• Johnson & Johnson Surgical Vision, Inc. v. Alcon, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 9, 2021 · IPR2021-00898 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution under § 325(d), finding the petition relied on substantially the same art or arguments previously presented to the Office and failed to show material examination error.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “discretion and deny a petition as authorized under Section 325(d). First, we consider whether the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office. If either condition is satisfied, we assess whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8. A non-exclusive list of factors, set forth in Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to § III.C.5, first paragraph), guides our application of that two-part framework. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 9. Those factors include: (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, Paper 8 at 17–18. “If, after review of factors (a), (b), and (d), it is determined that the same or substantially the same art or arguments previously were presented to the Office, then factors (c), (e), and (f) relate to whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10.” slip op. at 19

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

    “The Board may not institute an inter partes review unless the information presented “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). The Board has discretion to deny a request for institution when the information presented shows a petitioner raises “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously presented to the Office,” for example, during patent examination. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Based on the information presented, we find the asserted prior art itself is sufficient to demonstrate the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art). To the extent a more precise definition is required, we adopt Petitioner’s definition because, on this record, it appears consistent with the disclosures of the asserted prior art and the written description of the invention provided in the ’913 patent. Pet. 16 (Petitioner’s asserted definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan); see Prelim. Resp. 18 (reciting that definition without adopting it or proposing an alternative definition).” slip op. at 17

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “We construe terms in controversy only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Neither party proposes an express construction for any claim term. See Pet. 17; Prelim. Resp. 59–60. We find no claim term requires express construction in order to resolve whether to exercise our discretion and deny the Petition under Section 325(d). We discuss the scope of certain claim terms as necessary to our analysis of that issue, however, which we turn to in the next section.” slip op. at 18

  Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,622,913
• Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. v. Stratosaudio, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 25, 2021 · IPR2021-00718 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of success on the Levy grounds and § 325(d) warranted denial of the Christensen ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response and for the reasons explained below, we do not institute an inter partes review of claims 10, 11, 13, and 15 of the ’843 patent.” slip op. at 2

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

    “v. Avid Tech, Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he [Office] is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an [inter partes review] proceeding.”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), in determining whether to 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 the exercise of discretion to deny institution under § 325(d), the Board uses the following two-part framework: (1) determining whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, determining whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6, 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). In applying the two-part framework, we consider several non- exclusive factors, including: (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”). Factors (a), (b), and (d) of the Becton, Dickinson factors relate to whether the art or arguments presented in the Petition are the same or substantially the same as those previously presented to the Office. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10. 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. 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 a material error by the Office. Id. “At bottom, this framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9.” slip op. at 19

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

    “Based on our review of Petitioner’s relied-upon portions of Levy, Levy uses an extracted identifier, such as a broadcaster ID, and “context information” to identify an audio object. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 15, 56. Thus, if we accepted Petitioner’s position that obtaining Levy’s “object identifier” discloses “acquir[ing] encoded third party data associated with the reception of the specific instance of the media segment in the electronic transmission,” Petitioner does not explain sufficiently how context information that is extracted and forwarded with the broadcaster ID to obtain the “object identifier” can disclose “generat[ing] data that enables the unique identification of the specific instance of acquisition of the encoded third party data.” See Pet. 57–60; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 181–194. Petitioner does not identifier” can be acquired and generated in the manner argued by Petitioner. See Pet. 57–60; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 181–194; see also Prelim. Resp. 36–37 (contending that Petitioner’s anticipation challenges lack particularity). As argued by Patent Owner, claim 10 requires that “generat[ing] data that enables the unique identification of the specific instance of acquisition of the encoded third party data” occur either after or at the same time as “acquir[ing] encoded third party data associated with the reception of the specific instance of the media segment in the electronic transmission.” Ex. 1001, 36:28–33. Claim 10 recites a “specific instance of acquisition of the encoded third party data” that apparently refers to the earlier-recited “acquire encoded third party data associated with the reception of the specific instance of the media segment in the electronic transmission,” and Petitioner does not address the interpretation of “acquisition” in view of the previously recited “acquire.” See Pet. 9–10, 57–60. Additionally, Petitioner’s declarant testimony does not explain further the arguments or evidence presented in the Petition and does not provide additional evidence beyond that cited in the Petition. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 181–194. Thus, for the reasons above, Petitioner fails to show that Levy discloses all the limitations of independent claim 10. 3. Dependent Claims 11, 13, and 15 Petitioner argues that Levy anticipates dependent claims 11, 13, and 15 with citations to the record. Pet. 65–69. Petitioner’s arguments and relied upon evidence for these claims do not remedy the deficiencies discussed above for independent claim 10. that Levy discloses all the limitations of dependent claims 11, 13, and 15 and, therefore, fails to show that Levy anticipates these claims.” slip op. at 16

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

    “4. Asserted Obviousness in view of Levy and Finley Petitioner argues that: [t]o the extent . . . that Levy does not anticipate the Challenged Claims because Levy does not disclose the complete details of the claimed database (in other words, that the difference between each claim as a whole and the prior art as a whole is the explicit recitation of the claimed database), it would have been obvious to store the object ID lookup information or purchase transaction tracking information. Pet. 69 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 227); see also id. (contending that Levy teaches storing a transaction log in a log file of a database). Petitioner’s arguments that Levy and Finley would have rendered obvious claims 10, 11, 13, and 15 do not further address the limitations we discussed above for claim 10, and Petitioner’s proposed modification of Levy in view of Finley does not remedy the deficiencies of Petitioner’s arguments that Levy discloses all the limitations of claim 10. Thus, for the reasons discussed above for claim 10, Petitioner fails to show that Levy and Finley teach or suggest all the limitations of claims 10, 11, 13, and 15 and, therefore, fails to show that Levy and Finley would have rendered obvious these claims. 5. Petitioner Fails to Show a Reasonable Likelihood of Prevailing As discussed above, Petitioner’s arguments and evidence fail to show that Levy anticipates claims 10, 11, 13, and 15 and fail to show that Levy and Finley would have rendered obvious these claims. Petitioner, therefore, fails to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenges based on Levy.” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,584,843
• Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. v. Stratosaudio, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 22, 2021 · IPR2021-00719 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the Levy grounds and § 325(d) warranted denial of the Christensen ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “example, claim 5 recites “data that identifies a source of the data stream,” “third party encoded data,” “analysis data,” “identifying data,” and “additional data.” Ex. 1001, 34:47–35:11. Petitioner relies on Levy’s broadcaster ID as both (1) “data that identifies a source of the data stream” because it identifies the broadcaster and (2) “third party encoded data” because it originates from outside of Levy’s user device and is embedded with the broadcast. See Pet. 49. Petitioner, however, does not explain whether the Specification of the ’806 patent indicates that “data that identifies a source of the data stream” and the “third party encoded data” can refer to the same data. See id. at 48–49. Petitioner also does not explain further if one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the asserted “data that identifies a source of the data stream” and the “third party encoded data” can be the same data. See id. Additionally, Petitioner argues that “Levy teaches finding, extracting, and decoding ‘identifiers’—including a ‘broadcaster ID.’” Pet. 48–49. Claim 5 requires “determining . . . data that identifies a source of the data stream through analysis of said data stream” and “extracting at least third party encoded data obtained from the data stream.” Ex. 1001, 34:47–35:11. By reciting another step for another type of data, claim 5 indicates by its own words that “third party data” has some difference with “data that identifies a source of the data stream.” See id.; see also Pet. 5 (arguing that “[t]erms not expressly construed should be given their plain and ordinary meaning”). “broadcaster ID” identifies the source, is encoded, and can originate from a third party, the arguments presented in the Petition and the cited evidence do not sufficiently persuade us that Levy’s finding, extracting, and decoding the broadcaster ID discloses, or that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand discloses, both the steps of “determining, using at least one processor, data that identifies a source of the data stream obtained through analysis of said data stream” and “extracting at least third party encoded data obtained from the data stream.” See Pet. 48–49; Ex. 1001, 34:47–58. The presented arguments and cited evidence may be sufficient for one step, but not both. Moreover, even if one of ordinary skill in the art understood that Levy’s broadcaster ID could be both “data that identifies a source of the data stream” and “third party encoded data,” Petitioner fails to explain sufficiently how Levy analyzes the asserted third party code to generate analysis data that includes at least an identifying data, as required by claim 5. The relied-upon portions of Levy do not disclose analyzing the broadcaster ID (i.e., the alleged third party encoded data). Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 13–15, 22, 26, 55, 56, 65, 68, Fig. 1. Petitioner does not explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would understand forwarding broadcaster ID with context information to a server discloses the step of “analyzing” third party encoded data. See Pet. 50–53. Petitioner also does not provide an interpretation of “analyzing” that supports the argument. See id. at 5–6, 50–53; see also Prelim. Resp. 38–39 (responding that Petitioner’s anticipation challenges lack particularity).” slip op. at 17

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

    “proceeding.”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), in determining whether to 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 the exercise of discretion to deny institution under § 325(d), the Board uses the following two-part framework: (1) determining whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, determining 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 Electromedizinishe Gerӓte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6, 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). In applying the two-part framework, we consider several non- exclusive factors, including: (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. Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to Section III.C.5, first paragraph) (“Becton, Dickinson”). Factors (a), (b), and (d) of the Becton, Dickinson factors relate to whether the art or arguments presented in the Petition are the same or substantially the same as those previously presented to the Office. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10. 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. 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 a material error by the Office. Id. “At bottom, this framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9.” slip op. at 21

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a B.S. in computer science or electrical engineering (or a related field), and approximately three years of experience working in the communications- or Internet-related industries, or, alternatively, an advanced degree (such as a master’s degree) in computer science or electrical engineering (or a related field).” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 36). Petitioner also argues that “more education or skill might make up for less experience, and vice-versa.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 36). Patent Owner neither addresses Petitioner’s” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “Petitioner proposes an interpretation for “media segment” with citations to the record. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1001, 14:18–23; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 42, 43). Patent Owner provides a response. Prelim. Resp. 53–54. At this stage, because determining whether Petitioner shows a reasonable likelihood of prevailing does not depend on a particular interpretation for any claim term, we determine that no claim term requires express interpretation. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (construing explicitly only those claim terms in controversy and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy);” slip op. at 10

  Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,294,806
• Passage Bio, Inc. v. The Trustees Of The University Of Pennsylvania And Regenxbio, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 6, 2021 · PGR2021-00073 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of PGR on claims 1–15, finding the § 112 arguments substantially repeated prosecution arguments without material Office error and exercising discretion under § 325(d).

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under § 325(d), in determining whether to institute a post-grant review, “the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition 1 U.S. Patent No. 7,906,111 B2, issued March 15, 2011 (Ex. 1019, “the ’111 patent”). The ’111 patent is in the same family as the challenged ’441 patent. See infra, Section II.A.1. 2 Petitioner contends that “[w]hile Petitioner discusses the ’111 prior art patent, other printed publications – all within the ’441 patent’s family – are also prior art because they published more than one-year prior to October 2, 2018.” Pet. 73 n.14. 6 or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” Our § 325(d) analysis employs a two-prong framework: (1) whether the arguments presented in the petition are the same or substantially the same as those previously presented to the Office; and (2) if so, whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office in its prior consideration of those arguments. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Electromedizinishe Gerӓte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6, 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). When analyzing the second prong, “[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. at 9. “At bottom, this framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id.” slip op. at 6

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied

    “Petitioner further asserts that the challenged claims lack utility. Pet. 68–72. Institution of post-grant review is discretionary. See 35 U.S.C. § 324(a); see also SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (2018) (“[Section] 314(a) invests the Director with discretion on the question whether to institute review . . . .” (emphasis omitted)); Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech, Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that under § 314(a), “the PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding”).6 6 Even though SAS and Harmonic address inter partes reviews, we see no reason to interpret the statute governing post-grant reviews differently. 26 In exercising that discretion, we are guided by the statutory requirement, in promulgating regulations for post-grant review, to consider the effect of any regulations on “the efficient administration of the Office [and] the ability of the Office to timely complete proceedings,” 35 U.S.C. § 326(b), as well as the requirement to construe our rules to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding,” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). Under the Office Guidance, “if the PTAB institutes a trial, the PTAB will institute on all challenges raised in the petition.” Guidance on the Impact of SAS on AIA Trial Proceedings (April 26, 2018).7 Here, we determine that 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) is sufficiently implicated that instituting review on all grounds would undermine the statutory purpose of 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Accordingly, we deny the entire Petition. SAS Q&A’s, Part D, Effect of SAS on Future Challenges that Could Be Denied for Statutory Reasons, answer to Question D1 (June 5, 2018).8” slip op. at 26

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAOther

    “As an initial matter, we agree with Patent Owner that “the only functional requirement of the claims is the ability to form a functional 19 capsid.” Sur-reply 8; see also Pet. 21 (proposing that we construe the term “AAV capsid protein” to mean “a protein that can form an AAV capsid”). More importantly, contrary to Petitioner’s contention, the examiner, during the prosecution of the ’218 application and priority applications, specifically considered the formation of the capsid. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, 5172 (“[T]he lack of characterization of the capsid protein at the time of filing means one could not know which of the 736 amino acids or 2208 nucleotides could be modified without affecting the ability to form a ‘capsid’ protein.”); Ex. 1011, 1374, 2198 (“The specification teaches only SEQ ID NO: 123 and does not provide those variable amino acids nor any fragments such that a person of skill in the art would recognize those amino acids that are related by 95% to SEQ ID NO: 123 and have capsid formation and function.”); Ex. 2023, 11 (“[T]he specification teaches only that SEQ ID NO: 123 is essential to form a capsid.”).” slip op. at 19

  Claim constructionDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,695,441
• 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
• 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

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.