- Cook Group Incorporated / Cook Medical LLC v. Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 28, 2018 · IPR2017-00435 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6–18, and 20 were not shown unpatentable over Malecki; the contingent motion to amend was denied as moot.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“construction more persuasive because it is grounded in, and most consistent with, the specification of the ’731 patent. Contrastingly, Petitioner does not offer a specific interpretation of “inner walls” and its arguments are generally based on extrinsic evidence, including claim charts from the related district court litigation (Pet. 15), arguments from related proceedings (Pet. Reply 3), and the prior art reference (Malecki) relied on to challenge the claims (id. at 3–4). Petitioner criticizes the Patent Owner’s position but provides no express interpretation of “inner walls of the first and second clip arms;” instead, Petitioner argues why Patent Owner’s proposed construction is wrong. Pet. Reply 4–5. Dr. Nicosia does not expressly define or otherwise persuasively explain the definition of “inner walls” in his declarations either. See generally Exs. 1037, 1095, and 1109.” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the time of the filing of the application that became the ’731 patent would have possessed the knowledge and skill of an engineer or similar professional 5 The parties have not introduced evidence of secondary considerations in this proceeding. with at least an undergraduate degree in engineering, or a physician having experience with designing medical devices. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1037 ¶ 11). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal, and we adopt it based on the final record before us. It is also consistent with the level of skill evidenced by the references.” slip op. at 15
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Based on the final trial record, including our interpretation of “inner walls of the first and second clip arms” to mean “the exterior surfaces of the first and second clip arms that are inward-facing relative to the longitudinal axis of the clip,” Petitioner has not persuasively established that Malecki Embodiment #1 discloses this limitation. We find persuasive the testimony of Dr. Vaitekunas, that “[t]he jaws of Malecki Embodiment #1 have four walls,” and a person of ordinary skill in the art “would understand Figure 28A to illustrate links 404, 406 connecting to the side walls of jaws 308C, 310C on the side or lateral wall opposite (or underneath) the one shown in Figure 28A.” Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 66, 68. We agree with Dr. Vaitekunas that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider side or lateral walls as “inner walls” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of that term. Thus, the portion of the jaw identified by Petitioner as shaded in green (Pet. 26) is a portion of the side/lateral wall, not an inward-facing wall. See Ex. 2010 ¶ 68. Petitioner has also not persuasively established that linkages 404, 406 contact any outside portion of the inner wall. As noted by Patent Owner above, Petitioner’s expert admits that Malecki does not disclose links 404, 406 contacting the radially inward-facing walls. See Ex. 2012 at 274:12–23. We also do not find persuasive Petitioner’s pin engagement theory. First, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Nicosia persuasively establish that a slot and pin channel (Pet. 15) is used in Malecki Embodiment #1. See Ex. 1095 ¶ 27. As pointed out by Dr. Vaitekunas, Petitioner’s theory that an engagement between a pin and a pin hole satisfies the “engaging the inner walls of the first and second clip arms” limitation is based on structure that is simply not disclosed in Malecki. Ex. 2010 ¶ 69. Further, we agree with Dr. Vaitekunas that “[e]ven if contact does occur between a pin and a pinhole, the contact occurs in the pin hole, not the exterior surface of a radially inward-facing wall.” Id.” slip op. at 25
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Based on the final trial record, including our interpretation of “inner walls of the first and second clip arms” to mean “the exterior surfaces of the first and second clip arms that are inward-facing relative to the longitudinal axis of the clip,” Petitioner has not persuasively established that Malecki Embodiment #1 discloses this limitation. We find persuasive the testimony of Dr. Vaitekunas, that “[t]he jaws of Malecki Embodiment #1 have four walls,” and a person of ordinary skill in the art “would understand Figure 28A to illustrate links 404, 406 connecting to the side walls of jaws 308C, 310C on the side or lateral wall opposite (or underneath) the one shown in Figure 28A.” Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 66, 68. We agree with Dr. Vaitekunas that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider side or lateral walls as “inner walls” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of that term. Thus, the portion of the jaw identified by Petitioner as shaded in green (Pet. 26) is a portion of the side/lateral wall, not an inward-facing wall. See Ex. 2010 ¶ 68. Petitioner has also not persuasively established that linkages 404, 406 contact any outside portion of the inner wall. As noted by Patent Owner above, Petitioner’s expert admits that Malecki does not disclose links 404, 406 contacting the radially inward-facing walls. See Ex. 2012 at 274:12–23. We also do not find persuasive Petitioner’s pin engagement theory. First, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Nicosia persuasively establish that a slot and pin channel (Pet. 15) is used in Malecki Embodiment #1. See Ex. 1095 ¶ 27. As pointed out by Dr. Vaitekunas, Petitioner’s theory that an engagement between a pin and a pin hole satisfies the “engaging the inner walls of the first and second clip arms” limitation is based on structure that is simply not disclosed in Malecki. Ex. 2010 ¶ 69. Further, we agree with Dr. Vaitekunas that “[e]ven if contact does occur between a pin and a pinhole, the contact occurs in the pin hole, not the exterior surface of a radially inward-facing wall.” Id. Finally, Petitioner seems to recognize that a modification would be” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 9,271,731 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,271,731 - Cook Group Incorporated / Cook Medical LLC v. Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 15, 2018 · IPR2017-00135 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–5, and 10 are unpatentable as obvious over Kimura (claims 1, 3–5) and Kimura with Sackier (claim 10); claims 7, 11–15, and 17 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the time of the filing of the application that became the ’371 patent would have possessed the knowledge and skill of an engineer or similar professional with at least an undergraduate degree in engineering, or a physician having experience with designing medical devices. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1029 ¶ 11). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal, and we adopt it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“The issue we have with Patent Owner’s contentions, as pointed out by Petitioner, is that Patent Owner does not establish persuasively how its claims require the “reversible open/close” feature and the “tactile feel features.” See Pet. Reply 27–29. Even presuming that these features did indeed drive tremendous commercial success and industry praise for the commercial products, Patent Owner does not adequately explain in its analysis how the claims of the challenged patent require these particular features that drive commercial success. Patent Owner seems to suggest that a break section in the control wire will fracture and that this feature in the commercial product relates to the tactile feel. PO Resp. 57 (citing Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 91–93) (“After the yoke has disengaged, if the handle spool is moved further proximally, a break section in the control wire will fracture, leaving the ball within the yoke and uncoupling the control wire from the distal components of the device.”). This “break section in the control wire” is not, however, claimed or covered in claim 1, the claim that purportedly embodies the commercial product. The claims alleged to cover the product do not specifically require any “tactile feel feature.”3 Likewise, while the claims may allow for an opening and closing of the clip assembly, there is no requirement in these claims that the clip assembly, as “demanded” by physicians, repeatedly open and close. Thus, both of the drivers of commercial success and industry praise are not commensurate in scope with the claims of the patented invention. See Ex. 1046 ¶¶ 23–29 (explaining how features are not claimed).” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“district court proceeding, Petitioner contends that “coupled to the sheath” means “slideable inside the sheath” and “the sheath confines the bushing.” Pet. 9. Petitioner provides no additional support. The district court tentatively rejected this broad interpretation. See Ex. 2003, 27–28 (“[T]he Court recommends that ‘coupled to the sheath’ be construed as ‘linked together, connected, or joined, but not slidable inside the sheath.’”). Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s proposed construction of “coupled to the sheath” is “unreasonably broad,” but provides little citation to the intrinsic record before us. Prelim. Resp. 13–14. Instead, Patent Owner notes that the plain and ordinary meaning of coupled is “linked together, connected, or joined,” citing to an unrelated Federal Circuit decision as well as the related district court determination. Id. at 14; Ex. 2003, 28. In our proceeding, Petitioner has not provided persuasive evidence or argument to support its claim interpretation by merely pointing to what Patent Owner purportedly argued in district court. Based on the final record before us, “coupled to the sheath” means “linked together, connected, or joined” to the sheath. Our construction is consistent with the district court’s analysis and reflects the common understanding of the term “coupled” in the mechanical arts to require more than simply abutting or contacting. See generally Ex Parte Paul Robert Homrich, Appeal 2014-005786, 2016 WL 3541285, at *3 (PTAB, June 27, 2016) (“When used in mechanical systems, the plain and ordinary meaning of ‘coupled’ means to link together or connect,” and coupled requires more than contact or abut.).” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently that Adams discloses “a bushing extending between a proximal end coupled to the sheath,” (Ex. 1027, 17:4–5) as required by claim 1 of the ’371 patent. Based on the final record, Petitioner’s contention that retainer 110 [bushing] is slidable inside the sheath, or confined by the sheath, does not establish persuasively that the proximal end of the bushing is coupled to the sheath as required by claim 1. The claimed coupling must be “proximal coupling” and Petitioner can only point to distal coupling via distal tabs 118, 119 (Pet. Supp. Reply 6) – this is not “proximal” coupling. Further, for the bushing and the sheath to be coupled requires them to be “linked together, connected, or joined” in some manner and Petitioner has not established any such connection for proximal coupling. Petitioner also has failed to establish a persuasive reason for linking or connecting retainer 110 and sheath 112 – indeed, doing so would negatively impact the ability of retainer 110 to freely slide out of sheath 112. See Prelim. Resp. 27. Adams suggest that when control wire 108 is actuated and the clip is locked into the lock sleeve, retainer release 109 pulls retainer 110 back, disengaging retainer tabs 118, 119 from the two retainer holes as depicted in Figure 4.” Ex. 1023, 7:26–44 Finally, we note that our decision would not change if we adopted the district court’s claim interpretation. The district court adopted a claim construction of “a bushing extending between a proximal end coupled to the sheath” as “linked together, connected, or joined, but not slidable inside the sheath.” Ex. 2003, 28 (emphasis added). Should the district court’s interpretation be the correct one, Patent Owner’s position is much stronger whereas Petitioner’s theory is based on slidable movement. See Pet. 9 (arguing for “slideable inside the sheath” and “the sheath confines the bushing”); Pet. Supp. Reply 6. Having now considered the evidence in the complete record established during trial, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been anticipated by Adams. Petitioner has not established persuasively that Adams discloses “a bushing extending between a proximal end coupled to the sheath.” For this reason, Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Adams anticipates claim 1.” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 8,974,371 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,974,371 - PTAB · Jun 28, 2018 · IPR2017-00414 · APJ James T Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over either Cohen and Martin or Holmes and Martin because the combinations did not establish the claimed separate shaping before mixing.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“As used herein, the term “hearing aid profile” refers to a collection of acoustic configuration settings for hearing aid 102, which are used by a processor 110 to shape electrical signals related to sounds to compensate for the user's hearing loss. Ex. 1001, 3:11–15. Petitioner states that Patent Owner defined this term in the ’538 patent as “a collection of acoustic configuration settings for hearing aid 102, which are used by processor 110 to shape electrical signals related to sounds to compensate for the user’s hearing loss.” Pet. 15. According to Petitioner, this construction is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term, relying upon the testimony of its witness Dr. Les Atlas. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 38).10 Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed construction. Resp. 10–11. 10 Dr. Les Atlas is the Petitioner’s witness in this matter. We find him qualified to testify as to the subject matter of this proceeding, by virtue of his education and experience. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 4, and Appendix A thereto. We are cognizant of Patent Owner’s suggestion that we give his testimony “little, if any, weight” because of the similarity of the testimony with Petitioner’s arguments and discrepancies between it and his deposition testimony. Resp. 31–34. We give Dr. Atlas’ testimony appropriate contextual weight herein based upon the content of the testimony itself, and any contrary testimony in Exhibit 2005. We decline to assign generally no weight to his testimony, however. supports, and is consistent with, Petitioner’s proposal. Ex. 1001, 3:12–16. Accordingly, we determine that the broadest reasonable construction, in light of the specification of the ’538 patent, of the term “hearing aid profile” is a “collection of acoustic configuration settings for hearing aid, which are used by a processor to shape electrical signals related to sounds to compensate for a user’s hearing loss.”” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“For the purposes of our decision, we determine that no other claim terms need explicit construction. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (citation omitted).” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“11 Petitioner defines the level of ordinary skill in the art as someone with a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and at least two years of experience in the field of audio engineering. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 25). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s definition. Resp. passim. The references in the record support a finding that this is the appropriate level. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of skill in the art). 12 The record contains no allegations or evidence of secondary considerations.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed
“We find the testimony of Dr. Atlas on the key point of obviousness of pre-mixing processing to be less persuasive than that of Mr. Brown. We also find Dr. Atlas’ testimony falls short of adequately explaining how the combination of Cohen and Martin teaches a nexus (i.e., the “based on both the first [shaped] output signal and the second [shaped] output signal” (emphasis added) (hereinafter, “based on both limitation”) limitation recited in claim 1) between the claim 1 requirements of: (1) a condition precedent of shaping both a first output signal and a second output signal; and (2) a subsequent result of using both the first shaped output signal and the second shaped output signal if the hearing aid is in a third mode. Dr. Atlas assumes that one of ordinary skill in the art would process separately each signal and then mix them. Ex. 1003 ¶ 66. We find Dr. Atlas’ assumption is flawed. Specifically, in making this assumption, Dr. Atlas does not address adequately how the combination of Cohen and Martin opines “it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art” (emphasis added), his later sentences appears to base his opinion principally on the reason one of ordinary skill in the art could do it. Id. In particular, he testifies: Because Cohen’s hearing aid applies different hearing aid profiles to different input sources, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art to add the functionality of the combination mode as taught by Martin to Cohen’s hearing aid such that the speaker would produce an audible sound based on the output signals of the processor. Combining two signals such that both signals are sent to a speaker to an audible combination of sounds, that is where each signal is sufficiently perceived, was well within the technical ability of a person of ordinary skill in the art. To accomplish this would require that each one of the two signals is passed through an appropriate hearing aid profile. For example, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that a different hearing aid profiles could be used for an audio coil inputs and that of a neighboring conversation and environmental sounds through a microphone. Namely, it is commonly known that the different frequency sensitivity of an audio telecoil versus a microphone can be beneficially compensated for. (Rodriquez, Ex. 1011, Abstract)” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,649,538 - Duane Brockman v. Wesley BainterInstitution deniedPTAB · May 11, 2017 · DER2016-00002 · APJ Jameson Lee · DER · Institution
The Board denied institution of a derivation proceeding because the petition did not provide substantial evidence that the challenged claims were the same or substantially the same as the invention conceived and communicated.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“required to show (1) that the challenged claims are drawn to the same or substantially the same invention as the invention he disclosed to Respondent, (2) that Petitioner has at least one claim that is the same or substantially the same as the Respondent’s claimed invention, and (3) that Petitioner has at least one claim that is the same or substantially the same as the invention Petitioner disclosed to the Respondent. For these requirements, the Petition contains only a general citation to “Ex. 1003; Ex. 1004; Ex. 1005.” Pet. 7–11. As noted above, Exhibit 1003 is a declaration from Petitioner; Exhibit 1004 is a declaration of Tyler Brockman; and Exhibit 1005 is an affidavit of Scott Sproul. None of the testimony from Petitioner, Tyler Brockman, and Scott Sproul, however, addresses the specifics of any claim. With regard to the first requirement, it cannot simply be assumed that the challenged claims are drawn to the same or substantially the same invention as that which Petitioner has conceived and communicated to Respondent. The Petitioner provides no reasoning or analysis in that regard. Several features in the challenged claims demand a meaningful accounting by Petitioner, relative to the invention conceived by Petitioner and communicated by Petitioner to Respondent. Challenged claims 1, 2, and 6 are independent and all other challenged claims depend, directly or indirectly, from one of claims 1, 2, and 6. Claim 1 requires an actuator, mounted to an irrigation tower and separate from the anchor member, that has a retracted position and an extended position. According to claim 1, the anchor member is mounted to the actuator. Also according to claim 1, when the actuator is in its retracted position, the anchor member is retracted above the soil surface, and when the actuator is in its extended position, the anchor member penetrates the soil surface. The invention conceived by Petitioner and as communicated by Petitioner to Respondent, as identified above, however, includes no such actuator. More particularly, lacking from the Petitioner’s conceived and communicated invention is a sufficient disclosure or description of an actuator that, itself, translates between extended and retracted positions, and lacking from the Petition is any reasoning to account for the obviousness of such a feature to one with ordinary skill in the art. Similarly, claim 2 requires a motor, in an actuator, that is slidably mounted to the frame for movement between a retracted position and an extended position. The invention conceived by Petitioner and communicated by Petitioner to Respondent, as identified above, however, includes no such actuator and motor, and the Petition does not account for such a feature. Claim 6 requires a motor movably mounted to a frame for translation between a retracted position and an extended position, and a control unit that causes both the motor and the anchor member to move from a retracted position to an extended position and from an extended position to a retracted position. The invention conceived by Petitioner and communicated by Petitioner to Respondent, as identified above, however, includes no such motor and control module, and the Petition does not account for such a feature.” slip op. at 8
- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentDenied
“II. Discussion In its Response to the Show Cause Order, Petitioner argues that 35 U.S.C. § 135 does not require a petitioner’s involved application to be maintained after a derivation petition has been filed, that Petitioner’s entire purpose for filing the Petition was for the Board to direct that “the Petitioner be added as a named inventor [in] Respondent[’s] Application,” and that “the Respondent be removed as a named inventor from the Respondent Application.” Paper 6, 1–2. Under the circumstances here, we do not enter adverse judgment against Petitioner for having abandoned the ’929 Application. Hereinafter, we discuss the merits of the Petition for purposes of determining whether a derivation proceeding should be instituted.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“required to show (1) that the challenged claims are drawn to the same or substantially the same invention as the invention he disclosed to Respondent, (2) that Petitioner has at least one claim that is the same or substantially the same as the Respondent’s claimed invention, and (3) that Petitioner has at least one claim that is the same or substantially the same as the invention Petitioner disclosed to the Respondent. For these requirements, the Petition contains only a general citation to “Ex. 1003; Ex. 1004; Ex. 1005.” Pet. 7–11. As noted above, Exhibit 1003 is a declaration from Petitioner; Exhibit 1004 is a declaration of Tyler Brockman; and Exhibit 1005 is an affidavit of Scott Sproul. None of the testimony from Petitioner, Tyler Brockman, and Scott Sproul, however, addresses the specifics of any claim. With regard to the first requirement, it cannot simply be assumed that the challenged claims are drawn to the same or substantially the same invention as that which Petitioner has conceived and communicated to Respondent. The Petitioner provides no reasoning or analysis in that regard. Several features in the challenged claims demand a meaningful accounting by Petitioner, relative to the invention conceived by Petitioner and communicated by Petitioner to Respondent. Challenged claims 1, 2, and 6 are independent and all other challenged claims depend, directly or indirectly, from one of claims 1, 2, and 6. Claim 1 requires an actuator, mounted to an irrigation tower and separate from the anchor member, that has a retracted position and an extended position. According to claim 1, the anchor member is mounted to the actuator. Also according to claim 1, when the actuator is in its retracted position, the anchor member is retracted above the soil surface, and when the actuator is in its extended position, the anchor member penetrates the soil surface. The invention conceived by Petitioner and as communicated by Petitioner to Respondent, as identified above, however, includes no such actuator. More particularly, lacking from the Petitioner’s conceived and communicated invention is a sufficient disclosure or description of an actuator that, itself, translates between extended and retracted positions, and lacking from the Petition is any reasoning to account for the obviousness of such a feature to one with ordinary skill in the art. Similarly, claim 2 requires a motor, in an actuator, that is slidably mounted to the frame for movement between a retracted position and an extended position. The invention conceived by Petitioner and communicated by Petitioner to Respondent, as identified above, however, includes no such actuator and motor, and the Petition does not account for such a feature.” slip op. at 8
NonePatents in suitUS 9,215,847 - Geosys-Intl, Inc. v. Farmers Edge Precision Consulting, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 17, 2016 · IPR2015-00708 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–29 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over the three instituted combinations of Hauwiller, the patent Background, and, for specified claims, Dickson or Shibusawa.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The differences between Dr. Johannsen’s and Dr. Heiniger’s articulations of the level of ordinary skill in the art are fairly minor. Our analysis below, including the conclusions we reach, would be substantially the same under either proposal. Nevertheless, after considering the evidence of record, we adopt Dr. Heiniger’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownPlain and ordinary meaningOther
“their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard). Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In the Decision to Institute, we construed the phrase “calculating a map”4 in claims 1–3, 12, 14, 20–22, and 28 to mean “performing calculations to produce a map.” Dec. to Inst. 6–7. With respect to the phrase “maximum possible crop yield” in claims 1, 14, and 20, we declined to adopt Petitioner’s proposed meaning of that term as “yield goal” and instead applied the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim language. Id. at 7–8. We further determined that no other claim term required express construction. Id. at 8. Following institution, neither party challenged those constructions or proposed other terms for construction. On the record now before us, we do not discern reason to deviate from the constructions set forth in the Decision to Institute.” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“a “conventional method” that is used for calculating nitrogen needs for a field. Ex. 1001, 1:39–40. Hauwiller’s system is open to a variety of recommendation equations, as Patent Owner’s declarant agrees. See Ex. 1005, 8:36–48, 9:18–21, 9:34–38, 13:30–35, 13:39–45; Ex. 1020, 8:11–16. This openness supports the obviousness of employing within Hauwiller’s system a conventional equation (or certain aspects of a conventional equation) such as the one set forth in the Background of the ’620 patent. Furthermore, while the conventional equation includes several variables, a basic teaching of the equation is that in calculating the fertilizer recommendation, the amount of nitrogen already present should be subtracted from the nitrogen needed to realize the yield goal. See Ex. 1001, 1:39–50. Dr. Johannsen’s testimony that “subtraction of existing nutrients from the nutrient amount was a conventional thing to do particularly because it helps reduce leaching due to over fertilization” is consistent with this understanding of the conventional equation. See Ex. 1008 ¶ 71. We also recognize that the ’620 patent describes the equation as being a conventional approach for calculating nitrogen needs “for a field” rather than for a specific site within the field. Ex. 1001, 1:39–40. But Hauwiller recognizes that “[d]esired yield potential varies depending upon the soil characteristics by location” and, for that reason, describes the desirability of constructing “a yield goal map for creating an application map based upon site specific yield goals.” Ex. 1005, 9:32–41 (emphasis added). Thus, Hauwiller teaches the advantages and desirability of a site-specific approach. We agree with Petitioner that the “subtracting” step would have been accomplished by applying the teachings of the equation in the Background of the ’620 patent to the site-specific approach of Hauwiller. The evidence supports Petitioner’s contentions summarized above, and we agree with Petitioner that all of the features of claims 1 and 20 are disclosed in Hauwiller and the prior art described in the Background of the ’620 patent, and that there is adequate reason to combine the teachings of the prior art. We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary, but we do not find them persuasive for the reasons discussed below.” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“We have considered Patent Owner’s and Dr. Heiniger’s opposing views. We observe that Dr. Heiniger does not explain adequately the basis of his opinion that, despite the teachings of the prior art, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “thought that yield data from previous years would not work for that purpose” because a skilled artisan would have viewed yield data as “fundamentally different” from a measure of biomass. See Ex. 2033 ¶ 167. We also do not discern that either Patent Owner or Dr. Heiniger adequately considers that, in view of the teachings of the prior art, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that “leaf area index” is a known measure of biomass. See Ex. 1001, 1:63–65. In that regard, they do not explain why a skilled artisan would not understand readily that leaf area index constitutes the type of field history data and previous crop information that Hauwiller contemplates as useful in developing a map for a given field. Accordingly, on the record before us, we conclude that Petition has shown where all the features of claims 2 and 21 are found in the prior art, and that there is articulated reasoning why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Hauwiller and the Background of the ’620 patent. Patent Owner’s and Dr. Heiniger’s general views to the contrary, in our view, do not account appropriately for how a skilled artisan would have understood the teachings of the prior art.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 6,889,620 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,889,620 - Tietex International, Ltd. v. Precision Fabrics Group, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 11, 2016 · IPR2015-01671 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on both asserted § 103 grounds, finding no reasonable likelihood of success and exercising § 314(a) discretion for the Radwanski, Rowan, and Murch ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“We approach our discretion to deny a petition on a case-by-case basis. There are sufficient reasons under the specific facts of this case to exercise our discretion to deny institution on Petitioner’s asserted ground that claims 1–30 of the ’162 patent would have been obvious over the combination of Radwanski, Rowan, and Murch. Notably, in this proceeding, the claims of the ’162 patent are so similar in scope and content to those in the ’639 patent that Petitioner is relying on the same arguments that we found to be unpersuasive in the 1248 Final Decision. See Pet. 29; 1248 Final Dec. 22. We do not see how the efficient administration of the Office, or the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding, would be secured by instituting an inter partes review in this proceeding when the same prior art references and arguments are asserted against substantially the same claim limitations as in the 1248 IPR.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“A showing of obviousness must be supported by an articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support a motivation to combine the prior art teachings. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 414 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections 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.”)). An analysis regarding an apparent reason to combine known elements “should be made explicit.” Id.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“A showing of obviousness must be supported by an articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support a motivation to combine the prior art teachings. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 414 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections 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.”)). An analysis regarding an apparent reason to combine known elements “should be made explicit.” Id.” slip op. at 12
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“terminology as the claims in related US patent 8,501,639, which is the subject of [the] previously instituted [1248 IPR]” and argues “that for purposes of this proceeding, the same definitions should apply.” Pet. 7. In the 1248 IPR, we determined that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “intumescent” in light of the specification is “a substance that swells and chars upon exposure to heat or flame.” Tietex Int’l, Ltd. v. Precision Fabrics Group, Inc., Case IPR2014-01248, slip op. at 5–6 (PTAB Jan. 30, 2015) (Paper 14); see id., slip. op. at 4–5 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2016) (Paper 39). Petitioner and Patent Owner agree that “intumescent” as used in claim 1 of the ’162 patent should be interpreted the same way in this proceeding. Pet. 7; Prelim. Resp. 17. Therefore, for purposes of this Decision, we interpret “intumescent” to mean “a substance that swells and chars upon exposure to heat or flame.” B.” slip op. at 5
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,796,162 - Tietex International, Ltd. v. Precision Fabrics Group, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 27, 2016 · IPR2014-01248 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–22 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Radwanski, Rowan, and Murch because the petitioner did not establish the claimed thermal protective performance value.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Thus, in order to prevail, Petitioner must provide evidence establishing that the claimed TPP values are inherent in the prior art. Petitioner cannot, as an examiner can, establish unpatentability of the challenged claims based on the presumption that the structure of fabric that results from the combination of Radwanski, Rowan, and Murch would necessarily possess the claimed properties. Allowing Petitioner to rely solely on a presumption of inherency would improperly shift the burden to Patent Owner to establish that the claimed properties are not necessarily present in the prior art. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Appeal Decision establishes “that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to construct a flame retardant, intumescent fabric in accordance with the teachings of the prior art” with the claimed TPP value of at least 4.5 as Petitioner contends. Pet. 16.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“After considering Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s positions, as well as their supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 1 of the ’639 patent, and claims 2– 10, 13–16, and 19–22 that depend, directly or indirectly, therefrom, would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Radwanski, Rowan, and Murch. Independent claims 11, 12, and 17 also require a TPP value of at least 4.5. Ex. 1001, 12:47–13:20, 14:1–18. Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, we also determine that Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 11, 12, and 17, and dependent claim 18, would have been obvious over the combination of Radwanski, Rowan, and Murch. D. Secondary Considerations of Non-obviousness Patent Owner contends that secondary considerations of non- obviousness, including unexpected results, long-felt but unsolved need, and commercial success of the patented product “compel a determination of nonobviousness.” PO Resp. 49; see id. at 49–59. As discussed above, we find that Petitioner has not established that claims 1–22 of the ’639 patent would have been obvious over the combination of Radwanski, Rowan, and Murch. Thus, we need not address Patent Owner’s evidence regarding secondary considerations of non-obviousness.” slip op. at 17
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“In our judgment, Petitioner’s arguments and evidence in the Reply are outside the scope of a proper reply because they do more than merely address Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner did not establish that fabrics made by the combination inherently would have the claimed TPP value; rather, they attempt to provide new evidence that was not set forth clearly in the Petition as to why the fabric resulting from the combination of Radwanski, Rowan, and Murch necessarily would have the claimed TPP values. Because Petitioner waited until the Reply to serve this evidence on Patent Owner, Patent Owner was denied the opportunity to file responsive evidence. Consideration by the Board of the arguments in the Reply and evidence presented in the Horrocks Declaration in support thereof would be unfair to Patent Owner. Petitioner could have presented this argument and evidence with the Petition, and has not contended or offered any evidence to show otherwise. Because Petitioner belatedly presented these new arguments and evidence to make its case that the TPP value is dictated by the structure of the fabric, we decline to consider the portions of the Reply and the Horrocks Declaration on this issue. See Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,767. Patent Owner had a chance to, and in fact did, cross-examine Dr. Horrocks, but had no further briefing opportunity to challenge Petitioner’s evidence. Although Patent Owner did file observations regarding the cross-examination of Dr. Horrocks, such observations are not designed for submitting substantive arguments. See id. at 48,768 (“An observation (or response) is not an opportunity to raise new issues, re-argue issues, or pursue objections.”). Considering the new arguments and evidence at this late stage would not serve the interests of justice. We have, however, reviewed and considered the arguments in the Petition and evidence therein, and are in agreement with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not provided adequate explanation or evidence to support its contention that the claimed TPP values are inherent in the prior art.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached
“Secondary Considerations of Non-obviousness Patent Owner contends that secondary considerations of non- obviousness, including unexpected results, long-felt but unsolved need, and commercial success of the patented product “compel a determination of nonobviousness.” PO Resp. 49; see id. at 49–59. As discussed above, we find that Petitioner has not established that claims 1–22 of the ’639 patent would have been obvious over the combination of Radwanski, Rowan, and Murch. Thus, we need not address Patent Owner’s evidence regarding secondary considerations of non-obviousness.” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 8,501,639 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,501,639 - Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. v. Emerachem Holdings, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 22, 2016 · IPR2014-01556 · APJ Fred E Mckelvey · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6–7, and 9–16 are unpatentable under § 103(a) over the combined prior art; the anticipation grounds do not establish unpatentability.
RulingsFinal written decision- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“(a) A party may request oral argument on an issue raised in a paper at a time set by the Board. The Trial Practice Guidelines advise as follows: A party may rely upon evidence that has been previously submitted in the proceeding and may only present arguments relied upon in the papers previously submitted. No new evidence or arguments may be presented at the oral argument. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48768 (col. 2) (Aug. 14, 2012) (italics added). The rationale in support of the Rule and Guideline is fundamental fairness to an opponent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) (Part 42 “shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.”) It is not just to an opponent for a party to raise an argument not based on the Petition, Opposition, or Reply, or to discuss evidence not in the record. Why? There is no meaningful opportunity for the opponent to rebut the argument or address the evidence. Likewise, the Board is at a disadvantage because judges do not prepare for oral argument based on arguments and evidence not present in the record. To the extent that arguments and discussions took place at oral argument in this case contrary to the principles set out above, those arguments and discussions have not been considered in rendering a decision on the merits.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We disagree with Petitioner’s “comprising” position. While the regeneration gas can “comprise” elements not set out in parts [A1] and [A2] of claim 1, as reproduced above, part [A2] is restricted to an inert carrier gas. According to the ʼ911 patent, the regeneration gas is substantially oxygen free, albeit the regeneration gas can contain up to one percent oxygen. Ex. 1001A, col. 3:27–29. A regeneration gas containing more than one percent oxygen would cease to be a regeneration gas within the meaning of claim 1. Any reasonable interpretation of “regeneration gas,” consistent with the Specification, would require that the regeneration gas have no more than up to one percent oxygen. In reaching our conclusion, we have not added a limitation from the Specification into claim 1 of the ʼ911 patent; rather, we interpret the meanings of “regeneration gas” and “inert carrier gas” as set out in the claim.” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“to doubt that the NOx released by the [Hirota] absorbent . . . [would] be reduced . . . by . . . [the Hirota] process” “provid[ed] there is sufficient reductant present.” Ex. 1056, page 89:18–21. However, Dr. Crocker’s cross-examination testimony does not establish that the Hirota process anticipates the process of claim 1 of the ʼ911 patent. The issue here is not whether Hirota is operative; rather, it is whether Hirota operates with “an inert carrier gas” within the meaning of claim 1 of the ʼ911 patent. During oral argument, Petitioner called attention to the wording of Hirota, with emphasis on the fact Hirota does not use the word “shall” or “must” but rather uses the word “is.” Transcript of Oral Argument, Paper 56, page 4:7 through page 5:15. According to Petitioner, under a broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the regeneration gas of claim 1 should be interpreted broadly. Id. at page 5:12–15. But, Petitioner previously had agreed that it makes no “difference what the claim construction is here,” (id. at page 3:20–23). We view the “shall,” “must,” and “is” discussion as a formalistic wordsmithing side-show given that the meaning of the regeneration gas is clear from its description in the Specification. We find that Hirota does not describe the subject matter of claim 1 of the ʼ911 patent. Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to prove that Hirota anticipates claim 1 of the ʼ911 patent.” slip op. at 22
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“Likewise, Land justifies a holding that joint inventors Guth and Campbell (Ex. 1004A) are separate entities vis-à-vis joint inventors of the Guth, Campbell, and Wagner ʼ911 patent (Ex. 1001A). Patent Owner maintains that Guth ʼ758 and Campbell’s “work may not be used against [them] unless there is a time bar under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).” Paper 28, page 19 (quoting MPEP § 2136.05 (7th ed. July 1998)). However, Guth and Campbell’s work is not being used against them; it is being used against the inventive entity of the ʼ911 patent: Guth, Campbell, and Wagner. At oral argument, counsel for Patent Owner stated “[s]o what I’m saying is I agree that Land probably applies.” Transcript of Oral Argument, Paper 56, page 14:19–20. On the record before us, there is insufficient evidence that Wagner contributed to, or is a joint inventor of, the subject matter described and/or claimed in the ʼ911 patent.” slip op. at 39
Patent outcomesUS 5,953,911 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 5,953,911 - Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. v. Emerachem Holdings, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 22, 2016 · IPR2014-01558 · APJ Fred E Mckelvey · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–14 and 16–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Campbell, Saito, and Stiles; the Board found the Hirota, Takeshima, and Saito anticipation grounds insufficient.
RulingsFinal written decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We see no need to repeat that discussion here, and adopt it as written therein. Petitioner has failed to establish that Hirota describes a regeneration gas falling within the scope of the regeneration gas of claim 1 of the ʼ758 patent. Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to satisfy its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 1 of the ʼ758 patent is anticipated by Hirota.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableDecided for petitioner
“Whenever a ground based on obviousness is involved, the preferred manner of setting out differences is to state “the subject matter of claim x differs from the reference in that (1) …, (2) …., and (n) ….” Vague statements or hints of differences not only burdens the Board, but puts a patent owner at somewhat of a disadvantage with having to guess what any differences a petitioner believes may exit. Reluctance on the part of counsel to “admit” to and identify a difference is hard to understand, given the fact that a difference does not mean the subject matter claimed is non-obvious. Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230 (1976) (mere existence of differences between the prior art and an invention does not establish the invention’s non-obviousness).4 Campbell appears to differ from the subject matter of claim 1 of the ʼ758 patent in that Campbell does not describe an in situ regeneration.” slip op. at 40
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“4. Discussion While Campbell does not describe in situ regeneration, and assuming arguendo that claim 1 of the ʼ758 patent requires in situ regeneration, in situ regeneration is a well-known technique described by Saito and Stiles. An in situ regeneration in Campbell makes sense because it eliminates a need to discard spent catalyst and permits one skilled in the art to reuse catalytic material. The reuse of catalytic material would have been recognized as significant due to the expense of platinum. Ex. 1056, page 13:20–23. Patent Owner maintains that the catalytic material of Saito and Stiles “is very different from that of the ʼ758 patent.” Paper 29, 4 Petitioner’s failure to clearly identify differences is not consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) and 42.104(b)(5), as well as 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3), which require identifying the grounds “with particularity.” The Petition must specify where each element of a challenged claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2). page 29. “There is nothing in either Saito or Stiles to suggest . . . that the regeneration methods of these two references might be succesfully used for regenerating the catalyst/absorber of Campbell.” Id. at page 30.” slip op. at 41
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“balance in favor of non-obviousness, both in the courts and the PTO. Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45 (1923); Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co., 185 U.S. 403 (1902); The Barbed Wire Patent, 143 U.S. 275 (1892); Webster Loom v. Higgins, 105 U.S. 580 (1881); Ex parte Artsana USA, Inc., Appeal 2014-004116, 2014 WL 4090808 (PTAB Aug. 18, 2014); Murata Mfg. Co. v. Synqor, Inc., Appeal 2014-001167, 2014 WL 1397381 (PTAB Apr. 10, 2014); Ex parte Whirlpool Corp., Appeal 2013-008232, 2013 WL 5866602 (PTAB Oct. 30, 2013). However, in this case, we are unable to credit much, if any, weight, to Patent Owner’s evidence of long-felt need and commercial success. For long-felt need and commercial success to be convincing, there must be a “nexus” between (1) the long-felt need/commercial success and (2) the claimed subject matter. In re Fielder, 471 F.2d 640, 646 (CCPA 1973). Patent Owner’s evidence is bottomed on Patent Owner’s experience with what is referred to as a “SCONOx catalytic absorption system.” Ex. 2006A ¶ 4 (direct Declaration testimony of Thomas Girdlestone). Patent Owner characterizes the claimed method as embodying a SCONOx system. Paper 29, page 37:3–4. According to Mr. Girdlestone, the effectiveness of reducing NOx in a SCONOx system was tested at a turbine facility run at EmeraChem’s then-affiliate Sunlaw Energy in California. Ex. 2006A, ¶ 5. Further according to Mr. Girdlestone, both the EPA and the Cal EPA” slip op. at 46
Patent outcomesUS 5,599,758 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 5,599,758 - Johns Manville Corporation v. Knauf Insulation, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 4, 2016 · IPR2015-01683 · APJ Fred E Mckelvey · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on both § 103 grounds because Petitioner did not sufficiently show the modified prior-art compositions would meet the challenged claims.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Petitioner bears the burden of proof. We have not been given sufficient evidence to support, even at this stage, a finding that it is likely that a block made from Example 3, modified by using phosphoric acid would meet claim 34 as it depends from claim 1.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundNot shown unpatentable
“As noted earlier, we can assume arguendo that one skilled in the art more than likely would have found it obvious to use a phosphoric acid in place of ammonium sulfate. But, then one has to ask: “Where has Petitioner set out to prove that a Gogek Example 3 composition with a phosphoric acid used in place of ammonium sulfate meets the limitations of claim 34 as it depends from claim 1?” The relevant testimony is that of Dr. Frederick J. Hirsekorn. Ex. 1006, ¶ 103: At the time of the . . . invention of the ’827 Patent , it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add a monoammonium phosphate to the binder composition of Example 3 of Gogek in order to reduce the corrosivity of the binder and preserve the manufacturing equipment. In the continuous manufacturing process disclosed in Swift, some manufacturing equipment will be in contact with the solution at all times, amplifying the need to include a corrosion inhibitor to extend the life of the manufacturing equipment. Accordingly, in order to prevent corrosion and “decrease the cost of manufacturing bound materials” (Ex. 1003, ¶ [0073]), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add a monoammonium phosphate as disclosed in Swift to the binder of Example 3 of Gogek to inhibit corrosion. Agreeing arguendo with Dr. Hirsekorn’s observations, those observations at best prove that one would have found it obvious to use a phosphoric acid in place of, the ammonium sulfate described in Gogek Example 3. But, those observations in no way purport to prove that use of phosphoric acid in place of ammonium sulfate would produce a block having the characteristics of the material of claim 34 as it depends from claim 1.” slip op. at 10
- BurdenInstitution denied
“1. Failure to articulate a difference Petitioner has failed to set out precise differences between Swift or Gogek and the subject matter of the challenged claims. As we explained in declining to institute on Ground 2 in Johns Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc., IPR2015-01402 (PTAB Oct. 21, 2015) (Paper 18, pages 12–14), failure of a petitioner to set out differences in a § 103 context complicate consideration of a petition, both for the Board and the patent owner. See also 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (petition to point out with particularity); 37 C.F.R. § 41.104(b)(4). Due to Petitioner’s failure to articulate a clear difference between the subject matter of the challenged claims and Swift, we decline to institute an IPR trial in this case.” slip op. at 12
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,039,827
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.