- Tietex International, Ltd. v. Precision Fabrics Group, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 11, 2016 · IPR2015-01671 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on both asserted § 103 grounds, finding no reasonable likelihood of success and exercising § 314(a) discretion for the Radwanski, Rowan, and Murch ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“We approach our discretion to deny a petition on a case-by-case basis. There are sufficient reasons under the specific facts of this case to exercise our discretion to deny institution on Petitioner’s asserted ground that claims 1–30 of the ’162 patent would have been obvious over the combination of Radwanski, Rowan, and Murch. Notably, in this proceeding, the claims of the ’162 patent are so similar in scope and content to those in the ’639 patent that Petitioner is relying on the same arguments that we found to be unpersuasive in the 1248 Final Decision. See Pet. 29; 1248 Final Dec. 22. We do not see how the efficient administration of the Office, or the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding, would be secured by instituting an inter partes review in this proceeding when the same prior art references and arguments are asserted against substantially the same claim limitations as in the 1248 IPR.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“A showing of obviousness must be supported by an articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support a motivation to combine the prior art teachings. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 414 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”)). An analysis regarding an apparent reason to combine known elements “should be made explicit.” Id.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“A showing of obviousness must be supported by an articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support a motivation to combine the prior art teachings. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 414 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”)). An analysis regarding an apparent reason to combine known elements “should be made explicit.” Id.” slip op. at 12
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“terminology as the claims in related US patent 8,501,639, which is the subject of [the] previously instituted [1248 IPR]” and argues “that for purposes of this proceeding, the same definitions should apply.” Pet. 7. In the 1248 IPR, we determined that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “intumescent” in light of the specification is “a substance that swells and chars upon exposure to heat or flame.” Tietex Int’l, Ltd. v. Precision Fabrics Group, Inc., Case IPR2014-01248, slip op. at 5–6 (PTAB Jan. 30, 2015) (Paper 14); see id., slip. op. at 4–5 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2016) (Paper 39). Petitioner and Patent Owner agree that “intumescent” as used in claim 1 of the ’162 patent should be interpreted the same way in this proceeding. Pet. 7; Prelim. Resp. 17. Therefore, for purposes of this Decision, we interpret “intumescent” to mean “a substance that swells and chars upon exposure to heat or flame.” B.” slip op. at 5
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,796,162 - Johns Manville Corporation / Johns Manville, Inc. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc. And Knauf Insulation SPRLInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 4, 2016 · IPR2015-01673 · APJ Fred E Mckelvey · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on both § 103 grounds, finding the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Petitioner bears the burden of proof. We have not been given sufficient evidence to support a finding that it is likely that a block made from Example 3, modified by using a mixture of ammonium sulfate and sulfuric acid, would meet claim 32 as it depends from claim 1. Our analysis applies with equal force to the remaining claims forming the basis of the Ground 1 challenge.” slip op. at 12
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner bears the burden of proof. We have not been given sufficient evidence to support a finding that it is likely that a block made from Example 3, modified by using a mixture of ammonium sulfate and sulfuric acid, would meet claim 32 as it depends from claim 1.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“found sulfuric acid described as an alternative for ammonium sulfate. But, then one has to ask: “Where has Petitioner set out to prove that a Gogek Example 3 composition with sulfuric acid used in place of ammonium sulfate meets the limitations of claim 32 as it depends from claim 1?” The relevant testimony is that of Dr. Frederick J. Hirsekorn. Ex. 1005, ¶ 84: Gogek renders the . . . [sulfuric acid] limitation of . . . Claim 32 . . . obvious at least because it discloses that the chemical adjunct may comprise sulfuric acid. Ex. 1003, 1:72–2:4. At the time of the . . . invention of the ’827 Patent, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add a small amount of the sulfuric acid as taught in Gogek to the specific formulation of Example 3 of Gogek in order to acid catalyze the inversion of the sucrose in the molasses to produce additional reducing sugars (e.g., dextrose) available for consumption during curing. Producing additional reducing sugar reactants in situ would help ensure that all of the ammonium cations react with the carbonyl group of a reducing sugar, and allow the reaction to run to completion through the consumption of all reactants. Completing the reaction would also improve the quality of the binder. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the sulfuric acid expressly disclosed in Gogek with the ammonium sulfate used in the formulation from Example 3 of Gogek in order to achieve these well-known benefits. Agreeing arguendo with Dr. Hirsekorn’s observations, those observations at best prove that one would have found it obvious to use sulfuric acid along with, or possibly in place of, the ammonium sulfate described in Gogek Example 3. But, those observations in no way purport to prove that use of ammonium sulfate with a small amount of sulfuric acid would produce a block having the characteristics of the material of claim 32 as it depends from claim 1. We believe our concern, and that of Patent Owner, is more than theoretical. Gogek indicates a preference for using ammonium sulfate. Ex. 1003, col. 1:72. As is often the case in patent specifications, Gogek does not say why ammonium sulfate is preferred. It is not unreasonable to assume that Gogek had some reason for making the statement. Once Example 3 is replicated with a change that would not be the preferred embodiment, it is not unreasonable to assume that a non-preferred embodiment may have properties differing from those of a block made in accordance with Example 3 without sulfuric acid. Petitioner bears the burden of proof. We have not been given” slip op. at 10
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,039,827 - Johns Manville Corporation v. Knauf Insulation, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 4, 2016 · IPR2015-01683 · APJ Fred E Mckelvey · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on both § 103 grounds because Petitioner did not sufficiently show the modified prior-art compositions would meet the challenged claims.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Petitioner bears the burden of proof. We have not been given sufficient evidence to support, even at this stage, a finding that it is likely that a block made from Example 3, modified by using phosphoric acid would meet claim 34 as it depends from claim 1.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundNot shown unpatentable
“As noted earlier, we can assume arguendo that one skilled in the art more than likely would have found it obvious to use a phosphoric acid in place of ammonium sulfate. But, then one has to ask: “Where has Petitioner set out to prove that a Gogek Example 3 composition with a phosphoric acid used in place of ammonium sulfate meets the limitations of claim 34 as it depends from claim 1?” The relevant testimony is that of Dr. Frederick J. Hirsekorn. Ex. 1006, ¶ 103: At the time of the . . . invention of the ’827 Patent , it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add a monoammonium phosphate to the binder composition of Example 3 of Gogek in order to reduce the corrosivity of the binder and preserve the manufacturing equipment. In the continuous manufacturing process disclosed in Swift, some manufacturing equipment will be in contact with the solution at all times, amplifying the need to include a corrosion inhibitor to extend the life of the manufacturing equipment. Accordingly, in order to prevent corrosion and “decrease the cost of manufacturing bound materials” (Ex. 1003, ¶ [0073]), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add a monoammonium phosphate as disclosed in Swift to the binder of Example 3 of Gogek to inhibit corrosion. Agreeing arguendo with Dr. Hirsekorn’s observations, those observations at best prove that one would have found it obvious to use a phosphoric acid in place of, the ammonium sulfate described in Gogek Example 3. But, those observations in no way purport to prove that use of phosphoric acid in place of ammonium sulfate would produce a block having the characteristics of the material of claim 34 as it depends from claim 1.” slip op. at 10
- BurdenInstitution denied
“1. Failure to articulate a difference Petitioner has failed to set out precise differences between Swift or Gogek and the subject matter of the challenged claims. As we explained in declining to institute on Ground 2 in Johns Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc., IPR2015-01402 (PTAB Oct. 21, 2015) (Paper 18, pages 12–14), failure of a petitioner to set out differences in a § 103 context complicate consideration of a petition, both for the Board and the patent owner. See also 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (petition to point out with particularity); 37 C.F.R. § 41.104(b)(4). Due to Petitioner’s failure to articulate a clear difference between the subject matter of the challenged claims and Swift, we decline to institute an IPR trial in this case.” slip op. at 12
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,039,827 - Johns Manville Corporation v. Knauf Insulation, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 17, 2015 · IPR2015-01569 · APJ Fred E Mckelvey · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on either obviousness ground for the challenged claims.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Petitioner bears the burden of proof. We have not been given sufficient evidence to support, even at this stage, a finding that it is likely that a block made from Example 3, modified by using a mixture of ammonium sulfate and sulfuric acid, would meet claim 32 as it depends from claim 1.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundNot shown unpatentable
“Gogek renders the . . . [sulfuric acid] limitation of . . . Claim 32 . . . obvious at least because it discloses that the chemical adjunct may comprise sulfuric acid. Ex. 1003, 1:72–2:4. At the time of the . . . invention of the ’089 Patent, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add a small amount of the sulfuric acid as taught in Gogek to the specific formulation of Example 3 of Gogek in order to acid catalyze the inversion of the sucrose in the molasses to produce additional reducing sugars (e.g., dextrose) available for consumption during curing. Producing additional reducing sugar reactants in situ would help ensure that all of the ammonium cations react with the carbonyl group of a reducing sugar, and allow the reaction to run to completion through the consumption of all reactants. Completing the reaction would also improve the quality of the binder. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the sulfuric acid expressly disclosed in Gogek with the ammonium sulfate used in the formulation from Example 3 of Gogek in order to achieve these well-known benefits. Agreeing arguendo with Dr. Hirsekorn’s observations, those observations at best prove that one would have found it obvious to use sulfuric acid along with, or possibly in place of, the ammonium sulfate described in Gogek Example 3. But, those observations in no way purport to prove that use of ammonium sulfate with a small amount of sulfuric acid or sulfuric acid in place of ammonium sulfate would produce a block having the characteristics of the material of claim 32 as it depends from claim 1.” slip op. at 11
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“observations at best prove that one would have found it obvious to use sulfuric acid along with, or possibly in place of, the ammonium sulfate described in Gogek Example 3. But, those observations in no way purport to prove that use of ammonium sulfate with a small amount of sulfuric acid or sulfuric acid in place of ammonium sulfate would produce a block having the characteristics of the material of claim 32 as it depends from claim 1.” slip op. at 11
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,940,089 - Johns Manville Corporation / Johns Manville, Inc. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc. And Knauf Insulation SPRLInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 17, 2015 · IPR2015-01598 · APJ Fred E Mckelvey · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on both § 103 grounds because Petitioner did not clearly articulate the differences or show the proposed combinations would meet the challenged claims.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“D. Claims 3, 16–21, 27, 34, 43, 45–49, 51–56, 63, and 73 1. Failure to articulate a clear difference Petitioner has failed to set out precise differences between Swift and the subject matter of the challenged claims. As we explained in declining to institute on Ground 2 in Johns Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc., IPR2015-01402 (PTAB Oct. 21, 2015) (Paper 18, pages 12–14), failure of a petitioner to set out differences in a § 103 context complicates consideration of a petition, both for the Board and the patent owner. Due to Petitioner’s failure to articulate a clear difference between the subject matter of the challenged claims and Swift, we decline to institute an IPR trial in this case. See also 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (petition identifies with particularity) and 37 C.F.R. 41.104(b)(4) (set out how claim is unpatentable).” slip op. at 9
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“those observations at best prove that one would have found it obvious to use an ammonium phosphate in place of ammonium sulfate described in Gogek Example 3. But, those observations in no way purport to prove that use of mono-ammonium phosphate would produce a block having the characteristics of the material of claim 27 as it depends from claim 1. We believe our concern, and that of Patent Owner, is more than theoretical. Gogek indicates a preference for using ammonium sulfate. Ex. 1004, col. 1:72. Once Example 3 is replicated with a change to something that would not be the preferred embodiment, it is not unreasonable to assume that a block made according to Example 3 with ammonium phosphate would have properties that might differ from those made in accordance with Example 3 with ammonium sulfate. Petitioner bears the burden of proof. We have not been given sufficient evidence to support a finding that it is likely that a block made from Example 3, modified by using mono-ammonium phosphate, would meet claim 27 as it depends from claim 1.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“The testimony in support of obviousness of the subject matter of claim 27 is that of Dr. Hirsekorn. Ex. 1006, ¶ 105: At the time of the purported invention of the ’089 Patent, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add a monoammonium phosphate to the binder composition of Example 3 of Gogek in order to reduce the corrosivity of the binder and preserve . . . manufacturing equipment. In the continuous manufacturing process disclosed in Swift, some manufacturing equipment will be in contact with the solution at all times, amplifying the need to include a corrosion inhibitor to extend the life of the manufacturing equipment. Accordingly, in order to prevent corrosion and “decrease the cost of manufacturing bound materials” (Ex. 1003, ¶ [0073]), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add a mono-ammonium phosphate as disclosed in Swift to the binder of Example 3 of Gogek to inhibit corrosion. Assuming arguendo that Dr. Hirsekorn’s observations are correct, those observations at best prove that one would have found it obvious to use an ammonium phosphate in place of ammonium sulfate described in Gogek Example 3. But, those observations in no way purport to prove that use of mono-ammonium phosphate would produce a block having the characteristics of the material of claim 27 as it depends from claim 1. We believe our concern, and that of Patent Owner, is more than theoretical. Gogek indicates a preference for using ammonium sulfate. Ex. 1004, col. 1:72. Once Example 3 is replicated with a change to something that would not be the preferred embodiment, it is not unreasonable to assume that a block made according to Example 3 with ammonium phosphate would have properties that might differ from those made in accordance with Example 3 with ammonium sulfate. Petitioner bears the burden of proof. We have not been given” slip op. at 11
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,940,089 - Netflix, Inc. v. Opentv, IncRehearing deniedPTAB · Aug 14, 2014 · IPR2014-00274 · APJ James T Moore · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Netflix’s rehearing request, leaving in place its denial of inter partes review of claims 1–20 because the petition did not show it was more likely than not to prevail.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for rehearing. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply… We grant the request to reconsider the decision insofar as we have reconsidered the decision, but decline to modify our previous decision.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, we conclude that the Petitioner has not met its burden to show it is more likely than not to prevail. We, therefore, deny the request for reconsideration.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“This argument does not persuade us to alter our earlier decision. The newly proposed interpretation is inconsistent with the plain language of claim 1 reciting that the “browser retrieves the requested Internet information segments under the direction and control of the controller means.” Ex. 1001, col. 13:60-63. An embodiment allowing a user the flexibility to go back to access a list of URLs at the user’s leisure after the presentation does not alter the requirement that the controller means drives the presentation during the audio or video program.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,018,768
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.