- Henny Penny Corporation v. Frymaster L.L.C.Rehearing deniedPTAB · 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
NonePatents in suitUS 8,497,691 - PTAB · May 20, 2016 · IPR2015-00979 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving claims 6 and 13 uninstituted over Raymond and Mutti and over Mutti, Kano, and Suffa.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“The applicable standard for a request for rehearing of an institution decision is abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The requirements are set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides in relevant part: A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for rehearing, without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically 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. For the reasons stated below, Petitioners’ request is denied.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITADecided for patent owner
“regarding “cap” and “valve holder” for claims 6 and 13. Reh’g Req. 1–5 (citing Pet. 17–19, 28). Petitioners explain that the Petition asserted clamping ring 27, body 16, nipple pieces 15, and upper membrane 7 combined are the required “cap” of claim 1. Id. at 2–4 (discussing Pet. 17– 19). Petitioners also explain that the Petition asserted clamping ring 27 meets the “valve holder” of dependent claims 6 and 13 “because the cap in Raymond is much more than clamping ring 27” and clamping ring 27 “is separable from the other parts of the claimed ‘cap.’” Id. at 5 (discussing Pet. 28). Petitioners further argue that the claims, specification, and case law do not require the recited valve holder and cap to be separate structures. Id. at 6–7, 12–13 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:38–41; Ex. 1013; Dec. 16).” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“on Mutti, Kano, and Suffa was also misapprehended and should have been instituted. Reh’g Req. 2, 14–15. Petitioners acknowledge that they rely on Figure 6 for claim 1 and rely on Figures 1–5, which depict another embodiment, for claim 6 which depends from claim 1. Id. Petitioners, however, argue that the “motivation to combine the teachings of Mutti in one embodiment with the teachings of Mutti in another embodiment is entirely obvious—it’s the same reference.” Id. at 15. Petitioners do not identify where the asserted motivation was presented in their Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Even if the Petition included this particular motivation, it does not address the deficiency identified in the Decision. Citing to two embodiments in the same reference does not explain “how and why stop ring 23 of Figure 1 . . . , which holds membrane 22 in position . . . , would be combined with outer part 14b of Figure 6 . . . , which includes inner part/body 14a . . . that also holds membrane 22 in place . . . . In other words, inner part/body 14a, which is an integral part of outer part 14b, already holds membrane 22 in place.” Dec. 21. The Petition does not explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to add stop ring 23 of Figure 1 to outer part 14b of Figure 6, when Mutti teaches each can hold a membrane in place. In particular, the Petition does not explain why both would be required when Mutti teaches that one is adequate. Without such an explanation in the Petition, we are not persuaded to modify our Decision regarding claims 6 and 13 as rendered obvious by Mutti, Kano, and Suffa.” slip op. at 4
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,695,841
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.