• Intel Corp. v. Health Discovery Corp.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 14, 2021 · IPR2021-00553 · APJ Per Curiam · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Intel did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 5–7, 13, 18, 22, and 32 were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “been obvious over Mukherjee and Platt. Pet. 20–68. As explained below, we find Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in its obviousness challenge based on Mukherjee and Platt.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 311 and any response filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 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) (2018). For the reasons set forth below, we deny institution of inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 2

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

    “feature weights because Mukherjee instead “only computes pattern weights, expressed as 𝛼𝛼s.” Prelim Resp. 25. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not adequately bridged the gap between the claimed feature weight and Mukherjee’s pattern weight. Although Petitioner’s expert contends that feature weight and pattern weight “are [] equivalent,” he implicitly concedes they are not in his additional assertion that they are “related and can be derived from one another.” See Ex. 1003 ¶ 92 n.14. We are also not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that “a relationship exists between feature weight vectors, 𝒘𝒘, and pattern weight vectors, 𝜶𝜶, such that one can be mathematically derived and calculated from the other.” Pet. 30. Even if correct, Petitioner’s argument falls short because Petitioner offers no explanation as to why a skilled artisan would have done so. As Patent Owner notes, “a conclusion of obviousness is not dependent upon what a person of ordinary skill in the art could do, but rather what the hypothetical individual would do, and there was no motivation for Mukherjee or any person of ordinary skill in the art to [compute feature weights].” Prelim. Resp. 26. In short, we find that Petitioner has not produced the required “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Therefore, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing independent claims 1, 7, 13, 18, 22, or 32 (or claims 5 and 6 which depend from claim 1) would have” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A. Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’483 patent (a “POSITA”) would have had “at least a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or the equivalent with three years of experience in machine learning and data-analysis techniques.” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 15). Further, Petitioner asserts that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience, and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner does not contest that a skilled artisan would have this kind of background knowledge and experience; nor does Patent Owner suggest that Petitioner’s proposed level of skill leads to an improper understanding of the prior art or an improper patentability analysis. See generally Prelim. Resp. At this stage in the proceeding, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is supported by Dr. Evgeniou’s testimony and appears commensurate with the level of ordinary skill as reflected in the asserted prior art and the ’483 patent.” slip op. at 8

  § 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,095,483
• Triplet Therapeutics, Inc. v. Board Of Supervisors Of Louisiana State University And Agricultural And Mechanical CollegeInstitution denied
  PTAB · Sep 8, 2021 · PGR2021-00059 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–15: grounds 2–5 lacked a supported reason to combine, and ground 1 repeated arguments considered by the Office.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We have the authority and discretion to determine whether to institute a post grant review. 35 U.S.C. § 324; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2021). We may not institute a post-grant review unless “the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). After considering the briefing and the evidence of record, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in demonstrating that the challenged claims are unpatentable over the cited prior art in asserted grounds 2–5. With regard to ground 1, Petitioner’s written description ground, we determine that Petitioner’s arguments are substantially the same as those previously presented to and considered by the Office, and we exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and decline to institute post-grant review of the ’542 patent on that ground alone.” slip op. at 2

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s arguments regarding whether the ’542 patent provides § 112 written description support for the challenged claims are substantially the same as those considered by the Examiner during the prosecution of the ’542 patent. As set forth above, the Examiner repeatedly rejected the pending claims because (1) the claims were overly broad in light of the guidance provided in the specification that was limited to the working examples specific to exon 7 of a gene encoding a MLH3 subunit (Ex. 1006, 623–24); (2) the claims did not enable the oligonucleotides to “hybridize[] to a complementary target nucleic acid sequence of a gene or gene product to modulate the expression of a component of a mismatch repair (MMR) complex” based on the disclosure of the specification, which was limited to the working examples (id.); and (3) the claims did not enable a pharmaceutical composition of the recited nucleotide base length range for the entire scope of the claims based on the disclosure of the specification, which was limited to the working examples (id. at 1183–84). The rejections were based on a broad reading of the claims as interpreted by the ordinarily skilled artisan, and required analysis of whether there is sufficient support in the specification for the entire scope of the claims. Applicant overcame these issues by narrowing the claims until the Examiner agreed that the support present was sufficient.” slip op. at 36

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s allegations regarding the skilled artisan’s reasons to combine are conclusory and insufficiently supported by evidence. Petitioner cites Dr. Wood’s testimony to explain why the skilled artisan would have understood that Fuselier’s suggestion to “switch[] isoforms of MLH3” could be accomplished by manipulating pre-mRNA splicing to delete exon 7. Petitioner’s discussion on pages 59–60 quotes phrases from Dr. Wood’s referenced testimony, see Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 213–216, but the rationale appearing in the Petition merely comprises repetitive generalized statements akin to “Morcos is a powerful tool that can accomplish what Fuselier suggested.” See Pet. 59–60. Dr. Wood’s underlying testimony lacks key explanation as to the understanding of the ordinary artisan at the time of the invention. What Petitioner has not provided, as Patent Owner argues, are the reasons 1) why Fuselier’s suggestion to “switch[] isoforms” would have led the artisan to pursue deletion of exon 7; and 2) why the artisan would have selected Morcos’ time. See Prelim. Resp. 55–56.” slip op. at 19

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “invention in the field of antisense technology “would have had knowledge of the scientific literature and have skills relating to approaches for utilizing synthetic oligonucleotides to manipulate gene expression” and “have been well-experienced in laboratory techniques and strategies for designing and making SSOs, conducting in vitro and in vivo testing, and application of SSOs in research.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 30, 31). Petitioner adds that the artisan “would have had knowledge of laboratory techniques and strategies in creating nuclease-resistant SSOs, and using such SSOs to manipulate gene expression to force expression of selected isoforms of a M.D. or a Ph.D. in physiological science, biochemistry, molecular biology, chemistry, or a related discipline, with at least five years of experience in SSOs design and manipulation” and may have “worked as part of a multidisciplinary team” to permit input by others on the team with specialized skills to assist in solving problems. Id. Patent Owner does not contest the skill level provided by Petitioner for the purpose of deciding institution (Prelim. Resp. 4), and we adopt it as reasonably consistent with the level of skill represented by the ’542 patent and the art of record.” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,669,542
• 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
• Boragen, Inc. v. Syngenta Participations AGInstitution denied
  PTAB · May 5, 2020 · IPR2020-00124 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of IPR on claims 1–12 under § 325(d), finding the asserted prior art and arguments were substantially the same as those considered during prosecution and no material error was shown.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Only if the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office do we then consider whether petitioner has demonstrated error. Advanced Bionics at 8–10. “If the petitioner fails to show that the Office erred, the Director may exercise his discretion not to institute inter partes review.” Id. at 8–9 (“If a condition in the first part of the framework [i.e., substantially same art or arguments] is satisfied and the petitioner fails to make a showing of material error, the Director generally will exercise discretion not to institute inter partes review”). “At bottom, this [§ 325(d)] framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 14 9. On the question of material error, “[i]f 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.” slip op. at 14

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes may not be instituted unless the Petition “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.” Upon considering the arguments and evidence, we deny review of the Petition on a discretionary basis under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Thus, for reasons further explained below, we do not institute inter partes review of claims 1–12 of the ’096 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “Petitioner makes the same points about Kohn here. According to Petitioner, Kohn teaches “compounds with an oxaborole core structure could be used as fungicides to treat plants and seeds.” Pet. 26–27; see also id. at 42–43 (block quoting, with apparent approval, the Examiner’s findings about Kohn in combination with Austin). Like the Examiner, Petitioner cites Kohn’s teaching of the use of “boroxarophenanthrenes” as fungicides, and the application of such fungicides in effective amounts on vegetative hosts. Pet. 46 (claim chart, citing Kohn’s teachings). Indeed, Petitioner expressly invokes the reasons offered by the Examiner during prosecution as motivating the combination of Austin and Kohn. Pet. 44 (“For all the reasons discussed above and in the prosecution history, a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Austin and Kohn with a reasonable expectation of success.”).14 14 In fact, the only reasons that are expressly offered in the Petition for combining Austin and Kohn come from the Examiner. Pet. 42–49 (Ground 2). Petitioner’s assertion that the declaration submitted during prosecution was “misleading” is not a reason for combining Austin and Kohn. Pet. 43–44. Nor do vague citations to testimony of Petitioner’s declarants, without any adequate explanation in the Petition itself, suffice to demonstrate persuasive reasons for combining the art. Id.; see also id. at 23 (asserting vaguely in a section titled “Overview of Grounds” that “[a] POSITA would also be motivated to combine Austin and Kohn to arrive at the claimed invention”) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 82; Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 63–65, 82–85). Even the cited testimony here is unpersuasive. For example, Dr. Hall’s cited testimony merely repeats that a skilled person “would have been motivated to combine Austin and Kohn with a reasonable expectation of success.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 82; Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 63–65 (conclusory opinion about an alleged “structure similar to that of a benzoxaborole compound” in Kohn), ¶¶ 82–85” slip op. at 19

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “14 In fact, the only reasons that are expressly offered in the Petition for combining Austin and Kohn come from the Examiner. Pet. 42–49 (Ground 2). Petitioner’s assertion that the declaration submitted during prosecution was “misleading” is not a reason for combining Austin and Kohn. Pet. 43–44. Nor do vague citations to testimony of Petitioner’s declarants, without any adequate explanation in the Petition itself, suffice to demonstrate persuasive reasons for combining the art. Id.; see also id. at 23 (asserting vaguely in a section titled “Overview of Grounds” that “[a] POSITA would also be motivated to combine Austin and Kohn to arrive at the claimed invention”) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 82; Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 63–65, 82–85). Even the cited testimony here is unpersuasive. For example, Dr. Hall’s cited testimony merely repeats that a skilled person “would have been motivated to combine Austin and Kohn with a reasonable expectation of success.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 82; Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 63–65 (conclusory opinion about an alleged “structure similar to that of a benzoxaborole compound” in Kohn), ¶¶ 82–85” slip op. at 19

  § 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,130,096
• Apotex Inc. / Apotex Corp. v. Celgene CorporationRehearing denied
  PTAB · Apr 30, 2020 · IPR2018-00685 · APJ Toni R Scheiner · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place its denial of institution on all challenged claims under § 325(d) for grounds I and II and for failure to establish printed-publication status for ground III.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that a decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify all matters it believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. When rehearing a decision on petition, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). 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.”” slip op. at 3

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

    “presented in the petition are the same or substantially the same as those previously presented to the Office. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Electromedizinishe Gerӓte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 10 (Feb. 13, 4 2020) (precedential). Factors (c), (e), and (f) “relate to whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office” in its prior consideration of that art or arguments. Id. If the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office, we then consider whether petitioner has demonstrated the Office erred. Id. In evaluating the Petition and accompanying evidence in light of the Becton, Dickinson factors, we determined that grounds I and II were “based on substantially the same prior art and arguments previously presented to the office,” and that Petitioner had “neither sufficiently pointed out how the Examiner erred, nor provided additional evidence or facts that warrant reconsideration of the Examiner’s decision.” Inst. Dec. 26. Accordingly, we exercised our discretion under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) and denied institution of grounds I and II on that basis.” slip op. at 4

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

    “we determined that the Petition failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one claim challenged in the Petition, and declined to institute an inter partes review on any of the three grounds asserted. Specifically, with respect to grounds I and II, we declined to institute pursuant to our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Inst. Dec. 22–26. With respect to ground III, we determined that Petitioner had not met its burden of establishing that the Celgene Press Release was available as a printed publication. Id. at 27–31.” slip op. at 3

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

    “we determined that the Petition failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one claim challenged in the Petition, and declined to institute an inter partes review on any of the three grounds asserted. Specifically, with respect to grounds I and II, we declined to institute pursuant to our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Inst. Dec. 22–26. With respect to ground III, we determined that Petitioner had not met its burden of establishing that the Celgene Press Release was available as a printed publication. Id. at 27–31.” slip op. at 3

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,741,929
• 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
• Nitro Fluids, L.L.C. v. Cameron International CorporationRehearing denied
  PTAB · Oct 15, 2019 · IPR2019-00804 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied the rehearing request and maintained denial of institution for claims 1–15 under § 325(d) based on Kajaria and Guidry.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. STANDARD FOR REHEARING Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d): A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single 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 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. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion exists where a “decision [i]s 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., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988).” slip op. at 2

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

    “Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, Case IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential in relevant part) and determined that the balance of these factors favored denial of the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Dec. 11–23. As part of this analysis, we determined that: Kajaria was previously presented to the office during prosecution and was the basis for a rejection by the Examiner; Petitioner and the Examiner relied on the same disclosures of Kajaria to support their arguments; Petitioner did not sufficiently point out how the Examiner erred in his evaluation of Kajaria; and the declaration testimony of Mr. Ely did not warrant reconsideration of the prior art previously analyzed by the Examiner. Id. at 12–22.” slip op. at 3

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Other

    “fracturing tree, wherein the single outlet is coupled to the fracturing tree by a single fluid conduit that is the only fluid conduit connecting the skid apparatus in fluid communication with the well at which the one fracturing tree is positioned. Ex. 1001, 7:6–30.” slip op. at 3

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successOther

    “obviousness ground relies solely on modification of distribution modules 42. Req. Reh’g 14. According to Petitioner, the Petition specifically alleges that “it would have been obvious to modify any module, including specifically module 40, to use a single manifold, to support only a single valve group, for delivery of fluid to a single well, via a single fluid conduit.” Id. (citing Pet. 35–42, 49–52, 56–57; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 92, 96, 99, 102, 103, 122, 124–126, 128, 138). We did not misunderstand or misapprehend this argument; indeed, we noted its logical appeal. Dec. 21 n.10. We instead declined to credit the inference underpinning this argument, i.e., that a single-manifold embodiment would use a single fluid conduit, because the only reference of record having a single distribution module coupled to a single manifold had two fluid conduits extending from the distribution module to the well. Id. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that we misunderstood or overlooked Petitioner’s obviousness arguments.” slip op. at 11

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 9,903,190
• 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

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.