- Par Health, Inc. v. Inforlife, S.A.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 20, 2026 · PGR2026-00036 · APJ John A Squires · PGR · Institution
The Director denied institution because the petition did not show that Biomed was publicly accessible as prior art, so it failed to show any challenged claim was unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“sufficiently that Biomed qualifies as a prior art printed publication. The Board’s precedential decision in Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential), addresses prior-art qualification in the related context of instituting an inter partes review. Hulu states that “the petition must identify, with particularity, evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent and therefore that there is a reasonable likelihood that it qualifies as a printed publication.” Id. at 13; see also Jazz Pharm. Inc. v. Amneal Pharm., LLC. 895 F.3d 1347, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[T]he IPR petitioner . . . had the burden to prove that a particular reference is a printed publication.”). The same guidance applies to post-grant reviews, albeit with the “more likely than not” standard applicable. See 35 U.S.C. § 324(a); Hulu, Paper 29 at 13 n.5. Hulu also states that “there is no presumption in favor of institution or in favor of finding a reference to be a printed publication under [37] § 42.108(c).” Hulu, Paper 29 at 16.” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“sufficiently that Biomed qualifies as a prior art printed publication. The Board’s precedential decision in Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential), addresses prior-art qualification in the related context of instituting an inter partes review. Hulu states that “the petition must identify, with particularity, evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent and therefore that there is a reasonable likelihood that it qualifies as a printed publication.” Id. at 13; see also Jazz Pharm. Inc. v. Amneal Pharm., LLC. 895 F.3d 1347, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[T]he IPR petitioner . . . had the burden to prove that a particular reference is a printed publication.”). The same guidance applies to post-grant reviews, albeit with the “more likely than not” standard applicable. See 35 U.S.C. § 324(a); Hulu, Paper 29 at 13 n.5. Hulu also states that “there is no presumption in favor of institution or in favor of finding a reference to be a printed publication under [37] § 42.108(c).” Hulu, Paper 29 at 16. In this case, Petitioner merely cites a “date of revision” appearing within Biomed. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1005, 11). Yet, a revision date alone does not establish that Biomed was disseminated or made publicly available. And, although indicia appearing within a reference can sometimes support the printed publication status of the reference, I find the record to be devoid of any such indicia, or other evidence, supporting that Biomed was publicly disseminated or accessible by the June 15, 2021 “date of revision.” See Hulu, Paper 29 at 16–18. Thus, Petitioner fails to show that it is more likely” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNot reached
“sufficiently that Biomed qualifies as a prior art printed publication. The Board’s precedential decision in Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential), addresses prior-art qualification in the related context of instituting an inter partes review. Hulu states that “the petition must identify, with particularity, evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent and therefore that there is a reasonable likelihood that it qualifies as a printed publication.” Id. at 13; see also Jazz Pharm. Inc. v. Amneal Pharm., LLC. 895 F.3d 1347, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[T]he IPR petitioner . . . had the burden to prove that a particular reference is a printed publication.”). The same guidance applies to post-grant reviews, albeit with the “more likely than not” standard applicable. See 35 U.S.C. § 324(a); Hulu, Paper 29 at 13 n.5. Hulu also states that “there is no presumption in favor of institution or in favor of finding a reference to be a printed publication under [37] § 42.108(c).” Hulu, Paper 29 at 16. In this case, Petitioner merely cites a “date of revision” appearing within Biomed. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1005, 11). Yet, a revision date alone does not establish that Biomed was disseminated or made publicly available. And, although indicia appearing within a reference can sometimes support the printed publication status of the reference, I find the record to be devoid of any such indicia, or other evidence, supporting that Biomed was publicly disseminated or accessible by the June 15, 2021 “date of revision.” See Hulu, Paper 29 at 16–18. Thus, Petitioner fails to show that it is more likely” slip op. at 3
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 12,370,153 - Alpinestars S.P.A. / Alipinestars USA Inc. v. Dainese S.P.A.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 9, 2026 · IPR2025-00750 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving institution denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1–22 under the challenged obviousness grounds.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“Petitioner misstates the Decision’s reasoning. As is clear from the previous discussion, we determined that Petitioner’s articulated reasons for combining EP’536 with CN’180 lacked a rational underpinning, not because “EP’536 does not relate to ‘air bags,’” but because the means by which EP’536’s device inflates differs fundamentally from that of CN’180’s device. Dec. 17–18. Petitioner did not acknowledge this critical difference in the Petition, and continues not to do so in its Rehearing Request.” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“EP’536 with CN’180 lacked a rational underpinning because EP’536’s inflation mechanism differs fundamentally from CN’180’s inflation mechanism. Dec. 17–18. As we stated, whereas CN’180’s fall-protection belt uses an airbag that requires an external source of pressurized air to inflate, EP’536’s garment does not need an external inflation device because “the gas generating agent 18 in each envelope automatically generates gas and inflates the envelopes in response to rising temperatures.” Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 15; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 5, 19). This difference reflects the fundamentally different purposes of the two devices: CN’180’s device is designed to provide “fall protection” to, e.g., “elderly people,” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 1, 3), whereas EP’536’s device provides “adaptive thermal insulation” for, e.g., garments worn by fire fighters. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 1–3, 250. Because of the different means by which EP’536’s and CN’180’s devices inflate and the different purposes for doing so, we were not persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references as Petitioner proposed. Dec. 18. We further noted that the modification would not have improved the reusability of EP’536’s device “by having only one mechanism to recharge,” because EP’536’s “gas generating agent does not need any ‘mechanism to recharge.’” Dec. 18. Instead, we noted EP’536’s teaching that its gas generating agent “automatically recombines or condenses in response to a temperature decrease to return the envelopes, and therefore the garment, to its original thickness, at which point the gas generating agent is ready for subsequent reactivation.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 139–141). Finally, we determined that replacing EP’536’s envelopes with CN’180’s airbag “would have made EP’536’s invention unsuitable for its intended purpose: providing a protective garment with ‘adaptive thermal insulation.’” Dec. 19. We stated that “Petitioner does not suggest, and we have found nothing in the record to establish, that CN’180’s airbag would provide this feature.” Id. at 20.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“rationales for combining EP’536 and CN’180. Reh’g Req. 6–7. First, Petitioner asserts that we “improperly rejected Petitioner’s ‘simple substitution’ evidence in view of [the Board’s] incorrect conclusion that EP’536 does not disclose an ‘external source of inflation [EP’536’s dosing aids].’” Id. at 6 (citing Dec. 18–19). This argument is unpersuasive at least because, as we discussed above, EP’536’s dosing aids do not constitute an external source of inflation. Petitioner further argues that we incorrectly evaluated its “obvious to try” rationale because, contrary to our analysis, Petitioner did in fact identify a problem to be solved by its “finite number of solutions”: “simplify[ing] the design and reduc[ing] the number of required inflation mechanisms.” Id. at 6–7. The Petition’s entire “obvious to try” discussion is as follows: [A] POSITA would have found it obvious to try a one-piece airbag 10 with strip-shaped inflation units 12 in the EP’536- CN’180 airbag system because it would have been a selection from a finite number of identified predictable solutions (i.e., using one chamber with connected individual inflation units 12 versus multiple individual envelopes 20). 5 Petitioner also argues that dosing aids are “needed in order to make the disclosed device reusable.” Reh’g Req. 5–6. This is incorrect, as EP’536 conveys that the reusability of the device is a result of the gas generating agent condensing or recombining when temperatures fall. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 139– 141. Even if it were true, however, it is unclear how it would support Petitioner’s argument. Pet. 16. As is evident, Petitioner did not identify a design need, market pressure, or other problem that would have been addressed by its identified “solutions,” and therefore we were not persuaded by this rationale. Dec. 19. Petitioner’s attempt to cure this deficiency in its Rehearing Request is tardy. We cannot misapprehend or overlook an assertion that Petitioner fails to make in the Petition. It is also insufficient. Petitioner does not provide any evidence of a known design need or market pressure to “simplify [EP’536’s] design” or reduce the number of “required inflation mechanism” it uses.” slip op. at 7
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 12,012,065 - Cambridge Industries USA, Inc. v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 19, 2025 · IPR2025-00434 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Petitioner’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied because Shen and Soldano did not establish a reasonable likelihood of anticipating claims 1–7.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“When rehearing a decision on petition, the Board will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The party challenging the decision has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, and 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 its papers. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“II. ANALYSIS In our Decision, we concluded that Petitioner had failed to carry its burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing that either Shen or Soldano anticipated claims 1–7. Dec. 18, 26. Petitioner argues that we should institute review for three reasons. First, Petitioner argues that we abused our discretion by (a) “refusing” to interpret the scope of the claimed” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Owner’s interpretation of “carrier” as meaning “one or more components for supporting ROSA components such as an AWG.” Dec. 9 (quoting Pet. 11). For our analysis of Petitioner’s challenges, we referred to this interpretation of “carrier” as Petitioner’s second alternative construction. Id. We also noted that Petitioner appeared to dispute Patent Owner’s interpretation when it argued that “carrier” should mean “a ceramic or silicon substrate.” Id. (quoting Pet. 10). We referred to this interpretation of “carrier” as the first alternative construction. Id. Rather than resolve this apparent dispute about the meaning of “carrier,” we found that both of Petitioner’s anticipation challenges failed under both interpretations of “carrier.” Id. at 10–26. Because we found that Petitioner had failed to carry its burden regardless of which interpretation of “carrier” applied, we found it unnecessary to resolve the dispute over that interpretation. Id. at 9–10. For the reasons expressed in Parts II.B–C below, we maintain our conclusion that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of proving that either Shen or Soldano anticipates any claim under either interpretation of “carrier.” Accordingly, Petitioner fails to demonstrate an abuse of discretion in our alleged “refusal” to interpret “carrier.”” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Reh’g Req. 14. We cannot weigh Petitioner’s arguments based on its assertions about “caselaw” because Petitioner cited no cases to support its arguments. See id. Nevertheless, we infer that Petitioner intends its statements of “caselaw” to refer to the requirements to make out a case for anticipation. If so, Petitioner demonstrably miscasts what appear to be the legal principles for proving anticipation. As stated in our Decision: “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).” Dec. 7. Making a showing that a prior art reference anticipates a patent claim thus necessarily requires proof that a single reference “expressly or inherently” describes every element of that claim and with all elements being arranged in the reference as they are in the” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 10,379,301 - Geotab Inc. / Geotab USA, Inc. v. Fractus, S.A.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 3, 2025 · PGR2025-00056 · APJ Steven M Amundson · PGR · Institution
Institution was denied because Petitioner did not show it was more likely than not that claims 1–20 were unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“to institute a post-grant review. We may not institute a post-grant review unless we determine that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 321, 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) (2024). After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Preliminary Reply, the Preliminary Sur-reply, and the evidence of record, and for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that it is “more likely than not” that at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable. Hence, we deny the Petition and do not institute a post-grant review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“effective filing date would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar degree and at least four years of experience in applied electromagnetics with an emphasis on antennas.” Pet. 10 (quoting Ex. 1018 ¶ 32). Petitioner also asserts that “[a]lternatively, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have a master’s degree in electrical engineering (or similar discipline) and at least two years of similar experience.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1018 ¶ 32). Dr. van der Weide’s testimony supports Petitioner’s assertions. See Ex. 1007 ¶ 39. For purposes of the Preliminary Response only, Patent Owner employs Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan. Prelim. Resp. 22. Based on the current record and for purposes of this decision, we accept Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan because it comports with the technology and claims of the ’149 patent as well as the asserted references. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, 1:35–6:56, 42:44–46:28, code (57); infra §§ III.E.1–III.E.2, III.G.1–III.G.2, III.H.1.” slip op. at 25
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“4. DISCUSSION “[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Based on the current record, we determine that no claim term requires an explicit construction to decide whether Petitioner satisfies the “more likely than not” standard for instituting a post-grant review. As Petitioner recognizes, the ’149 patent defines many of the claim terms Petitioner discusses in the “Claim Interpretation” section of the Petition. See Pet. 14–16. For instance, the patent defines “antenna rectangle” as “the orthogonal projection of the antenna box along the normal to the face with largest area of the antenna box.” Ex. 1005, 14:21–24. Further, the patent defines “complexity factor F21” and “complexity factor F32” consistent with the independent claims. See id. at 17:16–21, 17:49–61, 18:8–18, 19:12–25, 20:5–17, 42:62–43:25, 44:5–30, 45:8–46:3. E. Alleged Obviousness over Dou and Ciais-Multiband: Claims 7–9, 11–14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 Petitioner contends that claims 7–9, 11–14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are” slip op. at 28
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner does not explain why an ordinarily skilled artisan who used Ciais-Quadband’s antenna for Dou’s two antennas 206 and 208 would have departed from the commonly accepted rule of thumb and Dou’s preference for at least a quarter-wavelength spacing between antennas at the lowest frequency to the extent needed to implement the proposed combination, i.e., with only about 55% of the preferred spacing between antennas. See Pet. 60–69; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 172–187. Hence, based on the current record, Petitioner does not establish sufficiently for purposes of institution that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Ciais-Quadband’s teachings with Dou’s teachings in the way Petitioner proposes. Further, the addition of two Nakano InvFL antennas extending from the ground plane both above and below the PCB does not remedy the insufficient spacing between “the swapped-in Ciais-Quadband antennas.” Ex. 2010 ¶ 67.” slip op. at 69
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 12,095,149 - Syngenta Crop Protection AG v. Inflexion Point Technologies, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 1, 2025 · PGR2025-00045 · APJ Debra L Dennett · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show it was more likely than not that any challenged claim was unpatentable under the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have authority to determine whether to institute a post-grant review under 35 U.S.C. § 324. Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute only when “the information presented in the petition . . . 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). The burden is on Petitioner to show that the challenged patent is eligible for postgrant review. Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Yeda Research & Dev. Co., PGR2016- 00010, Paper 9 at 10 (PTAB Aug. 15, 2016) (holding that the ultimate burden of persuasion remains with a petitioner to demonstrate that the challenged patent is eligible for post-grant review). Upon consideration of the Petition, Preliminary Response, and the cited evidence, we determine that Petitioner has not shown that it is more likely than not that any of the challenged claims are unpatentable. We thus determine to not institute a post-grant review of the ’027 patent based on the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“a Bachelor of Science degree in Agricultural or Mechanical Engineering with 2–4 years of practical, applied experience in the field of agricultural machinery, including systems integration and fluid handling and sprayer control systems, or equivalent experience. Prelim. Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 2001, ¶ 59). Patent Owner states that the differences in the asserted levels of ordinary skill should not change the outcome of the Petition. Id. For the purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition, which appears consistent with the level of skill shown in the prior art references of record and the ’027 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). Our analysis, however, would not change were we to adopt Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner contends that claim construction is necessary for the “seed-applied substance” term because Petitioner allegedly ignores the teaching of the specification in evaluating the term. Prelim. Resp. 12. Patent Owner points to the specification, which defines a “seed-applied substance” as “includ[ing] any composition applied to seeds prior to the seeds being planted (e.g., when the seed comes in contact with the soil in a field).” Id. at 13 (quoting Ex. 1001, 7:45-48). Patent Owner contends that the term means “a substance that is applied directly to the seed before the seed comes into contact with the soil in a field.” Id. (citing Ex. 2001, ¶ 55). According to Patent Owner, Petitioner erroneously uses a definition that “allows the ‘seedapplied substance’ to be applied to the seed (and soil) as the seed lay planted in the soil.’” Id. For the purpose of addressing Petitioner’s grounds, we use the definition of “seed-applied substance” provided in the ’027 patent, i.e., “any composition applied to seeds prior to the seeds being planted (e.g., when the seed comes in contact with the soil in a field).” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“[A] patentee may choose to be his own lexicographer and use terms in a manner other than their ordinary meaning, as long as the special definition of the term is clearly stated in the patent specification or file history.”).” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“3. Analysis Our analysis of whether Wagers discloses the limitation “individually applying the desired application amount of the selected type of the seed-applied substance to each seed as it is being delivered to the soil” is dispositive of Petitioner’s challenge to claim 1 as anticipated.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites GrahamPatents in suitUS 12,102,027 - Google LLC v. Cellular South, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 21, 2025 · IPR2025-00877 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–11 because the Zhao-Kouzani combination did not sufficiently show a fractal representation based on landmarks.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that 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.” For the reasons provided below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of the ’853 patent is unpatentable, and we do not institute an inter partes review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“generally known in the art, and that this is acknowledged by the ’853 patent. Pet. 40–41 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1001, 15:40–44). Petitioner asserts that Kouzani touts the benefits of fractal models and that it would have been obvious to use Kouzani’s fractal model as the object model in Zhou. Pet 44 (asserting that “[a] person of ordinary skill would have therefore been motivated to implement Kouzani’s techniques in Zhao’s system”); see also id. 42–45. (entire argument). Patent Owner argues that Kouzani’s fractals would not result in the claimed limitation. Prelim. Resp. 21–23. In particular, Patent Owner points out that Kouzani’s fractals use a block-based fractal system, which do not include “a representation of the object based on landmarks associated with the object” as required by claim 1. Id. at 21–22. Patent Owner’s argument is persuasive. Even if Kouzani teaches fractals, claim 1 is not broadly claiming any fractal, but rather one that is “based on landmarks” (e.g., eyes, nose, etc.). See Ex. 1001, 13:53–57. The block-based system of Kouzani is based on abstract, repeated patterns of pixels, without regard to what the pixels represent. See, e.g., Ex. 1006, 8 (describing a “search . . . through the domain pool to find a domain block whose contractive transformation best approximates the range block” and then storing all of the transformations that, together, “represent the compressed image of a person’s face”), Fig. 4 (showing example blocks). This is in contrast to looking for particular landmarks in the image. Thus, we find that Petitioner has not sufficiently established that Kouzani’s fractal is based on landmarks. In Petitioner’s ground, Petitioner asserts that Zhao already teaches the claimed landmarks (Pet. 39, citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 58, 65), but Petitioner’s ground replaces or modifies the object model of Zhao with the fractals of Kouzani, which are not based on landmarks. Petitioner does not explain how Zhao’s modified model, now using a block-based fractal system, would still have the landmarks of Zhao’s original model. Even if it were obvious to include fractals, we are persuaded that the fractals included by Kouzani are not based on landmarks. Alternatively, if Petitioner is asserting merely to use fractals in Zhao’s models, then Petitioner has not sufficiently accounted for the particular fractals claimed and explained persuasively how merely using fractals in Zhao would lead to the claimed subject matter, i.e., fractals based on landmarks. In either event, Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the proposed combination satisfies the “fractal includes a representation of the object based on landmarks” limitation of claim 1.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Patent Owner’s argument is persuasive. Even if Kouzani teaches fractals, claim 1 is not broadly claiming any fractal, but rather one that is “based on landmarks” (e.g., eyes, nose, etc.). See Ex. 1001, 13:53–57. The block-based system of Kouzani is based on abstract, repeated patterns of pixels, without regard to what the pixels represent. See, e.g., Ex. 1006, 8 (describing a “search . . . through the domain pool to find a domain block whose contractive transformation best approximates the range block” and then storing all of the transformations that, together, “represent the compressed image of a person’s face”), Fig. 4 (showing example blocks). This is in contrast to looking for particular landmarks in the image. Thus, we find that Petitioner has not sufficiently established that Kouzani’s fractal is based on landmarks. In Petitioner’s ground, Petitioner asserts that Zhao already teaches the claimed landmarks (Pet. 39, citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 58, 65), but Petitioner’s ground replaces or modifies the object model of Zhao with the fractals of Kouzani, which are not based on landmarks. Petitioner does not explain how Zhao’s modified model, now using a block-based fractal system, would still have the landmarks of Zhao’s original model. Even if it were obvious to include fractals, we are persuaded that the fractals included by Kouzani are not based on landmarks. Alternatively, if Petitioner is asserting merely to use fractals in Zhao’s models, then Petitioner has not sufficiently accounted for the particular fractals claimed and explained persuasively how merely using fractals in Zhao would lead to the claimed subject matter, i.e., fractals based on landmarks. In either event, Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the proposed combination satisfies the “fractal includes a representation of the object based on landmarks” limitation of claim 1.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). That is, “the words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning’ . . . that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Id. at 1312–13 (quoting in Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). We do not need to construe any claim terms to reach a decision in this proceeding. Realtime, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms. . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 6
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,126,853 - PTAB · Nov 5, 2025 · IPR2025-00786 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was obvious over either asserted combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’785 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that: A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) relevant to this patent at the time of its invention would’ve had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a related technical field, combined with approximately two years of practical experience in fields of networking such as network virtualization, security, or management. Additional professional experience might substitute for less education and vice versa. Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 33–35). Patent Owner, at this stage, does not disagree or propose a different definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. However, Patent Owner’s proffered declarant, Dr. Noubir, opines that “a person of ordinary skill in the art in March 2003 would have a bachelor’s degree in computer science or electrical engineering, and would have one or two years of experience in computer networking or equivalent educational and professional experience.” Ex. 2008 ¶ 53. We discern no material difference between the two definitions. Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. We note, however, that were we to apply Patent Owner’s witness’s assessment, the outcome of this Decision would be the same.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“name.” See Pet. 11–16 (claim construction section). Patent Owner asserts that “a person of ordinary skill would read ‘a domain name’ in its ordinary networking sense: an ASCII string label used with the Domain Name System (DNS) to resolve to an IP address.” Prelim. Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:47–48; Ex. 2008 ¶ 37). This is consistent with the Specification, which explains: Users and software applications do not always refer to hosts or other resources by their numerical IP address. Instead of using numbers, they use ASCII strings called domain names. The Internet uses a Domain Name System (DNS) to convert a domain name to an IP address. Ex. 1001, 1:45–50. According to the Patent Owner, the network in the Specification of the ’785 patent is defined by the domain name X.VCN. Id. at 33 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:18–19, 9:28–31). Patent Owner further contends that “[t]he use of a domain name to define the virtual network in the ‘785 Patent’s claims provides more than an identifier of the virtual network or even a plain language identification of an IP address – it signifies a hierarchical structure for the virtual network that enables [certain functions].” Prelim. Resp. 33–34 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 83–84; Ex. 1001, 14:29–38).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner, however, that Petitioner has not explained adequately why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have further modified the Caronni-I/Caronni-II combination to have DNS capability or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the three references to have a system that returned the three specific addresses recited in the challenged independent claims. Rather than explaining the “why,” the Petition’s motivation argument focuses on the purported capabilities of the resulting combination and implying, but not explicitly stating, that the combination results in the claimed subject matter; this indicates impermissible hindsight. See, e.g., id. at 29 (“This integration would leverage Hipp’s DNS capability for virtual hostnames to return multiple address records from a single query, aligning with the dual addressing requirements of hybrid virtual/physical networks. The combination creates a cohesive system where DNS resolution triggers context-aware routing decisions—using virtual addresses for internal Supernet traffic and NAT-translated addresses for cross-boundary communication.”). We determine that Petitioner has failed to set forth an adequate and persuasive reason with rational underpinning as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the three references’ teachings to arrive at the claimed subject matter where the three recited addresses are returned in response to a DNS request.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,949,785 - Apple Inc. v. Ferid AllaniInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 4, 2025 · IPR2025-00856 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–19 were obvious over the asserted prior-art combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). An inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The “reasonable likelihood” standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). We determine Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of challenged claims 1–19 of the ’877 patent. Accordingly, the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner asserts that a person of ordinary skill at the pertinent time “would be a person with a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a closely related discipline and two years of relevant professional experience in software engineering or a similar field.” Prelim. Resp. 10. We adopt Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art. It is supported by the testimony of Dr. Bederson. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 32–33, 37–39. Although Patent Owner has proposed a slightly different statement for the level of ordinary skill in the art, Patent Owner does not explain why Petitioner’s proposal is incorrect. We find Petitioner’s proposed level presents a better statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it requires experience with web-based information systems and Patent Owner’s proposal does not. As noted above, the ’877 patent relates to a method for accessing information sources and services on the Web. Ex. 1001, 2:4–12. Further, Petitioner’s proposal appears consistent with what is reflected by the content of the applied prior art. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). B.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We need not resolve the above-identified dispute, because a different aspect of “beforehand locally stored” is determinative. Read in context, “beforehand locally stored” in both limitations 1(a)(2) and 12(a) refer back to the “preliminary search” action recited in limitation 1(a)(1) and in limitation 12(a) itself, respectively. Thus, we construe “beforehand locally stored” to mean that the selection pages must already be stored within the communication device when the user begins the preliminary search, regardless of whether it was the user or an automated process that downloaded the selection pages to the communication device. This understanding stems from a plain reading of the claim language and does not leave room for reasonable doubt otherwise. Petitioner does not present any reason why the claims do not require the selection pages to have already been stored in the communication device when a user begins the preliminary search. C.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“of the language in these limitations is that the selection pages must be beforehand locally stored, where beforehand is assessed at the time of starting a preliminary search. Based on this construction, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that Rossman discloses limitation 1(a)(2) and limitation 12(a), even for institution purposes. Petitioner identifies Rossmann’s cards as the claimed selection pages of claims 1 and 12. Pet. 18–19. Rossmann’s cards, however, are not beforehand locally stored on the communication device at the time a user begins a preliminary search for information. Rather, on the record before us, at the time of starting a search for information, the user must request a connection to a server device at a desired host site, which request results in the server device at the host site sending one or more decks each including a plurality of cards to the user’s mobile device. Ex. 1004, 6:26–29; 7:22–27; 7:56–66. Thus, Rossmann’s cards are not beforehand locally stored at the time the user commences a preliminary search. Petitioner’s reliance on Himmel and on King do not make up for this deficiency.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,271,877 - PTAB · Nov 4, 2025 · IPR2025-00785 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–14 were unpatentable over either asserted § 103 combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2024); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). We may not institute an inter partes review “unless . . . 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 “reasonable likelihood” standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDenied
“Petitioner’s single-reference allegations do not align with its two “combination” challenges identified above. As for its “combination” allegations, Petitioner does not identify, for example: (1) which limitations in claim 1 are missing in any of Chow, Reiffin, and Kurowski; (2) which aspects of any of these references requires modification to achieve the invention of claim 1; (3) which specific reference Petitioner posits to teach any such missing limitation in another reference or as the basis to modify a specific feature in a given reference; or (4) a rational reason as to why the skilled artisan would have combined particular teachings from one of Chow, Reiffin, and Kurowski with particular teachings of another such reference to achieve the invention of claim 1 as a whole.5 Instead, Petitioner improperly punts its burden to define its obviousness challenges to the Board (and Patent Owner). See, e.g., Pet. 38 (“To the extent the Board disagrees that [any particular] limitation is disclosed by the Chow/Reiffin combination 4 See, e.g., Pet. 16, 19 (“Thus, Chow and Reiffin both disclose or suggest claim [1b].” “Therefore, claim 1 was obvious over Chow and Reiffin separately and over their combination.”); see also id. at 12–19, 37–42. 5 Petitioner argues that the skilled artisan would have combined Reiffin with Chow for “increased computational power and the ability to solve larger problems.” Pet. 11. These generic “reasons” to combine the alleged teachings of Chow and Reiffin (and Kurowski) lack rational underpinning, particularly because Petitioner does not even identify which teachings of which references are being combined to achieve any particular limitation in claim 1. See Prelim. Resp. 40 (“[Petitioner’s] ‘spaghetti on the wall’ approach fails [to] explain how Petitioners’ purported motivation for combining Chow and Reiffin fits with each of the at least 64 different possibilities for combining Chow and Reiffin.”).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“and quotes various passages in Chow. Pet. 13–14. For example, Petitioner identifies that, under “Description of the Related Art,” Chow states: “Typically, workload is apportioned by somehow logically dividing the data to be processed. For example, a block of data might be divided evenly into a number of parts equal to the number of available threads, so that each thread can independently process a separate portion of the data. This is called ‘static’ or ‘a priori’ partitioning.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:38–42; Ex. 1022 ¶ 144). Petitioner also identifies that Chow describes “aggregate tasks” divisible into “multiple sub-tasks,” and “multiple task execution units are independently operated on-demand to sequentially self-allocate and execute sub-tasks of the aggregate task.” Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:66–2:15). After presenting such quoted passages from Chow, Petitioner proffers the conclusion that Chow discloses the Partitioning Limitation, but does so without sufficiently explaining why such passages allegedly teach or suggest the features of the Partitioning Limitation not only within the context of claim 1 as a whole, but given that Chow itself disparages such “static” or “a priori” partitioning as posing “a significant problem” (Ex. 1003, 1:52–58). Patent Owner persuasively responds (and we agree for the same” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“combination” challenges identified above. As for its “combination” allegations, Petitioner does not identify, for example: (1) which limitations in claim 1 are missing in any of Chow, Reiffin, and Kurowski; (2) which aspects of any of these references requires modification to achieve the invention of claim 1; (3) which specific reference Petitioner posits to teach any such missing limitation in another reference or as the basis to modify a specific feature in a given reference; or (4) a rational reason as to why the skilled artisan would have combined particular teachings from one of Chow, Reiffin, and Kurowski with particular teachings of another such reference to achieve the invention of claim 1 as a whole.5 Instead, Petitioner improperly punts its burden to define its obviousness challenges to the Board (and Patent Owner). See, e.g., Pet. 38 (“To the extent the Board disagrees that [any particular] limitation is disclosed by the Chow/Reiffin combination 4 See, e.g., Pet. 16, 19 (“Thus, Chow and Reiffin both disclose or suggest claim [1b].” “Therefore, claim 1 was obvious over Chow and Reiffin separately and over their combination.”); see also id. at 12–19, 37–42. 5 Petitioner argues that the skilled artisan would have combined Reiffin with Chow for “increased computational power and the ability to solve larger problems.” Pet. 11. These generic “reasons” to combine the alleged teachings of Chow and Reiffin (and Kurowski) lack rational underpinning, particularly because Petitioner does not even identify which teachings of which references are being combined to achieve any particular limitation in claim 1. See Prelim. Resp. 40 (“[Petitioner’s] ‘spaghetti on the wall’ approach fails [to] explain how Petitioners’ purported motivation for combining Chow and Reiffin fits with each of the at least 64 different possibilities for combining Chow and Reiffin.”). slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,257,582 - Clearcorrect Operating, LLC v. Align Technology Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 23, 2025 · IPR2025-00814 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim over the asserted obviousness combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved based on underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) any objective indicia of nonobviousness.7 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). An obviousness determination requires finding a reason to combine accompanied by a reasonable expectation of achieving what is claimed in the challenged patent. See Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “[A]ny need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 419–20.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away foundMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“tripping” as “any motion of a tooth in any direction other than directly toward the desired final position.” Ex. 1004, 4:12–13. Chishti-511 teaches minimizing round-tripping (“teeth are moved in the quickest fashion with the least amount of round-tripping”), but acknowledges that “[r]ound-tripping is sometimes necessary to allow teeth to move past each other.” Id. at 4:9–15. In an attempt to counter Patent Owner’s teaching away arguments, Petitioner relies heavily on Chishti-511’s statement that “[r]ound[-]tripping is sometimes necessary.” See Pet. 29–30; see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 83 (Dr. Yadav relying on Chishti-511). This reliance is unavailing, because as noted above, Chishti-511 defines “round-tripping” more broadly than is claimed here. Indeed, in the ’444 IPR, the Board stated that “the ‘round tripping’ described in Chishti ’511 is something different than the ‘round tripping’ required by the ’444 patent.”10 Ex. 1008, 16. Despite being aware of this prior finding 10 In the ’444 IPR, the Board employed the same construction of “round-tripping” that we use here. Compare Ex. 1008, 6, with Section II.C supra. (see Pet. 6), Petitioner here fails to address the difference between Chishti- 511’s round-tripping and the claimed round-tripping. That is, Petitioner places great weight on Chishti-511’s statement that “round-tripping is sometimes necessary,” but has not established that Chishti-511 contemplates round-tripping as claimed, as opposed to some other, different movement pattern encompassed by Chishti-511’s broader statement about round-tripping.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“discussion of “need[ing] collision-free treatment paths,” skilled artisans would have turned to Becker. Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex. 1004, 4:15–22). But on this record, and especially in view of the teachings away from round-tripping, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that a skilled artisan would have combined Becker’s movement pattern with the Chishti systems and Sachdeva. In particular, the Petition and supporting materials lack sufficient argument and evidence for us to conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to apply Becker’s movement pattern in the context of an aligner treatment. Becker is a textbook relating to the orthodontic treatment of impacted teeth. Ex. 1006, 1 (Title). Patent Owner correctly states that “Becker is a different orthodontic treatment modality compared to the Chishti references,” using “braces and numerous brackets, wires, and rubber bands, with the wire-and-bracket systems being attached directly and permanently to the teeth.” Prelim. Resp. 21–22; see also supra Section II.D.4. “Becker involves traditional orthodontic practice: manual, by-eye adjustment of its archwires, elastic thread, and palatal wires by a treating orthodontist in repeated office visits.” Prelim. Resp. 22. Chishti-511, in contrast, uses “treatment planning software” to “pre-stag[e] a series of tooth positions from which a sequence of appliances can be manufactured.” Id. On this record, we agree with Patent Owner that “Becker at best shows that round-tripping was an option in limited circumstances involving wire-and-bracket treatment.” See Prelim. Resp. 3. Petitioner does not direct us to any persuasive evidence that using aligners to effect Becker’s tooth transposition “would be appropriate or even possible.” Id. at 22. As Patent Owner correctly notes, Petitioner does not point to any teaching in Becker regarding aligner treatment or corresponding treatment planning software. Id. at 23. Nor are we directed to any portions of Chishti-511, Chishti-876, or Sachdeva that mention using aligners to transpose teeth. These omissions are important because “[i]n contrast to treatment with braces, in which wires are manually adjusted by the orthodontist to move teeth reactively, aligner treatment involves treatment planning in which a detailed path of teeth is calculated in advance.” Id. at 4. Given these differences, Petitioner has not persuasively explained why Becker’s tooth movement pattern and mechanism would have been of interest to a skilled artisan who was” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“as of the August 30, 2006 claimed priority date would have been part of an interdisciplinary team. This team would have included a member with an advanced degree related to dentistry (e.g., BDS, MDS, DDS, DMD) with experience in orthodontics, including 1–3 years of orthodontic training or equivalent experience, and experience using clear aligners. The team may have also included members with a degree in a technical area related to software, graphics, computers, or a related discipline. This technical team member would have had 1–3 years of software development experience. For all team members, more education could substitute for experience and vice versa. Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 23–24; Ex. 1017 ¶¶ 23–25; Ex. 1029; Ex. 1030). At this stage, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal or offer an alternative proposal. See generally Prelim. Resp. Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed on this record, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (indicating that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level).” slip op. at 8
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,456,217
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.