- Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd / North America Seoul Semiconductor Inc. v. Enplas CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 15, 2015 · IPR2014-00878 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 5–7, and 10–12 are unpatentable as obvious over the instituted combinations of Tetsuo with Kim or Blieske, with Yamaguchi for claims 10 and 11.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“lexicographical definition for the “light control/emission surface,” and, instead, “merely describes an embodiment of a light control/emission surface.” Pet. Reply 2. Petitioner proposes that we construe this term in the manner stated in our Decision to Institute (Pet. Reply 4 (citing Dec. 7)), where we construed the term “as only requiring a ‘surface that controls a traveling direction of light emitted from the light emitting element’” (Dec. 7). We agree with Petitioner. Patent Owner has failed to persuade us that the cited portions of the Specification of the ’969 patent provide a definition of this term with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Although the Specification of the ’969 patent provides the example of light control/emission surface 11 including first, second, and third emission surfaces 11a, 11b, 11c (Ex. 1001, 7:20–42), Patent Owner fails to identify anything in the Specification indicating that these three emission surfaces are required for the claimed “light control/emission surface.” The initial discussion of light controlling emission surface 11 states that “light controlling emission surface 11” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“to arrange optical elements on the back of a light flux controlling member. Id. at 33 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 32–33). Petitioner contends that one skilled in the art would have needed to select an arrangement for Tetsuo’s refraction parts, and would have considered the grid pattern taught by Kim to be one obvious option. Id. Petitioner reasons, for example, that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use a grid pattern to arrange the refraction parts on the back of Tetsuo’s light flux controlling member because “Kim also identifies specific benefits from providing a grid of horizontal and perpendicular grooves between optical elements on the light incoming side of a lens” including “uniform output brightness from the light flux controlling member,” which would have been beneficial to the arrangement in Tetsuo. Id. at 33–34 (citing Ex. 1005, 2:35–37; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 6–7).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner responds with general allegations of “teaching away” and “impermissible hindsight,” but does not explain persuasively why one skilled in the art would have been discouraged from the proposed modification or why it was based solely on the disclosure of the ’969 patent. PO Resp. 27–30. For example, Patent Owner alleges, generally, that “Petitioners’ position requires one of skill in the art to ‘disassemble the single lens of Kim’ at the point of novelty of the Claims, to provide a surface taught away from by Tetsuo, which employs a different type of surface.” Id. at 28.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner responds with general allegations of “teaching away” and “impermissible hindsight,” but does not explain persuasively why one skilled in the art would have been discouraged from the proposed modification or why it was based solely on the disclosure of the ’969 patent. PO Resp. 27–30. For example, Patent Owner alleges, generally, that “Petitioners’ position requires one of skill in the art to ‘disassemble the single lens of Kim’ at the point of novelty of the Claims, to provide a surface taught away from by Tetsuo, which employs a different type of surface.” Id. at 28.” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 8,227,969 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,227,969 - Edmund Optics, Inc. v. Semrock, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 16, 2015 · IPR2014-00599 · APJ William A Capp · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 33–36, 39–41, 44, and 45 were not shown unpatentable: MacLeod did not enable claim 33 for anticipation, and Edmund did not establish obviousness over MacLeod.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“After considering claim 33 in view of the specification, as a whole, we are not persuaded that the intrinsic record requires a departure from the plain and ordinary meaning of “multi-layer, thin-film, laser-line filters.” The standard for finding claim scope disavowal is exacting. See GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. Agilight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014). It is not enough that the only embodiments, or all of the embodiments, contain a particular limitation. See Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Mere criticism of a particular embodiment encompassed in the plain meaning of a claim term is not sufficient to rise to the level of clear disavowal. See Epistar Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 566 F.3d 1321, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Furthermore, even where a particular structure makes it “particularly difficult” to obtain certain benefits of the claimed invention, this does not rise to the level of disavowal of the structure. See Spine Solutions, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., 620 F.3d 1305, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2010). It is the claims that define the metes and bounds of the patentee’s invention. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. Thus, the patentee is free to choose a broad term and expect to obtain the full scope of its plain and ordinary meaning unless the patentee explicitly redefines the term or disavows its full scope. See Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366. Each claim does not need to cover every feature disclosed in a specification. See Ventana Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biogenex Labs, Inc., 473 F.3d 1173, 1182 (Fed. Cir. 2006). When a claim addresses only some of the features disclosed in the specification, it is improper to limit the claim to other, unclaimed features.” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityNot reached
“The MacLeod Treatise is a non-patent, printed publication. Edmund relies on In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2012), for the proposition that a non-patent, printed publication is presumptively enabled for purposes of an anticipation analysis. Paper 69, 1. Semrock distinguishes Antor Media as being restricted to the context of patent prosecution. Paper 68, 3. The Court, in Antor Media, explained the underlying rationale for permitting a presumption of enablement during patent prosecution. [A]n examiner, who has no access to experts or laboratories, is not in a position to test each piece of prior art for enablement in citing it, and requiring him to do so would be onerous, if not impossible. An examiner, therefore, is not required to anticipate every possible response to a rejection, including showing that a cited reference is enabling. Consistent with the statutory frame-work and our precedent, we therefore hold that, during patent prosecution, an examiner is entitled to reject claims as anticipated by a prior art publication or patent without conducting an inquiry into whether or not that prior art reference is enabling. As long as an examiner makes a proper prima facie case of anticipation by giving adequate notice under § 132, the burden shifts to the applicant to submit rebuttal evidence of nonenablement. Antor Media, 689 F.3d at 1289. In the case of Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003), the Federal Circuit held that an accused infringer should be entitled to have a district court presume the enablement of unclaimed material in a prior art patent asserted against a patentee. Id. at 1355. In dicta, the Amgen Court stated that its reasoning “might” also apply to prior art printed publications. We note that by logical extension, our reasoning here might also apply to prior art printed publications as well, but as Sugimoto is a patent we need not and do not so decide today. See id. (emphasis added). Thus, the Amgen Court did not reach that issue in its decision. See id. District Courts are split on this issue. We note that at least one district court decision has held that a district court should presume that a prior art printed publication is enabled. See Robocast, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 39 F. Supp. 3d 552, 565 (D. Del. 2014). Other district courts maintain otherwise. See e.g., CA, Inc. v. Simple.com., Inc., 780 F. Supp. 2d 196, 250 (E.D.N.Y. 2009); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 2006 WL 1794768, *5 (D.N.J. June 26, 2006).” slip op. at 21
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“G. Ultimate Determination of Enablement A patent claim “cannot be anticipated by a prior art reference if the allegedly anticipatory [disclosure] cited as prior art [is] not enabled.” In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Although anticipation is a question of fact, whether a prior art reference is enabling is a question of law with underlying factual inquiries. Id. The standard for what constitutes proper enablement of a prior art reference for purposes of anticipation under section 102 differs from the enablement standard for a patent application under section 112. See Verizon Services Corp., v. Cox Fibernet Virginia, Inc., 602 F.3d 1325, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Anticipation does not require the actual creation or reduction to practice of the prior art subject matter; anticipation requires only an enabling disclosure. See Schering Corp., v. Geneva Pharma, Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2003); citing In re Donohue, 766 F.2d 531, 533 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Nevertheless, we determine that the MacLeod Treatise does not enable claim 33. Claim 33 is directed to optical performance parameters. There is no dispute that multi-layer, thin-film, laser-line filters comprised of alternating layers of ZnS and Cryolite were known in the prior art. Thus, Semrock distinguishes its invention over prior art soft-coated filters on the basis of optical performance, not on the basis of using the basic structure of alternating layers of refractive materials with Fabry-Perot cavities. Upon consideration of the various Wands factors, including the absence of any working examples that demonstrate that Edmund’s theoretical calculations are capable of realization, we conclude that Semrock has carried its burden of showing that the MacLeod Treatise does not enable claim 33.” slip op. at 32
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“By waiting and filing its expert declaration after Semrock filed its Patent Owner Response, Edmund effectively precluded Semrock from addressing Professor MacLeod’s Exhibit 1029 declaration in its Response. This also effectively precluded Semrock’s expert, Dr. Rancourt, from responding to Professor MacLeod’s belated testimony in his declaration that was filed in support of Semrock’s Response. We will not countenance such tactics. See Murphy v. Village of Hoffman Estates, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3320, at *5–6 (N.D. Ill. 1999) (“[I]t is established beyond peradventure that it is improper to sandbag one’s opponent by raising new matter in reply.”). A Reply that belatedly presents evidence will not be considered. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,767. Edmund’s original Petition asserted a ground of unpatentability over the ZnS/Cryolite of Figure 7.26 of the MacLeod Treatise. If Edmund wanted to present a ground of unpatentability over the ZnS/Cryolite embodiment of Figure 7.26 in combination with a tantala/silica embodiment, Edmund should have presented evidence as to how and why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the two embodiments to achieve the invention of claim 33 contemporaneous with the filing of its original Petition. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (requiring articulated reasoning with rationale underpinning as to how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined or modified the teachings of the prior art). Presenting such evidence and argument for the first time in a Reply is untimely.” slip op. at 43
Patent outcomesUS 7,119,960 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,119,960 - Edmund Optics, Inc. v. Semrock, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 9, 2015 · IPR2014-00583 · APJ William A Capp · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 1 was not shown unpatentable because Starke does not disclose the expected deposition time for an entire layer required by the Board’s construction.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“From this disclosure, we conclude that the ti referred to in line 10 of column 10 is the same ti referred to in connection with layers that are not optically monitored. If, as Edmund contends, ti represents an estimated remaining time until deposition is terminated and is calculated repeatedly and intermittently reset during deposition, the time represented by ti becomes a moving target and the time represented by 95% of ti becomes increasingly smaller until it approaches and becomes essentially equal to the “new deposition time” identified in line 11 as the time difference between a hypothetical continually recalculated ti and a “new deposition time” approaches zero. See Ex. 1001, 10:11. We think the better interpretation is that the ti identified in line 11 is a different and distinct time from the “new deposition duration” identified later in the same line of the specification. In other words, for optically monitored layers, ti is calculated one time at or before commencement of deposition of an optically monitored layer. Another time, represented by 95% of ti is then calculated one time such that it becomes a fixed moment in time for initiation of a calculation of a “new deposition duration.” Thus, based on our review of the specification, the term “expected deposition time ti” has the same meaning for layers that are optically monitored and layers that are not optically monitored. In view of the foregoing, we construe “expected deposition time ti of the layer” to mean a time based upon the designed (“theoretical”) thickness di and deposition rate ri where the designed thickness di represents the thickness of an entire layer, not a portion thereof. 2. “measuring during deposition for a period less than ti, a measured” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Edmund’s position on whether Starke calculates an “expected deposition time ti” is predicated on the Board adopting Edmund’s proposed claim construction. We do not adopt that construction. Starke’s system depends on taking optical monitoring transmission measurements after deposition has commenced. Edmund fails to identify any disclosure in Starke that a data processor calculates an expected deposition time ti based on the design thickness of an entire layer. Thus, Starke does not satisfy the limitation directed to calculating an “expected deposition time ti” as we have construed that limitation. “Anticipation requires the presence in a single prior art disclosure of all elements of a claimed invention arranged as in the claim.” Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Inasmuch as Starke fails to disclose all elements of claim 1, we find that Edmund has failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Starke anticipates claim 1.” slip op. at 16
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert discountedOther
“At the outset, we have considered the claim construction testimony of both Patent Owner’s Declarant, Dr. Rancourt, and Petitioner’s Declarant, Professor MacLeod. We note, however, that “conclusory, unsupported assertions by experts as to the definition of a claim term are not useful to a court.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318.2 In the instant case, the experts’ testimony does little more than repeat, without citation to additional evidence, the conclusory arguments of their respective counsel. Thus, we focus primarily on the intrinsic record to construe the term at issue. Id. (“extrinsic evidence in general is less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read claim terms”).” slip op. at 7
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“its own expert, Professor MacLeod, in a different, but related, inter partes review. Edmund argues that it is improper to take cross-examination testimony obtained in one case and then use it another case. Edmund also argues that the cross-examination exceeds the scope of direction examination. Paper 45. The testimony in question goes to an issue of claim construction. We have previously explained that our claim construction in this case is based primarily on the intrinsic record and that the parties’ proffered expert testimony is neither needed nor helpful in assisting our claim construction efforts.3 Nevertheless, we DENY Edmund’s motion to exclude Professor MacLeod’s Exhibit 2008 deposition testimony, but afford the testimony little weight.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 7,068,430 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipationcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,068,430 - Greene’S Energy Group, LLC v. Oil States Energy Services, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 1, 2015 · IPR2014-00216 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 22 are unpatentable as anticipated by Dallas ’118; the motion to amend with substitute claims 28 and 29 is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“member for connection to a wellhead of the well, and a locking member for detachably engaging the base member. Claim 22 contains a similar requirement. We agree with Petitioner that bottom flange 22 of Dallas ’118 corresponds to the base member of a first lockdown mechanism, and that bolts through the bores in lower flange 22 correspond to a locking member, as claimed in the ’053 patent. See Pet. 42. Claim 1 further requires a second lockdown mechanism having a range of adjustment adequate to ensure that the mandrel can be moved into the operative position, and locked down in the operative position while the first lockdown mechanism is in the lockdown position. Claim 22 contains a similar requirement. We agree with Petitioner that the hydraulic cylinder mechanism of Dallas ’118, which ensures a fluid tight seal between annular seal 78 and bit guide 84 by maintaining a pressure of about 1000 psi in upper chamber 36, corresponds to the recited second lockdown mechanism. See Pet. 36, 44.” slip op. at 18
- 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“The determination of whether there is written description support turns on whether the original disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The proposed substitute claims introduce the term “wellhead assembly,” a term that does not appear in the ’418 application or the ’053 patent. Patent Owner’s string citation to various disclosures, none of which identify a “wellhead assembly,” is insufficient to demonstrate written description support absent some explanation. The same is true with regard to the proposed addition of language requiring both an apparatus for securing the mandrel “within a tubing head spool of a wellhead assembly” and a setting tool “arranged to insert a bottom end of the mandrel through the wellhead.” A string citation does not explain how the original disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to a person the features intended to be encompassed by the proposed substitute claims. In particular, we cannot discern from Patent Owner’s conclusory discussion how the original disclosure describes both securing the mandrel within the wellhead assembly and inserting the mandrel through the wellhead, particularly where Patent Owner further argues a distinction between inserting a mandrel “into” a wellhead as opposed to “through” a wellhead. See PO Reply. 1–2. Accordingly, we conclude Patent Owner has not satisfied its burden of showing written description support for the proposed substitute claims 28 and 29.” slip op. at 26
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“patentable distinction of each proposed substitute claim over the prior art. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). This includes providing a construction of new claim terms sufficient to support the distinction of the proposed substitute claim over the prior art. Patent Owner introduces the new claim terms “wellhead assembly” and “setting tool” in the proposed substitute claims, but provides no express construction of either term. Absent any discussion of what is encompassed by the recited “wellhead assembly,” it is unclear how the term differs from the use of “wellhead,” alone, elsewhere in the claim. This is particularly problematic, as discussed above, when attempting to discern what is claimed as a setting tool “arranged to insert a bottom end of the mandrel through the wellhead,” relative to the claimed apparatus for securing a mandrel “above the casing of the well and within a tubing head spool of a wellhead assembly.” In its Motion to Amend, Patent Owner also does not provide a construction for “setting tool.” We note that Patent Owner was aware that the district court had previously suggested the term “setting tool” was “ambiguous.” District Court Markman Order, Ex. 2008, 15. In reply to Petitioner’s opposition to the Motion, Patent Owner argues that “the defining characteristics of the ‘setting tool’” are set out in the claim language as: (1) “arranged to insert a bottom end of the mandrel through the wellhead,” and, (2) “separate from” the first and second lockdown mechanisms and thus “removable.” PO Reply 1. Patent Owner proceeds to dispute the construction of “setting tool” proposed by Petitioner’s Declarant, Mr. Perkin, but fails to offer any express construction of the term itself. Petitioner’s Declarant, Mr. Perkin, defined “setting tool” as “any device that is used to align the mandrel with the wellhead so that the mandrel can be inserted without interference.” Perkin Decl., Ex. 1014 ¶ 44. Patent Owner’s Declarant, Mr. Wooley, testified that “setting tool” is “usually the name given to a device for inserting some sort of tool.” Ex. 1011, 61:17–21. Absent a clear explanation of what is claimed, Patent Owner’s assertion that a particular reference does not teach “any kind of setting tool” is conclusory and not persuasive. See Mot. 9. Patent Owner has not provided a sufficient construction of the term “setting tool” by merely pointing to other claim language or by disputing Petitioner’s proposed construction. By failing to articulate adequately a construction of “setting tool” or “wellhead assembly,” Patent Owner has not satisfied its burden of showing a patentable distinction of each proposed substitute claim over the prior art. 3. Conclusion We conclude Patent Owner has not come forward with sufficient evidence to establish proposed substitute claims 28 and 29 have adequate written description support. We further conclude Patent Owner has not supported sufficiently the distinction of the proposed substitute claims 28 and 29 over the prior art by failing to provide adequately the necessary construction of the proposed amendments to claims 1 and 22. For these reasons, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend.” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 6,179,053 unpatentable§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 6,179,053 - Greene’S Energy Group, LLC v. Oil States Energy Services, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · May 1, 2015 · IPR2014-00364 · APJ William A Capp · IPR · Final written decision
The Board found claims 1–13, 27, and 30–32 not shown unpatentable because the proposed obviousness combinations did not establish the claimed mechanical lockdown mechanism and its required function.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“The parties do not dispute that a “lockdown mechanism” maintains the mandrel in a fixed position during a fracking or well treatment operation. Thus, we will construe “lockdown mechanism” to mean “machinery for maintaining [the mandrel] in a fixed position during a fracking or well treatment operation.” This leaves us to determine what it means for a lockdown mechanism to be “mechanical” and whether the correct construction requires imposing a further definitional limitation regarding a range of adjustment. Oil States points out that the Specification differentiates a mechanical mechanism from hydraulic mechanisms. PO Resp. 12. The Specification distinguishes the instant invention from an earlier invention by the same inventor that discloses a hydraulic unit. Ex. 1001, 2:28–63. The Specification further states that: a mechanical lockdown mechanism for securing the BOP protector mandrel in an operative position is considered more reliable because a source of pressurized hydraulic fluid is not required. Id. at 2:3–6; see also id. at 3:53–56. Greene does not challenge that this language in the Specification effectively differentiates a mechanical lockdown mechanism from a hydraulic mechanism. Thus, we construe “mechanical” lockdown mechanisms as being limited to purely mechanical means such as nuts and bolts and the like. We further clarify that the principal holding force that maintains the mandrel in a fixed position is not a dynamic force such as through hydraulic, pneumatic, or electrical means or the like.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Oil States’s effort to read a “broad range of adjustment” limitation into the definition of mechanical lockdown mechanism in claim 1 renders the dependent limitation in claim 3 superfluous. Claim 2 claims an elongated spiral thread. There is no need to add a further limitation to claim 3 to provide for adjustment to compensate for variations in the distance between a top of the blowout preventer and the top of the casing of different wellheads if a “broad range of adjustment” is already contemplated in the meaning of mechanical lockdown mechanism. 8 It is well-settled that each claim does not necessarily cover every feature disclosed in the specification. See Ventana Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biogenex Labs, Inc., 473 F.3d 1173, 1181 (Fed. Cir. 2006). When a claim addresses only some of the features disclosed in the specification, it is improper to limit the claim to other unclaimed features. Id. Here, Oil States’s inclusion of adjustment limitations in claims 2 and 3 belie an intention to limit the scope of the term “mechanical lockdown mechanism” in claim 1 to mechanisms that provide a broad range of adjustment.9 Thus, we decline to adopt Oil States’s proposed construction. We construe a “lockdown mechanism” to mean “machinery for maintaining [the mandrel] in a fixed position.” In the context of lockdown mechanisms, we construe the adjective “mechanical” to mean that the lockdown mechanism is limited to purely mechanical means such as nuts and bolts and the like so that the principal holding force that maintains the mandrel in a fixed position 8 In the Summary of the Invention section of the Specification, the topic sentence of the paragraph describing an embodiment with a “significant range of adjustment,” qualifies the description of such embodiment with the word “preferably.” Ex. 1001, 3:8–27. This suggests that this passage of the Specification merely describes one embodiment and not the entire invention. 9 To the extent that claim 1 requires the mechanical lockdown mechanism to have any range of adjustment, such adjustment requirement may be found in the claim limitation directed to the lockdown mechanism being “adapted to ensure that the annular sealing body is securely seated against the top of the casing when the mandrel is in the operative position” and not in definition of “mechanical lockdown mechanism” per se.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Green’s expert, Mr. Shackelford, opines that the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’993 patent would have had a Bachelor-level degree in a recognized engineering discipline and practical job exposure of several years with oil and gas well operations. Ex. 1002 ¶ 13. Mr. Shackelford’s testimony is entirely conclusory with no supporting factual analysis. Oil States contends that the level of ordinary skill in the art is “relatively low,” but does not articulate or explain what it means by this characterization. PO Resp. 22. Oil States’s expert, Dr. Wooley, merely adopts Mr. Shackelford’s position and, like Mr. Shackelford, fails to provide any supporting factual analysis. Merely reciting a college degree and a number of years of experience provides little guidance as to the actual capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Neither party presents a detailed evidentiary showing under the factors recited in Environmental Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696–97 (Fed. Cir. 1983). 13” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“combine references is a question of fact. In re Constr. Equip. Co., 665 F.3d 1254, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Greene fails to persuade us that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine Herricks and McLeod to achieve the invention claimed in claims 1 and 27 of the ’993 patent. Because the mechanical lockdown mechanism in McLeod is intended to be used with a mandrel that packs off at an indeterminate point in the casing, rather than at a fixed point and, therefore, does not disclose any range of adjustment to accommodate production trees of varying heights as would be necessary to be operable in systems designed for fixed point packoff, the proposed combination does not provide a mechanical lockdown mechanism that is adapted to securely seat a mandrel against the top of the casing as required by claim 1. Similarly, the proposed combination does not provide a method for engaging the mechanical lockdown mechanisms to lock the mandrel in the operative position such that the annular sealing body is in fluid sealing engagement with a top of a casing of the well as required by claim 27.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 6,289,993 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,289,993
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.