- Cpi Card Group Inc. v. Gemalto S.A.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 14, 2017 · IPR2016-01092 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and maintained its denial of institution for claims 6, 8–11, 15, and 16 over Griffin alone or with Matsumura.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“Accordingly, we are not persuaded that we misapprehended or overlooked Petitioner’s arguments as to the construction of “means for decorrelating” under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, as it relates to the second and third structures. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing is denied.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Not shown unpatentable
“The Board’s obligation at this stage is both well-defined and limited— to determine whether the Petition demonstrates “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). In the Institution Decision, we determined that the Petition did not meet that standard with respect to claims 6, 8–11, 15, or 16. Dec. 20–22. In requesting that we make specific findings with respect to its “alternative” claim-construction positions, Petitioner asks that we disregard unambiguous opinions of its own expert. Dr. Polish testifies that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have also understood from the specification that this third structure that executes random secondary sequences does not perform the claimed function,” that the third structure “does not perform the function in a manner such ‘that the execution of the at least one instruction sequence is desynchronized with respect to the internal or external electrical signals,’” and that the specification “fails to disclose that the execution of the random secondary sequences causes the execution of any instructions ‘to be desynchronized with respect to the internal or external electrical signals.’” Ex. 1003 ¶ 56. We recognize that, like Petitioner, Dr. Polish addresses the possibility of a finding that “the ‘means for decorrelating’ includes this third structure for randomly executing secondary sequences.’” Id. ¶ 58–60. Nevertheless, after considering the full context of the arguments made in the Petition and the supporting testimony of Dr. Polish, we remain unpersuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenges of claims 6, 8–11, 15, and 16 as unpatentable over Griffin alone or in combination with Matsumura.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Decided for patent owner
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“The Board’s obligation at this stage is both well-defined and limited— to determine whether the Petition demonstrates “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). In the Institution Decision, we determined that the Petition did not meet that standard with respect to claims 6, 8–11, 15, or 16. Dec. 20–22. In requesting that we make specific findings with respect to its “alternative” claim-construction positions, Petitioner asks that we disregard unambiguous opinions of its own expert. Dr. Polish testifies that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have also understood from the specification that this third structure that executes random secondary sequences does not perform the claimed function,” that the third structure “does not perform the function in a manner such ‘that the execution of the at least one instruction sequence is desynchronized with respect to the internal or external electrical signals,’” and that the specification “fails to disclose that the execution of the random secondary sequences causes the execution of any instructions ‘to be desynchronized with respect to the internal or external electrical signals.’” Ex. 1003 ¶ 56. We recognize that, like Petitioner, Dr. Polish addresses the possibility of a finding that “the ‘means for decorrelating’ includes this third structure for randomly executing secondary sequences.’” Id. ¶ 58–60. Nevertheless, after considering the full context of the arguments made in the Petition and the supporting testimony of Dr. Polish, we remain unpersuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenges of claims 6, 8–11, 15, and 16 as unpatentable over Griffin alone or in combination with Matsumura.” slip op. at 5
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 5,944,833 - Meyer Products, LLC v. Douglas Dynamics, L.L.C.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 29, 2016 · IPR2015-01247 · APJ James A Worth · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving institution on claims 18 under Pruss and Keeler and claims 1, 4–7, and 18 under Coates and Hetrick; other grounds failed the institution threshold.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 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., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). The request must identify, specifically, all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsMixed
“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). As applied here, the Petition must have specified which prior art structures are being relied on in the asserted ground such that “said lift frame, trunnion, A-frame and motion generating device all being attachable to and detachable from a vehicle as one assembly,” as recited by claim 1 and similarly required by claims 4–7 and 18. The Petition did not. slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“back bar and a pair of side bars arranged in a triangular or ‘A’ configuration,” the Board misapprehended or overlooked the fact that the Specification of the ’757 patent does not define the term “A-frame,” that the Specification states that the patent is “limited . . . by the scope of the following claims and their equivalents,” and that the Specification also uses the term “frame” without the prefix “A-” or uses the term preceded by “mount,” “lift,” or “A-”. Request 3–6. Petitioner argues that this misapprehension causes the Board’s construction to be divorced from the Specification and the record evidence. Request 6 (Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). As an initial matter, we note that Petitioner only cited to two portions of the Specification in the Petition in supporting its construction of “A-frame”: Ex. 1001, 4:62–64, 8:36–40. Pet. 8–9. Accordingly, we restrict ourselves to reconsideration of only this portion of the Specification. And upon reconsideration, we determine that the Board did not misapprehend or overlook the aforementioned cited portions of the Specification in construing “A-frame”; instead, the Board considered those portions expressly, but came to a different conclusion. Specifically, as set forth in the Decision, the fact that other shapes may be referred to in the Specification does not broaden the “A” shape of the “A-frame,” as recited in claims 1 and 4–7. The Decision notes Patent Owner’s suggestion that other claims, not at issue, might still allow for use of the invention with another shape for the frame. Decision 7. Petitioner argues that these other claims do not refer to an “A-frame.” Request 6. We agree. This argument is misplaced, however, as the lack of specificity of shape for the corresponding frame in the other claims is fully consistent with the notion that these other frames use a non-A-frame shape. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Decision misapprehended or overlooked any arguments with respect to the asserted ground of anticipation by Pruss.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). As applied here, the Petition must have specified which prior art structures are being relied on in the asserted ground such that “said lift frame, trunnion, A-frame and motion generating device all being attachable to and detachable from a vehicle as one assembly,” as recited by claim 1 and similarly required by claims 4–7 and 18. The Petition did not. slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 6,928,757
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.