- Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 15, 2024 · IPR2023-00745 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 and 8–22 were not shown unpatentable because Mills did not disclose the required embedded structure and Markel combined with Mills did not teach it; the revised motion to amend was dismissed as moot.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsNot reached
“Patent Owner’s Revised Contingent Motion to Amend asserts that in “the event the Board finds at least one challenged [Revised Motion to Amend] claim unpatentable, [Patent Owner] respectfully requests that the Board grant this Motion with respect to the corresponding proposed substitute claim(s).” Paper 27, 1. Because we determine that Petitioner has not established that any of the challenged claims 1–4 and 8–22 are unpatentable, Patent Owner’s Revised Contingent Motion to Amend is moot.” slip op. at 61
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is somewhat broader in both education and proposed work experience. Patent Owner’s proposed work experience is somewhat vague and potentially outside the scope of the claimed invention. For example, the requirement that the person of ordinary skill in the art have experience with the “capture and processing of data or information, including but not limited to physiological information,” would seemingly encompass data processing areas that do not relate to the scope of the claimed invention. We adopt Petitioner’s level of the level of ordinary skill in art because it is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). Our analysis and the end result are the same under either proposed definition.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“structure where a lead is embedded in a portion of the enclosure from other embodiments where a lead is merely positioned against or in parallel contact with a portion of the enclosure. See Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 36–37. The Specification describes distinct embodiments such as “lead 472 of the heart sensor can be positioned against the back surface of bezel 460,” or “[a]lternatively, lead 472 can be placed within the thickness of bezel 460 (e.g., in a pocket within the bezel wall), but underneath the outer surface of the bezel.” Ex. 9:44–48. We agree with Patent Owner, and Dr. Kenny, that “[t]his passage distinguishes a lead that is embedded in a portion of the enclosure from a lead that is merely ‘positioned against’ or in parallel contact with a portion of the enclosure.” PO Resp. 6–7 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 33–35). See also Ex. 2008, 31:10–33:18, 109:18–110:19 (Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Oslan, suggesting that a first component or object in parallel contact with and positioned under a second component or object would not necessarily indicate that the first component or object is embedded in the second component or object). Similarly, we also agree that “the claims of the ’257 use the term ‘embedded in’ while also using the word ‘embedded’ in other contexts, which” indicates distinct claim scope for “the term ‘embedded in,’” versus “the broader term ‘embedded.’” Ex. 2003 ¶ 38. For instance, claim 9 distinctly requires “embedded with,” which is a broader term that, according to Dr. Kenny, encompasses embodiments where a lead may be adjacent/parallel to the first portion of the enclosure. Id.” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“under the exterior of the first portion” (see Pet. 21–22, 24–25; Pet. Reply 4); and (3) leaf spring 62 is embedded in housing 12 and electrode 14 (see Pet. 22–24). None of Petitioner’s mappings disclose every element of claim 1 and Petitioner improperly jumps between these various mappings without fully examining a single mapping for each and every limitation of claim 1. See Pet. 18–25. In essence, Petitioner invites the Board to piece together a single theory that meets all claim elements from these disparate theories that each require distinct structure within Mills. See Amazon.com, Inc., et al. v. Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) PTE. LTD., IPR2017-01112, Paper 11, at 13 (PTAB Aug. 23, 2017) (“Petitioner is inviting us to assume the role of archeologist of the record, which invitation we decline.”).” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 10,076,257 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,076,257 - Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 11, 2024 · IPR2023-00664 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–24 were not determined unpatentable because the cited combinations failed to teach or suggest the claimed selectable widget functionality and lacked a coherent rationale to combine.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that: A POSITA [person of ordinary skill in the art] of the ’352 patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in a discipline related to human-computer interaction, such as Human Factors, Computer Science, Computer Engineering, or an equivalent discipline, and at least two years of experience working with touchscreen user interfaces. More education could substitute for less work experience, and vice-versa. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 34).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In our Decision to Institute, we construed “input that is directed to a portion of” a user interface. Paper 8, at 9; see also Pet. 24–25. Because this interpretation is not necessary for our final determination, we do not repeat it here.” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Chae’s annotated Figure 6(b) “illustrates unlocking the second SIM (SIM2) according to the method for operating a mobile terminal.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 19. Ex. 1005, Fig. 6(b). Although Figure 6(b) “displays different items” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 109) such as the depictions of people (Lauran and Chris) and partly cloudy weather, Chae does not suggest that selecting these graphics causes display of an application. See PO Resp. 21. Petitioner contends that an ordinary artisan would have understood that selecting one of Chae’s graphics items must cause display of an application (see Pet. 55; Pet. Reply 11), but Chae does not teach or suggest this feature. As Dr. Cockburn persuasively testifies, “nothing in Chae indicates that the icons displayed in Figure 6(b) are dynamic or change in any way in response to content in the corresponding applications, and that the icons when selected causes display of the corresponding applications.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 46. The mere possibility that Chae’s generic graphical objects could perform a function is speculation because nothing in Chae teaches that selecting that graphical object would display a corresponding application. See id. The display of icons in Figure 6(b) does not inform the person of ordinary skill in the art whether the item has to indicate or contain content from an underlying application, and also whether it is selectable to get to that corresponding application as required by the claims. See Tr. 32:21–33:3. Petitioner’s reliance of the testimony of Dr. Rosenberg (see Ex. 1003 ¶ 91) is unpersuasive because Dr. Rosenberg merely restates the Petitioner’s assertions without reliance on persuasive evidence of record. See Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, at 5 (Feb 10, 2023) (Vidal, Dir.) (“[T]he Board was correct in giving little weight to Petitioner’s expert because the expert declaration merely offered conclusory assertions without underlying factual support and repeated, verbatim, Petitioner’s conclusory arguments.”). When addressing Chae’s three graphics in Figure 6(b) during cross-examination, Dr. Rosenberg testifies that “[t]hey’re not a numbered element, so they’re not spoken about specifically those three ones”). Ex. 2005, 56:9–14, 54:21–22 (“Chae doesn’t talk about the weather icon”). Further, the final record does not support Dr. Rosenberg’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that “part of the well-known functionality of widgets was that selecting a widget would cause ‘display of an application corresponding to the respective user interface object.’” Ex. 1003 ¶ 91. None of the references relied upon by Petitioner discloses this alleged “well-known functionality of widgets,” nor does the evidence of record support any industry standard usage of the term widget in the appropriate timeframe. See Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 46–48. Petitioner has also not persuasively shown that selections of Chae’s SIM card icons result in the display of an application as claimed. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 152–154, Fig. 22; see also Tr. 43:14–17 (“the claimed interface object causes display of the corresponding application, but selection of this paragraph 152, Figure 22 widget causes selection of something different, a sim environment.”). We find Patent Owner’s position more persuasive, when Chae uses the word widget, it is not using that word to refer to something that launches into an application, but instead Chae’s widgets show use-state information related to a SIM environment. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 152–154; Tr. 33:3–12. Specifically, Chae discloses “widgets that show use-state information of the first and second SIMs (SIM1 and SIM2),” and “when a user selects one of [the] widgets,” it “unlocks the SIM corresponding to the dragged widget.” Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 152, 153, Fig. 3 (unlocking SIM displays home screen customized to unlocked SIM). Chae does not support that these widgets relate to the graphic items in its Figure 6(b), nor does Chae explain how its widgets could be understood as the claimed “user interface objects” of the widget screen user interface. As explained persuasively by Dr. Cockburn, “the only widgets that are described in Chae are widgets relating to the use state of the multiple SIM cards,” and “[t]hese widgets described in Chae do not correspond to applications and thus do not cause display of applications when the widgets are selected.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 46 (quoting Ex. 1005 ¶ 152).” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Based on the final record before us, we conclude that Petitioner has not persuasively shown that the combination of prior art teaches the required widget limitation of “a respective user interface object . . . when selected, causes display of an application corresponding to the respective user interface object” as recited in claim 1. Petitioner relies on Chae’s Figure 6(b), which is reproduced below: Chae’s annotated Figure 6(b) “illustrates unlocking the second SIM (SIM2) according to the method for operating a mobile terminal.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 19. Ex. 1005, Fig. 6(b). Although Figure 6(b) “displays different items” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 109) such as the depictions of people (Lauran and Chris) and partly cloudy weather, Chae does not suggest that selecting these graphics causes display of an application. See PO Resp. 21. Petitioner contends that an ordinary artisan would have understood that selecting one of Chae’s graphics items must cause display of an application (see Pet. 55; Pet. Reply 11), but Chae does not teach or suggest this feature. As Dr. Cockburn persuasively testifies, “nothing in Chae indicates that the icons displayed in Figure 6(b) are dynamic or change in any way in response to content in the corresponding applications, and that the icons when selected causes display of the corresponding applications.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 46. The mere possibility that Chae’s generic graphical objects could perform a function is speculation because nothing in Chae teaches that selecting that graphical object would display a corresponding application. See id. The display of icons in Figure 6(b) does not inform the person of ordinary skill in the art whether the item has to indicate or contain content from an underlying application, and also whether it is selectable to get to that corresponding application as required by the claims. See Tr. 32:21–33:3.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 11,106,352 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,106,352 - Apple Inc. v. Masimo CorporationNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 12, 2022 · IPR2020-01524 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1–16 not unpatentable because Petitioner failed to prove obviousness over the asserted Richardson-based grounds, including the required distinct, nonzero duty cycles.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Based on the final record, we find Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation of “duty cycle” persuasive. The evidence cited supports “duty cycle” to mean “the ratio of operating time (or on time) of a light source to the total time period during which the light source is intermittently operated, expressed as a percentage.” See Ex. 2002 ¶ 36 (relying on an electronics dictionary and testifying as to how the ’776 patent uses “duty cycle” consistent with its plain and ordinary meaning to require a ratio of operating time to total elapsed time). We are persuaded by the Specification of the ’776 patent describing the “duty cycle” as the ratio of the operating time (or on time) of the red and infrared LEDs to the total time period during which the LEDs are intermittently operated, expressed as a percentage. See Ex. 1001, 2:43–44; Ex. 2004, 225; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 37, 39. The duty cycle is described as consistently being “in the range of about 3.125% to about 25%.” Ex. 1001, 2:43–44, Figs. 5, 8. The weight of the evidence, including the claim language and Specification, convinces us that neither the first nor the second duty cycles can be 0%. The claims require the first and second control protocol light sources to generate light so that the patient monitor can calculate a pulse rate based on the light. See Ex. 1001, 11:45–12:21 (“when operating according to the first control protocol, calculating . . . measurement values of the pulse rate, . . . responsive to light from the first control protocol light source” and “calculating the measurement values of the pulse rate, . . . responsive to light from the second control protocol light source”); Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 41, 42. The first and second duty cycles cannot be 0% because the light sources of the first and second control protocol light source would not generate light to enable pulse rate calculation as required by the claims. See Ex. 2002 ¶ 42 (“[I]f the first control protocol light source had a duty cycle of 0%, the light source would be inactive and would not generate light. If the light source did not generate light the monitor could not calculate the ‘measurement” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner identifies the appropriate level of skill in the art as that possessed by a person having “a Bachelor of Science degree in an academic discipline emphasizing the design of electrical, computer, or software technologies, in combination with training or at least one to two years of related work experience with capture and processing of data or information, including but not limited to physiological monitoring technologies.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 32 (“someone with a working knowledge of physiological monitoring technologies”)). “Alternatively, the person could have also had a 1 Neither party has introduced objective evidence of non-obviousness. See Tr. 23:25–24:3. Master of Science degree in a relevant academic discipline with less than a year of related work experience in the same discipline.” Id. Patent Owner makes several observations regarding Petitioner’s identified level of skill in the art but, “for this proceeding, [Patent Owner] applies the asserted level of skill identified in the Petition.” PO Resp. 11– 12. We adopt Petitioner’s assessment as set forth above, which appears consistent with the level of skill reflected in the Specification and prior art.” slip op. at 22
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“generated by the source is adjusted to optimize the signal to noise ratio and to minimize power consumption.” Ex. 1006, 11:54–57; Pet. 46, 49, 50. Turcott conveys that this “can be done by adjusting the drive current, the frequency of the pulse train, the pulse duration, or the duty cycle of the pulse train.” Ex. 1006, 11:57–59. Dr. Anthony contends that Turcott describes shifting the frequency of the pulse train and adjusting the duty cycle from one duty cycle to another, and infers that these things could be done during normal operation of the device to reduce power consumption. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 81, 82, 87. We do not agree that Turcott teaches shifting the frequency of the pulse train or adjusting the duty cycle during normal operation of the device as alleged by Petitioner. We have considered Dr. Anthony’s testimony as to these points, but we determine that the scope of Turcott’s teachings are better explained by Dr. Madisetti. We find more persuasive Dr. Madisetti’s testimony and reasoning that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Turcott’s adjustments would happen during device design or setup, and not during operation of the device. Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 101–105. This is so because Turcott discloses operating at a single, low duty cycle that minimizes power consumption. See Ex. 2002 ¶ 104; Ex. 1006, 11:51–52 (“To conserve energy, the source is preferably driven with a low duty cycle pulse train.”). We also find persuasive Dr. Madisetti’s cross-examination testimony that the use of the terminology “optical power generated by the source is adjusted” in Turcott, “refers and describes to a POSA that it’s adjusted, past tense, at design time or manufacturing or setup,” and that “Turcott refers to this adjusted in past tense through the term ‘adjusting’ referring to that time at manufacturing or setup.” Ex. 1038, 22:16–24:15.” slip op. at 43
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“As we determined above, the claimed first and second duty cycles cannot be 0%. This determination precludes Petitioner’s first mapping of Richardson from reading on claims 1 and 11. Petitioner identifies the first mapping of Richardson as the transition of Richardson’s oximeter from State 2 to State 1. Pet. 10 (“For this first mapping of Richardson . . . the claim elements . . . are mapped to disclosure in Richardson describing the oximeter transitioning from State 2 (as the first control protocol) to State 1 (as the second control protocol).”). Petitioner argues that State 2 (blue below) is the “first control protocol” and State 1 (orange below) is the “second control protocol” required by claims 1 and 11. Patent Owner’s annotated Figure 2 of Richardson (Ex. 1004) describes implementing the noise reduction methods in a pulse oximeter having three states, including State 1 (highlighted in orange) and State 2 (highlighted in blue). PO Resp. 33. Richardson’s pulse oximeter transitions from State 1 to State 2 “[e]very 30 seconds,” and “[t]he purpose of State 2 is to detect new noise sources that may have appeared since the last State 0 measurements.” Ex. 1004, 9:39–42. In State 2, the oximeter reassesses the noise “by turning off one LED; typically the red LED,” for about 1.4 seconds. Id. at 6:2–3, 9:52–53. When the 1.4 seconds (i.e., idle time) expires, the oximeter automatically returns to State 1 where it uses the newly estimated noise values. Id. at 9:63–65; see also id. at 9:66–10:5 (discussing idle time). When operating in State 1, the oximeter has both LEDs turned on. Id. at 5:55–67. Petitioner argues that the red LED “has a duty cycle of 0%” in State 2 and a duty cycle of “at least 25%” in State 1. Pet. 16. Petitioner admits that in State 2 “the red light source is turned off.” Id. As we determined in the claim construction analysis, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the “first duty cycle” cannot be 0% based on the claims and Specification. Thus, under the proper construction of “first duty cycle,” turning off the red LED in State 2 (Petitioner’s “first control protocol”) is not operating according to a “first duty cycle” as required by claims 1 and 11. Ex. 2002 ¶ 66.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 10,433,776 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,433,776 - Apple Inc. v. Masimo CorporationNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 11, 2022 · IPR2020-01523 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision
Apple did not prove claims 1–7, 9–18, and 20–24 unpatentable; the asserted obviousness grounds failed to establish the claimed power reduction or the required light detector-derived processing characteristics.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“In our view, Patent Owner has the better explanation for what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the ’703 patent as to what constitutes the “processing characteristics” that factor into the patient monitoring described by the claims. In that respect, we agree with Patent Owner’s above-noted assessments of the requirements of claims 4 and 8. Patent Owner persuasively explains that claim 4 does not emerge as meaningless based on Patent Owner’s construction of “processing characteristics” but instead claim 4 further refines the understanding of the type of processing characteristics that are received from the light detectors, i.e., signal characteristics rather than physiological measurements. We also share Patent Owner’s view that the understanding of claim 8 taken in the context of the Specification (e.g., Fig. 4), establishes that the estimate of power consumption is determined based on signals from light detector 490. We agree that Petitioner’s views as to how claims 4 and 8 inform the meaning of “processing characteristics” lack support and fall short. We conclude that it is inconsistent with the ’703 patent to tease out the sweeping premise advanced by Petitioner that simply any information that is processed, regardless of its source, can constitute the “processing characteristics” that are employed as a part of all of the challenged claims to monitor a patient based on light signals. Rather, we rely on the written description of the ’703 patent as a useful guide in informing the meaning of “processing characteristics,” and conclude that the proper understanding of the term is that such characteristics are derived from signals from light detectors. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“It is therefore entirely appropriate for a court, when conducting claim construction, to rely heavily on the written description for guidance as to the meaning of the claims.”). Accordingly, we conclude that, in the context of the ’703 patent, “processing characteristics” are determined from a signal received from one or more detectors configured to detect light.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“2. Other Claim Terms Upon consideration of the entirety of the arguments and evidence presented, we conclude no further explicit construction of any claim term is needed to resolve the issues presented by the arguments and evidence of record. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (claim terms need to be construed “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not offer its own assessment of the level of ordinary skill. Patent Owner, however, does level a measure of criticism of Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill in the art as being inconsistent with Petitioner’s own declarant, Dr. Anthony, in not accounting for experience in “non-invasive optical biosensors.” PO Resp. 16–17. Nevertheless, Patent Owner expresses that it “applies the asserted level of skill identified in the Petition.” Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 22). We determine that the Petitioner’s expressed level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the ’703 patent and the prior art of record. Accordingly, we adopt it in this Decision.” slip op. at 16
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s view that suspending Diab’s motion artifact suppression module necessarily will result in reduced power consumption. Although Amano does describe that its particular system enjoys reduced power consumption when its body movement component eliminating section 30 is suspended (Ex. 1004, 21:65–22:6), Patent Owner presents plausible reasoning and evidence that such power reduction may not occur in Diab’s differently structured and configured system. As between the conflicting testimony of Dr. Anthony and Dr. Madisetti on this matter, we find more credible the testimony of Dr. Madisetti in explaining why the same power consumption reduction attributed in Amano may not occur in Diab’s differently structured system. See, e.g., Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 76–77, 87–90. Yet, the premise of supposed power reduction is the foundational reason that Petitioner advances in combining the teachings of Amano with Diab. We conclude that Petitioner has not met its burden of persuasion on this issue. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378.” slip op. at 31
Patent outcomesUS 8,457,703 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,457,703 - SHDS, Inc. / Galderma Laboratories, L.P. v. Truinject Corp.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 15, 2021 · IPR2020-00937 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6–16, and 20–26 were not shown unpatentable because the petition did not account for required simulated therapeutic-agent delivery and real-time digital-plunger limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“In light of the parties’ mutually acknowledged agreement of the meaning of the noted-term, and given that we do not see reason on the record before us to deviate from that meaning, we apply the same meaning of “a simulated flow of therapeutic agent delivered from the digital model of the syringe to the digital model of the training apparatus” to the noted claim phrase and consider no further construction to be necessary. 3. Remaining Claim Terms We discern that no other term needs an express construction to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“Thus, Patent Owner proposes a construction of the above-noted phrase as “a simulated flow of therapeutic agent delivered from the digital model of the syringe to the digital model of the training apparatus.” Petitioner acknowledges that “the parties agreed to the construction of this term in the Delaware Action. No further construction of the term is required.” Pet. Reply 5. In light of the parties’ mutually acknowledged agreement of the meaning of the noted-term, and given that we do not see reason on the record before us to deviate from that meaning, we apply the same meaning of “a simulated flow of therapeutic agent delivered from the digital model of the syringe to the digital model of the training apparatus” to the noted claim phrase and consider no further construction to be necessary.” slip op. at 9
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“on Lampotang’s paragraph 89, Petitioner attempts to expand its proposed ground, and uses the Petitioner Reply to do so. To that end, Petitioner turns to specific disclosure of Samosky at paragraph 67 as providing an evidentiary basis to conclude that depiction of a simulated delivery of a therapeutic agent “would have been obvious.” Pet. Reply 14. A reply provides an opportunity for a party to respond to arguments made, for instance, in a patent owner response. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). A reply, however, is not an appropriate vehicle to reconfigure a proposed ground based on new or additional evidence that is not reasonably tied to a ground advanced in the Petition, which is what Petitioner seeks to do here. The Petition does not set forth an adequate basis to conclude that Petitioner relied on Samosky’s teachings to account for features of claim 1 of the ’232 patent. As Patent Owner points out (PO Sur-reply 13–14), it is impermissible and untimely for Petitioner to now attempt to do so as a part of the Reply. See, e.g., Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1330–31 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[A]n [inter partes review] petitioner may not raise in reply ‘an entirely new rationale’ for why a claim would have been obvious.”) (citing Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).” slip op. at 21
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Lampotang’s disclosure with reference to Figure 2 focuses on the CVL technique, which involves withdrawing blood from a blood vessel rather than injecting medication into the patient’s body. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 89-90. The CVL technique is not concerned with visualizing a simulated flow of therapeutic agent delivered from a digital model of the syringe to the digital model of the training apparatus. Ex. 2005 ¶ 102; see PO Resp. 41. We credit Dr. Pugh’s testimony on this matter, as we find it consistent with Lampotang’s disclosure as to the content of its Figure 2 and Lampotang’s description of the CVL technique. See, e.g., Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 78, 89–90.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 10,290,232 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,290,232 - T-Max (Hangzhou) Technology Co., Ltd. / T-Max Industrial (H.K.) Co. Ltd. v. Lund Motion Products, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 12, 2020 · IPR2018-01636 · APJ Alyssa A Finamore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–13 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not adequately explain why a skilled artisan would combine Matthews and Dean to produce the claimed straddling segment.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
“possessed at least a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering and at least one year of mechanical design experience in the area of mechanisms and linkages.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 29). Patent Owner similarly argues a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or other similar type of engineering degree, combined with at least one year of experience in the field of mechanical design or relevant product design experience.” PO Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 25–27). Patent Owner further argues the difference between Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill and that of Patent Owner “is immaterial to deciding the issues raised by the Petition.” Id. Upon consideration of the record, including Matthews, Dean, and Norton, we agree with Patent Owner that the difference between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s respective explanations of the level of ordinary skill in the art is inconsequential to considering Petitioner’s asserted grounds of unpatentability. Our assessment of the merits of this proceeding would be the same under both of the proffered explanations, and, therefore, it is unnecessary to adopt one explanation of the level of ordinary skill in the art over the other.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner points to both intrinsic and extrinsic evidence in support of its proposed constructions of the noted terms. Pet. 18–23. In that respect, 5 Exhibit 1010 is an excerpt from Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed. 1993). The exhibit itself does not include page numbering separate from the original page numbering of the dictionary, and the citation to this exhibit refers to the page of the dictionary. Petitioner relies on specific content of the Specification of the ’751 patent as well as the testimony of Dr. Delson. Id. We conclude that Petitioner’s proposed constructions have ample support in the record, and note that Patent Owner does not justify the basis for its disagreement of those constructions. We, therefore, adopt Petitioner’s constructions for the terms “flange” and “retain and straddle.”” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“These similarities, however, do not explain why a person would have combined the teachings of Matthews and Dean as Petitioner proposes. Petitioner confirms in its Reply that it is proposing to modify Matthews’s disclosure so that each of cranked members 7 is attached to the outside of each pair of links 8, 9. Reply 16–17, 19; see also Tr. 12:1–3 (“[T]he linkage that extends as element 7 could be on the outside of the other linkages 8 and 9 which is really the crux of the straddling segment. Instead of being on the inside, it’s on the outside.”). In order for the step resulting from Petitioner’s proposed combination of Matthews and Dean to retain and straddle at least one of links 8, 9, in accordance with Petitioner’s construction of “retain and straddle” as “connect on both sides to” (Pet. 21), Petitioner proposes to modify Matthews’s cranked members 7 to attach to the outside of pair of links 8 and pair of links 9 so that cranked members 7, collectively as a pair, attach to both sides of pair links 8 and pair of links 9. Petitioner is correct that Matthews and Dean teach retractable steps having similar four-bar linkages. In particular, Matthews’s cranked member 7 and Dean’s arm 100 appear to be corresponding components in the linkages that differ in how they attach to the other components of the linkage. Matthews’s cranked member 7 is attached to only one side of each link 8, 9, whereas Dean’s arm 100 straddles each link 116, 120. Ex. 1006, Figs. 1, 3; Ex. 1007, Fig. 4. Yet, Petitioner is not proposing to simply substitute Matthews’s cranked member 7 with Dean’s arm 100, or to modify Matthews’s disclosed step so that each cranked member 7 straddles each link 8, 9. Instead, Petitioner proposes to combine the teachings of Matthews and Dean so that Matthews’s cranked members 7, as a pair, straddle the two pairs of links 8, 9. Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Delson explains adequately why the similarities between Matthews’s step and Dean’s step convey that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Matthews and Dean as Petitioner proposes. Mere similarity of prior art structures is not a substitute for “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning” that is necessary “to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached
“§ 103(a), and asserts the subject matter of these claims would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Matthews and Dean. Pet. 26–63; Reply 7–12, 15–25. Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s contentions, and argues secondary considerations of nonobviousness confirm the claimed subject matter would not have been obvious. PO Resp. 19–50, 56–67; Sur-Reply 5–14, 17–24.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 9,561,751 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,561,751 - T-Max (Hangzhou) Technology Co., Ltd. / T-Max Industrial (H.K.) Co. Ltd. v. Lund Motion Products, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 10, 2020 · IPR2018-01638 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–15 were not shown unpatentable: Falardi does not meet claim 1’s initial downward movement limitation, and DePaula does not cure that deficiency for claim 3.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner, however, does not point to any evidentiary support for the above-reproduced argument other than the testimony of Dr. Delson at paragraph 80 of his Declaration (Ex. 1002). That testimony is identical to Petitioner’s argument and includes no citation to the record. In its Reply, Petitioner submits that Dr. Delson’s testimony is offered on the premise that the meaning of “initial” is not “not limited to only being the ‘immediate’ or ‘instantaneous’ motion of the arms when the step retracts from the deployed position.” Pet. Reply 7. Thus, we understand Petitioner to advocate that Dr. Delson’s testimony is offered with an understanding of the meaning of “initially” that is not limited to the first or beginning motion of the arms. As noted above, however, we reject that construction of “initially.”” slip op. at 18
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“We do not discern any meaningful difference in the parties’ respective evaluations of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We also concur with Patent Owner’s assessment that to the extent there are any differences in those evaluations, such differences do not affect the issues raised in the Petition. In that respect, we conclude that the assessment of the merits of this proceeding are the same under both of the parties’ evaluations of the level of ordinary skill in the art. To that end, we conclude that it is unnecessary to formally adopt one evaluation over the other in deciding the 8 Exhibit 2008 is a Declaration of John Pratt, Ph.D. issues at hand. We further note that the cited prior art references further reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Furthermore, we also are not persuaded that Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Pratt, “did not provide any explanation or analyses to support his testimony,” as is argued by Petitioner. See Pet. Reply 4. Indeed, his testimony that “[a]s used in the specification, the ‘initial motion’ is only the first, or beginning movement toward a position such as the retracted or deployed positions” of step member 922 finds direct support from the abovediscussed portions of the Specification of the ’277 patent. In light of the record before us, including the disclosure of the ’277 patent, the meaning of “initial” or “initially” as understood from multiple dictionaries (Exs. 2002–2007)10, and the credible testimony of Dr. Pratt, we” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“persuaded that, in the context of the ’277 patent, Petitioner provides adequate evidence or explanation that its construction of “initially” as meaning “of or relating to the beginning; incipient” is the correct one. It is apparent from the entirety of the record, including Petitioner’s proposed grounds of unpatentability, that its construction is offered in an attempt to sweep into the meaning of “initial[] move[ment]” of the arms a movement that is not the first or beginning one. Petitioner seemingly bases that construction on the premise that a sole dictionary definition of “initial” as generally meaning “relating to the beginning” provides sufficient basis for its position. Petitioner, however, does not provide sufficient reasoning why the movement “relating to the beginning” should be read so broadly as to encompass movement of a component that is not the first occurring movement. Patent Owner’s construction, on the other hand, draws ample and logical support from the record as a whole, including both intrinsic and extrinsic evidence. Even assuming that the use of “initial” in the Specification is directed to movement that is not necessarily the downward motion of components, there is nothing therein that conveys that the meaning of “initial” should be expanded to include movement that is not at the beginning of a component’s act of motion. For instance, the portion of the disclosure at column 31, lines 46–53, of the ’277 patent pertains to Figure 22 and describes upward motion of step member 922 and stepping deck 924. That portion explains that “initial” movement of step member 922 is upward “after which the step member 922 and upper stepping surface 924c travel generally downward” to a deployed position. Ex. 1001, 31:46– 53. Thus, that portion of the disclosure describes exemplary “initial” upward movement of step member 922 followed by downward movement. There is nothing in that disclosure that conveys that the “initial” upward movement of step member 922 includes movement that is not viewed as being in an upward direction at the very beginning point that step member 922 starts to move. We also do not discern that the prosecution history of the application that became the ’277 patent (Ex. 1013) suggests any meaning of “initial” movement of a component that is not the first movement of the component.” slip op. at 12
Patent outcomesUS 8,157,277 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,157,277 - Yamaha Golf Car Company v. Club Car, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 2, 2019 · IPR2017-02143 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision
Petitioner did not prove claims 1–11 and 13–20 unpatentable on the asserted grounds; claim 12 was disclaimed.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“In the summon mode, pressing a button to summon the caddie of the ’388 patent triggers an autonomous mode but no specific driving commands are provided to the caddie by the golfer. See Ex. 2015 ¶ 195 (“As the robotic caddy cart is operating autonomously at that point, the user does not input these movement commands.”). We agree that the summon command could not be considered a driver command because “merely defining the destination does not generate any control actions.” Id. ¶ 160. Likewise, a summon command to follow a golfer would not be a driver command because the golfer has no direct control over the route taken, the speed of the caddie, or whether or not a caddie could drive into a restricted area –– the caddie’s system pilots itself to a point near the golfer by generating movement inputs on its own. The system detects that the golfer is in a limited access area and the golfer will not be able to summon the caddie into that area. This restriction is not a driver command being limited because the summon command simply activates internal logic to move the caddie near the golfer, not a driver command to move into a restricted area. Indeed, when operating in autonomous mode, the caddie can never enter such restricted areas. We thus agree with Patent Owner that the summon command cannot be overridden or limited in the ’388 patent because the caddie will always come as close as is allowable under the parameters of the caddie’s programming.” slip op. at 45
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Dec. 11. First, we note that the claim language itself focuses on limiting the ability of a “driver” to move the cart. For example, dependent claim 2 recites “an override of a driver input to the motor.” That the “driver input” needs to be overridden or otherwise restricted presumes that the golf cart is being driven by a person who has independent control of the cart and is susceptible to driving in an unruly manner, in other words, an onboard driver of the cart. This is especially true given the lack of any indication in the claims of remote or autonomous operation of the cart. Numerous other dependent claims include similar references to a driver of the cart, for example, “override of driver input” (claim 3), “driver interface unit” (claim 4), “limits the performance of driver commands” (claim 14), and “driver command” (claim 17).” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner overemphasizes the ’053 Application’s use of the terms “golf cart” and “electric vehicle.” Nowhere does the ’053 Application support the disclosure of a rideable cart. Rather, it describes a golf cart that, when read in the context of the reference as a whole, is a riderless cart, or more specifically, a “caddie cart.” This is evidenced by the fact that the ’053 Application incorporates by reference a caddie cart, as discussed above, in which the only mechanism for actually operating the cart is a “grip lever,” which Petitioner’s own expert acknowledges is not something found in a rideable cart. See Ex. 2016, 94:16–95:11 (conceding “there is no such thing as a rideable golf cart, in [his] experience or in 2003, that has a grip lever”); see also 54:5–12 (essentially same testimony). Further evidence that the ’053 Application contemplates only a riderless caddie cart is its description of the golf cart as “moving the golf bag to a location that is convenient for the play by the golfer.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 2. Nowhere does it describe the cart as moving a golfer or caddy. Even Petitioner’s expert agrees that, while the ’053 Application “does describe a caddy cart,” it “does not describe putting the person in the seat.” Ex. 2016, 92:18–93:1; 88:11–15. And to the extent Petitioner’s expert qualifies that testimony by saying that the ’053 Application doesn’t exclude the possibility of a riding cart and doesn’t preclude putting a person in the seat, that qualification is irrelevant to our analysis of anticipation, which depends on what a reference actually discloses, not what possibilities it could have disclosed. Petitioner’s assertion is that each of independent claims 1 and 6 is anticipated by the ’053 Application – Petitioner has not put forth an obviousness ground for these claims based on the ’053 Application.” slip op. at 24
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Alternatively, Petitioner argues that the ’053 Application’s disclosure of a golfer selecting a destination on an LCD display “inherently teaches” the ability of “overriding a driver command.” Pet. 29–30 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 37). We disagree. The ability to select a travel destination on an LCD display is not the same as the ability to “override” or “restrict” a previous command to travel to a certain destination. As argued by Patent Owner, “[t]he selection of a point on a map is just that—a selection to travel to a point on the map, not to take a particular route to that point.” PO Resp. 34 (citing Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 150–152). Nowhere does the ’053 Application say that the selected point on the display will be disregarded if it is within a prohibited area. Thus, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that the ’053 Application inherently teaches the ability to “override” a driver input. Reply 3, 23–24. In its Petition, however, Petitioner deliberately chose not to rely on the ’053 Application’s manned operating mode in arguing those particular limitations. See Pet. 28–29 (referencing repeatedly “unmanned mode operation” and showing ellipsis “. . .” where “manual traveling mode” would have been discussed in paragraph 34 of the ’053 Application). Petitioner cannot switch positions midstream and raise an entirely new argument in its reply that reasonably could have been made in the petition. See Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 775 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Blizzard, as petitioner, had an opportunity to present this argument in its petition, but chose not to.”). A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding patent owner response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Indeed, in its patent owner response, Club Car carefully notes that the ’053 Application’s manned operating mode is “not relied upon by Petitioner.” PO Resp. 28. Because Petitioner’s assertion in its reply of the ’053 Application’s manned operating mode constitutes new argument outside the scope of a proper reply, we decline to consider it.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 7,480,569 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,480,569 - Yamaha Golf Car Company v. Club Car, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 2, 2019 · IPR2017-02144 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision
The Board found claims 11 and 17–19 not shown unpatentable: claim 11 was entitled to priority over the ’918 Publication, and the obviousness challenge to claims 17–19 was unsupported.
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“slows the speed of the golf car until it returns to the course—“[Y]our cart has been slowed down because you are outside the boundaries of the course. Your car will continue to slow down until you return to the course.” Ex. 1004, 30 (emphases added) (also showing that “Reduce Maximum Speed” may be adjusted to a select speed as similarly set forth in Figure 3 of the ’569 patent). The ’894 Provisional specifies that the Curtis 1510 controller includes a configuration setting for “REVERSE SPEED,” and we find persuasive Mr. Andrews’ testimony that this control setting is separate from the maximum forward speed settings, “M1 MAX SPEED,” “M2 MAX SPEED,” “M3 MAX SPEED,” and “M4 (HIGH) MAX SPEED.” Ex. 1004, 12; Ex. 2009 ¶ 58 (“‘REVERSE SPEED’ is a separate configuration setting that the controller can configure based on GPS location.”). We find that these disclosures in the ’894 Provisional—slowing or stopping the car until it reverses course and separate configurable settings for reverse speed in the motor controller—establish affirmative support for a configuration as claimed where the car’s forward movement is disabled, but the car may still move in a reverse direction, as required by claim 11. Because the maximum forward speed can be set to zero to stop the vehicle from further movement towards the restricted area, but setting the maximum speed to zero leaves the separate “REVERSE SPEED” configuration setting in the motor controller unchanged, Patent Owner has shown how the vehicle is capable of operation only in a reverse direction. See Ex. 1004, 10, 12, 16, 30. From a functional capability, there is simply no difference between the descriptions found in the ’894 Provisional and the claimed limitations. See Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 49–60. Thus, Patent Owner has met its burden of showing adequate written description support for claim 11 in the earlier ’894 Provisional. Accordingly, the ’918 Publication does not qualify as prior art against claim 11. Based on the final trial record before us, Petitioner does not present sufficient arguments and credible evidence to support a finding that claim 11 is anticipated by the ’918 Publication.” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedReference not prior artDecided for patent owner
“slows the speed of the golf car until it returns to the course—“[Y]our cart has been slowed down because you are outside the boundaries of the course. Your car will continue to slow down until you return to the course.” Ex. 1004, 30 (emphases added) (also showing that “Reduce Maximum Speed” may be adjusted to a select speed as similarly set forth in Figure 3 of the ’569 patent). The ’894 Provisional specifies that the Curtis 1510 controller includes a configuration setting for “REVERSE SPEED,” and we find persuasive Mr. Andrews’ testimony that this control setting is separate from the maximum forward speed settings, “M1 MAX SPEED,” “M2 MAX SPEED,” “M3 MAX SPEED,” and “M4 (HIGH) MAX SPEED.” Ex. 1004, 12; Ex. 2009 ¶ 58 (“‘REVERSE SPEED’ is a separate configuration setting that the controller can configure based on GPS location.”). We find that these disclosures in the ’894 Provisional—slowing or stopping the car until it reverses course and separate configurable settings for reverse speed in the motor controller—establish affirmative support for a configuration as claimed where the car’s forward movement is disabled, but the car may still move in a reverse direction, as required by claim 11. Because the maximum forward speed can be set to zero to stop the vehicle from further movement towards the restricted area, but setting the maximum speed to zero leaves the separate “REVERSE SPEED” configuration setting in the motor controller unchanged, Patent Owner has shown how the vehicle is capable of operation only in a reverse direction. See Ex. 1004, 10, 12, 16, 30. From a functional capability, there is simply no difference between the descriptions found in the ’894 Provisional and the claimed limitations. See Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 49–60. Thus, Patent Owner has met its burden of showing adequate written description support for claim 11 in the earlier ’894 Provisional. Accordingly, the ’918 Publication does not qualify as prior art against claim 11. Based on the final trial record before us, Petitioner does not present sufficient arguments and credible evidence to support a finding that claim 11 is anticipated by the ’918 Publication.” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“slows the speed of the golf car until it returns to the course—“[Y]our cart has been slowed down because you are outside the boundaries of the course. Your car will continue to slow down until you return to the course.” Ex. 1004, 30 (emphases added) (also showing that “Reduce Maximum Speed” may be adjusted to a select speed as similarly set forth in Figure 3 of the ’569 patent). The ’894 Provisional specifies that the Curtis 1510 controller includes a configuration setting for “REVERSE SPEED,” and we find persuasive Mr. Andrews’ testimony that this control setting is separate from the maximum forward speed settings, “M1 MAX SPEED,” “M2 MAX SPEED,” “M3 MAX SPEED,” and “M4 (HIGH) MAX SPEED.” Ex. 1004, 12; Ex. 2009 ¶ 58 (“‘REVERSE SPEED’ is a separate configuration setting that the controller can configure based on GPS location.”). We find that these disclosures in the ’894 Provisional—slowing or stopping the car until it reverses course and separate configurable settings for reverse speed in the motor controller—establish affirmative support for a configuration as claimed where the car’s forward movement is disabled, but the car may still move in a reverse direction, as required by claim 11. Because the maximum forward speed can be set to zero to stop the vehicle from further movement towards the restricted area, but setting the maximum speed to zero leaves the separate “REVERSE SPEED” configuration setting in the motor controller unchanged, Patent Owner has shown how the vehicle is capable of operation only in a reverse direction. See Ex. 1004, 10, 12, 16, 30. From a functional capability, there is simply no difference between the descriptions found in the ’894 Provisional and the claimed limitations. See Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 49–60. Thus, Patent Owner has met its burden of showing adequate written description support for claim 11 in the earlier ’894 Provisional. Accordingly, the ’918 Publication does not qualify as prior art against claim 11. Based on the final trial record before us, Petitioner does not present sufficient arguments and credible evidence to support a finding that claim 11 is anticipated by the ’918 Publication.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“sufficiently how the ’918 Publication’s disclosure of a “signal . . . of the violation” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 68) also teaches or suggests the additional claim requirements of “the driver interface unit . . . operable to communicate an alarm to the base station of a controller limiting the performance of a driver command” as required by claim 17. Petitioner recognizes the distinction by arguing “that the system could also provide a message to the course personnel . . . of any remedial corrective measures taken in response.” Pet. 25 (emphasis added). Based on the evidence cited, the ’918 Publication does not provide any such notification. Petitioner cannot suggest that a reference could have a feature that it does not have without some rational basis as to why such a feature would have been suggested by the reference. Mr. Breen’s explanation mirrors Petitioner’s contention (Ex. 1001 ¶ 277) and likewise states “that the system could also provide a message to the course personnel” (emphasis added) but no further explanation is provided as to how this unsupported conclusion was reached. Petitioner has also failed to lay the necessary foundation to establish that “common sense” could fill the gap for the missing limitation, or provide a basis for modifying the ’918 Publication to teach the claim 17 limitation. We recognize that in certain instances “common sense” can be used to supply the missing claim limitation, but only if the art is “unusually simple and the [patented] technology particularly straightforward.” Arendi Sarl v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In this proceeding, we have no testimony or evidence to establish either condition is met. Neither Petitioner nor Mr. Breen explain adequately why the limitations of claim 17” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 7,480,569 not shown unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,480,569 - Skechers USA, Inc. v. Adidas AGNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 25, 2018 · IPR2017-00127 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–30 were not shown unpatentable under §103 because the proposed prior-art modifications lacked adequate support and rational underpinning.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The basis of disagreement boils down to an evaluation of a skilled artisan’s experience. In that respect, Petitioner urges that the artisan generally has “substantial experience in the structural design of flexible elements and plastic polymers,” whereas Patent Owner characterizes the experience as directed to “biomechanical systems.” The ’079 patent is clearly directed to matters of shoe construction, and takes note, for instance, of the desirability of “cushioning and biomechanically supporting the foot.” Ex. 1001, 1:27–29. It is also apparent that an overarching focus of the ’079 patent is concern with “balance” and “support” of a “foot against misorientations such as pronation and supination (i.e. a tilting movement of the forefoot part to the medial and the lateral side, respectively).” Id. at 2:34–39. Such concerns, in our view, go beyond general experience in the design of flexible elements and plastic polymers. In that regard, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Hinrichs, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have experience with biomechanical systems, such as shoes. See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 14–15. We have considered the respective opinions of the parties when it comes to the level of ordinary skill in the art. In reaching our decision as to the merits of this proceeding, for the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s evidence as to the ordinary skill of an artisan.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“substantial dissection and modification of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. That dissection is premised on Mr. Ganaja’s assessment of what a person of ordinary skill in the art would take from the record at hand. Yet, in our view, neither Mr. Ganaja nor Petitioner explains adequately how the teachings of the prior art would have led one down the path that they advocate. For instance, it is decidedly unclear from the record that any “longitudinal groove” as advanced in Petitioner’s annotated illustrations of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17 reproduced herein exists in the configuration proposed by Petitioner. Although Petitioner and Mr. Ganaja postulate that it does exist, Luthi ’202’s teachings are less than determinative in that respect. We credit the testimony of Dr. Hinrichs and Dr. Luthi, that no such groove or “gap” exists as proposed by Petitioner. PO Resp. 21–25 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 32–35, 42–43; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 6, 8–13).” slip op. at 22
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We observe that Patent Owner relies on content of the ’079 patent at column 11, lines 31–34 to support the meaning of “leaf spring[s]” and “leaf spring element[s]” that it advances. That portion of the ’079 patent describes embodiments of the invention appearing in Figures 19 to 25. Referencing particular leaf spring elements 22 and 23 of those embodiments, the ’079 patent states that “[t]ypically the restoring force exerts a force that has a component orthogonal to the sole plate (e.g., for cushioning) and a component parallel to the sole in the rearward direction (e.g., for acceleration).” Ex. 1001, 11:31–34. While that language mirrors the meaning of “leaf spring[s]” and “leaf spring element[s]” proposed by Patent Owner, we discern that the noted clause also begins with the term “[t]ypically.” That leaf spring elements may “typically” include a component parallel to the sole in the rearward direction does not lend itself to the conclusion that a “leaf spring” necessarily includes such a component. Rather, it conveys the opposite. In that respect, the plain understanding of the pertinent content of the ’079 patent is that, while, perhaps, not typical, the ’079 patent contemplates other component arrangements, logically including those in which the parallel component is not in the rearward direction.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“substantial dissection and modification of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. That dissection is premised on Mr. Ganaja’s assessment of what a person of ordinary skill in the art would take from the record at hand. Yet, in our view, neither Mr. Ganaja nor Petitioner explains adequately how the teachings of the prior art would have led one down the path that they advocate. For instance, it is decidedly unclear from the record that any “longitudinal groove” as advanced in Petitioner’s annotated illustrations of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17 reproduced herein exists in the configuration proposed by Petitioner. Although Petitioner and Mr. Ganaja postulate that it does exist, Luthi ’202’s teachings are less than determinative in that respect. We credit the testimony of Dr. Hinrichs and Dr. Luthi, that no such groove or “gap” exists as proposed by Petitioner. PO Resp. 21–25 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 32–35, 42–43; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 6, 8–13). Moreover, even if such groove does exist, neither Petitioner nor Mr. Ganaja adequately explains why the presence of such groove would create at least two leaf springs or leaf spring elements that are “integrally joined to form a single end not directly connected to the sole plate,” as required by all the claims involved in this proceeding. We agree with, and credit, the testimony of Dr. Hinrichs that “Luthi ’202 consistently discloses that the strut elements run the entire width of the shoe.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 32 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:47–50 (“the strut elements 22 extend substantially from the medial edge of the lateral edge of lower plate 26 . . .”)). In extending the entire width of the shoe, strut elements 22 (and 222) are more appropriately viewed as a single element (e.g., a spring element) rather than multiple spring elements that come together integrally. Petitioner and Mr. Ganaja also inadequately explain why combination of Luthi ’202’s teachings with those of either Luthi ’800 or Chan would result in the above-noted “central cavity” as a part of the directional element of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. Although Luthi ’800 and Chan may show spaces or cavities in components of their shoes, there appear substantial differences in the designs of those shoes, and in particular the cushioning aspects, as compared with Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. We credit Dr. Hinrichs’s and Dr. Luthi’s testimony that the presence of such a cavity as shown in Luthi ’800 and Chan would prove detrimental to the medial-lateral stability of Luthi ’202’s shoe, and specifically the directional element of such a shoe that is depicted in Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 42; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 11–13. To that end, we also find inadequate Petitioner’s general position that combining the teachings of Luthi ’202, Luthi ’800, and Chan would result simply in a “combination of familiar elements according to known methods that would yield predictable results,” and “well within the knowledge and skill of persons of ordinary skill in the art . . .” Pet. 35. We are not persuaded that any such combination would yield the “predictable results” advanced by Petitioner, or that “well within the knowledge and skill” of an artisan cited by Petitioner constitutes rational underpinning to support an obviousness conclusion. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (An assertion of unpatentability based on “obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”)” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 9,339,079 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,339,079
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.