- Mobileye Global, Inc. v. Facet Technology Corp.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Apr 22, 2025 · IPR2024-01110 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving institution in place on claim 15 based on the Gallagher–Lumia obviousness challenge.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 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. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“or overlooked any matter. As we explained in the Institution Decision, the ’255 patent discloses that the recited characterization profile allows the system to convert the intensity values measured by the intensity sensor into luminance values based on the sensor’s ability to sense the particular color of the measured light. Inst. Dec. 21; Ex. 1001, 11:41–48. The ’255 patent states that “the light intensity sensor’s 280 ability to sense . . . a particular color” is the “the light intensity sensor’s 280 profile for [that] particular color.” Ex. 1001, 11:45–47. The ’255 patent further states that this “[l]ight intensity sensor 280 characterization is essential for high precision computations.” Id. at 11:48–49. Thus, as we stated in the Institution Decision, the recited “characterization profile” refers to a conversion factor used to convert the measured light intensity into luminance. As this conversion factor is based on the light intensity sensor’s ability to sense the particular color of light reflected by the road sign, we agree that it is empirical information. Patent Owner fails to explain adequately how the fact that the ’255 patent discloses storing multiple conversion factors for multiple colors of measured light in a digital look-up-table (see id. at 11:56–59 (“The light intensity sensor characterization 275 is empirical information about the light intensity sensor 280 that is used to create the [look-up table] 475.”)) has any bearing on our interpretation.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Owner to the Institution Decision where we fully addressed Patent Owner’s contentions. See Inst. Dec. 29–31. As we explained, “Petitioner proposes to incorporate Lumia’s teaching of measuring luminance values into Gallagher’s system, and argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success given Gallagher’s disclosure of determining calibration factors for each individual sensor in the array of sensors.” Id. at 30. In other words, Petitioner proposes to use Gallagher’s array of sensors to measure luminance in the manner taught by Lumia. We also explained in the Institution Decision how Lumia discloses using a video camera to measure the luminance of a road sign. Id. at 27–29. We further explained that, in the Petition, “Petitioner sets forth reasoning with rational underpinning to support its contentions that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Gallagher and Lumia” by, for example, “argu[ing] that implementing Lumia’s teaching of determining the luminance of traffic signs in Gallagher’s system would allow Gallagher’s system to calculate the retroreflectivity of road markers as a means of identifying any markers that do not meet minimum acceptable reflectance levels.” Id. at 30–30 (citing Pet. 46). We further explained that Petitioner’s arguments were supported by the testimony of it witness, Dr. Thorpe. Id. at 31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 116).” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,335,255 - PNC Bank N.A. v. United Services Automobile AssociationRehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 8, 2023 · IPR2021-01077 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving in place the final written decision finding claims 1–18 unpatentable.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD FOR REHEARING A 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 a motion, an opposition, a reply, or a sur-reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” Id.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“misapprehended or overlooked matters relevant to whether an ordinary artisan would have reasonably expected success in combining Garcia and Randle. Req. 1–5. We have reviewed and carefully considered all of the arguments presented, but determine Patent Owner fails to show that the Decision misapprehended or overlooked any material arguments or evidence. To provide context for our discussion, we begin with a targeted summary of the Decision, and then we turn to Patent Owner’s specific arguments.” slip op. at 2
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,621,559 - Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jan 4, 2023 · IPR2022-00182 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Rehearing
Denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request; the Board found no abuse of discretion in instituting IPR of claims 1, 24, and 25 on the stated § 103 grounds.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (2022). In a rehearing request, the party challenging the decision “must specifically identify” (1) “all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked” and (2) “the place where each matter was previously addressed” in an earlier submission. Id.; see Consolidated Trial Practice Guide at 90.3 “A rehearing request is not an opportunity for the requesting party to reargue its case or merely to express disagreement with the underlying decision.” MicroSurgical Tech., Inc. v. Regents of Univ. of Colo., PGR2021-00026, Paper 14 at 2 (PTAB Aug. 12, 2021). “Nor is it an opportunity for the moving party to present new arguments that were not in its original submissions.” Id.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › CopyingObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not explain why issue preclusion permits the Board to hold the district court’s finding that Cisco “copied software functionality from the [infringed] patents” against Petitioner. See Prelim. Resp. 16, 54–56; Req. Reh’g 3, 14–15. Issue preclusion “is appropriate only if”: (1) “the issue is identical to one decided in the first action”; (2) “the issue was actually litigated in the first action”; (3) “resolution of the issue was essential to a final judgment in the first action”; and (4) the party defending against preclusion “had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first action.” SynQor, Inc. v. Vicor Corp., 988 F.3d 1341, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Patent Owner does not address any of these requirements for issue preclusion. See Prelim. Resp. 16, 54–56; Req. Reh’g 3, 14–15.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Regarding the policy’s whitelist processing, if the security device determines that a newly received packet with encrypted data is correlated to the hostname corresponding to the whitelisted destination domain, the security device filters the packet by forwarding it to the remote server with the whitelisted destination domain. See Ex. 1004, 7:52–59, 16:36–42; Ex. 1003 ¶ 90; see also Ex. 1004, 6:1–11. Filtering the newly received packet with encrypted data by forwarding it to the remote server with the whitelisted destination domain occurs “without having to decrypt the encrypted secure tunnel session traffic.” Ex. 1004, 5:24–27, 5:35–42, 7:1–9, 11:7–19; see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 94, 113. Further, filtering the newly received packet with encrypted data by forwarding it to the remote server with the whitelisted destination domain results from applying a packet-filtering rule (a whitelisted destination domain) to the packet. Hence, we disagree with Patent Owner that Buruganahalli’s security devices process whitelisted packets by “forward[ing] the entire encrypted stream without . . . filtering encrypted packets.” See Req. Reh’g 10. We also disagree with Patent Owner that “encrypted packets in whitelisted sessions” are (1) “forwarded without applying any packet-filtering rules” and (2) “allowed uninspected.” See id. at 11 n.1, 13. Regarding the policy’s blacklist processing, if the security device determines that a newly received packet with encrypted data is correlated to the hostname corresponding to the blacklisted destination domain, the security device either blocks the packet (as Patent Owner contends) or filters the packet by forwarding it to a decryption engine. See Ex. 1004, 7:60–67, 9:61–67, 14:33–36, 16:43–48; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 90–91, 94, 97, 108, 118, 127, 137; Req. Reh’g 10–11, 13. Filtering the newly received packet with encrypted data by forwarding it to a decryption engine occurs “without having to decrypt the encrypted secure tunnel session traffic.” Ex. 1004, 5:24–27, 5:35–42, 7:1–9, 11:7–19; see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 94, 113, 135. Further, filtering the newly received packet with encrypted data by forwarding it to a decryption engine results from applying a packet-filtering rule (a blacklisted destination domain) to the packet and corresponds to limitation [1.g] and the similar limitations in claims 24 and 25. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 109, 134–135. The Institution Decision explained how Buruganahalli’s security devices may filter packets comprising unencrypted data and packets comprising encrypted data according to claims 1, 24, and 25 by applying a whitelist/blacklist policy to the packets. See, e.g., Inst. Dec. 57–60, 66–67, 69–71. As the Institution Decision explained and as discussed above, “for each session packets comprising unencrypted data and packets comprising encrypted data are correlated and filtered based on the hostname (destination domain) extracted from the handshake traffic, and then the correlated and filtered packets are processed separately from packets destined for other domains.” See Inst. Dec. 69–70; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 109, 120–121, 133–135; Ex. 1004, 7:39–67, 8:55–60, 11:47–51, 14:21–33, 14:50–55, 16:32–48. Buruganahalli discloses additional filtering after forwarding a newly received packet with encrypted data to a decryption engine, e.g., as occurs in Buruganahalli’s Figure 3B embodiment. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, 6:17–22, 9:67–10:4, 12:4–64, Fig. 3B. But claims 1, 24, and 25 use the transitional term “comprising.” Ex. 1001, 25:14, 28:59, 29:29–30. Hence, the claims do not “exclude unrecited elements,” such as additional filtering after forwarding a newly received packet with encrypted data to a decryption engine. See Regeneron Pharm., Inc. v. Merus N.V., 864 F.3d 1343, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2111.03).” slip op. at 8
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,917,856 - Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. Solas Oled, Ltd.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 25, 2021 · IPR2019-01668 · APJ Jessica C Kaiser · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving claims 1–20 unpatentable over Moran and Joo-based obviousness grounds.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS A. Standard of Review The party challenging a decision in a request for rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). A 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 a motion, an opposition, a reply, or a sur-reply.” Id. A request for rehearing, therefore, is not an opportunity to merely disagree with the Board’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence, or to present new arguments or evidence.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s arguments regarding motivation to combine the teachings of Moran and Joo. In our Decision, we found that, “[a]s Patent Owner acknowledges (PO Sur-reply 26), Petitioner’s combination does not rely on any manufacturing techniques in Joo.” Dec. 21. We agreed with Petitioner that “creat[ing] additional touch sensitive regions on the sides of the device as taught in Joo,” provides the benefits attributed to Joo, but the benefits “are not wholly dependent upon the injection molding technique of Joo.” Id. (citing Pet. 66–67). Although we appreciate that Joo uses injection molding to form his device, we determined that the “benefits [of Joo] inure from having the touch sensitive portion on the side of the display rather than the manufacturing technique that results in that touch sensitive portion (i.e., injection molding versus bending the touch sensitive portion to wrap it around the edge of the display).” Id. at 21–22. This is consistent with Petitioner’s “Motivation to Combine” set forth in the Petition, i.e., “application of a known technique [Joo’s teaching of wrapping a touch sensor around the edges of a touchscreen display] to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement [Moran’s flexible capacitive touch sensor for a touchscreen device].” Pet. 67 (citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)). Indeed, in our Decision on Institution (Paper 7, 21), we expressly stated that we did not “understand Petitioner’s combination to rely on any manufacturing techniques in Joo.” Accordingly, we determine we did not change reasoning midstream as to why we agreed with Petitioner’s motivation to combine the teachings of Moran and Joo, and thus, did not misapprehend or overlook Petitioner’s motivation to combine the teachings of Moran and Joo.” slip op. at 4
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We disagree. In our Decision, we found Dr. Wolfe’s testimony “credible and persuasive that resolving [implementation] details would have been well within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Dec. 23 (citing Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 178–183). Dr. Wolfe provided detailed testimony supported by objective evidence on this point. See id. (citing Pet. 68); Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 182–183 (citing Ex. 1007, 8:13–21; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 8–9; Ex. 1018, 2955, 2962; Ex. 1019 ¶¶ 25, 33, 81; Ex. 1003, 21:8–12, 27:48–28:38, 29:55– 30:33). Thus, even if Mr. Credelle’s testimony was not directly rebutted, we properly weighed Mr. Credelle’s testimony against Dr. Wolfe’s testimony. As such, we determined that a preponderance of the evidence supported Petitioner’s contention that an ordinary artisan would have known how to modify Moran to arrive at a substrate and touch sensor configured to wrap around an edge of a display. See Dec. 26. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that we overlooked or failed to consider any argument or evidence related to how the proposed modification would have been achieved.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Not reached
“D. Constitutionality The remainder of Patent Owner’s arguments on rehearing are devoted to contesting the constitutionality of the appointments of the Administrative Patent Judges. Req. Reh’g 9–12. We decline to address Patent Owner’s constitutional challenge except to note that the constitutionality of the appointments of the Administrative Patent Judges was addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 141 S. Ct. 1970, 1986–87, 1997 (2021).” slip op. at 9
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 9,256,311 - Energysource Minerals, LLC v. Terralithium LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Aug 26, 2021 · IPR2019-01603 · APJ Hubert C Lorin · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied EnergySource’s rehearing request, finding no overlooked or misapprehended arguments or evidence that warranted changing the final written decision on claims 1–18.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“A request for rehearing must identify specifically all matters that the requesting party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When rehearing a decision on institution, the Board will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 3
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“In that regard, Petitioner contends that Christopher’s “aging process resulted in a reduction in ‘at least one elemental component’ (i.e., silica).” Pet. Reply 5–6 (emphasis added). However, this is not buttressed with any evidence. Petitioner has not presented any evidence showing Christopher’s “aging” process reduces “the concentration of at least one … elemental component” to support its contention that Christopher’s brine of Table 1 is a “treated” brine as claimed. Accordingly, on this record, Petitioner has not shown that the “treated” brine of the claims reads on Christopher’s “aged” brine by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentable
“The Petition discusses Grounds I and II on pages 27–30 of the Petition. Ground I challenges the patentability of claims 1–20 as anticipated by Christopher and Ground II challenges the patentability of claims 1–20 as anticipated and/or obvious over Christopher. Reading pages 27–30 it is plainly evident that it is focused on making the case that Christopher discloses all that is claimed. It is devoid of any reasoning with respect to the obviousness of the claims over Christopher. The Graham factors are not addressed. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966). The differences between the claimed invention and Christopher are not identified and no rationale as to why one of ordinary skill would have been led to modify Christopher to reach the claimed subject matter is provided. Rather, the entire discussion goes to explaining why, in fact, Christopher discloses all that is claimed. The Board was consistent with that position. Petitioner cites page 12–14 of the Reply as evidence that an obviousness challenge was presented. We disagree. The Reply does not add anything significant to the obviousness challenge presented in the Petition. The Reply is likewise devoid of any reasoning with respect to the obviousness of the claims over Christopher. It repeats that “Christopher teaches using air oxidation and pH modification to selectively precipitate silica, iron, and other heavy metals from a Salton Sea geothermal brine” (Reply 13, emphasis added), where “a POSITA could readily ‘tune’ these parameters to produce the desired results if such were not obtained immediately.” Id. The Board addressed that argument. See Dec. 17.” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyOther
“Petitioner cites footnote 3 [sic. 1] in the Petition but it merely states “mg/kg=(g/L*1000)/1.18kg/L due to the density of Salton Sea geothermal brines.” There is no evidence cited to support it. Petitioner cites “Reply, 3; Ex. 2025, 337:5-9” and “337:5-13” (Req. 6) but the Reply does not cite to those lines in Dr. Gallup’s Declaration. See Pet. Reply 3 (“Ex. 2025, 336:3-5-337:2”). We were unable to locate these lines of testimony in the Reply. The Board could not have misapprehended or overlooked evidence demonstrating Petitioner’s 1.18 kg/L density that was not before it.” slip op. at 11
§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,644,126 - Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Carucel Investments, L.P.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 3, 2021 · IPR2019-01298 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving in place its decision that all challenged claims were unpatentable.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides in relevant part: 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. A rehearing request is not an opportunity for the requesting party to reargue its case or merely to express disagreement with the Final Written Decision. Nor is it an opportunity for the moving party to present new arguments that were not in its original submissions.” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“As discussed further below, after considering all the evidence, we provided in the Final Written Decision a detailed analysis of Patent Owner’s arguments, and rejected Patent Owner’s proposed limitations for “mobile unit,” determining that the ordinary meaning should apply and no further construction was necessary. Final Dec. 14–26. D. The Final Written Decision Our analysis of “mobile unit” in the Final Written Decision was guided by Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Final Dec. 11. In summary, for the reasons that follow, we are not persuaded that our analysis of “mobile unit” under Phillips was incorrect, or that we overlooked or misapprehended Patent Owner’s arguments or evidence in that analysis.” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,221,904 - Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Carucel Investments, L.P.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 3, 2021 · IPR2019-01404 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving claims 1, 4–11, and 14–23 unpatentable based on its construction of “mobile device” and findings on combining CDMA and TDMA.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“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. A rehearing request is not an opportunity for the requesting party to reargue its case or merely to express disagreement with the Final Written Decision. Nor is it an opportunity for the moving party to present new arguments that were not in its original submissions.” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We disagree that we misapprehended or overlooked any matters in addressing Patent Owner’s proposed construction for “mobile device.” Rather, we provided a comprehensive analysis of the term “mobile device.” anything that was overlooked or misapprehended in this analysis, as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Instead, Patent Owner merely expresses its disagreement with our conclusions and proceeds to reargue points and evidence already considered and rejected in the Final Written Decision. This approach is not proper in a rehearing request. Furthermore, Patent Owner’s own arguments show the error in its proposed construction. For example, Patent Owner argues that the recited “mobile device” “must register with and be able to directly communicate with the cellular network.” PO Resp. 13; Req. Reh’g 1 n.1. Yet, Patent Owner acknowledges that “the claims of the ’023 Patent require the apparatus/movable base station to communicate directly with the cellular network (and not the ‘mobile device’).” Req. Reh’g 3 (emphasis added). As we pointed out in the Final Decision, the only claimed communication involving the mobile device is between the claimed “apparatus” (the mobile base station) and the mobile device, and Patent Owner acknowledges that this communication need not be cellular. Final Dec. 14 (citing PO Sur-reply 9). Thus, Patent Owner’s arguments undermine its proposed construction.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundOther
“[t]he Board erred in finding that that ‘CDMA and TDMA are not incompatible’ by improperly disregarding substantial evidence set forth by Patent Owner and its expert—that undermines any expectation of success and would have discouraged a [person of ordinary skill in the art] from attempting Petitioner’s combinations.” Req. Reh’g 14 (citing Final Dec. 79). Patent Owner does not attempt to identify any specific errors in citing pages from Patent Owner’s written submissions and testimony from its declarant. Req. Reh’g 14 n.31. We disagree that we misapprehended or overlooked any matters in this regard. Rather, we considered Patent Owner’s submissions and disagreed with them, finding instead that the record demonstrated that CDMA and TDMA can be combined, and we relied on, among other evidence, a prior art reference that expressly discloses a combination of CDMA and TDMA. Final Dec. 56–57 (citing Ex. 1033), 79. We further found that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to make the proposed combinations and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Final Dec. 57–58, 79–81. slip op. at 6
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,979,023 - Solvay USA Inc. v. Worldsource Enterprises, LLC, Eco Agro Resources LLC, And Eco World Group LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 1, 2021 · IPR2020-00768 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving institution of IPR on claims 1–17 in place because it found no abuse of discretion under § 325(d).
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The party challenging a decision in a request for rehearing bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). A 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.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When rehearing a 1 Patent Owner originally filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 7) that violated the word count limit in our rules. After conferring with Petitioner and the Board, Patent Owner filed a truncated version of Paper 7 that deletes the text that exceeded the word count limit at the end of the document to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(b)(1). Paper 9. For purposes of this Decision, any references or citations to the Preliminary Response refer to the truncated document filed as Paper 9. decision on a petition, the decision will be reviewed for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“Owner does not clearly identify what matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and where those matters were previously addressed. Instead, it simply repeats arguments and information we have already considered and which we used to form the basis for our determination in the Institution Decision. To the extent Patent Owner believes we did not assign the appropriate weight to events that occurred during prosecution of the parent application of the ’231 patent, we note that Patent Owner’s own arguments derived from that information are based on speculation about what is a “more probable” explanation for the Examiner’s conduct. Rather than rely on speculation about the Examiner’s conduct during prosecution of the parent application, we based our determination on facts derived from the prosecution history of the ’231 patent itself. In that regard, we maintain that “[t]he record does not reflect any substantive consideration of CN400 during prosecution of the ’231 patent, including any consideration of CN400 in combination with Iannotta or Kolc, as presented in the Petition.” Dec. 9 (emphasis added). Nothing in Patent Owner’s recitation of undisputed facts persuasively contradicts this determination. Req. Reh’g 8.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“Nevertheless, even if we were to give weight to Patent Owner’s argument that “it is more probable that the Examiner believed CN400 could not be properly combined” with Kolc and Iannotta, the outcome here would not change. As set forth in our Institution Decision, we disagree with Patent Owner’s assertions that CN400 is non-analogous art that would not be combinable with Kolc and Iannotta. Dec. 19, 24–25. Thus, to the extent Patent Owner contends the Examiner believed CN400 could not be combined with Kolc and Iannotta for the same reasons Patent Owner presented in its Preliminary Response, we would consider such hypothetical reasoning by the Examiner to involve a misapprehension of the specific teachings of the relevant prior art, which would constitute material error. See Advanced Bionics, 8.” slip op. at 7
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for petitioner
“Iannotta is prior art. Reh’g Req. 10. In presenting its arguments, however, Patent Owner acknowledges “[t]his issue was not argued in the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response,” and is based on new information Patent Owner became aware of since the filing date of its Sur-reply. Req. Reh’g 9. A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to present new arguments or evidence. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Moreover, Patent Owner has not directed us to any matters that we overlooked or misapprehended, and the place where those matters were previously addressed. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 8
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,301,231 - PTAB · Feb 9, 2021 · IPR2020-00892 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Wildcat Licensing WI LLC’s rehearing request, finding no abuse of discretion or overlooked matter in granting institution of the challenges.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“When rehearing a decision on institution, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if substantial evidence does not support a factual finding, or if an unreasonable judgment is made in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Also, 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) sets forth, in relevant part that: A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“As we determined in the Decision, Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims in its challenges based on IBM. Petitioner argued that “IBM’s ‘[H]all effect sensor’ indicates tool ‘TORQUE’ to IBM’s controller 6 so that IBM’s controller requires IBM’s tool to achieve the ‘set torque’ at each fastening location in the ‘correct process sequence.’” Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1003, 81– 82). Petitioner also argued that IBM teaches that an operator “must also wait for the set torque to be achieved on each screw before moving onto the next screw.” Id. at 38 (citing Ex. 1003, 82) (emphases added). Petitioner’s declarant opined that “IBM’s microcontroller 6 measures the applied torque with ‘a [H]all effect sensor.’” Ex. 1002 ¶ 111 (citing Ex. 1003, 81–82). Petitioner’s arguments and declarant testimony found support in the preliminary record. As quoted in the Decision, IBM itself states that “controller circuit 6 . . . sense[s] when correct torque is achieved by linking As discussed in the Decision, IBM also states that that “[t]he problem is to ensure that four screws 5 fixing two product parts 3 & 4 together are tightened to a specific torque in a specific sequence.” Dec. 19–20 (quoting from Ex. 1003, 82) (emphasis added); see also Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 52–53 (asserting what IBM teaches). Also, the only figure of IBM shows “TORQUE” being sent to controller circuit 6. Ex. 1003, 81; see also Ex. 1002 ¶ 108 (“IBM diagrammatically illustrates the tool’s sensed ‘TORQUE’ as a signal input being received by IBM’s microcontroller 6 from the torque-sensing ‘[H]all effect sensor in the driver 11’ ([Ex. 1003] p. 82).”). Thus, Petitioner’s arguments, Petitioner’s declarant testimony, and IBM itself sufficiently showed at the preliminary stage that IBM senses or measures correct torque by linking into a Hall effect sensor in driver 11. Pet. 35–36; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 52–53, 108; Ex. 1003, 82. Further, Patent Owner’s arguments for IBM raised a factual question regarding what IBM teaches or suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art, and such issues are best decided on a full record. See Prelim. Resp. 26–49. We agree that Patent Owner does not have a burden to show IBM does not measure torque; however, for purposes of institution, Petitioner sufficiently showed that IBM senses or measures torque.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019- 01469, Paper 6 at 7–11 (PTAB. Feb. 13, 2020) (Decision Denying Institution) (precedential). Req. Reh’g 13–15 (citing Prelim. Resp. 54–64; Dec. 27). Specifically, Petitioner contends that the Decision “conflates or overlooks the two separate requirements in the first part of Advanced Bionics’ framework (art or arguments)” because we concluded “only that ‘Petitioner’s arguments were not previously presented to the Office.’” Id. at 14. However, even assuming arguendo, that substantially the same art was previously presented to the Office, the record and Petitioner sufficiently show that the Examiner materially erred for the reasons discussed in the Board decision reversing the rejection based on Gass alone. The record also shows that the Examiner did not address that error subsequently before allowing the claims. Specifically, the Examiner failed to identify the Office. Additionally, as discussed in the Decision, Petitioner’s demonstration of a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenges based on IBM, as well as the Federal Circuit’s determination in SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018) were considered in our analysis of determining whether to institute review. Dec. 28–29. We determined that our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) was not sufficiently implicated so that § 325(d)’s statutory purpose would be undermined by instituting on all of Petitioner’s challenges. Id. at 28–29. Further, even if exercise of our discretion under § 325(d) to deny the challenges based on Gass was warranted, the record provided no reason for extending our discretion under § 325(d) to the IBM-based challenges to deny the entire Petition under the circumstances presented in this proceeding. Id. at 29.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“The Decision also considered the prior Board decision regarding a rejection based on Gass. Dec. 30 (discussing Ex. 1018). As discussed above and in the Decision, the preliminary record did not indicate that Gass teaches away from the challenged claims. Thus, we do not agree that the Decision overlooked or misapprehended the prior Board decision regarding the rejection based on Gass and overlooked or misapprehended that Petitioner did not establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenges based on Gass.” slip op. at 9
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial - Favored Tech Corporation v. P2i LtdRehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 21, 2020 · IPR2020-00478 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving in place institution of review on claims 1–17 based on the Petition’s challenges.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The party challenging a decision in a request for rehearing bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (2019). A 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.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When rehearing a decision on a petition, the decision will be reviewed for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner also provides a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have used [Baalmann’s] outer-wall configuration with a 1 m3 chamber such that the plasma zone covers the full chamber volume: “because doing so would have maximized the effective chamber capacity at any given chamber size by allowing the reactive plasma to reach all substrate surfaces, even for large substrates or large batches of smaller substrates extending near the outer limits of the chamber.” Pet. 35; Ex. 1002 ¶ 125. Dec. 20–21. Patent Owner does not address this portion of the Decision or our citation to page 35 of the Petition in the section of its Rehearing Request asserting we incorrectly found the Petition asserts a ground of obviousness based on Baalmann alone. Req. Reh’g 7–11.5 These portions of the record, which address Petitioner’s evidence demonstrating a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to use a particular reactor configuration and plasma zone size, undermine Patent Owner’s assertion that “Petitioner’s obviousness theory fails to provide any reasoning why a POSA would combine Baalmann’s separate and distinct teachings to arrive at the claimed” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“teaching away argument in the Decision, we will do so here. With regard to Patent Owner’s contention that “Baalmann teaches away from the claimed method because . . . Baalmann discloses applying a power of 2kW in its only example using a reactor large enough to potentially satisfy claim 1’s plasma zone volume requirement, which would result in a plasma power density well outside the claimed range” (Req. Reh’g 14), we note that a reference teaches away from a claimed invention if it “criticize[s], discredit[s], or otherwise discourage[s]” modifying the reference to arrive at the claimed invention. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Patent Owner does not direct us to any such evidence in Baalmann, and we will not “read into a reference a teaching away . . . where no such language exists.” DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Additionally, although the one example of a 1 m3 reactor in Baalmann involved using a power density that did not fall within the claimed range, for purposes of an obviousness analysis, we cannot ignore the broader disclosure of Baalmann regarding the use of power densities in the range of between 0.5 kW/m3 and 5kW/m3, which does overlap the claimed range. See In re Wesslau, 353 F.2d 238, 241 (CCPA 1965) (“It is impermissible within the framework of section 103 to pick and choose from any one reference only so much of it as will support a given position, to the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference fairly suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art.”).” slip op. at 10
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for petitioner
“Req. Reh’g 14. Patent Owner cites to pages 54–56 of the Preliminary Response as the source for this argument and evidence. Although these pages do provide a discussion of the use of certain power densities in prior art references, this portion of the Preliminary Response primarily addresses Patent Owner’s arguments regarding whether a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a reasonable expectation of success when combining the disparate process of Coulson and Baalmann,” not what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been “motivated” to do. Prelim. Resp. 56; see Par Pharmaceutical v. Twi Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (noting the proper analysis under § 103 requires “consideration of two factors: (1) whether the prior art would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art that they should make the claimed composition or device, or carry out the claimed process; and (2) whether the prior art would also have revealed that in so making or carrying out, those of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success”) (quoting Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1164 (Fed. Cir. 2006). As such, Patent Owner appears to present a new argument for the first time in the Rehearing Request. Not only is such an argument improper (see 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)), but the fact that it was raised for the first time in the rehearing means it is not something we could have overlooked. Even if Patent Owner had presented this “motivation” argument in the Preliminary Response, we remain unpersuaded of any error in our Decision. Patent Owner fails to explain sufficiently why a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to other prior art references for guidance regarding the use of a particular power density in large scale reactors in view of our determination that Baalmann itself discloses the use of a power density in the claimed range in a large scale reactor.” slip op. at 11
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,389,070
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.