• Fluidmaster, Inc. v. Danco, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 11, 2026 · IPR2024-00635 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision

  The majority held claims 1–14 unpatentable under §103 over Guoxin, Ho, and the Quick Connection Art; one judge dissented as to claims 8, 9, 12, and 13.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) with respect to the subject matter of the ’698 patent at the time of the priority date, March 11, 2004, would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, or other technical training in product design or equivalent work experience. This person would also possess at least one year of experience in developing and/or evaluating mechanical aspects of fluid systems. I consider myself a person of ordinary skill in the art under this definition. Ex. 1004 ¶ 28. Patent Owner argues: A POSITA in the field to which the ’698 Patent is directed would have had at least a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering or a related field or, as a substitute, at least two years of work or research experience in the design or development of toilet products, parts, and accessories. PO Resp. 6. We adopt Patent Owner’s proposed definition of a POSITA, as it is consistent with the ’698 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). However, we see no material difference between the level of skill proposed by Patent Owner and that proposed by Petitioner and Dr. Cameron such that our determinations would be the same under either proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner asserts that, because each of the Flow Limitations relate to water flow through the bowl fill valve, these limitations require adjusting the flow rate of water exiting the flow valve. PO Resp. 15–17 (citing Ex. 2013 ¶ 97); See also PO Sur-Reply 7. Petitioner responds that “the claim language of the ’698 Patent discusses adjusting the water flow, not specifically the ‘flow rate.’” Pet. Reply 13. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner, and the conclusory testimony of Mr. Jobin (Ex. 2013 ¶ 97), that because the Flow Limitations “relate” to water flow through the bowl fill valve, that this necessarily means that the flow rate must be adjusted. As Petitioner points out, neither the term “flowrate” nor any similar term appears in any of the Flow Limitations. Thus, the plain language of the Flow Limitations requires that, contrary to Patent Owner’s position, the claim limitation should not be restricted to adjustments to “flow rate.”” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that Limitations 8B and 12B are directed to the configuration or structure of the bowl fill valve outlet port. Pet. Reply 2–4. According to Petitioner, because Limitations 8B and 12B do recite an overflow tube, the overflow tube is not separately claimed and is recited solely to define the function of the outlet port on the bowl fill valve. Id. at 3. Petitioner, thus, argues that an overflow tube is not separately claimed as a structural element, and that, to meet Limitations 8B and 12B, it is sufficient to show that the prior art discloses a bowl fill valve with an outlet port that is configured to attach directly to a tube that provides water from the outlet port to an overflow tube. Id. at 4. In contrast, Patent Owner argues that Limitations 8B and 12B separately claim the overflow tube, and that Petitioner must show that the prior art discloses a tube that transfers water from the bowl fill valve outlet port to the toilet tank overflow tube. PO Resp. 10–11; PO Sur-reply 2–3. We disagree with Patent Owner, because claims 8 and 12, on their face, require “bowl fill valve outlet port,” but do not require or recite an “overflow tube” as an element of the claimed “bowl fill valve.” When a structure is claimed as “configured to” perform a particular function, it generally requires a structure that is designed to perform the particular function claimed, i.e., it requires more than the mere capability of performing that function. See Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (claim language including the phrase “adapted to” is to be construed consistent with “configured to” language and requires that the structure must be “designed or configured to accomplish the specified objective, not simply that [it] can be made to serve that purpose.”); see also In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The plain language of Limitations 8B and 12B is clearly directed to the configuration of the bowl fill valve outlet port, in that these limitations recite “a bowl fill valve outlet port configured to.”8 The recited function is “attach directly to a tube that provides water from the bowl fill valve outlet port to an overflow tube.” The overflow tube is recited as part of the function in a clause identifying the tube to which the bowl fill valve outlet port is configured to attached — “that provides water from the bowl fill valve outlet port to an overflow tube.” The overflow tube, thus, is recited as part of the function defining the required structure of the bowl fill outlet port and is not separately claimed.” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “1. Petitioner’s Contentions Petitioner contends that the combination of Guoxin, Ho, and the Quick Connection Art teaches all of the limitations of claims 1–14 and provides a mapping showing where each claim limitation is found in the prior art. Pet. 21–59. We have reviewed the Petition’s mapping and determine that the Petition sufficiently shows that each limitation of claims 1–14 is disclosed by the combination of Guoxin, Ho, and the Quick Connection Art. Further, we have reviewed Petitioner’s rationale for combining the prior art and determine that the Petition sufficiently shows that it would have been obvious to a POSITA to combine Guoxin, Ho, and the Quick Connection Art.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 10,934,698 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,934,698
• Fluidmaster, Inc. v. Danco, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 5, 2026 · IPR2024-00634 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 8–13, 15, 16, and 19–24 are unpatentable over Brown and Ho, with claims 16 and 19 also relying on the Quick Connection Art; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner proposes that: A [person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)] in the field to which the ’105 Patent is directed would have had at least a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering or a related field or, as a substitute, at least two years of work or” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “of “integrally molded with” as “molded together as a single structure.” Paper 21, 15.” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Patent Owner responds that: a POSITA would not have been motivated to make the proposed modification, nor does the Petition include any analysis regarding why a POSITA would be motivated to move from a vertical extended portion to a radial extended portion. Indeed, a radial extended portion is directly counter to the stated goals of Brown (e.g., reducing noise caused by turbulence), at least insofar as it introduces another sudden directional change into the fluid flow system. PO Resp. 58–59 (citing Ex. 2013 ¶ 242).” slip op. at 32

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner argues that the ’105 patent claims were “fully supported as of the filing date of at least the ’606 Application . . . March 11, 2004” because the ’606 Application discloses regulating water flow and a POSITA would know that appropriate devices for regulating water flow includes nonadjustable waterflow restrictors. PO Resp. 63–65; PO Sur-reply 26–29. Patent Owner’s argument is persuasive. The ’606 Application discloses: [W]hen the toilet fill valve 100 is open and water flows from the water inlet 103 to the water outlets 106 and into a toilet tank, an amount of water is also supplied to the bowl fill valve inlet 113 that flows through the bowl fill valve 109 and out the bowl fill valve outlet 116. By virtue of the manual setting of handle 119 of the bowl fill valve 109, the flow of water through the bowl fill valve 109 is regulated. In this manner, the flow of water is regulated so that enough water flows out of the bowl fill valve 109 to fill a toilet bowl without wasting any water down a drain. seen from the passage above, the ’606 Application discloses regulating an amount of water supplied to a toilet bowl using a valve (i.e., a water flow regulator). Ex. 2013 ¶ 288. Further, the ’606 Application states: The bowl fill valve 109 may be, for example, a ball valve, a gate valve, a globe valve, a plug valve, a diaphragm valve, a butterfly valve, a needle valve, a sliding gate, a quick turn valve, a knife valve or any other appropriate type of valve as can be appreciated by those with ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 42

  Patent outcomesUS 9,103,105 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,103,105
• Tiktok Inc. v. Ntech Properties, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 23, 2026 · IPR2024-01342 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 6–10 are unpatentable as obvious over each asserted ground; claim 5 was not shown unpatentable because the petitions failed to establish its additional feed and time-period limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “1b, 1c, and 1e of claim 1 and in claims 4 and 5 of the ’753 patent. Patent Owner contends that the plain and ordinary meaning of “feed” is “one or more associated media elements.” See, e.g., PO Resp. 4. However, as discussed below, this alleged plain and ordinary meaning of feed is not supported by the claim language, the specification of the ’753 patent, or dictionary definitions of feed as contended by Patent Owner. We reject this contention and the related contentions that the cited art may be distinguished from the claims of the ’753 patent based on the recited term “feed.” Patent Owner relies on the language of claim 1 to support its” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The parties’ definitions are similar, although we observe that Patent Owner proposes that the person of ordinary skill would have a bachelor’s degree or an equivalent or professional experience, whereas Petitioner proposes that such a person would have both a degree and experience. Neither party presents any arguments relating or referring to the level of ordinary skill in the art. Determining the level of ordinary skill in the art involves various factors, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The prior art of record also reflects the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill in the art. Petitioner’s assessment is supported by the testimony of Dr. Almeroth and is consistent with the ’753 patent and the asserted prior art. However, our obviousness analysis would be the same under either party’s assessment. See Ex. 2014 ¶ 17 (Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Goodrich, stating that “I note that my definition of a POSITA is similar to that of Dr. Almeroth” and “My opinions in this declaration would not change were I to adopt the definition of a POSITA offered by Dr. Almeroth.”).” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “16 With regard to claim 5, the Petition cites paragraphs 97 and 98 of the Almeroth Declaration (Ex. 1002). See Pet. 28–29. We have considered the cited paragraphs in the Almeroth Declatation and found that they consist of nothing more than the inadequate and conclusory contentions in the Petition preceded by, in paragraph 97, “[i]n my opinion” and “it is my opinion” and, in paragraph 98, “[i]t is also my opinion.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 97, 98. As related to claim 5, we accord the Almeroth Declaration little or no weight. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65 (a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). that might become out-of-date before a user accesses access [sic] them. Ex. 1003, 11:49–58 (emphasis added). The cited passage in Whitehead mentioning “near real-time” does not support finding that Whitehead teaches or suggests the elements recited in claim 5.” slip op. at 39

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends, “[a] POSITA would have modified Whitehead’s mixing server 130 to incorporate Marcus ’904’s algorithm (running on Marcus ’904’s receiver) for receiving, selecting, ordering, and assembling different media streams (both for content and advertising).” Pet. 33. Petitioner supports this contention by articulating the following reasons for the asserted modification of Whitehead’s mixing server 130 to incorporate Marcus ’904’s algorithm: “makes it more likely the system will identify content best suited for a particular user,” “allows for more targeted advertising and/or an opportunity to maximize revenue,” “improves Whitehead’s ability to target content and advertising to a particular user,” “would unlock new revenue sources for Whitehead,” “Marcus ’904’s content selection and concatenation algorithm improves Whitehead’s efficiency,” “[b]oth Whitehead and Marcus ’904 generate custom media programming based on a user profile,” “incorporating Marcus ’904’s teachings would not require redesigning Whitehead’s architecture and instead merely supplements Whitehead’s disclosure,” and “Petitioner’s proposed modification can be implemented entirely in software and does not require any hardware modifications. Indeed, Whitehead acknowledges that such modifications are possible. EX1003 at 19:64-20:6, 22:26-40.” Id. at 33–35 (citing Ex. 1002 (Almeroth Decl.) ¶¶ 110–115) (emphasis omitted). Based on this undisputed showing, we find that one of ordinary skill would have had a motivation to combine the teachings of Whitehead and Marcus ’904 as asserted in the Petition with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 48

  Patent outcomesUS 8,886,753 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,886,753
• Mobileye Global, Inc. / ZF Active Safety And Electronics US LLC v. Facet Technology Corp.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 23, 2026 · IPR2025-00749 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 8–13 are unpatentable as obvious over Gallagher and Schofield; claims 5–7 and 14–16 were not shown unpatentable on the asserted combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “skilled artisan would have, with Petitioner contending four years and Patent Owner contending two years. Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Papanikolopoulos, does not provide an explanation for his opinion or support his definition of the level of ordinary skill with citations to evidence. See Ex. 2023 ¶ 57 (“In my opinion, [Petitioner’s definition] is an excessive level of ordinary skill in the art, and I believe instead [an ordinarily skilled artisan] would more likely have two years of experience rather than four years.”). On the other hand, Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Thorpe, does provide an explanation for his opinion, explaining that his assertion that four years of experience is required is based on the state of the art, typical undergraduate curricula, and his supervision of doctoral students. Ex. 1030 ¶ 21. Based on the arguments presented and the cited references, we find Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill reasonable and for purposes of this Decision, adopt it as our own. We note that we would reach the same conclusions under either proposed standard.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “As a general rule, unless the steps of a method claim actually recite an order, the steps are not ordinarily construed to require one.” Mformation Techs., Inc. v. Rsch. in Motion Ltd., 764 F.3d 1392, 1398 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citation modified). “However, a claim requires an ordering of steps when the claim language, as a matter of logic or grammar, requires that the steps be performed in the order written, or the specification directly or implicitly requires an order of steps.” Id. (cleaned up). “[O]rdinarily in process claims steps taken concurrently are the equivalent of steps taken successively.” In re White, 39 F.2d 974, 975 (CCPA 1930); see also Cybersettle, 243 F. App’x. at 609 (finding “the step of calculating the differences between demands and offers can occur concurrently with the [next enumerated step of] receipt of multiple demands and offers” and “the testing step of ‘determining whether any of the differences fall within the predetermined settlement range’ may occur concurrently with the receipt and comparison of the bids” (citation modified)). This is especially true here, given that the recitations at issue are functional language in an apparatus (system) claim. We further agree with Petitioner that the ’328 patent discloses such concurrent performance of these steps: Either concurrent with or subsequent to the identification of road signs 30 and generation of asset management database 24, the computer processor 22 evaluates that portion 32 of each video frame or image that depicts a road sign 30 to determine a set of color values 40, 42 for each of a plurality of colors on the road sign 32. A retroreflectivity value is generated for each color portion 34, 36 on each frame of the tagged videostream 20 containing the road sign 30 that represents a different color value 40, 42. slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “Petitioner is correct to the extent that it need not show that “the features of [Schofield] may be bodily incorporated into the structure of [Gallagher],” but Petitioner must prove that “a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention.” Allied Erecting, 825 F.3d at 1381. For claim 9, Petitioner proposes to modify Gallagher’s system to use “Schofield’s determination of a light source’s location within a field of view” in Gallagher’s system. Pet. 23. Thus, Petitioner’s combination does not require the combination of Gallagher’s and Schofield’s sensors into a single system, and Patent Owner’s “sensor fusion” argument is inapposite. See Tr. 48:8–49:6 (Patent Owner’s counsel confirming that the problem of “sensor fusion” stems from combining disparate sensors in a single system). As noted above, Schofield teaches considering the relative location of the light source in determining whether the light source is from headlights or taillights (that is, an object of interest). See Ex. 1006, 9:26–35. We are persuaded that an ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to use this teaching in Gallagher’s device to help distinguish between road markers that are arranged side-by-side and have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 40; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 77 (“[An ordinarily skilled artisan] would have seen Schofield’s determination of a light source’s location within the field of view as advantageous because it would have allowed Gallagher’s computer to associate the measured reflectance level with the appropriate road marker.”), 79 (“[I]mplementing this determination would have required [an ordinarily skilled artisan] to implement only conventional techniques of image processing (identifying a location of a particular pixel within an array), which was well known by [an ordinarily skilled artisan], to predictably yield the result of the location within a field of view indicating an intensity value associated with a road marker. Given that Schofield and Gallagher disclose similar types of arrays, this combination would have merely required the use of Schofield’s known technique to improve Gallagher’s similar device in the same way.”).” slip op. at 30

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNon analogous artNot shown unpatentable

    “A reference qualifies as prior art for a determination under § 103 when it is analogous to the claimed invention. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).” slip op. at 49

  Patent outcomesUS 9,671,328 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,671,328
• Mobileye Global, Inc. / ZF Active Safety And Electronics US LLC v. Facet Technology Corp.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 23, 2026 · IPR2024-01111 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 8–13 are unpatentable as obvious over Gallagher and Schofield; claims 5–7 and 14–16 were not shown unpatentable on the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The parties disagree only on the length of experience an ordinarily skilled artisan would have, with Petitioner contending four years and Patent Owner contending two years. Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Papanikolopoulos, does not provide an explanation for his opinion or support his definition of the level of ordinary skill with citations to evidence. See Ex. 2023 ¶ 57 (“In my opinion, [Petitioner’s definition] is an excessive level of ordinary skill in the art, and I believe instead [an ordinarily skilled artisan] would more likely have two years of experience rather than four years.”). On the other hand, Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Thorpe, does provide an explanation for his opinion, explaining that his assertion that four years of experience is required is based on the state of the art, typical undergraduate curricula, and his supervision of doctoral students. Ex. 1030 ¶ 21. Based on the arguments presented and the cited references, we find Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill reasonable and for purposes of this Decision, adopt it as our own. We note that we would reach the same conclusions under either proposed standard.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITANo construction needed

    “As a general rule, unless the steps of a method claim actually recite an order, the steps are not ordinarily construed to require one.” Mformation Techs., Inc. v. Rsch. in Motion Ltd., 764 F.3d 1392, 1398 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citation modified). “However, a claim requires an ordering of steps when the claim language, as a matter of logic or grammar, requires that the steps be performed in the order written, or the specification directly or implicitly requires an order of steps.” Id. (cleaned up). “[O]rdinarily in process claims steps taken concurrently are the equivalent of steps taken successively.” In re White, 39 F.2d 974, 975 (CCPA 1930); see also Cybersettle, 243 F. App’x. at 609 (finding “the step of calculating the differences between demands and offers can occur concurrently with the [next enumerated step of] receipt of multiple demands and offers” and “the testing step of ‘determining whether any of the differences fall within the predetermined settlement range’ may occur concurrently with the receipt and comparison of the bids” (citation modified)). This is especially true here, given that the recitations at issue are functional language in an apparatus (system) claim. We further agree with Petitioner that the ’328 patent discloses such concurrent performance of these steps: Either concurrent with or subsequent to the identification of road signs 30 and generation of asset management database 24, the computer processor 22 evaluates that portion 32 of each video frame or image that depicts a road sign 30 to determine a set of color values 40, 42 for each of a plurality of colors on the road sign 32. A retroreflectivity value is generated for each color portion 34, 36 on each frame of the tagged videostream 20 containing the road sign 30 that represents a different color value 40, 42. Ex. 1001, 5:52–60. Thus, the ’328 patent discloses concurrently detecting objects of interest (road signs) and determining whether the object of interest has a particular color value. slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner is correct to the extent that it need not show that “the features of [Schofield] may be bodily incorporated into the structure of [Gallagher],” but Petitioner must prove that “a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention.” Allied Erecting, 825 F.3d at 1381. For claim 9, Petitioner proposes to modify Gallagher’s system to use “Schofield’s determination of a light source’s location within a field of view” in Gallagher’s system. Pet. 23. Thus, Petitioner’s combination does not require the combination of Gallagher’s and Schofield’s sensors into a single system, and Patent Owner’s “sensor fusion” argument is inapposite. See Tr. 48:8–49:6 (Patent Owner’s counsel confirming that the problem of “sensor fusion” stems from combining disparate sensors in a single system). As noted above, Schofield teaches considering the relative location of the light source in determining whether the light source is from headlights or taillights (that is, an object of interest). See Ex. 1006, 9:26–35. We are persuaded that an ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to use this teaching in Gallagher’s device to help distinguish between road markers that are arranged side-by-side and have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 40; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 77 (“[An ordinarily skilled artisan] would have seen Schofield’s determination of a light source’s location within the field of view as advantageous because it would have allowed Gallagher’s computer to associate the measured reflectance level with the appropriate road marker.”), 79 (“[I]mplementing this determination would have required [an ordinarily skilled artisan] to implement only conventional techniques of image processing (identifying a location of a particular pixel within an array), which was well known by [an ordinarily skilled artisan], to predictably yield the result of the location within a field of view indicating an intensity value associated with a road marker. Given that Schofield and Gallagher disclose similar types of arrays, this combination would have merely required the use of Schofield’s known technique to improve Gallagher’s similar device in the same way.”).” slip op. at 30

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedOther

    “The parties disagree only on the length of experience an ordinarily skilled artisan would have, with Petitioner contending four years and Patent Owner contending two years. Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Papanikolopoulos, does not provide an explanation for his opinion or support his definition of the level of ordinary skill with citations to evidence. See Ex. 2023 ¶ 57 (“In my opinion, [Petitioner’s definition] is an excessive level of ordinary skill in the art, and I believe instead [an ordinarily skilled artisan] would more likely have two years of experience rather than four years.”). On the other hand, Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Thorpe, does provide an explanation for his opinion, explaining that his assertion that four years of experience is required is based on the state of the art, typical undergraduate curricula, and his supervision of doctoral students. Ex. 1030 ¶ 21. Based on the arguments presented and the cited references, we find Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill reasonable and for purposes of this Decision, adopt it as our own. We note that we would reach the same conclusions under either proposed standard.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 9,671,328 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,671,328
• Mobileye Global, Inc. / ZF Active Safety And Electronics US LLC v. Facet Technology Corp.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 23, 2026 · IPR2025-00748 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 15 was not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Gallagher and Lumia because Petitioner did not persuasively explain why a skilled artisan would combine their teachings.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The parties disagree only on the length of experience an ordinarily skilled artisan would have, with Petitioner contending four years and Patent Owner contending two years. As noted by Petitioner, Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Papanikolopoulos, does not provide an explanation for his opinion or support his definition of the level of ordinary skill with citations to evidence. See Ex. 2023 ¶ 57 (“In my opinion, [Petitioner’s definition] is an excessive level of ordinary skill in the art, and I believe instead [an ordinarily skilled artisan] would more likely have two years of experience rather than four years.”). On the other hand, Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Thorpe, does provide an explanation for his opinion, explaining that his assertion that four years of experience is required is based on the state of the art, typical undergraduate curricula, and his supervision of doctoral students. Ex. 1030 ¶ 23. Based on the arguments presented and the cited references, we find Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill reasonable and for purposes of this Decision, adopt it as our own. We note that we would reach the same conclusions under either proposed standard.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (alteration in original) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no construction of any term is necessary. slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not articulated persuasive reasoning for combining the teachings of Gallagher and Lumia. Petitioner argues that implementing Lumia’s teaching of determining the luminance of traffic signs in Gallagher’s system would allow Gallagher’s system to calculate the retroreflectivity of road markers as a means of identifying any markers that do not meet minimum acceptable reflectance levels for countries that require a minimum retroreflectivity level for road markers. Pet. 46 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 116; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 49, 77; Ex. 1019, 6, 8–11).7 However, Gallagher already discloses determining whether the 7 Petitioner and Dr. Thorpe cite to the original pagination of Exhibit 1019 rather than the added exhibit pagination. reflectance level of each road marker meets a predetermined minimum acceptable reflectance level and tagging those road markers that do not meet the minimum acceptable reflectance level to identify them for replacement. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3, 67–68; see also id. ¶¶ 12–13, 18, 21, 49, 51, 76, 79, Fig. 5. Indeed, both Petitioner and Dr. Thorpe describe Gallagher’s system as ensuring that road markers meet minimum retroreflectivity standards: “Gallagher’s apparatus tests ‘road markings and road markers such as, for example, road signs and posts, reflective painted lines whether continuous or broken, and . . . raised pavement markers’ ‘to ensure they continue to meet minimum standards of reflectivity/retroreflectivity.’” Pet. 9 (alteration in original) (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3, 6, 31–33); Ex. 1003 ¶ 55 (alteration in original) (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3, 6, 31–33). Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not identified persuasively why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have modified Gallagher’s system to include Lumia’s process for measuring retroreflectivity of traffic signs.” slip op. at 19

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “coefficient of luminous intensity rather than the coefficient of retroreflectivity, and Lumia teaches how to calculate retroreflectivity based on the coefficient of luminance intensity. Pet. Reply 20–21. During the hearing, counsel for Petitioner clarified that this reliance on Lumia entails using the equations disclosed in Lumia without altering Gallagher’s hardware. Tr. 27:18–29:24. During his deposition , Dr. Thorpe confirmed that this obviousness theory relies only on Lumia’s equations. See Ex. 2025, 60:5–65:2. This is an improper new argument. See, e.g., Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1330–31 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[A]n IPR petitioner may not raise in reply ‘an entirely new rationale’ for why a claim would have been obvious.”). Notably, this new obviousness theory appears to stem from Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Papanikolopoulos, noting differences in Gallagher’s and Lumia’s disclosures. See Pet. Reply 21 (citing Ex. 2023 ¶¶ 71 n.2, 89). Even considering Petitioner’s new theory, we find it unpersuasive because Petitioner does not explain adequately how the “determining a luminance value” recitation is met. Per Petitioner, Gallagher measures the coefficient of luminous intensity, but Petitioner does not identify a “luminance value” as recited in claim 15. Dr. Papanikolopoulos testifies that the coefficient of luminous intensity is not a luminance value: “As is well established, coefficient of luminous intensity—which is what Gallagher calculates—is a measurement of retroreflectivity (usually expressed in units of candelas, or millicandelas, per lux per square meter, i.e., cd/lx/m2), not luminance (usually expressed in candelas per square meter, i.e., cd/m2). Ex. 2023 ¶ 91. Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Thorpe, does not contest this testimony. See, e.g., Ex. 1030 ¶ 35. Thus, Petitioner’s new theory is unpersuasive.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 9,335,255 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,335,255
• Mobileye Global, Inc. / ZF Active Safety And Electronics US LLC v. Facet Technology Corp.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 23, 2026 · IPR2024-01110 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 15 was not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Gallagher and Lumia because Petitioner did not persuasively explain why a skilled artisan would combine their teachings.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The parties disagree only on the length of experience an ordinarily skilled artisan would have, with Petitioner contending four years and Patent Owner contending two years. As noted by Petitioner, Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Papanikolopoulos, does not provide an explanation for his opinion or support his definition of the level of ordinary skill with citations to evidence. See Ex. 2023 ¶ 57 (“In my opinion, [Petitioner’s definition] is an excessive level of ordinary skill in the art, and I believe instead [an ordinarily skilled artisan] would more likely have two years of experience rather than four years.”). On the other hand, Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Thorpe, does provide an explanation for his opinion, explaining that his assertion that four years of experience is required is based on the state of the art, typical undergraduate curricula, and his supervision of doctoral students. Ex. 1030 ¶ 23. Based on the arguments presented and the cited references, we find Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill reasonable and for purposes of this Decision, adopt it as our own. We note that we would reach the same conclusions under either proposed standard.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (alteration in original) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no construction of any term is necessary. slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not articulated persuasive reasoning for combining the teachings of Gallagher and Lumia. Petitioner argues that implementing Lumia’s teaching of determining the luminance of traffic signs in Gallagher’s system would allow Gallagher’s system to calculate the retroreflectivity of road markers as a means of identifying any markers that do not meet minimum acceptable reflectance levels for countries that require a minimum retroreflectivity level for road markers. Pet. 46 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 116; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 49, 77; Ex. 1019, 6, 8–11).7 However, Gallagher already discloses determining whether the 7 Petitioner and Dr. Thorpe cite to the original pagination of Exhibit 1019 rather than the added exhibit pagination. reflectance level of each road marker meets a predetermined minimum acceptable reflectance level and tagging those road markers that do not meet the minimum acceptable reflectance level to identify them for replacement. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3, 67–68; see also id. ¶¶ 12–13, 18, 21, 49, 51, 76, 79, Fig. 5. Indeed, both Petitioner and Dr. Thorpe describe Gallagher’s system as ensuring that road markers meet minimum retroreflectivity standards: “Gallagher’s apparatus tests ‘road markings and road markers such as, for example, road signs and posts, reflective painted lines whether continuous or broken, and . . . raised pavement markers’ ‘to ensure they continue to meet minimum standards of reflectivity/retroreflectivity.’” Pet. 9 (alteration in original) (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3, 6, 31–33); Ex. 1003 ¶ 55 (alteration in original) (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3, 6, 31–33). Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not identified persuasively why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have modified Gallagher’s system to include Lumia’s process for measuring retroreflectivity of traffic signs.” slip op. at 19

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “coefficient of luminous intensity rather than the coefficient of retroreflectivity, and Lumia teaches how to calculate retroreflectivity based on the coefficient of luminance intensity. Pet. Reply 20–21. During the hearing, counsel for Petitioner clarified that this reliance on Lumia entails using the equations disclosed in Lumia without altering Gallagher’s hardware. Tr. 27:18–29:24. During his deposition , Dr. Thorpe confirmed that this obviousness theory relies only on Lumia’s equations. See Ex. 2025, 60:5–65:2. This is an improper new argument. See, e.g., Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1330–31 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[A]n IPR petitioner may not raise in reply ‘an entirely new rationale’ for why a claim would have been obvious.”). Notably, this new obviousness theory appears to stem from Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Papanikolopoulos, noting differences in Gallagher’s and Lumia’s disclosures. See Pet. Reply 21 (citing Ex. 2023 ¶¶ 71 n.2, 89).” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 9,335,255 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,335,255
• Reed Semiconductor Corp. v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 22, 2026 · IPR2024-01158 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 7–15, 17, and 18 are unpatentable: claims 1–4, 9–14, 17, and 18 as anticipated by Tateishi, and claims 5, 7, 8, and 15 as obvious over Tateishi.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We discern no material difference between the parties’ definitions. Petitioner’s definition 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). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. We note, however, that were we to adopt Patent Owner’s assessment, the outcome of this Decision would be the same.” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that Patent Owner has not offered persuasive evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art reading the claims in light of the Specification would understand the plain and ordinary meaning of “control signal” to be as narrow as Patent Owner proposes. We do not construe the claims such that the “control signal” must be the exclusively controlling factor of a component, as Patent Owner urges. Petitioner’s position, on the other hand, is consistent with the evidence of record. We construe “control signal” as having its plain and ordinary meaning, namely a signal configured to control a circuit component. D. The Asserted Anticipation of Claims 1–4, 9–14, 17, and 18 by Tateishi” slip op. at 24

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “We determine that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Tateishi discloses the “control signal” recited in limitations 1B2 and 1D of independent claim 1.” slip op. at 37

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “based on the Tateishi application publication (Ex. 1007), that the Tateishi Patent (Ex. 1005) also anticipates claims 1–4, 9–14, 17, and 18. See Pet. 23–24 (“The Tateishi Patent is also prior art under (pre-AIA) §102(e)”; identifying Ground 1 as anticipation “under §102 by Tateishi and/or the Tateishi Patent”). However, we are unable to locate in the Petition or Petitioner’s Reply a discussion of or citation to the Tateishi Patent other than under the Petitioner’s heading “Identification of Challenge and Relief Requested” on pages 23 and 24 of the Petition. Cf. id. at i–x (Table of Contents identifying a section of the Petition discussing the Tateishi (Application) anticipation ground but not a section discussing a Tateishi Patent anticipation ground). Although the issued patent may be substantively identical to the published application, Petitioner does not assert that, and we decline to compare the documents to determine whether that is the case. In light of Petitioner’s silence on the alternative ground, Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the Tateishi Patent anticipates 1–4, 9–14, 17, and 18.” slip op. at 47

  Patent outcomesUS 9,041,377 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,041,377
• Silencerco Weapons Research, LLC v. Huxwrx Safety Co. LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 17, 2025 · IPR2024-01214 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2, 3, 6, 9, 12–14, 18, and 20 were not shown unpatentable; the motion to amend was granted for substitute claims 23, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 37–40, and 42, and denied for …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “The level of ordinary skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, we may consider certain factors, including: “(1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field.” Best Med. Int’l, Inc. v. Elekta Inc., 46 F.4th 1346, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quoting Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). “The patent’s purpose can also be informative.” Id.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “The ’750 patent states that “the fluid pathway can be a radially serpentine fluid pathway which causes the fluids received in the off axis chamber to flow back and forth around a radius of the off axis chamber,” also using “radially serpentine fluid pathway” to refer to this rotation around the chamber radius “while also traversing a length of the off axis chamber.” Ex. 1001, 4:34–41 (emphasis added). This is the only description of “radially” serpentine flow in the ’750 patent. Notably, the ’750 patent does not use “radially” or “serpentine” to describe a fluid pathway “which causes the fluids to spiral around the central chamber within the off axis chamber along a length of the off axis chamber,” instead referring to such a fluid pathway as a “helical fluid pathway.” Id. at 4:41–44. See CAE Screenplates, Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co. KG, 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of . . . different terms in the claims connotes different meanings.”); Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Tex. Sys. v. BENQ Am. Corp., 533 F.3d 1362, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings.”). Inst. Dec. 11–12. We explained that the flow path depicted above, which is equivalent to that of Figure 14 of the ’750 patent, “flows circumferentially about the central chamber.” Id. at 14. We maintain this interpretation. Stated differently, the depicted flow is around a longitudinal axis of the chamber. See MTA PG 6 (describing the flow path depicted above as “a back and forth flow path around a longitudinal axis of the off axis chamber; that is, a circumferentially serpentine pathway”); see also Ex. 2003 ¶ 40 (Dr. Neitzel describing the flow path depicted above as “a back and forth flow path around a longitudinal axis of the off axis chamber”). The flow is not around a radius of the chamber, which Patent Owner recognizes is required for a flow path to be radially serpentine. See PO Resp. 10 (“Patent Owner agrees with the Board’s conclusion in the [Institution Decision] that ‘radially serpentine’ as recited in the claims of the ’750 patent means a back and forth flow around a radius of the off axis chamber.” (citation modified)); PO Sur-reply 2 (agreeing that “radially serpentine” requires “a back and forth flow around a radius of the off axis chamber”).” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner that neither Petitioner nor its witness, Mr. Nixon, has explained adequately how Thurler’s disclosure of its tube e being perforated for two thirds of its length “contemplates other lengths of perforations.” See Pet. 48; Ex. 1013 ¶ 212. Such conclusory assertions fail to apprise us of why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify Thurler’s device in contradiction to Thurler’s explicit disclosure. We are also not persuaded by Petitioner’s proffered reasoning for modifying Thurler’s device. First, the modification is not a matter of design choice because the perforations allow the gases generated by firing the projectile to pass into the space between tubes e and g where they partially expand. See Ex. 1015, 1:84–91. Thus, modifying the number of perforations necessarily affects the flow of gases through the device. Next, neither Petitioner nor Mr. Nixon explains adequately how reducing the amount of perforation in tube e results in an increased fluid length. See Pet. 49; Ex. 1013 ¶ 213. Rather, although less fluid may enter into tube e with Petitioner’s modification, it appears that that fluid would travel the same distance along tubes e and h as in Thurler’s unmodified device. Finally, neither Petitioner nor Mr. Nixon explains adequately how limiting the amount of gases generated by firing the projectile from entering the expansion zones of tubes g and h provides any benefit. To the contrary, limiting the amount of gases in the manner suggested by Petitioner would reduce the suppression of such gases, resulting in a less effective device. Moreover, Thurler discloses that “there is still a space of a few millimeters between [tubes] e and g which is necessary” to prevent the application of “pressure on the projectile causing the same to deviate.” Ex. 1015, 1:106–2:3. Thus, Petitioner’s modification would not result in the passage of gases occurring only at the first three of Thurler’s tubular sleeves as asserted by Petitioner. Additionally, in the Institution Decision, we explained that Petitioner did not provide adequate reasoning to support the proposed modification of Thurler’s device regarding parent claim 1 to have concentric tubes around the central tube e. See Inst. Dec. 29–31. This shortcoming, which we maintain, carries through to dependent claim 6. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not shown, by a” slip op. at 26

  • ScopeMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part

    “We agree with Petitioner that the amendment is broadening. Petitioner’s witness testified that he “wouldn’t call a BB gun a high energy device or a high energy weapon.” Paper 33, 18:4–6. Thus, per Petitioner’s witness, use of a BB gun would not be covered by claim 22, no matter what is discharged from the BB gun. However, if high energy material is discharged from that same BB gun, that use would be covered by proposed substitute claim 43 (assuming the other claim recitations were met). See id. at 21:10–12 (Dr. Neitzel agreeing that “if something produces a high energy material, it automatically is a high energy weapon”). Thus, by deleting “high energy device” and replacing that language with “weapon,” proposed substitute claim 43 impermissibly broadens the scope of claim 22. See Sisvel Int'l S.A. v. Sierra Wireless, Inc., 81 F.4th 1231, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“But if a substitute claim ‘is broader in any respect it is considered to be broader than the original claim even though it may be narrower in other respects.’” (citation modified) (quoting Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Converse Inc., 183 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999))); see also Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at 6 (“A patent owner may not seek to broaden a challenged claim in any respect that enlarges the scope of the claims of the patent . . . . Likewise, a proposed substitute claim may not remove a feature of the claim in a manner that broadens the scope of the claims of the challenged patent.”).” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 8,286,750 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,286,750
• MPL Brands NV, Inc. v. Buzzballz, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 16, 2025 · IPR2024-01098 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6 are unpatentable as anticipated by or obvious over Kick and as obvious over Ackermann and Kaminski, with or without Hutchinson.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “(sometimes abbreviated herein as “POSITA”) would have had “(i) an associate’s or bachelor’s degree in mechanical, industrial or manufacturing engineering and (ii) at least two to three years of practical experience with designing or manufacturing mechanical products, such as food or beverage packaging. A POSITA could substitute additional education for industry experience and vice versa.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1002 (Delson Decl.) ¶ 14).” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that no claim term requires an express construction. See Pet. 15. We agree and find it unnecessary to construe any claim term to resolve the issues in this case. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and 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 13

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedDecided for petitioner

    “is no earlier than the February 25, 2020, filing date of the ’195 application. Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the volume limitations recited in independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2 and 6 lack adequate written description support in the ’934 application as filed. See Pet. 10–11. The specification, figures, and claims of the ’934 application as originally filed do not disclose any volume limitations. See Ex. 1004 (’934 prosecution history), 1–17. Instead, the volume limitations recited in the challenged claims find their first support in Figure 7, which was filed over one month after the ’934 application was filed. Compare id. at 1–17, with id. at 34–56. The addition of new matter during prosecution of a patent application is prohibited. See 35 U.S.C. § 132(a) (“No amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.”); see also 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(f); Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 608.04. Therefore, we agree with Petitioner that “the new matter improperly added during the prosecution of the ’934 application cannot be considered part of the disclosure of the original, April 19, 2010 application and/or relied upon for claiming priority in subsequent applications.” Pet. 9.” slip op. at 20

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “obvious over Kick. Pet. 16–41. Kick published with the additional figures and disclosure the applicant submitted during prosecution of the ’934 application, and its detailed description and figures are the same as or similar to that of the ’904 patent. See id. at 16; compare Ex. 1007 (Kick), with Ex. 1001. Petitioner compares Kick to each limitation of the challenged claims. See Pet. 16–41. Based on the record before us, we find that Kick teaches or suggests each of the limitations of the challenged claims, for the reasons discussed in the Petition. See id. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Kick renders claims 1–6 of the ’904 patent unpatentable as anticipated and as obvious.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 11,738,904 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,738,904

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.