• Henny Penny Corporation v. Frymaster L.L.C.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Jan 20, 2017 · IPR2016-01435 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Henny Penny’s rehearing request, leaving institution on two obviousness grounds and denial of the other nine grounds unchanged.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “I. STANDARD OF REVIEW Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 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.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). The request must identify, specifically, all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, opposition, or reply. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2

  None
  Patents in suitUS 8,497,691
• Allsteel Inc. v. Dirtt Environmental Solutions Ltd.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Apr 4, 2016 · IPR2015-01691 · APJ Sally C Medley · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Allsteel’s request for rehearing and upheld the decision not to institute review of claim 8 because the petition did not explain how Yu met the L-shaped slot limitation.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs 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. Arnold Partnership v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004). For the reasons that follow, Petitioner has not shown that the Board abused its discretion.” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “sufficiently how the modified Yu Figure 30 meets the limitation.” Id. at 18 (emphasis added). We then proceeded to surmise what Petitioner meant as to how the Yu modified Figure 30 presented by Petitioner met the claim limitation. We did this to illustrate that there was insufficient explanation, but we need not have. The burden of demonstrating that a particular feature is met by the prior art rests with the Petitioner, not the Board. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). To the extent that Petitioner disagrees with our assessment of what Petitioner may have meant demonstrates the point. The Petition is unclear and lacks explanation for how the modified Yu Figure 30 meets the generally L-shaped slot limitation of claim 8. In essence, the Petition provides a modified figure of Yu and asks the Board and Patent Owner to figure out how the modified figure meets the claim 8 limitations. Such a showing is insufficient to meet the Petitioner’s burden to show that it is entitled to the relief requested. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that we abused our discretion to not institute trial on claim 8.” slip op. at 3

  None
  Patents in suitUS 8,024,901

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.