- Micron Technology, Inc. v. Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · May 8, 2025 · IPR2025-00035 · APJ Michael T Cygan · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Micron did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–5, 8–13, or 15 were obvious over either asserted reference combination.
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) (2023). 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 given below, on this record, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of challenged claims 1–5, 8–13, and 15 of the ’604 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the ’604 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We agree that Petitioner has not shown that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the critical time would have been motivated to replace the wordlines in the staircase region with dielectric material if the result is that one of the memory cell arrays becomes unavailable. Petitioner relies upon two usable arrays for its combination, emphasizing Thimmegowda as desirably enabling “a single conductive contact (e.g., 334a) to bidirectionally drive memory cells in the memory arrays on either side of the bridge”; i.e., both the left and right memory cell blocks. Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 81– 83; Ex. 1005, 9:49–51; 7:61–64), 41 (stating that in the combination, “there Similarly, Thimmegowda emphasizes that the purpose of its bridge is to connect first and second blocks, which desirably replaces prior connection methods that consumed silicon real estate and interfered with the goal of shrinking the sizes or increasing the densities of memory arrays. Ex. 1005, 1:11–25, 3:20–28; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 79–80 (“allowing a single staircase to access both memory arrays”), 83 (“a stairstep electrically couples to a respective gate layer (wordline) in both of the blocks on the right and left”). Dr. Banerjee also underscores the importance of using both arrays, stating that the combination relies on “Thimmegowda’s bridge and array architecture (to drive two memory arrays with one wordline via)” as part of the reasonable expectation of success in such a combination Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 102, 113. Petitioner and Dr. Banerjee rely upon the motivation of reducing punch-through, because punch-through causes “yield loss”; i.e., loss of the usability of the wordlines connected by the punch-through. Ex. 1003 ¶ 103; Pet. 35. However, such advantage is premised on retaining both arrays, and neither Petitioner nor Dr. Banerjee explains how the advantages of reducing punch-through should be weighed against a disadvantage of losing access to one of the two arrays. Nor do Petitioner and Dr. Banerjee discuss how the advantages of metal gate replacement should be weighed against losing access to one of the two arrays.4 Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Giapis, attests to the undesirability of such a combination, in which one array 4 Additionally, the claims of the ’604 patent do not require a metal conductor portion; Petitioner does not explain why gate replacement to a metal conductor from a polysilicon conductor, described as used in Lee’s “memory device at large,” (Pet. 40) is a benefit associated with Lee’s finger teaching relevant to the claims. Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 50–54. We agree with Patent Owner that the advantage of preventing individual wordlines from becoming unusable because of punchthrough would be outweighed by the loss of half of the wordlines if one of the memory arrays were to become unavailable because its connections were removed.” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached
“III. DISCRETION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) Patent Owner argues that the Board should exercise its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) based on the factors set forth in Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 6 (Mar. 20, 2020) additional briefing. Papers 12, 14. Because we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of its obviousness contentions, we need not resolve whether Fintiv would require discretionary denial of the Petition.6” slip op. at 23
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“at the critical time “would have had a bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering or a similar discipline, along with 2-3 years of professional experience working with (e.g., researching, designing, or teaching) 2 We apply AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 to the ’604 patent because it was filed after, and never claimed the benefit of an effective filing date before, March 16, 2013. Ex. 1001, codes (22), (63); Pet. 6. 3 Neither party presents evidence or arguments regarding objective evidence of non-obviousness. Pet. 89; Prelim. Resp. level of skill, knowledge, and experience (e.g., an advanced degree may replace some of the professional experience).” Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 40–43). Petitioner further asserts that a POSITA “would have been aware of and generally knowledgeable about 3D NAND’s structure, its component parts, how it operates, and how it is controlled.” Id. Patent Owner does not provide any such assessment in its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 10. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, as it appears to be consistent with the specification of the ’604 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 6
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,450,604 - Cooler Master Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/SInstitution deniedPTAB · May 8, 2025 · IPR2024-01497 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–7 would have been obvious over Duan and Duan-I.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of 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) when in evidence, objective evidence of nonobviousness.3 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17– 18 (1966). “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is 2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. The ’681 patent claims benefit of a May 6, 2005, filing date, which is before the effective date of the applicable AIA amendments. Ex. 1001, Code [63]. 3 Patent Owner does not present arguments or evidence of secondary considerations in its Preliminary Response. Therefore, secondary considerations do not constitute part of our analysis herein. unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review).” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Relying on the declaration testimony of Dr. Abraham, Petitioner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan for the ’681 patent “would have been knowledgeable regarding liquid cooling systems for computer systems, would have earned at least a bachelor’s degree, such as an B.S. (bachelor of science), or equivalent thereof, in electrical or mechanical engineering or a closely-related field, and would have possessed at least two or three years of experience in liquid cooling systems for computer systems, or in similar systems.” Pet. 17. Petitioner additionally contends a “person with less education but more relevant practical experience, depending on the nature of that experience and degree of exposure to liquid cooling systems for computer systems, could also qualify as a POSITA in the field of the ’681 patent.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 42). Patent Owner does not address the level of skill of the ordinary artisan. See generally Prelim. Resp. Based on this record, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’681 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our obviousness evaluations below. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art, itself, can reflect appropriate level of ordinary skill in art).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner “does not believe any specific terms require construction and applies the plain meaning of all claim terms herein.” Pet. 18. Patent Owner does not address claim construction. See generally Prelim. Resp. Having considered the record, we determine that no express claim construction is necessary for any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“motivated to combine Duan and Duan-I in this manner, Petitioner argues that “given the known ‘compact trend of computer[s]’ recognized by Duan [], a POSITA would have been motivated to rotate Duan’s liquid driving module 2 (pump) counterclockwise by 90 degrees in Figure 7 to reduce the systems overall height in view of Duan-I.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 6; Ex. 1005 ¶ 57). Petitioner asserts that “[a]lthough modifying Duan in this fashion would require some minor reconstruction, doing so would reasonably be expected to result in success.” Id. Petitioner contends that “[t]he modification is well within a POSITA’s technical grasp, and would have predictably resulted in a modified system like the one [reproduced] below (double-sided chassis outlined in red).” Id. at 26–27. Petitioner provides the following graphical explanation, reproduced below, of how it arrives at this modified figure.” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,733,681 - Trove Brands, LLC v. Camelbak Products, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 7, 2025 · IPR2024-01501 · APJ Linda E Horner · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Trove did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 15, 16, or 21 obvious over the asserted prior art.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition and the preliminary response shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, and for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Thus, we deny the Petition and do not institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 15, 16, and 21 of the ’028 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner argues that a POSITA would have “a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or the equivalent coursework and approximately one year of experience with liquid-containing devices, with more work experience substituting for less education and vice versa.” Prelim. Resp. 23 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 56–65). Patent Owner also states that it “discerns no material difference between the definitions provided by the parties for purposes the Board’s decision on whether to institute this proceeding.” Id. We agree that there appears to be no material difference in the parties’ definitions of the level of ordinary skill in the art. For the purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We determine that this definition is consistent with the prior art of record and the skill reflected in the Specification of the ’028 patent, based on our review of the limited record. Moreover, the prior art itself may be sufficient to demonstrate the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“as a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, because “mechanism” is a nonce word for performing the claimed function without reciting structure for performing that function, and a POSITA would not have understood the term to have “a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for a structure that performs the claimed function.” Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 39). For claim 1, Petitioner identifies two distinct structures described in the ’028 patent that correspond to the claimed “user release mechanism” for performing the claimed functions. Id. at 34. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that the ’028 patent describes a first embodiment in which the corresponding structure includes sliding member 238, and its component parts. Id. at 34– 35 (citing Ex. 1001, 12:50–13:25, 13:29–33). In the second embodiment, the corresponding structure includes user engagement portion 260 on rigid collar 170. Id. at 35–36 (citing Ex. 1001, 13:40–54). Petitioner does not separately address the structure corresponding to the “user release mechanism” as recited in claim 21. Id. at 53‒54 (relying on the same arguments presented for unpatentability of claim 1). court issued a claim construction order in the parallel litigation construing the term “user release mechanism” as a means-plus-function limitation under § 112, sixth paragraph. Prelim. Resp. 23 (citing Ex. 2002, 12–15). The district court ruled that the corresponding structure for claim 1 includes “[s]liding member 238, including its component parts,” or “[u]ser engagement portion 260.” Ex. 2002, 15. For claim 21, the district court ruled that the corresponding structure includes “[s]liding member 238, including its component parts” or “[u]ser engagement pad 240, planar portion 242, tabs 244, collar engagement portion 254, depression 256.” Id. at 17. Patent Owner indicates that, “[f]or purposes of this proceeding only,” it does not dispute that the claimed user release mechanisms are means-plusfunction limitations, and it does not dispute the corresponding structure identified by Petitioner, even though the district court did not specifically identify engagement portion 260 as corresponding structure for claim 21. Prelim. Resp. 25 (citing Ex. 2002, 15–19). Although Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed interpretation of the “user release mechanism,” because claim interpretation is a matter of law and the dispositive issue in this Decision turns on the interpretation of this claim limitation, we address it in this Decision. We agree with the parties that the “user release mechanism” elements recited in claims 1 and 21 are means-plus-function limitations governed by § 112, sixth paragraph. See 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 (“An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.”). “means,” it uses the nonce word “mechanism” without reciting structure for performing the functions recited in the claims. See Williamson v. CitrixOnline, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Generic terms such as ‘mechanism,’ ‘element,’ ‘device,’ and other nonce words that reflect nothing more than verbal constructs may be used in a claim in a manner that is tantamount to using the word “means” because they ‘typically do not connote sufficiently definite structure’ and therefore may invoke § 112, para. 6.”).” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“[U]nder § 112, ¶ 6 equivalence, functional identity is required” and “[s]tructural equivalence under § 112, ¶ 6 is met only if the differences are insubstantial, that is, if the assertedly equivalent structure performs the claimed function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result as the corresponding structure described in the specification.” (citing Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus., Inc., 145 F.3d 1303, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). Here, Petitioner states that Kiyota’s lock release buttons 40 “perform the claimed function in the same way to achieve the same result” as the ’028 patent’s sliding member 238, and its component parts (Pet. 37) without providing sufficient supporting explanation or evidence. Petitioner explains only that the two structures operate in “substantially the same way” by a user pressing an element that that slides towards the mouthpiece assembly to disengage the catch structures. Id. at 37–38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 89). The Petition does not discuss any of the differences between Kiyota’s structure and the ’028 patent’s structure or provide an explanation of why these differences are insubstantial. Indeed, as Patent Owner persuasively explains, there are notable differences in the “way” the two structures perform the claimed function and the “result” they achieve. See Prelim. Resp. 39–40 (discussing the ’028 patent’s one-finger operation and indirect catch disengagement, versus Kiyota’s two-finger operation and direct catch disengagement). Moreover, the analysis in Dr. Vallee’s declaration substantially parallels the discussion in the Petition and does not provide any additional explanation or evidence to show that the differences between the “way” the two structures operate or the “result” they achieve are insubstantial. Compare Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85–91, with Pet. 34–38. For these reasons, Petitioner fails to show sufficiently that Kiyota discloses an equivalent structure to the structure described in the ’028 patent corresponding to the “user release mechanism” recited in claim 1. Accordingly, Petitioner has not met its burden to show a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious over Kiyota. slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,782,028 - Crowdstrike, Inc. v. Gosecure, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 6, 2025 · IPR2025-00067 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–23 because the cited art did not teach or suggest creating the claimed fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“Given the deficiencies outlined above, Petitioner has not shown that the prior art teaches or suggests creating a fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor as the challenged claims require. Thus, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. III. CONCLUSION After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the current record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’697 patent is unpatentable. We therefore do not institute trial on any challenged claims or grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“We disagree with Petitioner’s arguments. Claim 1 recites “a decoy computer system [that] comprises . . . a virtual machine monitor,” and “at the virtual machine monitor: . . . creating, from the stored activities, a fingerprint.” Ex. 1001, 19:4–22. Thus, the claim’s plain language requires creating a fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor, not just at the decoy system, as Petitioner asserts. When, as here, a claim term has “ordinary, simple English words whose meaning is clear and unquestionable,” we may not redraft those words to mean something different. Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1373–75 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Petitioner offers no explanation how one skilled in the art might read “at the virtual machine monitor” to mean at the decoy system, rather than at the virtual machine monitor. Although the claim’s plain language is decisive, we also disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that the ’697 patent’s specification because, as Patent Owner explains, the specification describes fingerprint generation inside and outside the virtual machine monitor. Sur-reply 1–2; see id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:65–7:2, 10:13–22). Claim 1’s plain language, however, only covers the latter. Sur-reply 1–2; see id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:65–7:2, 10:13–22). Last, Petitioner’s characterization of Patent Owner’s infringement allegations in the related district-court proceedings, even if correct, do not undermine the claim’s plain language.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Given the deficiencies outlined above, Petitioner has not shown that the prior art teaches or suggests creating a fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor as the challenged claims require. Thus, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,106,697 - Aardevo North America, LLC v. Agventure B.V.Institution deniedPTAB · May 1, 2025 · IPR2025-00136 · APJ Jeffrey N Fredman · IPR · Institution
Institution of inter partes review was denied for claims 1–10 because Petitioner did not establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Accordingly, we find that on the current record Petitioner has not shown that it has a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on these obviousness grounds. XII. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL – 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) In view of our determination that the Petitioner does not meet the threshold for instituting review on the merits, we need not address the parties’ dispute about whether the Board should exercise its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Pet. 74–75; Prelim. Resp. 38–54; Pet. Reply 1–5; PO Sur-Reply 1–5. XIII. CONCLUSION After reviewing the information presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that, based on the evidence of record, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–10 of the ’841 patent are unpatentable. XIV. ORDER Accordingly, it is ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), institution of an inter partes review of all challenged claims on all grounds presented in the Petition is denied.” slip op. at 35
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable
“However, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Jansky provide specific data on the record before us showing the actual measured homozygosity of either of the inbred lines, US-W 5309 and US-W 5315. And Phumichai experimentally demonstrates that Dr. Jansky’s assumption that theoretical heterozygosity reduction of 50% per generation is not necessarily accurate, stating the “observed average percentage of reduction of heterozygosity per generation (38.4% or 38.5%) was lower than the theoretically expected value of 50%.” Ex. 1005, 982. Indeed, Phumichai disclosed that the “SOPH [Section-based observed percentage of heterozygosity] decreased steadily from the original 100% in 99H2–1 (S0) to the family means of 62.4% in 3H2 (S1), 37.9% in 3H3 (S2).” Id. at 981. That is, Phumichai experimentally shows that in an S2 generation of a potato line, the heterozygosity was 37.9%, resulting in homozygosity of about 62.1%, below the 75% theoretically expected and the 75% required by claim 1 of the ’841 patent. Therefore, the evidence of record does not show that the S2 generation of potato lines in Jong necessarily satisfies the homozygosity recitation in claim 1 of the ’841 patent, and so cannot establish on the record before us that Jong inherently teaches this limitation.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia outweighedNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Owner is telling. Petitioner does not refute Patent Owner’s evidence of objective indicia. On the current record, the objective indicia evidence is compelling. As to long felt need, Patent Owner cited evidence on record before the Examiner that showed a persistent need recognized by ordinarily skilled artisans. In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 538 (CCPA 1967). For example, Dr. Huang states “This research is the breakthrough we have been waiting for since nearly a century . . . This is crucial for the potato breeding worldwide.” Ex. 2009, 687. There is no evidence that this long-felt need was satisfied by another before Appellant’s invention. See Newell Companies, Inc. v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757, 768 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“[O]nce another supplied the key element, there was no long-felt need or, indeed, a problem to be solved . . . .”). Lastly, Dr. Lindhout explains that this invention satisfies the long-felt need, stating “I have discovered, and disclosed in the present application for patent, how a fertile homozygote in” slip op. at 33
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached
“XII. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL – 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) In view of our determination that the Petitioner does not meet the threshold for instituting review on the merits, we need not address the parties’ dispute about whether the Board should exercise its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Pet. 74–75; Prelim. Resp. 38–54; Pet. Reply 1–5; PO Sur-Reply 1–5.” slip op. at 35
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,140,841 - PTAB · Apr 29, 2025 · IPR2025-00066 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood 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
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(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.” After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Preliminary Reply, the Preliminary Sur-reply and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented fails to show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’258 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of claims 1–20 of the ’258 patent on the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill in the art would have either (1) a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Petroleum Engineering or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2 years of academic or industry experience in the oil and gas industry, including well drilling, completion, or production, or (2) at least four years of industry experience in the oil and gas industry including well drilling, completion, or production. Pet. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 48). Patent owner applies the same level proposed by Petitioner.” Prelim. Resp. 11. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the ’258 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner does not propose any explicit constructions. Pet. 12. Likewise, Patent Owner does not propose any explicit constructions. Prelim. Resp. 11. We do not need to construe any terms explicitly to reach our decision. See Realtime Data 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 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not found
“Planetary gear systems are designed differently for different purposes. See, e.g., Ex. 2002, iv (“All characteristics of the drive system from the driver to the driven equipment . . . can influence gearbox operation and must be considered . . . .”); Ex. 2024 ¶ 63 (testimony of Michael Nikolaou that “[f]ailing to meticulously design, test, and manufacture a gear system for a specific application can be catastrophic.”). Petitioner does not sufficiently show that a POSITA would have known that Bergan’s planetary gear system, which is designed to drive, and provide heave compensation to, a hoisting drum on a floating platform, would be suitable for use in Buckley to drive an electric drive pump used to drive a fluid end for the pumping of a fracturing fluid into a well. Petitioner appears to acknowledge that at least some changes would be needed to Bergan’s planetary gear system to make it suitable to drive Buckley’s fracturing pump. Pet. 18 (“A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Bergan’s planetary gear system, with appropriate changes to gear sizes that would have been obvious to a POSITA, with Buckley’s pump system . . . .”). Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Durham sufficiently explains what changes would be needed or why a POSITA would have been motivated to make such changes. See id. at 18–19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 143, 149 ). We, thus, are not persuaded that a POSITA would have been motivated to used Bergan’s planetary gear system to drive Buckley’s fracturing pump. Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that Buckley is merely applying a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way, that design incentives would have prompted the propose combination, or that the proposed combination is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,598,258 - Phison Electronics Corporation v. Vervain, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Apr 28, 2025 · PGR2024-00048 · APJ Stacey G White · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show it was more likely than not that claims 1–6 were unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review under 35 U.S.C. § 324 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). We may not institute a post-grant review unless “the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) (2024). Upon considering the evidence and arguments presented, we determine, as discussed below, that Petitioner has not demonstrated that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable. Therefore, we deny1 Petitioner’s request to institute post-grant review of claims 1–6.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Khatri, proposes a definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 2001 ¶ 24. Dr. Khatri, however, notes that his opinions would be the same under either his proposal or Petitioner’s proposal. Id. ¶¶ 25–26. Patent Owner states that, for purposes of the Preliminary Response, it “adopts Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 13 (citing Pet. 22–23; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 22–26). We determine that the current record supports Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan. For purposes of this Decision, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan. We also note that the applied prior art reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner proposes constructions for the claim terms “MLC memory modules” and “SLC memory module.” Pet. 23–28. Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s constructions, but does not contest them because it argues that construction of these terms is not necessary to resolve the parties’ disputes. Prelim. Resp. 14. Based on the record presented, 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. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).” slip op. at 13
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable
“using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same.” The Federal Circuit has held that “[t]he written description requirement is met when the disclosure relied on for support ‘reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.’” RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. Philip Morris Prods. S.A., 92 F.4th 1085, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (quoting Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (citation omitted)). The written description inquiry is a question of fact, is context specific, and must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351 (citing Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357–58 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). “[T]he level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.” Id. (citing Capon, 418 F.3d at 1357–58). Factors used to evaluate the sufficiency of a disclosure include: 1) “the existing knowledge in the particular field”; 2) “the extent and content of the prior art”; 3) “the maturity of the science or technology”; and 4) “the predictability of the aspect at issue.” Id. (citing Capon, 418 F.3d at 1359). As support for the term “memory space,” the ’612 patent explains that because “the SLC NAND flash is used to boost the lifetime (endurance) of the storage system, it can be considerably lesser in amount than the MLC NAND flash.” Ex. 1001, 5:20–23; see Ex. 2001 ¶ 51. As an example, the ’612 specification states that “a system may set SLC NAND flash equal to 12.5% or 25% of MLC NAND flash (total non-volatile memory storage space=MLC+SLC).” Ex. 1001, 5:23–25; see Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 51, 62. In addition, we find persuasive Dr. Khatri’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that “there are two spaces—MLC and SLC—where data is stored, and the total memory space is the combination of the two.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 51. Further, the ’612 patent’s Figure 1 depicts “memory space,” e.g., dynamic random-access memory (DRAM) 20, one or more disks 24, MLC NAND flash memory module 26, and SLC NAND flash memory module 28. Ex. 1001, 5:37–45, Fig. 1; see Ex. 2001 ¶ 64. The ’612 patent’s Figure 4 also depicts “memory space,” e.g., NAND flash memory bank 56 comprising “a plurality of MLC NAND flash memory modules 60a and a plurality of SLC NAND flash memory modules 62a” and NAND flash memory bank 58 comprising “a plurality of MLC NAND flash memory modules 60b and a plurality of SLC NAND flash memory modules 62b.” Ex. 1001, 7:8–14, Fig. 4; see Ex. 2001 ¶ 64. On the record before us, we find the above noted disclosures to be sufficient to support the disputed claim language. For these reasons, the ’612 patent’s disclosure “reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 11,854,612 - PTAB · Apr 25, 2025 · IPR2024-01492 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–9 were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Petitioner fails to establish that Coccia discloses “a resulting solvent valve” as required by claim 1 and as alleged in the Petition. See Pet. 35–42. 4. Conclusion Based on our review of the current record, Petitioner does not establish a reasonable likelihood of proving that claim 1 would have been obvious based on Coccia and Anson. The remaining challenged claims, claims 2–9, all ultimately depend from claim 1. See Ex. 1001, 18:42–19:48. Petitioner’s obviousness challenges to claims 2–9 build on its analysis for claim 1. See Pet. 10, 43–70, 79–86. Accordingly, for the same reasons we discuss above in the context of claim 1, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood in prevailing on its challenge to any of the dependent claims.” slip op. at 22
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, we may consider certain factors, including: “(1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field.” Best Med. Int’l, Inc. v. Elekta Inc., 46 F.4th 1346, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quoting Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). “The patent’s purpose can also be informative.” Id.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“cites the specification for support, but that argument largely misses the point and elides the claim requirements tied to the resulting solvent valve. See Pet. 35; Prelim. Reply 4. Patent Owner agrees with the general proposition that “a resulting solvent valve” means one or more resulting solvent valves. See Prelim. Resp. 10 (acknowledging that “two duplicative resulting solvent valves having the three positions” could each qualify as “a resulting valve”); Prelim. Sur-reply 4–5 (“Had Petitioner cited to multiple ‘resulting solvent’ valves that each” meet the claim requirements, “Patent Owner would not have raised an issue.”). The general statement that “a” or “an” means “one or more than one,” however, does not support Petitioner’s argument that the limitation broadly covers systems where no single resulting valve meets the three claimed valve positions. The dispute does not turn on whether “a” means “one or more than one”; the dispute, rather, concerns whether the claim allows for multiple valves to meet the three claimed states or whether a single valve must meet those claim requirements.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to establish that Coccia discloses the claimed “resulting solvent valve.” Importantly, Petitioner premises its argument for this limitation on a claim construction that we rejected in our analysis above. Because we determine that the claim requires at least one resulting valve to meet the three claimed states identified in the claim, Petitioner may not rely on a combination of Coccia’s valves 26 and 36 to provide the three claimed states, as Petitioner does throughout its analysis. See Pet. 35–42; Prelim. Reply 4. As to Petitioner’s alternative argument that Anson discloses the claimed resulting solvent valve, we decline to consider the argument because it was not included in the Petition and was made for the first time in Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply. See Pet. 35–42; Prelim. Reply 5. Petitioner relied on Anson in the Petition as an alternative reason to find that it would have been obvious to place Coccia’s valve 36 in the claimed location (downstream of the conduit joint and upstream of the brewing chamber), not to meet all of the limitations associated with the resulting solvent valve. See Pet. 38–39. Moreover, Petitioner’s limited argument and evidence in the Preliminary Reply lacks adequate development and fails to persuade us that Anson’s valve 28 performs all of the “claimed functions” associated with the resulting solvent valve, including the two “active” states that the Petition addresses with reliance on Coccia alone. See Pet. 40–42; Prelim. Reply 5. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Petitioner fails to establish that Coccia discloses “a resulting solvent valve” as required by claim 1 and as alleged in the Petition. See Pet. 35–42. 4. Conclusion Based on our review of the current record, Petitioner does not establish a reasonable likelihood of proving that claim 1 would have been obvious based on Coccia and Anson. The remaining challenged claims, claims 2–9, all ultimately depend from claim 1. See Ex. 1001, 18:42–19:48. Petitioner’s obviousness challenges to claims 2–9 build on its analysis for claim 1. See Pet. 10, 43–70, 79–86. Accordingly, for the same reasons we discuss above in the context of claim 1, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood in prevailing on its challenge to any of the dependent claims.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,772,456 - PTAB · Apr 25, 2025 · IPR2024-01483 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–12 would be unpatentable over the asserted obviousness combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“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 challenged claims in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any of the challenges in the Petition. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had at least the following (or equivalents): a B.S. degree in mechanical engineering with at least five years of experience in product design; or an M.S. degree in mechanical engineering with at least two years of experience in product design.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002, 13). Patent Owner “submits a person of ordinary skill in the art (‘POSITA’) would be a mechanical or materials engineer, or other similar degree, having at least two to three years of personal experience in designing or development of espresso machines.” Prelim. Resp. 8. In the alternative, Patent Owner states that “because Petitioner’s definition is so close to that of Patent Owner’s definition, that no express finding is necessary to find Petitioner has not met its burden to show with particularity that claim 1 is unpatentable.” Id. We find Petitioner’s definition to be consistent with the problems and solutions disclosed in the ’524 patent and prior art of record, and adopt it as our own for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579 (approving the determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art by appeal to the references of record). The outcome of this case would remain the same if we applied Patent Owner’s similar proposal.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under that standard, we give the words of a claim their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by one skilled in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Id. at 1312–13. Only terms in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The parties propose constructions for several claim terms. For example, Petitioner contends that we should construe “conduit,” “coupled,” “another solvent,” and “dynamically modulate.” See Pet. 13–17. Patent Owner reserves its right to challenge Petitioner’s constructions and proposes its own constructions for “another solvent” and “communicatively coupled.” Prelim. Resp. 9–11. We determine that we need not construe any of these additional terms to determine whether Petitioner met its burden as to any of its challenges in the Petition.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“that any of them disclose an electronic controller coupled to two pumps and a thermal modulator, such as a heater. Petitioner suggests that Lai’s controller controls two “pump(s),” but Lai appears to describe a single pump 138, and Petitioner fails to point to any disclosure or suggestion in Lai that its system employs more than one pump. See Pet. 38–39 (citing Ex. 1002, 41–42); Ex. 1007 ¶ 98, Fig. 60. Petitioner does not directly assert that Santi discloses a controller connected to two pumps, and it too, like Lai, appears to only disclose a single pump. See Pet. 39; Ex. 1005 ¶ 64, Fig. 1. Petitioner correctly notes that Majer discloses controller 9 connected to two pumps, but we agree with Patent Owner that only one of those pumps meets the requirements of the claimed pumps, which are both connected to conduits that eventually lead to the brewing chamber. See Pet. 40; Prelim. Resp. 28; Ex. 1008, 9:11–12 (describing circuit C2 containing pump 4bis as not including any “brewing means”). In addition, Petitioner does not allege, and Majer does not appear to disclose, a controller coupled to Majer’s heating elements. See Pet. 40. Based on the foregoing, none of the prior art Petitioner relies on discloses an electronic controller that controls both claimed pumps and a thermal modulator. Despite these deficiencies, Petitioner summarily concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have recognized that it would be obvious to combine Startz’s machine with the electronic controller of any of Lai, Santi, and/or Majer, and that such electronic controller would be communicatively coupled to both the thermal modulator and the pumps.” Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1002, 43). The Petition provides no additional rationale or argument in support of this conclusion, and the cited declarant testimony provides no further analysis. See id.; Ex. 1002, 43. Given the lack of any teaching of a controller coupled to two pumps and a thermal modulator, it was incumbent upon Petitioner to provide some reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references in a manner that meets the limitation.14 Because the Petition lacks any such statement or rationale, we find Petitioner’s obviousness argument and evidence lacking in this critical respect.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,576,524 - Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. v. SK Nexilis Co., Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 25, 2025 · IPR2024-01462 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–8 were unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“experience working on the development of materials or components for electronic devices such as batteries.” Pet. 2. Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional education, such as a graduate degree, could compensate for less work experience, and additional work experience could compensate for less formal education.” Id. Patent Owner states that, “[f]or purposes of this Preliminary Response, Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s level of skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 4. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s undisputed proposed definition because it appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and the disclosure of the ’014 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))).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under this standard, claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019). in this proceeding.” Pet. 3. Patent Owner contends that “[t]he Board need not construe any term in order to determine that institution should be denied.” Prelim. Resp. 4. Based on the record before us, we determine that no claim term requires express construction for purposes of this Decision. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“For these reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner sufficiently establishes that a POSITA would have been motivated to modify Hanafusa in light of Dobashi with a reasonable expectation of success as Petitioner contends. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its assertion that the subject matter of claim 1, and claims 4 and 8 that depend therefrom, would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Hanafusa and Dobashi.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner also focuses on Hanafusa’s teaching that all known methods can be used to make a rough surface low-profile, and Dobashi’s teaching that RSm can be used as an indicator for judgment of the surface, to support its contention that a POSITA would have been motivated to apply Dobashi’s RSm to further achieve Hanafusa’s purpose, without explaining how and why that would be the case. In particular, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Josefowicz adequately explain why a POSITA looking for ways to make Hanafusa’s surface roughness low-profile would look to methods to achieve as the period of waviness, RSm can also be used as an indicator for judgment of the surface.” Ex. 1005, 2:66–3:1, 6:23–26. Dobashi explains that waviness is “an indicator for determining whether the fine pattern forming performance is good or bad,” and “[t]he surface has small waviness and is smooth when RSm is large, and the surface has large waviness and is rough when RSm is small.” Id. at 3:1–3, 6:27–29. Dobashi also teaches that surface roughness Rzjis is used as a low-profile indicator. Ex. 1005, 2:66– 3:1. Dobashi, therefore, teaches that RSm is an indicator of surface waviness, which Dobashi explains is different than surface roughness. Id. at 2:66–3:3, 6:23–29. Given these teachings in Dobashi, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Josefowicz sufficiently explains how or why a POSITA would have been motivated to implement Dobashi’s RSm values to make Hanafusa’s surface roughness low-profile. See Pet. 10–12; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 46–52.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 11,346,014
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.