- Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 7, 2018 · PGR2017-00024 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · PGR · Rehearing
The Board denied Telebrands’ rehearing request, leaving institution of post-grant review denied under § 325(d) because the arguments did not show the Board overlooked or misapprehended the record.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“review the decision for an “abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “The burden of showing [the] decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in” the briefing. Id.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDecided for patent owner
“Dr. Kamrin’s testimony and Petitioner’s arguments presented in the Petition, but, ultimately, determined that the testimony and Petitioner’s arguments, as a whole, did not meaningfully distinguish the record from that present before the Examiner during prosecution. Dec. 8–14. As stated in the Decision, we considered Dr. Kamrin’s testimony, including his testimony regarding Donaldson’s disclosure (e.g., Figures 2–5). Dec. 12–13. Moreover, in our Decision, we discussed at length the Examiner’s review of the prior art of record, including Donaldson, during the prosecution of the ’779 patent. Dec. 10–14. In doing so, we explained that the Examiner considered the same exact issue, presented in the Petition, of whether the prior art references of record in prosecution (including Donaldson) expressly or inherently disclosed the “elastic ring” recited in the challenged claims. Id. at 12 (citing Ex. 1008, 87–88); see Ex. 1008, 87 (“Because it is not true that all elastic bands have the same elastic force as an inherent property, it cannot be presumed that all elastic bands would function the same way.”). More specifically, we noted that the Examiner reviewed and considered the Donaldson reference, and determined that “[n]one of the prior art teaches the subject matter” of the claimed “elastic ring.” Dec. 11; Ex. 1008, 87.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,533,779 - Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 30, 2017 · PGR2017-00024 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims, finding the § 103 and written-description challenges previously considered under § 325(d), and the remaining written-description and indefiniteness challenges insufficient.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“We agree with Patent Owner that we should exercise our discretion in denying institution of review based on Petitioner’s § 103 challenges because the same art and arguments were considered by the Examiner during the original prosecution. There is no dispute that Saggio and Lee were expressly considered by the Examiner and discussed in the Examiner’s Reasons for Allowance in the May 24, 2016 Notice for Allowance. See Ex. 1008, 86–88. In the Notice of Allowance, the Examiner considered expressly the teachings of Saggio and Lee, and explained in detail that neither one of these disclosed the claimed “elastic fastener.” Id. Moreover, the Examiner expressly also considered Donaldson and found that it was “cumulative with Lee [ ] in that both references disclose that moving mechanical components must be used to detach the balloons.” Id. at 17.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Based on our review of the record, including the claim language and the Specification of the ’779 patent, we agree with Patent Owner’s position. Here, the restriction of the claimed elastic ring is limited such that the balloon, if filled with a sufficient amount of water, is detachable by (1) gravity or (2) by gravity combined with a manually applied acceleration of the tube. Further, we agree with Patent Owner’s explanation that a person of ordinary skill in the art would know when the amount of water has reached a “sufficient amount,” because the elastic rings would allow detachment by gravity or by gravity and manually applied acceleration of the tube. See Prelim. Resp. 42. Indeed, the claim language itself provides the conditions” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the effective filing date of the ’779 patent (“POSA”) was a person having general knowledge about, and experience with, expandable containers, including, without limitation, balloons, and at least an associate’s degree in a technical science or engineering. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 10–14). For purposes of this Decision, we agree with Petitioner and determine that a POSA would have been a person having a general knowledge about, 2 Claims 38, 46, 54, and 60 issued as claims 4, 7, 10, and 13. and experience with, expandable containers, including, without limitation, balloons, and at least an associate’s degree in mechanical engineering, or the equivalent. This level of skill is consistent with the types of problems and solutions described in the ’779 patent and cited prior art.” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyOther
“Petitioner argues that the present record is different than the one before the Examiner. Pet. 80. In particular, Petitioner asserts that the testimony of Dr. Kamrin was not before the Examiner. Id. Petitioner contends that “one of the issues in this petition is inherency of the prior art references, which benefits from the consideration of expert testimony.” Id. at 81. Nonetheless, having reviewed the record, we disagree with Petitioner’s position. The technology here does not appear to be particularly complex, and the Examiner’s explanation shows that he expressly considered the issues of inherency, and offered detailed findings why the functional limitations related to the elastic fastener were not necessarily present in the art at issue. See Ex. 1008, 87–88. Although not referred to expressly in the Examiner’s explanation, the Information Disclosure Sheet considered by the Examiner includes the Petitions in PGR2016-00030 and PGR2016-00031, which contain similar explanations of inherency to those at issue in this case. See PGR2016-00031, Paper 2, 43–45 (Petition discussing inherency issue with respect to Lee). Although the Examiner’s explanation does not refer to those papers expressly, the fact that those papers were listed on an IDS is, nevertheless, circumstantial evidence that Petitioner’s inherency arguments were considered when the Examiner provided his explanation concerning inherency. See Ex. 1008, 87 (“Because it is not true that all elastic bands have the same elastic force as an inherent property, it cannot be presumed that all elastic bands would function the same way.”). Moreover, as Patent Owner notes, Dr. Kamrin fails to even address Donaldson’s use of a mechanical means, i.e., a spring, to release the balloon. Prelim. Resp. 32. Thus, we are not persuaded that Dr. Kamrin’s testimony meaningfully distinguishes the record that is before us from the record that was before the Examiner.” slip op. at 12
§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,533,779 - Netapp Inc. v. Crossroads Systems, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 3, 2015 · IPR2015-00777 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–14 under § 325(d), finding the petition presented substantially the same prior art and arguments as an earlier proceeding.
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 Petition in this proceeding presents the same prior art and substantially the same arguments previously presented in the ’1197 proceeding. As in the ’1197 proceeding, Petitioner relies on CRD-5500 User Manual, CRD-5500 Data Sheet, Smith, Kikuchi, Bergsten, and Hirai. Compare Pet. 3 with ’1197 proceeding Paper 1, 5 (“’1197 Pet.”). Petitioner also presents substantially the same arguments regarding the proposed combinations of (1) the CRD-5500 User Manual, CRD-5500 Data Sheet, and Smith; (2) Kikuchi and Bergsten; (3) Kikuchi, Bergsten, and Smith; and (4) Bergsten and Hirai. Compare Pet. 6–57 with ’1197 Pet. 11–56. To the extent that there are any substantive differences in the arguments or new arguments, we agree with Patent Owner that those different or new arguments could have been submitted in the ’1197 proceeding. See Prelim. Resp. 1. For the foregoing reasons, we determine that, in the present Petition, the “same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office” in the ’1197 proceeding.” slip op. at 6
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,425,035
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.