- Parse Biosciences, Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Feb 5, 2024 · IPR2023-00958 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Rehearing
Rehearing was granted and IPR instituted on claims 1–28 because the petition showed a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 was obvious over Linnarsson, McCloskey, and ordinary skill.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“III. WHETHER REHEARING IS WARRANTED Petitioner argues that we misconstrued the claims “as requiring one to add tags in a way that can provide a distinction based on a ‘polynucleotide sequence.’” Req. 6 (quoting Dec. 14 (Petitioner’s emphasis)). Petitioner is correct. More specifically, we implicitly construed the claim language reciting “a second tag sequence distinguishing said sample polynucleotide from other sample polynucleotides from said cell,” as requiring said “distinguishing” to be based on the sequences of the sample polynucleotides. See, e.g., Dec. 14 (“[E]ach strand of cDNA that is tagged in Linnarsson is tagged regardless of the polynucleotide sequence of the cDNA or its corresponding mRNA. Thus, Linnarsson’s tags do not distinguish between ‘sample polynucleotides,’ whether cDNA or mRNA, of different sequences.”). Based on that misunderstanding, we erroneously determined that the proposed modification could not achieve the claim language, stating the following: Petitioner’s proposal appears to defeat satisfaction of another portion of claim 1, namely a “second tag sequence distinguishing said sample polynucleotide from other sample polynucleotides from said cell.” Ex. 1001, 30:62–64. For if the second tag is “added to the CDS or TSO after extension,” as opposed to the sample polynucleotide, as Petitioner argues (Pet. 39 (emphasis added)), it would appear that the second tag would be incapable of distinguishing any sample polynucleotide from other sample polynucleotides. Rather, the second tag would be ligated to each and every extension product bearing a CDS or TSO without regard to the sequence of any sample polynucleotide. Dec. 16. We now reconsider whether to institute.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“Cited”). Because we find that the same or substantially the same art was previously presented to the Office, we proceed to part two of the analysis. 2. Advanced Bionics Part Two Patent Owner argues that the Petition “fails to show any error in the Examiner’s application during prosecution of the prior art teachings Petitioner now purports to invoke from . . . McCloskey.” Prelim Resp. 23; see also id. at 24–25 (“Revisiting the same art and arguments already overcome during prosecution is a waste of the Board’s limited resources and would unfairly burden PO.”). However, Petitioner argued that “the Examiner committed major error in Examination by erroneously stating that the prior art fails to teach a dual tagging approach when, in fact, this approach is plainly taught in both McCloskey and McCloskey II.” Pet. 67. The record supports Petitioner’s position, and we agree that the error was material to patentability. See Ex. 1005, 131 (Notice of Allowance). Accordingly, and having considered all of the Becton, Dickinson factors, we do not exercise discretionary denial.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We are persuaded there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in demonstrating that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Linnarsson and McCloskey with the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the claimed subject matter. 8. Conclusion as to Claim 1 There is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in proving that claim 1 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNot reached
“the three references is analogous art to the ’013 patent as opposed to each other. Prelim. Resp. 46 (citing Pet. 35; Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 66 F.4th 1373, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2023)). As Sanofi- Aventis holds, a petitioner bears the burden of persuasion to establish that an asserted prior art reference is analogous art to the claimed invention. See Sanofi-Aventis, 66 F.4th at 1377 (“We agree with [the patent owner] that [the petitioner] did not carry its burden to argue that de Gennes is analogous to the [challenged] patent.”); id. (“In evaluating whether a reference is analogous, we have consistently held that a patent challenger must compare the reference to the challenged patent.”); id. at 1378–79 (“We have routinely held that the petitioner has the burden of proving unpatentability.”). However, the Petition should not be denied for failing to state explicitly that the cited prior art references are analogous art to the ’013 patent. Rather, as Sanofi-Aventis further held: “A petitioner is not required to anticipate and raise analogous art arguments in its petition; instead a petitioner can use its reply to ‘respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, patent owner response, or decision on institution.’” Sanofi-Aventis, 66 F.4th at 1379 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.23). Accordingly, we need not address this issue for purposes of deciding whether to institute trial.” slip op. at 15
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,697,013 - Parse Biosciences, Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Feb 5, 2024 · IPR2023-00955 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Rehearing
Rehearing granted and IPR instituted on claims 1–26; the Board found a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Linnarsson and McCloskey.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“III. WHETHER REHEARING IS WARRANTED Petitioner argues that we misconstrued the claims “as requiring one to add tags in a way that can ‘provide a distinction based on a polynucleotide’s sequence.’” Req. 6 (quoting Dec. 15 (Petitioner’s emphasis)). Petitioner is correct. More specifically, we implicitly construed the claim language reciting “a second tag sequence distinguishing said sample polynucleotide from other sample polynucleotides from said cell,” as requiring said “distinguishing” to be based on the sequences of the sample polynucleotides. See, e.g., Dec. 14 (“[E]ach strand of cDNA that is tagged in Linnarsson is tagged regardless of the polynucleotide sequence of the cDNA or its corresponding mRNA. Thus, Linnarsson’s tags do not distinguish between ‘sample polynucleotides,’ whether cDNA or mRNA, of different sequences.”). Based on that misunderstanding, we denied the Petition because “adding a second tag sequence to Linnarsson’s CDS and/or TSO would do nothing to achieve such a distinction,” i.e., “a distinction based on a polynucleotide’s sequence.” Id. at 15. That was error. We now reconsider whether to institute.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDecided for petitioner
“the ’197 patent. See Ex. 1001, code (56) (listing McCloskey II under “References Cited”). Because we find that the same or substantially the same art was previously presented to the Office, we proceed to part two of the analysis.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We are persuaded there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in demonstrating that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Linnarsson and McCloskey to obtain the claimed subject matter. 6. Conclusion as to Claim 1 There is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in proving that claim 1 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNot reached
“GmbH v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 66 F.4th 1373, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2023)). As Sanofi-Aventis holds, a petitioner bears the burden of persuasion to establish that an asserted prior art reference is analogous art to the claimed invention. See Sanofi-Aventis, 66 F.4th at 1377 (“We agree with [the patent owner] that [the petitioner] did not carry its burden to argue that de Gennes is analogous to the [challenged] patent.”); id. (“In evaluating whether a reference is analogous, we have consistently held that a patent challenger must compare the reference to the challenged patent.”); id. at 1378–79 (“We have routinely held that the petitioner has the burden of proving unpatentability.”). However, the Petition should not be denied for failing to state explicitly that the cited prior art references are analogous art to the ’197 patent. Rather, as Sanofi-Aventis further held: “A petitioner is not required to anticipate and raise analogous art arguments in its petition; instead a petitioner can use its reply to ‘respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, patent owner response, or decision on institution.’” Sanofi-Aventis, 66 F.4th at 1379 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.23). Accordingly, we need not address this issue for purposes of deciding whether to institute trial.” slip op. at 15
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,240,197 - Platform Science, Inc. v. Omnitracs, LLCRehearing grantedPTAB · Sep 3, 2021 · IPR2020-01612 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted rehearing and instituted IPR on all petition grounds for claims 1–4, 6–9, 11, 12, and 15, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“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 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. When rehearing a decision on a petition, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“preliminary stage, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to claim 1.” slip op. at 44
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“The only dispute pertaining to claim construction at this stage of the proceeding is whether the phrase “a process for creating said response message,” recited in claim 1, is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.6 Petitioner 6 As noted above, Petitioner raises a second claim construction issue in its Rehearing Request. See Req. Reh’g 12–15 (asserting that the claims require only one instance of copying information from a formatted message to a response message based on which formatted message was received). Petitioner did not raise this issue in the Petition, Patent Owner has not had an contends that the phrase should be interpreted as a means-plus-function limitation, whereas Patent Owner contends that it should not. Compare Pet. 2–7 (advocating for a means-plus-function construction), with Prelim. Resp. 9–11 (advocating for an ordinary and customary meaning). At this stage of the proceeding, the dispute between the parties regarding the construction of this claim phrase does not impact our Decision. Accordingly, we need not construe expressly any claim terms for the purpose of this Decision.” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“VI. ANALYSIS Legal Standards – Anticipation “[A] claim is anticipated ‘if each and every limitation is found expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference.’” King Pharm., Inc. v. Eon Labs., Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Celeritas Techs., Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). Anticipation is a question of fact, In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334–35 (Fed. Cir. 2009), assessed from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art, see Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“the dispositive question regarding anticipation [i]s whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer from the [prior art reference’s] teaching that every claim element was disclosed in that single reference” (alteration in original) (quotation omitted)).” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,925,308 - Eis GmbH v. Novoluto GmbHRehearing grantedPTAB · Sep 25, 2020 · IPR2020-00007 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Rehearing
Granted EIS GMBH’s rehearing request and instituted IPR of claims 1–3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 17–21, and 23–26 on all asserted grounds.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“We find that Dr. Prisco’s testimony is a reasonable interpretation of how Taylor works if the bellows are bidirectional, and the bellows are expanded and contracted when the suction cup is sealingly engaged. Figure 3 of Taylor shown above appears to support Dr. Prisco’s testimony that the bellows may be expanded or contracted from the initial position shown in Figure 3 and does not appear to show any valve or second opening in the bellows to provide unidirectional flow as Dr. Jensen, Patent Owner’s declarant, asserts. Also, as Petitioner asserts, Taylor indicates that a squeeze ball may be substituted for the bellows expressly indicating a device with a bidirectional flow. Although Patent Owner raises valid arguments concerning a common definition of bellows indicating unidirectional flow and provides testimony from Dr. Jensen reasonably supporting such a position, these dueling positions create a genuine issue of material fact that we weigh in favor of Petitioner on institution. See 37 C.F.R. 42.108(c).” slip op. at 18
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“We conclude from a review of Fang and Taylor that they are not substantially the same art nor is Petitioner making substantially the same argument as was presented the Office during prosecution of the ’061 Patent based on Fang. We find that the way in which Fang and Taylor work appear to be materially different. Fang appears to apply only suction to the skin whereas Taylor, with the sealingly connected suction cup, appears to apply a cyclical vacuum that Dr. Prisco testifies meets the claim limitations requiring generation of a pattern of negative and positive pressures, modulated with respect to a reference pressure. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 62–64, 75. Thus Taylor appears to teach the claim element Patent Owner argued during prosecution was missing from Fang. Also, in applying factors (b) and (d) of Becton, Dickinson, because of such differences noted above, we find that Taylor is not cumulative of Fang, which was considered and applied by the Office during prosecution of the ’061 Patent. 4. Conclusion Thus, we find that Taylor and Fang are not substantially the same art, nor were substantially the same arguments based on these references presented in the Petition and during prosecution of the ’061 Patent, respectively. As discussed above, because Petitioner primarily relies on Taylor in all four grounds for teaching the modulation of positive and negative pressures with respect to a reference pressure as required by all of the challenged claims, we also find that, overall, the same or substantially the same art was not previously presented to the Office nor were the same or substantially the same arguments previously presented to the Office. Therefore, we do not need to reach the application of the remaining Becton, Dickenson factors relating to whether the Petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office. Thus, we decline to exercise our discretion under § 325(d) to deny institution of an inter partes review here.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“how Taylor works if the bellows are bidirectional, and the bellows are expanded and contracted when the suction cup is sealingly engaged. Figure 3 of Taylor shown above appears to support Dr. Prisco’s testimony that the bellows may be expanded or contracted from the initial position shown in Figure 3 and does not appear to show any valve or second opening in the bellows to provide unidirectional flow as Dr. Jensen, Patent Owner’s declarant, asserts. Also, as Petitioner asserts, Taylor indicates that a squeeze ball may be substituted for the bellows expressly indicating a device with a bidirectional flow. Although Patent Owner raises valid arguments concerning a common definition of bellows indicating unidirectional flow and provides testimony from Dr. Jensen reasonably supporting such a position, these dueling positions create a genuine issue of material fact that we weigh in favor of Petitioner on institution. See 37 C.F.R. 42.108(c).” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“We find that Dr. Prisco’s testimony is a reasonable interpretation of how Taylor works if the bellows are bidirectional, and the bellows are expanded and contracted when the suction cup is sealingly engaged. Figure 3 of Taylor shown above appears to support Dr. Prisco’s testimony that the bellows may be expanded or contracted from the initial position shown in Figure 3 and does not appear to show any valve or second opening in the bellows to provide unidirectional flow as Dr. Jensen, Patent Owner’s declarant, asserts. Also, as Petitioner asserts, Taylor indicates that a squeeze ball may be substituted for the bellows expressly indicating a device with a bidirectional flow. Although Patent Owner raises valid arguments concerning a common definition of bellows indicating unidirectional flow and provides testimony from Dr. Jensen reasonably supporting such a position, these dueling positions create a genuine issue of material fact that we weigh in favor of Petitioner on institution. See 37 C.F.R. 42.108(c).” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,849,061 - Yamaha Golf Car Company v. Club Car, LLCRehearing grantedPTAB · Jun 26, 2018 · IPR2017-02144 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Rehearing
Rehearing was granted in all four proceedings, and review was instituted on all challenged claims and grounds, except claims 12 and 20, which were disclaimed.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“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.” Id. Upon a request for rehearing, the decision on a petition will be reviewed for an abuse of discretion. 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).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“persuades us to grant Petitioner’s requests for rehearing and institute trial in IPR2017-02141 and IPR2017-02143. In the IPR2017-02142 and IPR2017- 02144 proceedings, which have already been instituted as to one claim, Petitioner’s requests for rehearing convince us to institute as to all claims and all grounds set forth in each petition. In particular, in order to deny institution, or partially institute, we were confronted with competing testimony of witnesses offered as experts, as well as competing prior art translations, and we resolved at least one disputed issue of material fact in favor of Patent Owner to deny each petition. See Dec. 17–20. Our own regulation, however, cautions against such an approach at the institution phase of a proceeding stating, “a genuine issue of material fact created by . . . testimonial evidence [filed by Patent Owner] will be viewed in the light most favorable to the petitioner solely for purposes of deciding whether to institute an inter partes review.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).” slip op. at 4
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportNot reached
“’569 patent was entitled to priority and adequately disclosed by the ’894 Provisional.8 Claim 11 requires “disabling golf cart movement towards the predetermined area further comprises disabling golf cart movement except in a reverse direction,” and Petitioner contends that this limitation was not adequately supported in the ’894 Provisional. Petitioner argues that we improperly weighed competing expert testimony at this phase of the proceeding to resolve the disputed issue in favor of Patent Owner. Specifically, Petitioner argues:” slip op. at 8
- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“9 On April 27, 2018, Club Car (Patent Owner) filed a statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. § 253 for claim 12 of the ’569 patent. See IPR2017-02144, Paper 22, Exhibit B (Disclaimer of claim 12). Because claim 12 has been disclaimed, we need not issue a final written decision addressing the patentability of this claim.” slip op. at 10
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 7,480,569 - FMC Technologies, Inc. v. Onesubsea IP UK LimitedRehearing grantedPTAB · Apr 19, 2018 · IPR2016-00907 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Rehearing
On rehearing, the Board held claims 36 and 37 unpatentable as obvious over Kelly and Fenton, Kelly, Bednar, and Fenton, and Clair and Fenton.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“III. STANDARD OF REVIEW According to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), “[t]he burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision,” and the “request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” The burden here, therefore, lies with Petitioner to show we misapprehended or overlooked the matters it requests that we review.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“sensors, as described by Fenton, are expressly enumerated as being processing apparatus in dependent claim 29.” Id. at 28 (cited by Req. Reh’g 5). The ’306 patent indeed teaches that a processing apparatus may include a temperature, pressure, or flow sensor. Ex. 1001, claim 29 (“the processing apparatus is chosen from at least one of: . . . measurement apparatus; temperature measurement apparatus; flow rate measurement apparatus . . .”); accord id. at claim 37. Accordingly, we also agree that Fenton’s sensors correspond to the recited “processing apparatus.” Petitioner further explained that “[m]odifying Kelly’s subsea choke assembly by adding one or more temperature sensors, pressure sensors, or flow meters as taught by Fenton would provide information related to fluid flow through the assembly and allow more precise control of the choke to achieve desired flow characteristics.” Pet. 27 (emphases added) (cited by Req. Reh’g 1). In light of our current understanding of Petitioner’s argument, based on the record, we find that the combination of Kelly and Fenton teaches a “diverter assembly,” a “choke,” and a “processing apparatus,” and that Petitioner’s proffered reasoning for modifying Kelly’s choke assembly to include Fenton’s temperature sensors, pressure sensors, or flow meters in order to allow for more precise control of the choke is sufficient to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See Pet. 27–28.” slip op. at 8
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,573,306 - PTAB · Nov 14, 2017 · IPR2015-01802 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Rehearing
Granted rehearing and held claims 2, 4, and 6 unpatentable as obvious over Rabinovich because the wireless-network limitation encompasses a connection through a wireless hub.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“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 addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. With this in mind, we address the arguments presented by Petitioner.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Ex. 1002, 3:41–49. Thus, the ’680 patent itself does not limit the recited “wireless network” to an ad hoc network. Moreover, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that our construction of “computer unit” requires limiting the recited “wireless network” to an ad hoc network. Specifically, dependent claims 2 and 4 each recite “wherein the at least one computer unit and the at least two data storage units are connected over a wireless network.” Dependent claim 6 recites a similar limitation. We construed “computing unit” to encompass any computing device. Dec. 6. We did not, as Patent Owner contends, “construe[] both the ‘computer unit’ and ‘data storage units’ as hosts” (PO Br. 3). Although our construction encompasses Rabinovich’s hosts, it does not require the recited “computer unit” and “data storage units” to be hosts. Moreover, even assuming that both units are Rabinovich’s “hosts,” dependent claims 2, 4, and 6 require only that they be “connected over a wireless network,” not “between” or “directly connected to each other,” as Patent Owner contends (PO Br. 3). Thus, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that two hosts “connected over a wireless network” necessarily requires a wireless connection “between” two hosts. Id. Based on our review of the ’680 patent, we construe “connected over a wireless network” as broad enough to encompass a connection through a wireless hub.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Ex. 1002, 3:41–49. Thus, the ’680 patent itself does not limit the recited “wireless network” to an ad hoc network. Moreover, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that our construction of “computer unit” requires limiting the recited “wireless network” to an ad hoc network. Specifically, dependent claims 2 and 4 each recite “wherein the at least one computer unit and the at least two data storage units are connected over a wireless network.” Dependent claim 6 recites a similar limitation. We construed “computing unit” to encompass any computing device. Dec. 6. We did not, as Patent Owner contends, “construe[] both the ‘computer unit’ and ‘data storage units’ as hosts” (PO Br. 3). Although our construction encompasses Rabinovich’s hosts, it does not require the recited “computer unit” and “data storage units” to be hosts. Moreover, even assuming that both units are Rabinovich’s “hosts,” dependent claims 2, 4, and 6 require only that they be “connected over a wireless network,” not “between” or “directly connected to each other,” as Patent Owner contends (PO Br. 3). Thus, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that two hosts “connected over a wireless network” necessarily requires a wireless connection “between” two hosts. Id. Based on our review of the ’680 patent, we construe “connected over a wireless network” as broad enough to encompass a connection through a wireless hub. Because we determine that the “wireless network” recited in dependent claims 2, 4, and 6 need not be an ad hoc network, Patent Owner’s argument that Rabinovich’s replication method would have been unsuitable for use over an ad hoc network does not persuasively rebut Petitioner’s showing. Having considered the arguments and evidence of both parties, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that dependent claims 2, 4, and 6 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Rabinovich.” slip op. at 7
- ExcludeNot reached
“We decline to assess the merits of Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude. Even without excluding the identified evidence, we have concluded that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 2, 4, and 6 are unpatentable. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,904,680 - PTAB · Mar 29, 2017 · IPR2016-01492 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted rehearing in part to explain institution on Eizenhöfer and Miller anticipation grounds for claims 13–15 and require claim-interpretation briefing; it denied rehearing on § 325(d).
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedRehearing, deniedGranted in part
“decision for an abuse of discretion. See 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. See Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The party challenging the decision has the burden of showing a decision should be modified, and the request for rehearing must specifically” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“terminal demand” in a single sentence supported by citations to portions of the Specification and testimony from Dr. Lomp. Id. at 15–16 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:8–11, 18:50–54, 19:1–4, Figure 15A; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 7, 16, 19–21). Based on our review of the cited portions of the Specification, it is not apparent how those sections support WPI’s proffered meaning of “subscriber terminal demand.” None of the cited portions explicitly defines “subscriber terminal demand” or uses the term, and WPI does not explain why those cited portions are relevant to the inquiry. The cited testimony from Dr. Lomp reflects his opinion but is not supported by any citations to other evidence, including the Specification itself. To the extent that WPI’s argument regarding the meaning of “subscriber terminal demand” relies upon Dr. Lomp’s testimony, we currently find that argument unpersuasive because it is unsupported by other evidence. TCT has not expressly argued the meaning of “subscriber terminal demand” but instead implies a meaning by identifying specific portions of Eizenhöfer that allegedly teach this limitation. Pet. 31–32 (citing Ex. 1004, 3:7–10, Abstract). Absent briefing with citations to relevant evidence, we decline to offer our own express interpretation of “subscriber terminal demand.” Rather, we determine that TCT’s implied interpretation and its argument based on that interpretation demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of establishing that Eizenhöfer describes the recited limitation. Because resolution of the dispute may require an express interpretation of “subscriber terminal demand,” we also direct the parties to address explicitly the meaning of this phrase at trial and cite relevant evidence from among at least other claims, the Specification, and the prosecution history.” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“reasons. First, WPI has failed, as required under Rule 42.71(c), to identify an abuse of discretion stemming from our allegedly “unreasonable” failure to exercise discretion under § 325(d) and deny institution of challenges based on Miller. Second, WPI merely reiterates an argument already considered and rejected, and thus fails to meet its obligation under Rule 42.71(d) to “identify all matters . . . misapprehended or overlooked.” We disagree that WPI offered a “clear comparison” of the entirety of the claims that were allegedly previously considered by the Office during reexamination of the ’326 patent to the claims at issue in this proceeding. Describing claims in the ’326 patent as “closely related” or reciting “similar features” without providing the actual text of those claims fails to provide an adequate basis for comparing those claims to the claims at issue in this proceeding. The paraphrased comparison of claims in the ’326 patent to the claims here is similarly lacking in clarity. Third, even if we were to determine that WPI sufficiently compared the “orthogonal code generator” recited in claims of the ’326 patent to the one recited in the claims at issue, such a comparison fails to demonstrate enough similarity in the claims overall to justify a discretionary denial of TCT’s challenge based on Miller.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Not reached
“TCT has not expressly argued the meaning of “subscriber terminal demand” but instead implies a meaning by identifying specific portions of Eizenhöfer that allegedly teach this limitation. Pet. 31–32 (citing Ex. 1004, 3:7–10, Abstract). Absent briefing with citations to relevant evidence, we decline to offer our own express interpretation of “subscriber terminal demand.” Rather, we determine that TCT’s implied interpretation and its argument based on that interpretation demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of establishing that Eizenhöfer describes the recited limitation. Because resolution of the dispute may require an express interpretation of “subscriber terminal demand,” we also direct the parties to address explicitly the meaning of this phrase at trial and cite relevant evidence from among at least other claims, the Specification, and the prosecution history.” slip op. at 5
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,381,211 - Sandisk Corporation v. Netlist, Inc.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Apr 27, 2016 · IPR2014-00971 · APJ Linda M Gaudette · IPR · Rehearing
Rehearing was granted for claims 9 and 10, held unpatentable over Averbuj and JEDEC Standard and over Huang and JEDEC Standard; rehearing was denied for claims 4 and 15.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedRehearing, deniedGranted in part
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, and “[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 in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“C. Analysis Petitioner’s arguments are based on an underlying contention that, because the Board sua sponte raised a patentability challenge based on Huang alone, whereas Petitioner’s challenge was based on a combination of Huang and Tsern, the Board relied on evidence that was not cited in the Petition. Petitioner has not identified, nor do we find, however, any indication in our Institution Decision that we relied on evidence other than that expressly cited by Petitioner, e.g., Dr. Alpert’s statement that “[t]o the extent th[e] additional claim [4] element may not be disclosed by Huang alone, it is disclosed by Tsern” (Dr. Alpert’s first declaration (Ex. 1007) ¶ 156, cited in Pet. 42). See Dec. on Inst. 17–18. Petitioner has not explained, moreover, why it delayed more than a year to bring to our attention the alleged error in our finding that the Petition “identifies where Huang discloses or suggests every element of challenged claim[ 2].” (Dec. on Inst. 18). For example, Petitioner did not file a request for rehearing of our decision denying institution of trial on Petitioner’s challenge based on Huang and Tsern and/or instituting trial based on unpatentability in view of Huang alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (“A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing without prior authorization from the Board.”). Nor did Petitioner seek our authorization to withdraw the instituted challenge of claim 4 based on Huang alone. Cf. Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, 2015 WL 8651563, at *9–10 (PTAB 2015) (denying Petitioner’s motion to withdraw its challenge as to some of the claims where Petitioner delayed in seeking to correct its petition: “[O]ur Decision to Institute should have apprised Ericsson of the problem with its challenge to claim 55.”).” slip op. at 5
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“In any event, we find the declaration testimony relied on by Petitioner in support of this Request (see Req. Reh’g 13–14) supports our determination that Petitioner failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Averbuj anticipates claim 15. Dr. Alpert testified that if the “configuration [to selectively input to the address and control ports] is determined to require the structure that performs the selection itself, then the disclosed control module also includes multiplexer 46 of memory interface 41.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 87 (emphasis added). Petitioner did not explain (see Pet. 24–25; Reply 14–15) how Averbuj describes multiplexer 46 as being part of sequencer 8 (the alleged control circuit). See Final Dec. 43–44 (explaining that Petitioner has not addressed Patent Owner’s argument that the device that selectively inputs address and control signals to memory modules 12 is multiplexer 46 of memory interface 41 (the alleged data handler), not sequencer 8 (the alleged control circuit)). In sum, for the above reasons, we are not persuaded of error in our determination that Petitioner did not meet its burden to establish unpatentability of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Averbuj.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“In its Response, Patent Owner argues that claims 9 and 10 require a system configured to record “failures,” but in the system described in JEDEC Standard, testing stops after only one failure is recorded. Resp. 59– 60. Patent Owner further argues claims 9 and 10 require an internal tester, but the tester in JEDEC Standard is external to the memory system being tested. Id. at 60. In support of these arguments, Patent Owner relies on the declaration testimony of its witness, Dr. Sechen (Exhibit 2012). Id. at 59–60 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 229–32). Petitioner, in its Reply, argues “[t]he claims are not limited to recording failures during a single test. Instead, the cla[i]ms only require that the data and addresses associated with the failures be stored.” Reply 22. Petitioner directs us to the section of JEDEC Standard relied on its Petition, noting there is a subsection on “Multiple Failures” and a description of “a procedure to generate ‘a complete data log of all failures’ including the address and data associated with the failure.” Id. (citing Ex. 1006 § 8.2.4.5). In response to Patent Owner’s argument that the system in JEDEC Standard uses an external tester, Petitioner, relies on testimony in Dr. Alpert’s second Declaration (Ex. 1009). See Reply 22–23. Petitioner argues Dr. Sechen’s testimony is based on disclosure in JEDEC Standard relating to transparent mode testing (Ex. 1006 § 8.1), which differs from Memory BIST, described in the section of JEDEC Standard cited in the Petition (id. at § 8.2). See id.; Ex. 1009 ¶ 79 (asserting that the sections of JEDEC Standard relied on by Dr. Sechen, e.g., sections 5.1 and 5.5, relate to transparent mode). Dr. Alpert explains that “Transparent Mode is used during FB-DIMM manufacturing to detect defects in the memory devices, interface, and board assembly using data patterns supplied by an external tester. Memory BIST is used for testing a FB-DIMM in a system at power-on initialization without using test equipment external to the system.” Ex. 1009 ¶ 78. During the oral hearing, Patent Owner did not dispute these assertions. See generally, Paper 33 (transcript of the oral hearing). We find that Dr. Sechen’s testimony is related to JEDEC Standard’s description of testing in transparent mode and does not address adequately JEDEC Standard’s discussion of Memory BIST, i.e., the section of JEDEC Standard relied on by Petitioner in support of its patentability challenges as to claims 9 and 10. We also agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with claims 9 and 10. We find Petitioner’s contentions with respect to the teachings of JEDEC Standard and motivation for modifying the respective systems of Averbuj and Huang are supported by JEDEC Standard, and conclude Petitioner has met its burden to show, by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 9 and 10 are” slip op. at 14
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,359,501 - Captioncall, L.L.C. v. Ultratec, Inc.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Dec 1, 2015 · IPR2013-00543 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted rehearing only to modify its analysis of combining Ryan and McLaughlin, denied rehearing otherwise, and maintained that claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedRehearing, deniedGranted in part
“II. DISCUSSION 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.” Id.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentableUnpatentable
“function. Ex. 1005, 4:19–28. According to Mr. Occhiogrosso, whose testimony we credit on this point, it was well known in the field of speech recognition at the time of the invention that speaker-dependent speech recognition (e.g., trained to the voice of a particular speaker) performed better than untrained, speaker-independent speech recognition. Ex. 1019 ¶¶ 23, 25; Ex. 1036 ¶ 55. This is reflected in Ryan’s teaching that the accuracy of a relay that uses speech recognition software may be improved if a call assistant re-voices the remote user’s words into a terminal with voice recognition software designed to recognize the call assistant’s voice. Ex. 1005, 4:33–38. Thus, McLaughlin teaches the use of automated equipment at a relay, Ex. 1009, 29:20–22, and Ryan teaches a computer with speech recognition software as one form of automated equipment that can be used at a relay, Ex. 1005, 4:33–38. McLaughlin also notes the use of computerized speech recognition in another context, i.e., translation of voice mail messages from voice to text. Ex. 1012, 26:59–62. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Ryan’s intermediate re-voicing solution—using voice recognition software trained to the voice of a call assistant at a relay— would address the shortcomings of applying voice recognition directly to a remote caller’s voice, acknowledged by McLaughlin. See Ex. 1036 ¶ 55. As Mr. Occhiogrosso explains, combining the teachings of Ryan and McLaughlin to achieve the claimed invention involves nothing more than directing the captioned telephone device of McLaughlin to connect to a re-voicing relay, as taught in Ryan, rather than a conventional relay. Ex. 1036 ¶ 54; see Reply 12. For these reasons, we are persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Ryan and McLaughlin, using Ryan’s re-voicing relay in place of McLaughlin’s relay, along with McLaughlin’s captioned telephone device.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“use of trained voice recognition software. Id. at 54–55. In particular, Patent Owner submits that McLaughlin acknowledges the shortcomings of automated speech recognition technology and, therefore, would have discouraged one of ordinary skill in the art from attempting to design the relay claimed in the ’104 patent. Id. at 54 (citing Ex. 1012, 26:54–62). McLaughlin, however, refers to the limitations of speech recognition in the context of translating voice mail messages to text for deaf users, not in connection with relay services discussed in another section of McLaughlin. See Ex. 1012, 26:54–62. Moreover, as discussed previously, we credit the testimony of Mr. Occhiogrosso that it was well known in the field of speech recognition at the time of the invention that speaker-dependent speech recognition (e.g., trained to the voice of a particular speaker), such as that used in Ryan’s re-voicing technique, performed better than untrained, speaker-independent speech recognition, such as would be used in the voice mail application described in McLaughlin. See Ex. 1019 ¶¶ 23, 25; Ex. 1036 ¶ 55. On the facts presented here, we are not persuaded that McLaughlin’s statement regarding limitations of speech recognition technology sufficiently teaches away from the combination of Ryan’s re-voicing scheme with McLaughlin’s relay system to establish nonobviousness. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994).” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“determined that the ’104 patent contemplated software trained to a “voice pattern of the call assistant,” as set forth in the “Brief Summary of the Invention,” as well as software “specifically trained to the voice of [a] particular call assistant,” as described in the context of a particular relay embodiment shown in Figure 1. Final Dec. 9 (quoting Ex. 1002, 2:54–56, 6:17–20). Based on the evidence in the written description (including the disclosure of “voice pattern”), we determined that the ’104 patent did not indicate expressly how training occurs. Id. Giving the claim language its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification, we concluded we would not limit “trained to the voice of the call assistant” to require training to the voice of one particular call assistant. Id.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,555,104
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.