- 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 - Apple Inc. v. THL Holding Company, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Sep 27, 2024 · IPR2024-00399 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, finding no abuse of discretion in instituting review of claims 1–19 despite the later disclaimer of claims 1–10.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“be treated as never having existed, and because claim 1 is the only claim on which Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, we should overturn our decision instituting review. As noted above, when rehearing a decision on petition, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion, and an abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c); PPG Indus. Inc., 840 F.2d at 1567. But Patent Owner has not explained how we erred in any way in reaching our decision instituting review. Instead, Patent Owner’s argument is new and was not presented previously, and Patent Owner bases its rehearing argument on circumstances having changed since we issued our decision. Req. Reh’g 4 (stating statutory disclaimer was “filed following, and in view of, the Board’s guidance in the [decision on institution]”). For this reason, the Rehearing Request does not “identify [any] matters [Patent Owner] believes [we] misapprehended or overlooked,” nor does it “identify . . . 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). For this reason, we deny Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing. In addition, we note that statutory disclaimers are “considered as part” slip op. at 4
- Adverse judgmentOther
“proposition that “[c]laims disclaimed under § 253(a) are treated as though they never existed.” Prelim. Resp. 3 (citing Vectra Fitness, 162 F.3d at 1383; Guinn, 96 F.3d at 1422). Neither Guinn nor Vectra Fitness involved a situation in which a determination about the patent, once made, was required to be unwound in light of a subsequent statutory disclaimer. Instead, Vectra Fitness related to a question of how to resolve post-disclaimer proceedings, and Guinn dealt with whether to apply a rule treating the disclaimer of all claims involved in an interference proceeding as a request for adverse judgment against the disclaiming party. Vectra Fitness, 162 F.3d at 1381 (disclaimer filed Feb. 16, 1990; reissue application at issue filed May 9, 1991; reissue patent issued Mar. 29, 1994; infringement suit filed Dec. 4, 1996); Guinn, 96 F.3d at 1420–21. In fact, contrary to the result that Patent Owner urges here of reversing our institution of review, Guinn held that it was appropriate to resolve an interference even after all the involved claims had been disclaimed. 96 F.3d at 1422 (“We hold that the Board had the authority and the responsibility pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 135(a) to resolve the interference and render judgment against Guinn as a result of his disclaimer of claim 9 of the ’812 patent.”).” slip op. at 5
NonePatents in suitUS 11,350,246 - 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 - Energysource Minerals, LLC v. Terralithium LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Aug 26, 2021 · IPR2019-01602 · APJ Hubert C Lorin · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied EnergySource Minerals’ rehearing request, leaving undisturbed the final written decision that claims 1–18 were not shown unpatentable on any asserted ground.
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
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“to ppm by weight” (Req. 8) was not before us, therefore, we could not have overlooked it. Nevertheless, even if we take account of this new argument, the discussion on page 4 of the Reply does not support Petitioner’s position that one ordinary skill in the art reading Christopher would have no other choice but to understand “1.0” “PPM” (Ex. 1006, 42) to mean parts–per– weight. This is so because Petitioner concedes that “ppm can generally be reported as either by weight or by volume.” Req. 8. This is consistent with Dr. Gallup’s testimony. See Dec. 18: According to Patent Owner, “Dr. Gallup explained [that] ppm may be reported as ppm by weight or ppm by volume. (Ex. 2025, 119:16-25; Ex. 2002, ¶64).” Id. [PO Resp. 20] Because we are directed to no evidence contradicting it, we credit Dr. Gallup’s testimony that ppm can be reported by weight or by volume. Given this, one of ordinary skill in the art reading that iron is at a concentration of “1.0 ppm” for stream 3 in Figure 20 may understand it to refer to ppm by volume. Notwithstanding the discussion on page 4 of the Reply that the “general convention” for ppm is that it is weight based, the evidence before us showed, as Petitioner concedes, that ppm can “generally be reported” (Req. 8) by weight or volume. Thus, as we determined, it is possible that one of ordinary skill in the art may understand “ppm” in Figure 20 to “refer to ppm by volume” (Dec. 18).” slip op. at 12
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedOther
“Regarding Petitioner’s assertion that “[d]uring these proceedings, Petitioner has submitted that when Christopher reduces silica, it necessarily also reduces the elemental components of silicon (Si) and oxygen (O2)” (Req. Sur–Reply 1), this is not a position that Petitioner had previously taken. Rather, Petitioner’s position was only that “Christopher states the silica concentration is reduced.” Pet. 23; cf. Pet. Reply 8–9. A rehearing request is not an opportunity to raise new arguments. We could not have overlooked or misapprehended an argument not raised prior to our decision.” slip op. at 6
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“brine (Pet. 22; Dec. 7), Petitioner had to show that “the brine of Table 1 must ‘have been processed such that the concentration of at least one metal or elemental component has been reduced in the brine.’ Ex. 1001, 7:18–21.” Dec. 9 (emphasis added). As noted in our Decision: 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 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
NonePatents in suitUS 9,650,555 - PTAB · Mar 22, 2021 · IPR2020-00336 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving institution in place for claims 10, 12, 13, 16, and 17 because no construction error or abuse of discretion was shown.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“IV. CONCLUSION On this record, Patent Owner neither persuades us that we overlooked or misapprehended any matter, nor sufficiently shows that instituting an inter partes review of claims 10, 12, 13, 16, and 17 of the ’725 patent was an abuse of discretion. V. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Request for Rehearing is denied.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We maintain, at this stage of the proceeding, that the construction of conversational flow should not include “(for instance, the running of an application on a server as requested by a client), where some conversational flows involve more than one connection, and some even involve more than one exchange of packets between a client and a server.” As we explained in the Institution Decision, phrases beginning with “for instance,” “where some,” and “some” are “merely exemplary and non-limiting.” Inst. Dec. 31. Patent Owner does not persuade us, on this record, that omission of these phrases from our definition of “conversational flow” is, as a matter of claim construction, erroneous. See Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 811 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that exemplary language “introduces an example of a broader genus rather than limiting the genus to the exemplary species”).” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“proceeding, that our construction of “conversational flow” is the result of a misunderstanding or misapprehension of the claimed invention or the prior art. IV. CONCLUSION On this record, Patent Owner neither persuades us that we overlooked or misapprehended any matter, nor sufficiently shows that instituting an inter partes review of claims 10, 12, 13, 16, and 17 of the ’725 patent was an abuse of discretion.” slip op. at 6
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 6,665,725 - 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
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.