual reality content.” Id. at 7:41–45. Ross explains further that “while a user views primary virtual reality content, system 10 may be configured to display a ‘pop-up’ cue indicating that additional virtual reality content (e.g., additional characters) is available in a different (e.g., secondary, tertiary, etc.) content area.” Id. at 7:46–50. Thus, we understand Ross to disclose a system wherein a user can turn their gaze from a primary area to a secondary, tertiary, etc., area to view content related to the content in the primary area. See Ross, 7:21–33 (“Responsive to the user turning his view from the primary virtual reality content . . . a sensory cue comprising . . . secondary, tertiary, etc., . . . may be displayed to the user.”). Further, we understand Ross to disclose a system wherein the user’s focus on an item in the primary area may activate a “popup” cue in the primary area directing the user to additional virtual reality content in a secondary, tertiary, etc., area. See id. at 7:46–50 (“[W]hile a user views primary virtual reality content, system 10 may be configured to display a ‘pop-up’ cue indicating that additional virtual reality content . . . is available in a different (e.g., secondary, tertiary, etc.) content area.”). We do not, however, understand Ross’ “pop-up” cue to be activated in a secondary, tertiary, etc. area based on the user’s gaze position moving to the second area from the first area as required by claims 1, 8, and 9. See id. Therefore, because Ross describes displaying a “pop-up” cue while a user is viewing primary virtual reality content (see Ross, 7:46–50), Petitioner does not show persuasively that Ross discloses that “a gaze position moving to the second area from the first area” is an “information providing condition.” Furthermore, Petitioner’s cited testimonial evidence does not explain sufficiently how Ross discloses the recited “information providing condition.” See Ex. 1003 ¶ 73. For the reasons above, Petitioner does not show adequately that Ross discloses an “information providing condition [that] is a condition of a gaze position moving to the second area from the first area.”” slip op. at 18

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,406,432
• Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Apr 1, 2020 · IPR2020-00046 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of review of claims 1–5 and 9 because the Petition failed to identify required corresponding structure and did not explain how the prior art applied under its asserted construction.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied

    “Thus, if we were to proceed now on allegedly incorrect “assumed” constructions (i.e., corresponding structure is a microprocessor executing software that performs the functions), but ultimately agree with Petitioner’s proposed constructions (i.e., corresponding structure requires special programming or an algorithm for performing the function), we would be put in the position of attempting to apply prior art to claims that might not be amenable to construction, and without Petitioner telling us how the art should be applied in that circumstance. In such an event, “the proper course for the Board to follow, if it cannot ascertain the scope of a claim with reasonable certainty for purposes of assessing patentability, is to decline to institute the IPR or, if the indefiniteness issue affects only certain claims, to conclude that it could not reach a decision on the merits with respect to whether petitioner had established the unpatentability of those claims under sections 102 or 103.” Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Prisua Eng’g Corp., 948 F.3d 1342, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Institution of inter partes review is discretionary. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech, Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding.”). We exercise our discretion and decline Petitioner’s invitation to adopt allegedly incorrect claim constructions and institute an inter partes review on the basis of those constructions.” slip op. at 10

  • BurdenDenied

    “Although Petitioner asserts that aside from the “transceiver means for . . .” and “antenna means for . . . ,” the corresponding structure for each of the claimed means-plus-function limitations requires special programming (see Pet. 8), Petitioner does not direct us to disclosure of special programming or an algorithm in the ’522 Patent Specification (see Pet. 10). Therefore, with respect to at least the “ranking means for determining a rank representative of the station’s suitability for acting as master in the network using performance characteristics of the antenna means in view of its local environment,” recited in independent claims 1 and 3 and all other challenged claims, which depend therefrom, the Petition fails to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3).” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Other

    “Petitioner asserts that there are several means-plus-function limitations recited in the challenged claims, specifically “transceiver means for . . . ,” “antenna means for . . . ,” “control means for . . . ,” “ranking means . . . ,” comparison means . . . ,” “master transfer means . . . ,” and “inquiry means . . .”. See Pet. 8–11. The use of the word “means” in a claim element creates a rebuttable presumption that 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 64 applies. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in relevant part). Accordingly, we presume that each of the aforementioned means-plus-function limitations recited in claims 1–5 and 9 should be construed to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof. See 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.” slip op. at 5

  Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 6,980,522
• Universal Imaging Industries, LLC v. Lexmark International, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 27, 2020 · IPR2019-01383 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of IPR on claims 1–22, finding the Adkins ground warranted denial under § 325(d) and the other obviousness grounds lacked a reasonable likelihood of success.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “As we explain in detail below, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its other asserted grounds of unpatentability. Because each of Petitioner’s grounds should be denied, either for an inadequate showing on the merits or pursuant to our discretion under § 325(d), we exercise our discretion to deny the Petition under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).” slip op. at 21

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “Weighing each of the factors, we conclude that the circumstances of this case, on the record presented, warrant exercise of our discretion to deny institution based on § 325(d). Patent Owner identified the Adkins application as “related” to the ’079 patent, made statements in the Specification attempting to distinguish the ’079 patent’s invention from Adkins, and cited the ’021 patent in an IDS. Further, the Examiner already was familiar with Adkins given that the same Examiner examined both the ’021 patent and the ’079 patent. We infer from these circumstances that the Examiner considered the substance of Adkins and Patent Owner’s statements regarding the disclosure of Adkins and problems with its approach, despite the lack of an express rejection over Adkins. Petitioner has not presented a convincing case that the Examiner erred in allowing the claims of the ’079 patent and Dr. Direen’s testimony does not provide persuasive support for Petitioner’s arguments.” slip op. at 20

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “limitation that the plurality of address change requests occurs “substantially immediately following a predetermined event.”6 Prelim. Resp. 42. We agree. In its analysis of claim 7, Petitioner does not identify any “event” at all or explain how such an event would be “predetermined” or why the alleged address change requests in Mayer or I2C Spec would occur “substantially immediately following” such an event. See Pet. 21–24. Indeed, the “substantially immediately following a predetermined event” claim language does not even appear in Petitioner’s arguments. See id. 6 Patent Owner makes a number of other arguments regarding the asserted combinations with I2C Spec in its Preliminary Response, including that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that I2C Spec is a prior art printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). See Prelim. Resp. 26–30, 36–37, 43–48. We need not reach these issues, however, because Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the asserted grounds for the reasons explained herein. Although Petitioner does not identify a “predetermined event” in its Petition, Dr. Direen appears to opine that a “power-on reset process” would trigger the plurality of address change requests. Ex. 1002, App. 1002-A, 14. Dr. Direen states that “[i]t is well understood in the electronic industry and by [persons of ordinary skill in the art] that complex devices such as a microprocessor or I2C slave device will go through a power-on reset process to ensure internal states are at known states. This is inherent device operation.” Id. Dr. Direen, however, cites no support for this opinion and does not explain in any detail what a power-on reset process would entail or why a plurality of address change requests in either Mayer or I2C Spec would occur “substantially immediately following” a power-on reset process. See id. Moreover, to the extent Dr. Direen bases his opinion on inherency, Petitioner does not assert that theory in its Petition.7 See Pet. 21–24. Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Mayer and I2C Spec teach a “dynamic address generator” wherein “substantially immediately following a predetermined event and in a continual series of a plurality of address change requests received by the interface and corresponding acknowledgements sent thereby in reply, for each address change request received the dynamic address generator generates a new component address,” as recited in claim 7.” slip op. at 24

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Relevant to factor (f), Petitioner offers the testimony of Dr. Direen, which was not available to the Examiner. However, Dr. Direen’s testimony is entitled to little weight because it consists primarily of quotations from Adkins, many of which are not cited in the Petition, and an unsupported inherency theory that is not argued in the Petition. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, App. 1002-C, 11–16 (testimony for claim 7). See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”), 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.”). Thus, Dr. Direen’s testimony does not provide persuasive evidentiary support for Petitioner’s arguments regarding Adkins. This factor is, at most, neutral.” slip op. at 20

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,850,079
• Universal Imaging Industries, LLC v. Lexmark International, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 3, 2020 · IPR2019-01369 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim, and § 325(d) also supported denying the claim 10 grounds based solely on Schön and Robb or …

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied

    “each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. An obviousness determination requires finding “both ‘that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.’” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367–68 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted); see KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (for an obviousness analysis, “it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does”). “Although the KSR test is flexible, the Board ‘must still be careful not to allow hindsight reconstruction of references . . . without any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to produce the claimed invention.’” TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1066 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Further, an assertion of obviousness “cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal 3 Additionally, secondary considerations, such as “commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented. As indicia of obviousness or nonobviousness, these inquiries may have relevancy.” Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18. Neither party, however, has presented any such evidence for us to consider. conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)); accord In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (stating that “‘conclusory statements’” amount to an “insufficient articulation[] of motivation to combine”; “instead, the finding must be supported by a ‘reasoned explanation’” (citation omitted)); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“To satisfy its burden of proving obviousness, a petitioner cannot employ mere conclusory statements. The petitioner must instead articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”).” slip op. at 9

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied

    “institute an inter partes review, “the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” In evaluating whether to exercise our discretion when the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office under section 325(d), we have weighed some common non-exclusive factors, such as: (a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art or Patent Owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to Section III.C.5, first paragraph) (“Becton, Dickinson”).” slip op. at 37

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “the ’657 patent would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical and/or computer engineering with training and one or more years of experience in embedded systems including both hardware and embedded software design,” as well as “a working understanding of communication on an electronics bus.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 25–28). Patent Owner argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical and/or computer engineering with one or more years of work experience in printer design, including hardware and/or embedded software design for printer applications.” Prelim. Resp. 7–8 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 29–33). The parties’ proposed definitions differ in that Petitioner’s definition requires experience with “embedded systems” and “communication on an electronics bus,” whereas Patent Owner’s definition more specifically requires experience with “printer design.” The Specification of the ’657 patent states that the disclosure relates to “master and slave devices communicating on a shared bus,” and specifically, “addressing schemes to provide security to the system.” Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 15–19. The claims of the ’657 patent similarly each recite “slave circuitry” for communicating as a “slave device” and an “address generator” generating plural addresses. Based on the record presented, including our review of the ’657 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’657 patent and cited prior art, we agree with and apply Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedOther

    “combine Schön with I2C Spec. Prelim. Resp. 50–54. In particular, Patent Owner argues that Schön already discloses an address format, and neither Schön, I2C Spec, nor the Petition identifies any disadvantages with Schön’s address format that would have been improved by I2C Spec’s address format. Id. at 52. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner does not explain why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have replaced Schön’s exemplary 8-bit address format, which allows for up to 256 addresses, with I2C Spec’s 7-bit address format with a limited number of variable bits, allowing fewer addresses to be generated in response to an address generation command. Id. at 52–53. Dr. Folkins’s testimony supports Patent Owner’s arguments. See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 101, 105‒113. In particular, Dr. Folkins testifies that replacing Schön’s addressing scheme with I2C Spec’s addressing would limit the flexibility of Schön’s addressing. Id. ¶¶ 105‒107. Dr. Folkins further testifies that I2C Spec’s addressing scheme would have caused inefficiencies in Schön’s system because a smaller pool of addresses would lead to more duplicate addresses, causing additional cycles of address generation. Id. ¶¶ 108‒111. We credit Dr. Folkins’s uncontroverted testimony. We recognize that, according to our rules, we “will take into account a patent owner preliminary response where such a response is filed, including any testimonial evidence, but a genuine issue of material fact created by such testimonial evidence will be viewed in the light most favorable to the petitioner solely for purposes of deciding whether to institute an inter partes review.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). However, in this case, Dr. Folkins’s testimony does not implicate a genuine issue of material fact. Petitioner does not provide any argument or cite to any testimony regarding the advantages or disadvantages of using I2C Spec’s addressing scheme in place of Schön’s. See Pet. 15‒21. Petitioner merely asserts, without further explanation, that Schön teaches “generating slave addresses,” I2C Spec teaches one “addressing format[],” and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the latter. Id. at 16. Dr. Direen’s testimony regarding combining the teachings of Schön and I2C Spec also makes no mention of advantages or disadvantages of replacing Schön’s addressing scheme with I2C Spec’s addressing scheme. See Ex. 1002, App. 1002-A, 7 (concluding that “[i]t would be natural for a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to combine the teaching of the I2C standard with [Schön’s] teachings as they both relate to similar computer bus systems,” without addressing advantages or disadvantages of the addressing schemes).” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,386,657
• Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Jul 16, 2019 · IPR2019-00060 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board granted rehearing only to address the overlooked construction dispute, but again denied institution because Jensen did not teach “mobile protection code.”

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “(“Dec. on Inst.”). The panel concluded that Petitioner had not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in the asserted obviousness grounds because, for a particular ground, Petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficiently that Jensen1 teaches “mobile protection code.” Dec. on Inst. 11−12.2 Petitioner has filed a Request for Rehearing. Paper 8 (“Req. Reh’g”). Petitioner argues that the scope for the claim term “mobile protection code” was in dispute, and that we “failed to resolve the key claim construction dispute between the parties.” Id. at 1. According to Petitioner, rehearing is warranted to resolve the claim construction dispute and “fix the plain error in the Institution Decision.” Id. We are persuaded that in failing to address Petitioner’s construction, we overlooked the matter raised in Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing. Nevertheless, for the reasons discussed infra, after giving due consideration to Petitioner’s argument, we are persuaded that our decision to deny institution was correct, and therefore we deny the request insofar as it calls upon us to institute trial.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “(“Dec. on Inst.”). The panel concluded that Petitioner had not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in the asserted obviousness grounds because, for a particular ground, Petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficiently that Jensen1 teaches “mobile protection code.” Dec. on Inst. 11−12.2 Petitioner has filed a Request for Rehearing. Paper 8 (“Req. Reh’g”). Petitioner argues that the scope for the claim term “mobile protection code” was in dispute, and that we “failed to resolve the key claim construction dispute between the parties.” Id. at 1. According to Petitioner, rehearing is warranted to resolve the claim construction dispute and “fix the plain error in the Institution Decision.” Id. We are persuaded that in failing to address Petitioner’s construction, we overlooked the matter raised in Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing. Nevertheless, for the reasons discussed infra, after giving due consideration to Petitioner’s argument, we are persuaded that our decision to deny institution was correct, and therefore we deny the request insofar as it calls upon us to institute trial.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “1 Protection Wrappers: A Simple and Portable Sandbox for Untrusted Applications, Proceedings on the 8th ACM SIGOPS European Workshop on Support for Composing Distributed Applications, filed in the record as Exhibit 1006. 2 We also exercised our discretion under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) and 325(d) and denied institution. Petitioner does not challenge the exercise of discretion in this request for rehearing.” slip op. at 2

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied

    “1 Protection Wrappers: A Simple and Portable Sandbox for Untrusted Applications, Proceedings on the 8th ACM SIGOPS European Workshop on Support for Composing Distributed Applications, filed in the record as Exhibit 1006. 2 We also exercised our discretion under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) and 325(d) and denied institution. Petitioner does not challenge the exercise of discretion in this request for rehearing.” slip op. at 2

  Claim constructionDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,647,633
• Nikon Corporation v. Carl Zeiss AG And ASML Netherlands B.V.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Feb 1, 2019 · IPR2018-00686 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Nikon’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1–5, 7–10, 16, 24, and 30–33 based on § 325(d) and the priority-date analysis.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) provides that: A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for rehearing, without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically 1 The Petition, in an apparent typographic error, omits claim 5 from its listing of challenged claims on page 1. identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, opposition, or a reply. (Emphasis added.) See Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48768 (Aug. 14, 2012). Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co. Inc., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted).” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “In the Institution Decision, we denied institution of Ground 1 based on our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Inst. Dec. 17. Specifically, we determined that the Kaifu reference relied on by Petitioner was considered during prosecution. Id. Petitioner asserts that we misapprehended or overlooked its arguments regarding why its contentions as to Kaifu were not considered by the Examiner.” slip op. at 3

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “written description. To satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1, the specification 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) (internal brackets omitted) (en banc) (quoting Vas–Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Thus, the specification must reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that the inventor possessed, at the time of filing, the subject matter that he or she has claimed. Id. “[T]he level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.” Id. Whether a specification complies with the written description requirement is a question of fact. Id. at 1351, 1355. Entitlement to a filing date extends only to subject matter that is disclosed, not to that which is obvious. Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1997).” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “We determine that because the open ended term “comprising” was used in the original claim reciting “a” signal, the recitation of “a” signal and “one or more” signals would have the same scope. An indefinite article, such as “a,” in patent parlance encompasses “one or more” when used, as here, in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase “comprising.” KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Unless the claim is specific as to the number of elements, the article ‘a’ receives a singular interpretation only in rare circumstances when the patentee evinces a clear intent to so limit the article.” Id. Thus, the claim as amended, which removes the open ended preface “comprising” and changes the modifier of “select signals” from “a” to “one or more,” does not change the scope of the claim in that respect. It merely is a different phrasing. Thus, as we stated in the Institution Decision, any description of a system with one signal would necessarily support a claim to one or more signals. Inst. Dec. 28. Additionally, the claim, as amended, does not suggest there is choice between alternatives that would meet this claim. For example, the claim does not require a choice between a first type of signal and a second type of signal. The claim recites “one” signal, which can be optionally accompanied (“or”) by “more” signals.” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 9,728,574
• Apotex Inc. / Apotex Corp. v. Celgene CorporationInstitution denied
  PTAB · Sep 27, 2018 · IPR2018-00685 · APJ Toni R Scheiner · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution: the obviousness grounds repeated substantially the same art and arguments considered in prosecution, and the press release was not shown to be a printed publication.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied

    “As discussed above in Section D2, the Examiner was ultimately persuaded that Applicant’s evidence of unexpected results—i.e., the overall response rate elicited by lenalidomide in pretreated mantle cell lymphoma patients—outweighed the evidence supporting his initial determination that it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use lenalidomide to treat mantle cell lymphoma given the combined teachings of Zeldis, Damaj, Wilson, and Kaufmann. Ex. 2007, 81–82.” slip op. at 24

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “As we have determined that Petitioner has not established that Celgene Press Release is available as a prior art printed publication, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its assertion that the subject matter of claims 1–4, 8, 9, 15, and 20 of the ’929 patent is anticipated by the Celgene Press Release. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of claims 1–4, 8, 9, 15, and 20 of the ’929 patent on the ground of anticipation by the Celgene Press Release.” slip op. at 31

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable

    “A reference will be considered publicly accessible if it was ‘disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.’” Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Kyocera, 545 F.3d at 1350). A party seeking to introduce a reference “should produce sufficient proof of its dissemination or that it has otherwise been available and accessible to persons concerned with the art to which the document relates and thus most likely to avail themselves of its contents.” In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 227 (CCPA 1981) (quoting Philips Elec. & Pharm. Indus. Corp. v. Thermal & Elecs. Indus., Inc., 450 F.2d 1164, 1171 (3d Cir. 1971)). As explained by the Federal Circuit, a “determination of whether a reference is a ‘printed publication’ under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) involves a case-by-case 28 inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public.” In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). slip op. at 28

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Unexpected resultsNot reached

    “support patentability.” Id. Paragraph 109 of Dr. Thirman’s Declaration is nearly identical to the above passage from the Petition. Following the summary of those prior art teachings, Dr. Thirman asserts “[t]hus, the alleged unexpected properties would have been expected” (Ex. 1002 ¶ 110), but provides no further evidentiary support for the proposition that the results obtained by treating relapsed and/or refractory MCL with lenalidomide would have been expected. Again, during prosecution, the Examiner maintained that the combined prior art (Zeldis, Damaj, Wilson, and Kaufmann) would have given one of ordinary skill in the art a reason to use lenalidomide to treat patients with relapsed and/or refractory mantle cell lymphoma, but concluded that the evidence of obviousness was outweighed by Applicant’s evidence of unexpected results—namely, a 28% overall response rate in patients with relapsed and/or refractory mantle cell lymphoma. Although Drach—given its particular focus on treating mantle cell lymphoma—is stronger evidence than Damaj, Wilson, and Kaufmann that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to treat MCL patients with lenalidomide, Drach is no more informative as to expected results than the references the Examiner relied on in making out a prima facie case of obviousness, i.e., Damaj, Wilson, and Kaufmann. Essentially, Petitioner and Dr. Thirman disagree with the Examiner’s conclusion that, on balance, the subject matter of the challenged claims would not have been obvious, in light of the level of response in patients 25 with relapsed and/or refractory MCL (as described in Dr. Zhang’s Declaration and the underlying Goy reference), despite one of ordinary skill in the art having had a reason to administer lenalidomide to treat MCL.” slip op. at 25

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,741,929
• Google LLC v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.Institution denied
  PTAB · Mar 29, 2018 · IPR2017-02067 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution: it declined review of claims 1–12, 14–17, 25, and 26 under §§ 315(d) and 325(d), and found no reasonable likelihood for claims 13, 18–24, and 27.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied

    “Here, our exercise of discretion to deny institution under §§ 315(d) and 325(d) is warranted for several reasons. To start with, the previous IPRs and the present Petition rely on Zydney as the primary reference against which the majority of the claim limitations are mapped. Petitioner has proffered no reasoning regarding how it has relied on Zydney in any way that differs materially from the previous IPRs. And Petitioner’s reliance on different secondary references does not remedy this shortcoming. Moreover, Petitioner, here, does not explain whether the secondary references in this case are used in a different manner or add anything materially different to the secondary references used in the previous IPRs. Further, Zydney is being considered on the merits in pending IPRs. In fact, two trials regarding the ’433 patent are ongoing, with Zydney as the hallmark, i.e., a distinctive feature, of those trials. See IPR2017-01427 and IPR2017-01428. Under these circumstances, we look to Petitioner to provide some reason that convinces us to institute yet another trial that features Zydney as prominently as the previously presented IPRs. Again, if there was a manner in which Petitioner here distinguishably relied on Zydney, Petitioner did not proffer that fact explicitly. Moreover, the time of filing of this Petition leads us to conclude that Petitioner gained the benefit of Patent Owner’s preliminary responses in the previous IPRs. Patent Owner filed those responses on September 9, 2017. Three days later Petitioner filed the instant petition. Petitioner, as the party with the knowledge of this fact, failed to allege that it did not gain the benefit of the preliminary responses in previous IPRs. We look to Petitioner to explain its delay in its filing. Petitioner provides no reason here. Finally, although not a dispositive fact, we note that in the previous IPRs, Patent Owner requested authorization to file a motion to amend challenged claims of the ’433 patent. This fact raises concerns regarding the complexity and potential for inconsistency inherent in allowing this proceeding to occur in tandem with ongoing trials that arise in large part from the considerable role Zydney plays each proceeding. Further, we are concerned not only with ensuring consistency across multiple trials focused on Zydney, but also with administrative efficiency because significant resources of the Board would be consumed reconciling arguments, issues, and evidence across multiple, independent trials,3 especially in light of the forthcoming motion to amend in the previous IPRs. Cf. Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985) (indicating an agency, when deciding whether to take action in a particular matter, must determine whether its resources are best spent on one matter or another).” slip op. at 9

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied

    “authority, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.122, to issue “any appropriate order regarding the additional matter[, i.e., this proceeding,] including providing for the stay, transfer, consolidation, or termination or any such matter.” See 35 U.S.C. § 315(d). We recognize that in exercising our discretion we determine the proper course of conduct in a proceeding (37 C.F.R. § 42.5) in a manner consistent with securing the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of the proceeding (37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b)). Here, our exercise of discretion to deny institution under §§ 315(d) and 325(d) is warranted for several reasons. To start with, the previous IPRs and the present Petition rely on Zydney as the primary reference against which the majority of the claim limitations are mapped. Petitioner has proffered no reasoning regarding how it has relied on Zydney in any way that differs materially from the previous IPRs. And Petitioner’s reliance on different secondary references does not remedy this shortcoming. Moreover, Petitioner, here, does not explain whether the secondary references in this case are used in a different manner or add anything materially different to the secondary references used in the previous IPRs. Further, Zydney is being considered on the merits in pending IPRs. In fact, two trials regarding the ’433 patent are ongoing, with Zydney as the hallmark, i.e., a distinctive feature, of those trials. See IPR2017-01427 and IPR2017-01428. Under these circumstances, we look to Petitioner to provide some reason that convinces us to institute yet another trial that features Zydney as prominently as the previously presented IPRs. Again, if there was a manner in which Petitioner here distinguishably relied on Zydney, Petitioner did not proffer that fact explicitly.” slip op. at 9

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “likelihood of prevailing with regard to its contention that claim 13 is anticipated by Zydney. In particular, we find that Petitioner has failed to show that Zydney’s software agent “displays a selectable control for generating an instant voice message using an intercom mode.” This is an anticipation challenge, which requires that the art disclose each and every limitation of the claim, in the same arrangement as claimed. Net MoneyIn, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The Board cannot fill in the gaps and consider what an ordinary artisan might supplement or envisage. Net MoneyIn, 545 F.3d at 1372; Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor, 851 F.3d 1270, 1274–75 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (The Board is not permitted to “fill in missing limitations simply because a skilled artisan would immediately envision them.”). The Petition sets forth that Zydney teaches a “selectable control” because the software agent permits a number of distinct modes of communication and that the originator selects a delivery mode, i.e., intercom mode. Pet. 1718. But with regard to the display of the “selectable control,” Petitioner states that “Zydney plainly teaches that its software agent’s user interface displays a selectable control for generating an instant voice message using an intercom mode based on the connectivity status (e.g., status of the recipient) of an intended recipient.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 58). In support, the Min Declaration mentions “display” in reference to selecting the recipients, stating, “Once the originator has selected the recipients from the display, Zydney’s system allows the originator to select a delivery option depending on which ‘core state’ the intended recipient is in—online or offline.” Id. This is insufficient support for demonstrating that Zydney discloses the display limitation of claim 13. Claim 13 recites that the “instant voice messaging application displays a selectable control for generating an instant voice message using an intercom mode.” Neither the Petition nor the Min Declaration addresses the display of the “selectable control for generating an instant voice message.” At best, the Min Declaration adduces to the display of a list of recipients and their selection. But there is no explanation as to the display of the “selectable control” in Zydney or citation of evidence that Zydney displays any selection such that it can generate a voice message in intercom mode. Without evidence that Zydney discloses the recited “display,” we are unpersuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that Zydney anticipates the claim. Therefore, Petitioner’s contention of unpatentability regarding claim 13 does not meet the reasonable likelihood institution threshold.” slip op. at 16

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The Board cannot fill in the gaps and consider what an ordinary artisan might supplement or envisage. Net MoneyIn, 545 F.3d at 1372; Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor, 851 F.3d 1270, 1274–75 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (The Board is not permitted to “fill in missing limitations simply because a skilled artisan would immediately envision them.”). The Petition sets forth that Zydney teaches a “selectable control” because the software agent permits a number of distinct modes of communication and that the originator selects a delivery mode, i.e., intercom mode. Pet. 1718. But with regard to the display of the “selectable control,” Petitioner states that “Zydney plainly teaches that its software agent’s user interface displays a selectable control for generating an instant voice message using an intercom mode based on the connectivity status (e.g., status of the recipient) of an intended recipient.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 58). In support, the Min Declaration mentions “display” in reference to selecting the recipients, stating, “Once the originator has selected the recipients from the display, Zydney’s system allows the originator to select a delivery option depending on which ‘core state’ the intended recipient is in—online or offline.” Id. This is insufficient support for demonstrating that Zydney discloses the display limitation of claim 13. Claim 13 recites that the “instant voice messaging application displays a selectable control for generating an instant voice message using an intercom mode.” Neither the Petition nor the Min Declaration addresses the display of the “selectable control for generating an instant voice message.” At best, the Min Declaration adduces to the display of a list of recipients and their selection. But there is no explanation as to the display of the “selectable control” in Zydney or citation of evidence that Zydney displays any selection such that it can generate a voice message in intercom mode. Without evidence that Zydney discloses the recited “display,” we are unpersuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that Zydney anticipates the claim. Therefore, Petitioner’s contention of unpatentability regarding claim 13 does not meet the reasonable likelihood institution threshold.” slip op. at 17

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,995,433
• Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. v. Smith International, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 1, 2018 · IPR2016-01440 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–20, and 28–42 were not shown unpatentable because Myers did not establish axial translation, and Myers with Bostock did not cure that deficiency.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “radially” in the Petition. In its Reply, Petitioner equates “radially” to “outwardly” and “axially” to “downwardly.” Pet. Reply 7. Patent Owner contends that “axially and radially” would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art “to refer to movement relative the body and oriented relative to the axis of the body.” PO Resp. 19 (citing Ex. 2018 ¶ 82). In particular, Patent Owner contends that “axial” refers to “movement along or parallel to the axis of the body, and that “radial” refers to “the direction perpendicular to the axis of the body.” PO Resp. 20. Patent Owner contends its interpretation is consistent with the Specification of the ’099 patent and is supported by both its expert, Mr. Underwood, and Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Shale. Id. at 18–21 (citations omitted). For example, Mr. Shale testified that “‘[r]adially’ basically means left to right within the tubular body,” and “‘axially’ means up and down within the tubular body.” Ex. 2021, 189:5–7. Patent Owner further notes that Figures 4, 5, 11, and 12 of the ’099 patent illustrate arms 520 moving axially and radially relative to body 510. PO Resp. 20. In its Reply, Petitioner argues that “[c]ontrary to Patent Owner’s assertion, claim 1 of the ’099 [p]atent does not require that the body 10 be the frame of reference for the axial and radial movement.” Pet. Reply 13 n.3. Petitioner, however, cites no persuasive evidence to counter Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, Mr. Shale agreed that “radially” corresponds to “outward from the body,” and that “axially” corresponds to “up and down of the body.” Ex. 2021 190:4–19. Consistent with Mr. Shale’s testimony, Petitioner’s analysis purports to show that Myers discloses movement of moveable arms (slips 30) “both axially and radially relative to the body 10 [of Myers].” Pet. 19– 20. Petitioner is not alleging movement of the slips of Myers relative to a feature other than the body of Myers or in some other frame of reference. See Tr. 10:1–21. Thus, based on the evidence discussed above, we determine “translates axially and radially,” as recited in claim 1, means “moves parallel to and perpendicular to the body” and does not encompass movement consisting of only rotation about a pivot point. slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “The steps discussed above address how slips 30 of Myers are deployed, but do not explain expressly whether slips 30 move axially relative to body 10 during deployment. With regard to the slips, Myers further provides that: [Slips 30] are positively movable laterally relative to the expander upon relative longitudinal movement between the expander and slips by inclined spline connections between the slips and expander, provided by oppositely directed side tongues 32 on each slip sliding in companion grooves 33 in the expander on opposite sides of slots 34 in the expander in which the slips are disposed. The lower ends of the slips 30 are coupled for movement longitudinally with one another by being connected to a slip ring 35 having generally T-shaped slots 36 therein receiving companion T-shaped heads 37 on the lower portions of the slips. Thus, the slips 30 move longitudinally jointly with the slip ring 35, although they are still permitted to move radially or laterally inwardly and outwardly of the slip ring, upon relative longitudinal movement between the slips 30 and expander 26. Ex. 1004, 3:2–17. In this passage, the movement of the slips includes “longitudinal movement,” which we understand generally corresponds to a vertical direction, as opposed to lateral movement in a horizontal direction. However, the movement is described relative to expander 26, not relative to body 10. See Pet. 13 (using “lateral” consistent with the horizontal extent and “longitudinal” consistent with the vertical extent). Thus, this passage also does not explain expressly whether slips 30 move axially relative to the body during deployment.” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “C. ASSERTED OBVIOUSNESS OVER MYERS AND BOSTOCK Petitioner contends claims 4, 33, and 34, each of which depends from claim 1, would have been obvious over Myers and Bostock. Pet. 24–26. According to Petitioner, “[e]ach of claims 4, 33, and 34 recites biasing either a sleeve or a movable arm to a collapsed position.” Id. at 24. Petitioner relies on Bostock as disclosing a spring for biasing. Id. As to the limitations of claim 1 from which claims 4, 33, and 34 depend, including the requirement of “one moveable arm translates axially and radially,” Petitioner relies only on the contentions it set forth under its anticipation analysis with respect to claim 1. Because Petitioner does not rely on Bostock to teach the recited feature “one moveable arm translates axially and radially,” does not argue the feature would have been obvious over the combination, and, for the reasons provided above, has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Myers teaches the feature, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 4, 33, and 34 of the ’099 patent would have been obvious over Myers and Bostock.” slip op. at 25

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Mr. Shale expresses the opinion that “slips 30 move both axially and radially relative to the body 10, along ‘generally T-shaped slots 36’ that are linear and angled relative to the axial direction,” we find that testimony to be conclusory and entitled to little weight, in part because this testimony does not account for the upward movement of setting sleeve 40. See Ex. 1010 ¶ 53 (quoting Ex. 1004, 3:11); see also In re Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”); 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.”). Accordingly, we find Mr. Shale’s declaration fails to provide persuasive support for Petitioner’s contention that Myers discloses “one moveable arm translates axially and radially,” as required by claim 1, beyond what Myers, itself, discloses. We find more persuasive Mr. Underwood’s testimony, on behalf of Patent Owner, that Myers fails to disclose axial movement of slips 30. Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 90–107. According to Mr. Underwood: slots [36 of Myers] are shown as angled relative to the slip ring 35. However, though the slips may move downward (axially) relative to the slip ring 35 as the slips move outward (radially), the slip ring 35 at the same time moves upward (axially) relative to the body. As such, the angle of the slots 36 within the slip ring 35 is not, itself, indicative of the overall movement of the slips. Id. ¶ 91. Mr. Underwood further reasons that “as the slip ring moves upwardly, the movement of the slips relative to the body in the axial direction is zero due to the slips sliding downward in the slots 36 relative to the slip ring 35 in equal proportion.” Id. ¶ 94. Mr. Underwood also” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 7,314,099 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,314,099
• Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 30, 2017 · PGR2017-00024 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims, finding the § 103 and written-description challenges previously considered under § 325(d), and the remaining written-description and indefiniteness challenges insufficient.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “We agree with Patent Owner that we should exercise our discretion in denying institution of review based on Petitioner’s § 103 challenges because the same art and arguments were considered by the Examiner during the original prosecution. There is no dispute that Saggio and Lee were expressly considered by the Examiner and discussed in the Examiner’s Reasons for Allowance in the May 24, 2016 Notice for Allowance. See Ex. 1008, 86–88. In the Notice of Allowance, the Examiner considered expressly the teachings of Saggio and Lee, and explained in detail that neither one of these disclosed the claimed “elastic fastener.” Id. Moreover, the Examiner expressly also considered Donaldson and found that it was “cumulative with Lee [ ] in that both references disclose that moving mechanical components must be used to detach the balloons.” Id. at 17.” slip op. at 10

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “Based on our review of the record, including the claim language and the Specification of the ’779 patent, we agree with Patent Owner’s position. Here, the restriction of the claimed elastic ring is limited such that the balloon, if filled with a sufficient amount of water, is detachable by (1) gravity or (2) by gravity combined with a manually applied acceleration of the tube. Further, we agree with Patent Owner’s explanation that a person of ordinary skill in the art would know when the amount of water has reached a “sufficient amount,” because the elastic rings would allow detachment by gravity or by gravity and manually applied acceleration of the tube. See Prelim. Resp. 42. Indeed, the claim language itself provides the conditions” slip op. at 21

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “the effective filing date of the ’779 patent (“POSA”) was a person having general knowledge about, and experience with, expandable containers, including, without limitation, balloons, and at least an associate’s degree in a technical science or engineering. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 10–14). For purposes of this Decision, we agree with Petitioner and determine that a POSA would have been a person having a general knowledge about, 2 Claims 38, 46, 54, and 60 issued as claims 4, 7, 10, and 13. and experience with, expandable containers, including, without limitation, balloons, and at least an associate’s degree in mechanical engineering, or the equivalent. This level of skill is consistent with the types of problems and solutions described in the ’779 patent and cited prior art.” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “Petitioner argues that the present record is different than the one before the Examiner. Pet. 80. In particular, Petitioner asserts that the testimony of Dr. Kamrin was not before the Examiner. Id. Petitioner contends that “one of the issues in this petition is inherency of the prior art references, which benefits from the consideration of expert testimony.” Id. at 81. Nonetheless, having reviewed the record, we disagree with Petitioner’s position. The technology here does not appear to be particularly complex, and the Examiner’s explanation shows that he expressly considered the issues of inherency, and offered detailed findings why the functional limitations related to the elastic fastener were not necessarily present in the art at issue. See Ex. 1008, 87–88. Although not referred to expressly in the Examiner’s explanation, the Information Disclosure Sheet considered by the Examiner includes the Petitions in PGR2016-00030 and PGR2016-00031, which contain similar explanations of inherency to those at issue in this case. See PGR2016-00031, Paper 2, 43–45 (Petition discussing inherency issue with respect to Lee). Although the Examiner’s explanation does not refer to those papers expressly, the fact that those papers were listed on an IDS is, nevertheless, circumstantial evidence that Petitioner’s inherency arguments were considered when the Examiner provided his explanation concerning inherency. See Ex. 1008, 87 (“Because it is not true that all elastic bands have the same elastic force as an inherent property, it cannot be presumed that all elastic bands would function the same way.”). Moreover, as Patent Owner notes, Dr. Kamrin fails to even address Donaldson’s use of a mechanical means, i.e., a spring, to release the balloon. Prelim. Resp. 32. Thus, we are not persuaded that Dr. Kamrin’s testimony meaningfully distinguishes the record that is before us from the record that was before the Examiner.” slip op. at 12

  § 112 disclosureDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 9,533,779

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.