- Unified Patents Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Sep 27, 2018 · IPR2016-01404 · APJ Kamran Jivani · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted the motion to excuse late filing and denied rehearing, maintaining that claims 1, 2, 13, 14, 33, 34, 39, 46, and 48 were not shown unpatentable over Bensimon.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision . . .” who “must specifically identify all matters the party believes [we] misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Petitioner’s argument is predicated upon a mischaracterization of our factual findings. Petitioner asserts that we found Bensimon “taught all of the elements of the claim in ‘one possible mode of operation.’” Reh’g Req. 1 (citing Decision 17). We, however, made no such finding. The phrase that Petitioner attributes to us—namely, “one possible mode of operation”—does not appear anywhere in our Final Written Decision. Compare Reh’g Req. 1 (citing Decision 17) to Decision 17. Contrary to Petitioner’s assertions, we did not find “that Bensimon sometimes teaches all of the elements of the claim” nor did we find “that Bensimon discloses a ‘restricted-access mode’ by disclosing a ‘write protection’ mode.” Reh’g Req. 1–3 (citing Decision, 16–17). Rather, we found the exact opposite—that Bensimon fails to disclose the claimed restricted-access mode because, as claimed, that mode requires the absence of the claimed device-specific security information (i.e. the read/write password, or alternatively the combination of the read/write password and password-enabling flag). Decision 16–17 (citing Reply 16– 22) (“Petitioner identifies Bensimon’s read/write password, alone or in combination with the password-enabling flag, as the device-specific security information, yet Petitioner does not identify in Bensimon an explicit disclosure that Bensimon’s storage device operates in the claimed restricted-access mode when the read/write password is absent from the device.”) (bolding added; italics original). slip op. at 5
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“claim” nor did we find “that Bensimon discloses a ‘restricted-access mode’ by disclosing a ‘write protection’ mode.” Reh’g Req. 1–3 (citing Decision, 16–17). Rather, we found the exact opposite—that Bensimon fails to disclose the claimed restricted-access mode because, as claimed, that mode requires the absence of the claimed device-specific security information (i.e. the read/write password, or alternatively the combination of the read/write password and password-enabling flag). Decision 16–17 (citing Reply 16– 22) (“Petitioner identifies Bensimon’s read/write password, alone or in combination with the password-enabling flag, as the device-specific security information, yet Petitioner does not identify in Bensimon an explicit disclosure that Bensimon’s storage device operates in the claimed restricted-access mode when the read/write password is absent from the device.”) (bolding added; italics original).” slip op. at 6
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 6,968,459 - Emerson Electric Co. v. Sipco, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Jun 8, 2017 · IPR2017-00001 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Emerson’s rehearing request, leaving institution on claims 5, 6, and 8 under § 103 over Mason, Cunningham, and Shuey unchanged.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“When rehearing a decision by the Board on whether to institute a trial, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be indicated if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See 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). The burden of showing that our Institution Decision should be modified lies with Petitioner, the party challenging the decision. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). In addition, “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed.” Id.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“advanced by Petitioner in its Rehearing Request—still involves a combination of Kahn and prior art described in the ’661 patent that requires articulation of reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the combination. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2006). Petitioner attempts to distance itself from this requirement by arguing that the Institution Decision “failed to address that Cunningham was presented as an alternative to the disclosure of sensors and actuators in the [prior art described in the ’661 patent].” Req. Reh’g 5. Such an argument obscures the Institution Decision’s finding that the Petition provides insufficient reasoning, apart from hindsight, why one of skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Kahn with the prior art described in the ’661 patent. In particular, the Institution Decision found that the Petition “relies on the ’661 patent to describe the problem that would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kahn and the prior art described in the ’661 patent,” and applied the reasoning of Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc., 679 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Dec. 11–13.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“In addition to this deficiency, the Institution Decision determined that “Petitioner’s challenges are deficient in addressing the ‘gateway’ recited in each of . . . independent claims [1, 5, and 12].” Dec. 13. This additional deficiency extends to challenged dependent claims 6, 8, and 14. Id. at 17. In addressing the “gateway” limitations of independent claims 1, 5, and 12 in its Rehearing Request, Petitioner contends that we “misapprehended or overlooked Cerf’s disclosure of encapsulation datagrams when transmitting datagrams across a network boundary.” Reh’g Req. 14. Petitioner directs our attention to page 26 of its Petition, which asserts that “Cerf discloses that gateways serve as network protocol translators using encapsulation of datagrams, and mapping addresses from one network into local network addresses.” Id. (citing Pet. 26). This limited assertion is insufficient to support the inferential argument presented in the Rehearing Request, namely that “encapsulation of the PRNET packets by the gateway . . . would result in the entire set of selectors and sensor data being transmitted by the gateway over the WAN.” Id. The original Petition insufficiently explains how teachings from Kahn and Cerf are proposed to be combined.” slip op. at 6
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,468,661 - Broad Ocean Technologies, LLC v. Nidec Motor CorporationRehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 22, 2017 · IPR2015-01617 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Petitioner’s rehearing request, leaving intact its decision that claims 7–13 were not shown anticipated by Beifus.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“On rehearing, the burden of showing that the Decision should be modified lies with Petitioner, the party challenging the Decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “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.” Id.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“On rehearing, the burden of showing that the Decision should be modified lies with Petitioner, the party challenging the Decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “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.” Id.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“1 We do not disagree with Petitioner’s general contention that “a prior art reference’s disclosure of a non-anticipatory embodiment does not negate the invalidating effect under 35 U.S.C. §102 of any other anticipatory alternative embodiments.” Req. Reh’g 8–9 (citing Celeritas Techs., Ltd. v. Rockwell Intern. Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Upsher-Smith Labs., Inc. v. Pamlab, L.L.C., 412 F.3d 1319, 1322–23 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Paper 30, 15:10–16:2). Rather, we disagree that Petitioner has carried its burden of showing that Beifus discloses any anticipatory embodiment.” slip op. at 4
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“reliance in its Reply on the reasoning of Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2015)” gave improper effect to an objection raised by Patent Owner during Petitioner’s redirect examination of Dr. Sidman. See Req. Reh’g 12–13 (“Patent Owner Nidec waived all its evidentiary objections to the redirect testimony of Dr. Sidman by not filing a motion to exclude” (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c))). This implication misconstrues the reasoning provided in the Final Written Decision. Rather, we determined that Petitioner’s reliance on Kennametal was improper because it was an argument not raised in the initial Petition. Dec. 18. Regardless of whether Patent Owner made an objection, and regardless of whether Patent Owner filed a motion to exclude based on such an objection, we are not absolved of our duty to guard against the improper presentation of shifting arguments that may unfairly disadvantage an opposing party. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, or patent owner response.”) (emphasis added); CBS Interactive, Inc. v. Helferich Pat. Lic., LLC, Case IPR2013-00033, slip op. at 3 (PTAB Aug. 9, 2013) (Paper 79) (“Should there be improper arguments or evidence presented with a reply, the Board, exercising its discretion, may exclude the reply and related evidence in their entirety, or alternatively, decline to consider the improper arguments and/or related evidence.”). We recognize that Patent Owner addressed Kennametal in its Patent Owner Response, and, as a broadly general proposition, raising an argument in a Response may, without more, entitle a Petitioner to reply to it. But the specific circumstances in this case are not that simple.” slip op. at 7
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 7,990,092
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.