- PTAB · Jul 1, 2016 · IPR2016-00379 · APJ Tina E Hulse · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–6 under § 325(d), finding substantially the same prior art and arguments had been presented during prosecution.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“the Petition under § 325(d) because Petitioner’s obviousness challenge is based on (i) the same primary reference addressed during prosecution, including by the Board in an appeal; and (ii) the same arguments regarding that primary reference and how it allegedly would have been modified. Prelim. Resp. 56–60. Upon reviewing the Petition, Preliminary Response, and the prosecution history of the ’040 patent, we agree. During prosecution, the examiner rejected the claims as obvious over Van Lommen. Here, Petitioner also relies primarily on Van Lommen to argue the claims are obvious. We, therefore, find that substantially the same prior art was previously presented to the Office. We also find that substantially the same arguments were previously presented to the Office, including to the Board. Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have selected Compound 84 of Van Lommen as a base compound for investigation and would have been motivated to stereochemically separate the stereoisomers of Compound 84 using the chromatography techniques disclosed in the secondary prior art references. Pet. 33. As Patent Owner notes, however, the examiner repeatedly stated that “the skilled artisan would have seen optical isomer separation as a routine procedure leading to the compounds claimed herein.” Prelim. Resp. 57 (citing Ex. 1002, 48, 73, 88, 113). Thus, Petitioner asserts substantially the same argument that the examiner asserted during prosecution.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The claims recite a composition “consisting of” the claimed compound. The parties agree that the transitional phrase “consisting of” is a term of art in patent law that “closes” the claim and excludes other elements, steps, or ingredients not specified in the claim. Pet. 29–30; Prelim. Resp. 23. 4 Armstrong et al., Separation of Drug Stereoisomers by the Formation of β- Cyclodextrin Inclusion Complexes, 232 SCIENCE 1132–35 (1986) (Ex. 1007). expected impurities or additional components or steps that are unrelated to the invention. Conoco, Inc. v. Energy & Envtl. Int’l, L.C., 460 F.3d 1349, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we determine that the term “consisting of” does not exclude the presence of ordinary expected impurities or the presence of additional components that are unrelated to the invention.” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsOther
“concluding the applicants’ evidence of unexpected results sufficient, and implicitly finding a sufficient nexus between the evidence and the claimed invention. See In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“For objective evidence of secondary considerations to be accorded substantial weight, its proponent must establish a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the claimed invention.”) (quoting Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). Finally, Petitioner argues that it has submitted “ample evidence” that the compounds of claims 1 and 2 would be the intended and expected result of combining the asserted references, and that claims 3–6 would not be an unexpected result of the suggested combination. Pet. 56 (citing Ex. 1050 ¶¶ 50, 56, 66, 73, 74, 81, 93, 106; Ex. 1052 ¶¶ 60–68, 93, 100). But Petitioner’s cited evidence relates to how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered separating and studying the stereoisomers of compound 84 to be ordinary and routine. See, e.g., Ex. 1050 ¶ 73 (“A POSITA at the time would have had an expectation that this stereochemical resolution could be easily achieved using known and commercially available techniques, without undue experimentation.”); Ex. 1052 ¶ 93 (“[I]t is my opinion that a POSITA at the time of the ’040 Patent’s priority date, would have been motivated to carry out standard new-drug investigation on each of the purified stereochemical forms in order to determine the effectiveness of each stereochemical form, to determine whether the drug could be administered as a racemic mixture or whether a purified enantiomer was required, to determine the interactions between stereoisomers if administered together, and to determine the effective amounts of each compound necessary for treatment of hypertension.”). The Board, however, assumed examiner established a prima facie case of obviousness. Ex. 1002, 199. Nevertheless, the Board still found the unexpected results evidence presented by the applicants to be sufficient. Finally, although the prior panel expressly set forth the deficiencies in the examiner’s position with respect to the evidence of unexpected results, the Petition is silent as to those deficiencies. In particular, Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence to show why an ordinary artisan “would have expected the RSSS stereoisomer to have such [potentiating] properties” or to show “that the potentiating property, described in the declaration, is insignificant.” See Ex. 1002, 200. Because Petitioner has not addressed these issues, we are not inclined to reconsider the Board’s prior decision. Accordingly, under the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that readjudicating substantially the same prior art and arguments as those presented during prosecution would not be an efficient use of Board resources.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,545,040 - Hospitality Core Services LLC v. Nomadix, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 27, 2016 · IPR2016-00052 · APJ Howard B Blankenship · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all claims because the IPORT grounds lacked a threshold showing of printed-publication status and it declined the Applegate grounds under § 325(d).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“and IPORT V2x are prior art “printed publications” in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 311(b). We look to the underlying facts to make a legal determination as to whether a document is a printed publication. Suffolk Techs., LLC v. AOL Inc., 752 F.3d 1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The determination of whether a document is a “printed publication” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding its disclosure to members of the public. In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Public accessibility is a key question in determining whether a document is a printed publication and is determined on a case-by-case basis. Suffolk Techs., 752 F.3d at 1364. To qualify as a printed publication, a document “must have been sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art.” In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2009).” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedDecided for patent owner
“and IPORT V2x are prior art “printed publications” in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 311(b). We look to the underlying facts to make a legal determination as to whether a document is a printed publication. Suffolk Techs., LLC v. AOL Inc., 752 F.3d 1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The determination of whether a document is a “printed publication” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding its disclosure to members of the public. In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Public accessibility is a key question in determining whether a document is a printed publication and is determined on a case-by-case basis. Suffolk Techs., 752 F.3d at 1364. To qualify as a printed publication, a document “must have been sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art.” In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2009).” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“In determining whether to institute or order a proceeding under . . . 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. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) (titled “MULTIPLE PROCEEDINGS”). Further, in construing our authority to institute inter partes review under 37 C.F.R. § 42.108, we are mindful of the guidance provided in § 42.1(b): “[37 C.F.R. § 42] shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.” Petitioner’s remaining asserted grounds of unpatentability, five of seven asserted grounds, rely on Applegate, alone or in combination with other references. See Pet. 4‒5, 29‒34, 36. Yet, Applegate received full consideration in view of the subject matter claimed in the ʼ894 patent in the denial of inter partes reexamination. The Central Reexamination Unit determined that a redirection server, as claimed, comprises hardware, and the only element disclosed by Applegate that performs redirection is software. See supra § II.D. We find nothing in this record that might demonstrate error in the CRU’s determinations. For example, as alleged by Patent Owner in its “Comments” to the CRU Director’s denial of the inter partes reexamination, the ʼ894 patent discloses that “[t]he redirection is accomplished by a Home Page Redirect (HPR) performed by the gateway device, a AAA server, or by a portal page redirect unit located internal to or external to the gateway device.” Ex. 1001, col. 9, ll. 5‒8. The claims, however, do not set forth a redirection “device” or “unit” but a redirection “server.” The indicated Specification portion of the ʼ894 patent describes an AAA “server” that may perform the redirection, which may be distinguished from a pure software embodiment performing the function, even if the server is located within the gateway device.5 See, e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 7, ll. 22‒24” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundDecided for patent owner
“ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of the references, however, is lacking in a factual basis for such combination. According to Petitioner, “IPORT and Birrell describe the redirection server configured as a separate hardware circuit, and Coss and Colby describe systems using packet address modification for packet redirection, which could likewise be combined with Applegate and [Slemmer] to arrive at the system claimed in the [ʼ]894 patent.” Pet. 59 (citing Ex 1020 ¶ 39 (similar allegations)). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). As our reviewing court instructs: Although the obviousness analysis should “take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ,” the Supreme Court emphasized that this evidentiary flexibility does not relax the requirement that, “[t]o facilitate review, this analysis should be made explicit.” Id. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)] (citing [In re] Kahn, 441 F.3d [977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)] (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”)). Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Petitioner’s challenge of the claims over Applegate, Slemmer, and Birrell (Pet. 4 (Ground 3), 32‒33, 58‒59) provides mere conclusory statements in support of the legal conclusion of obviousness. Petitioner offers no convincing rationale, in light of the teachings of the prior art, with respect to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have chosen to combine the elements of the asserted art in a way “to arrive at the system claimed in the [ʼ]894 patent.” Pet. 59.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,636,894 - PTAB · Jun 15, 2015 · CBM2015-00047 · APJ James B Arpin · CBM · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims under § 325(d), finding the petition relied on the same references and substantially the same arguments presented in an earlier petition.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“As noted above, according to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), we may reject the present Petition because “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office” in the earlier Petition. (Emphasis added.) Here, Petitioner acknowledges that the same references are applied in the earlier and the present Petitions. Pet. 2 n.1; see Prelim. Resp. 3. On that basis alone, we may exercise our discretion and decline to institute covered business method patent review. Nevertheless, we also are persuaded that Petitioner asserts the same or substantially the same arguments in the present Petition that were asserted in the earlier Petition. First, although the Petitioner asserts that Peapod anticipates the challenged claims in the present Petition (Pet. 7), Petitioner asserted that each of Viescas, Filepp, and Peapod “individually may render the claims unpatentable” in the earlier Petition. CBM2014-00082, Paper 5, 18. Moreover, as we noted in the Decision on Institution in CBM2014- 00082, Petitioner argued in the earlier Petition that “each of the references— Viescas, Filepp, and Peapod—teaches or suggests all of the limitations of each of independent claims 1 ([CBM2014-00082, Paper 5,] 25–30) and 22 (id. at 42–51).” CBM2014-00082, Paper 10, 17–18. Second, with the exception of claims 16 and 42, Petitioner’s ground for challenging 1–3, 8– 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 22, 24, 26–28, 30–32, 34, 41, and 44 in the present Petition is based on the same combination of references used to challenge those claims in the earlier Petition. Compare Pet. 42–78 with CBM2014- 00082, Paper 5, 20–75. In the present Petition, however, Petitioner allegedly “presents different legal arguments than those that were previously submitted and addresses the reasons relied on by the Board for not instituting CBM review [in CBM2014-00082].” Pet. 2 n.1. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s unsupported contention, however, that the present Petition presents “different legal arguments.” Instead, for the reasons set forth above, in the present Petition, Petitioner simply recasts the facts in the context of the same legal arguments. See Prelim. Resp. 6–8.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Not reached
“we interpret any claim terms of the challenged claims according to the Phillips standard. Nevertheless, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the 3 We also note that Patent Owner has charged Petitioner with infringing one or more claims of the ’110 patent. Pet. 79. Petitioner certifies that it is not barred or estopped from challenging the claims on the grounds identified in its Petition. Id. at 2 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.302(b)). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s certification. controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Here, because we reject the Petition without reaching the merits of Petitioner’s grounds for unpatentability regarding the challenged claims, it is not necessary for us to construe any term of the challenged claims.4” slip op. at 5
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 5,664,110
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.