• Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Portsmouth Network Corp.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 31, 2026 · IPR2024-01450 · APJ Peter D Shapiro · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–11, and 13–20 were not shown unpatentable because Dziong and Sathyanath do not teach the claimed sharing definition for existing connections with allocated bandwidth.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “First, the claims use present-tense language, “one or more other connections, which have respective bandwidths and which are permitted to share a bandwidth allocation with the new connection.”3 Ex. 1001, claim 1 (emphasis added). The exclusive use of the present tense have indicates “other connections” must have current possession of the bandwidth. For these other connections to share bandwidth with a newly established connection, they must already exist and have bandwidth ready for immediate use, rather than merely holding a dormant “reservation” pending a network failure. See PO Supp. Br. 1. The Federal Circuit addressed a similar situation where the Court found the present-tense limitation “is connected to the computer network” means a device was required to be connected at the” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “combination, do not teach or suggest limitations 1.2 and 1.3 requiring: providing a sharing definition specifying one or more other connections, which have respective bandwidths and which are permitted to share a bandwidth allocation with the new connection, such that a total bandwidth allocated jointly to the new connection and to the other connections in any given segment is equal to a maximum of the requested bandwidth and of the bandwidths of the other connections in the given segment Ex. 1001, limitations 1.2, 1.3 (emphasis added); see PO Resp. 17–22; Sur-reply 4–5, 12–14. As discussed above in Section II.C.2, we interpret “other connections” to mean “existing connections in the network that already have bandwidth allocated to them.” Because the information shared in Dziong and Sathyanath, described below, relates to reserved protection paths, rather than existing connections that have bandwidth that can currently transmit network traffic, the references do not teach or suggest the “other connections” part of the sharing definition in limitations 1.2 and 1.3. Dziong describes advertising, across the network, the amount of bandwidth reserved for recovery on each link that would be activated when a protected link fails. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶ 60; Pet. 36. Once activated, network traffic from a “primary path” failure is rerouted to these recovery paths. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 7–9, 70, 83. Petitioner points to this advertising of the reserved bandwidth information as teaching the claimed “sharing definition.” Pet. 33–36 (arguing that the “protection paths [in Dziong] have bandwidth reservations” and “share an overall protection bandwidth reservation”); Reply 21–23. However, since the advertised information only contains information about the recovery paths “that would be activated” upon a primary path failure, such paths are not existing connections that already have bandwidth allocated to them, and therefore do not teach the claimed “other connections” that are part of the sharing definition. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶ 60.” slip op. at 43

  Patent outcomesUS 7,596,088 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,596,088
• Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. California Institute Of TechnologyNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 23, 2026 · IPR2024-01451 · APJ Tawen Chang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 were not shown unpatentable: Larson did not establish the claimed detection in a single sample volume, and the asserted obviousness combinations did not cure the deficiencies.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner states that, “[f]or purposes of this IPR proceeding, PO does not contest Petitioner’s description of qualifications for a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) set forth [above].” PO Resp. 23. In view of the above, and because Petitioner’s uncontested description of one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable and consistent with the ’921 patent and the cited art, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a POSA for purposes of this Decision, except that we replace the phrase “at least a year of experience in quantitative and/or dPCR and fluorescence-based analyte detection” with “around a year of experience in quantitative and/or dPCR and fluorescence-based analyte detection.” Pet. 9 (emphasis added).13” slip op. at 14

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

    “We begin with “the context in which a term is used in the asserted claim,” which can be “highly instructive.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. In this case, claim 1 recites that the claimed assay is “capable of unambiguously detecting the presence or absence of each of said at least M analytes, in any combination of presence or absence, in a single sample volume, . . . wherein the analytes are amplified in the single sample 15 In this regard, we note that Petitioner’s claim construction position is not predicated on the collection of droplets being reconstituted into its original, pre-partition form prior to amplification; rather, the droplets remain compartmentalized from each other in the PCR thermal cycling tube. Tr. 65:21–66:9 (Petitioner’s counsel explaining that the droplets do not combine in the PCR thermal cycling tube but, rather, are “suspended in an immiscible fluid and analyzed en masse”). indicates that the first instance of single sample volume, i.e., the single sample volume in which the presence or absence of each M analytes are to be detected, is the antecedent basis for the second instance of “single sample volume,” i.e., the single sample volume in which the analytes are amplified. Thus, as the parties appear to agree, the single sample volume in which amplification takes places must be the same single sample volume in which the presence or absence of analytes are to be detected. We are not persuaded that, when accorded its plain and ordinary meaning, a single sample volume divided into a collection of droplets would be considered the “same” single sample volume prior to its partition.” slip op. at 17

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “With respect to the limitation, “wherein the analytes are amplified in the single sample volume,” Petitioner asserts that “Larson discloses PCR assays that amplify target polynucleotide in a single sample volume, specifically a portion of the reaction mixture that is subsequently partitioned into droplets.” Pet. 31 (emphasis added). There is no dispute that the amplification of the analytes in Larson occurs in the droplets. Larson ¶¶ 6–7 (explaining that “[d]igital PCR (dPCR) is an alternative quantitation method in which dilute sample are divided into many separate reactions” and that “[t]he template is amplified in the droplet for detection”) (emphasis added). Because the claims require that amplification of the analytes be in the same sample volume in which the at least M analytes, in any combination of presence or absence, is unambiguously detected, and because the pre-partition single sample volume is not the same single sample volume as the collection of droplets after partition under our claim construction set forth above, we find Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of evidence, that claims 1–10 and 13–19 are anticipated by Larson.17 Tr. 68:12–69:14 (Petitioner’s counsel” slip op. at 27

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Although we agree with Petitioner that Larson contemplates scenarios in which droplets may contain more than one target molecule and does not require the exclusion of such multiple occupancy droplets in all embodiments, we are nevertheless not persuaded Petitioner has shown, based on a preponderance of evidence, that Larson renders obvious an assay capable of unambiguously detecting, in such multiple occupancy droplets, the presence or absence of each of at least M analytes, in any combination of presence or absence, when M is greater than F and F is at least 2.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 11,827,921 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,827,921
• BMW Of North America, LLC v. Foras Technologies Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 5, 2026 · IPR2024-01347 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–27 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not teach switching the boot-processor role to a spare processor.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The level of 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). “This reference point prevents . . . factfinders from using their own insight or, worse yet, hindsight, to gauge obviousness.” Id.” slip op. at 17

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther

    “processor” to the spare processor, we determine that the claim is describing this transfer of identification of “boot processor,” which is required when transferring a boot processor’s functions to a spare because of the “problems [that] arise in attempting to idle (or eject) the boot processor.” Id. at 6:25– 27. This is confirmed by the language of limitation [1d], stating that the switching of the role of boot processor involves “changing a system identifier of the spare processor to that of the boot processor.” Thus, the firmware and operating system exchange this information identifying the boot processor, which is described in the specification as a device tree. See, e.g., id. at 13:21–35. The ’302 patent makes clear that accurate identification of which processor is the boot processor remains critical during runtime. See, e.g., id. at 6:25–27. Thus, Patent Owner is correct in requiring the system to have a way to identify the boot processor and to transfer this identification during runtime. However, as made clear in the embodiments described in the ’302 patent discussed above, this identification is for runtime purposes to accommodate runtime problems, not for booting purposes. Although Patent Owner may be correct that a function of the boot processor is to boot the system (PO Sur-reply 5), the problem identified in the ’302 patent is a problem relating to the runtime reassignment of the boot processor identity, to address a runtime need to identify the boot processor. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 11:6–9. Accordingly, based on our analysis of the claims and specification, we determine that “switching the role of boot processor to a spare processor without shutting down the system’s operating system” means causing the system to identify the spare processor as the boot processor (e.g., in a device tree), which then causes the spare processor to appear as the boot processor to the system during runtime. Ex. 1001, 6:25–41, 11:4–18 (describing why boot processors are treated differently even after the boot process has completed); compare id. at 9:65–11:3 (process for recovering from loss of lockstep of a non-boot processor without using a spare), with id. at 11:4–43 (process for recovering from loss of lockstep of a boot processor using a spare because boot processors, during runtime, need special treatment); see also 14:66–15:21 (emphasizing that spares are only needed for recovering boot processors). We construe switching a “role of boot processor” to mean transferring an identification in the system of which processor is the boot processor. This construction comports with the embodiments described in the specification. We do not adopt an additional requirement that this procedure also requires designating which processor will boot the system in the next reboot, which is not disclosed in the specification.” slip op. at 24

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “may swap processors that are failing, and perform the necessary bookkeeping to keep the operating system informed as to how to address the processors available, nothing in the Petition persuasively explains whether this generic processor swapping switches the boot processor role. As we explained in our claim construction section, the term “boot processor” is not merely a label of convenience to describe the processor that happened to have earlier booted the system. The role of boot processor is specifically switched to the spare; it is a piece of information tracked by the system. As we explain below, Petitioner does not adequately address the transfer of this information to make the system aware of which processor has the boot processor role. Petitioner asserts that “the BSP flag” of the IA-32 system is used to “determine whether a processor is the boot processor.” Pet. 17–18. Petitioner here is relying on a register used in IA-32 processors to identify whether or not they are the boot processor. This register is used during booting so that only the boot processor boots the system. See, e.g., Ex. 1008, 238–40, 710. This register does not appear to serve any further role, and Petitioner offers no persuasive evidence or argument that the processor register flag is exposed or copied to the operating system or APIC table. Petitioner’s proposed combination does not involve updating this register, nor does Petitioner explain how, even if the register were updated, it would meet the “switching” a “role of boot processor” in limitation [1d].” slip op. at 32

  • ExcludeOther

    “The USPTO has established Rules for objecting to and challenging evidence. 37 C.F.R. § 42.64. This process sets various timeframes and permits briefing and curative actions, all of which are designed to crystallize 5 We follow the parties’ convention of citing to the later-added “Page X of Y” pagination rather than the native pagination. the issues and ensure a full and fair opportunity for the parties to be heard. See id. In this instance, Patent Owner’s evidentiary arguments regarding Exhibits 1008 and 1028 are untimely. Accordingly, we will not exclude Exhibits 1008 or 1028 on the basis of their authenticity, admissibility, or for any reason that should have been raised under the proper procedures. See, e.g., PO Resp. 7–8; PO Sur-reply 7–8; see also Pet. Reply 11 (asserting that “Patent Owner has not filed any objection to or a motion to exclude these references”). We consider Petitioner’s citations to these documents in our prior art analysis below. Notwithstanding, as is clear from our patentability analysis below, Exhibits 1008 and 1028 do not serve to demonstrate the unpatentability of any claim.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 7,624,302 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,624,302
• BMW Of North America, LLC v. Foras Technologies Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 5, 2026 · IPR2024-01346 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–30 were not shown unpatentable because the prior-art combinations did not establish transfer of the role of boot processor during system runtime.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner asserts that: A person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’781 patent would have been a person with at least a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or equivalent, and at least two years of prior work experience with computer architecture, including experience relating to fault tolerant computer architecture, as of the earliest priority date of the ’781 patent—October 25, 2004. If a person did not have a bachelor’s degree, additional relevant and practical experience with fault tolerant computer systems could provide an acceptable substitute. Likewise, further education beyond a bachelor’s degree could compensate for a deficiency in practical experience. See EX2004, Declaration of Nigel A. Jones (“Jones”), ¶ 26. PO Resp. 3. Patent Owner further notes that its position is “similar, but not identical to, Petitioner’s [position]” but that “the analysis [of the claims] is identical for both proposed determinations.” Id. We agree that our analysis would not differ based on choosing one proposed level of skill over the other, but as the losing party, we select Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 20

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

    “Accordingly, based on our analysis of the claims and specification, we determine that “logic . . . for transferring, during system runtime, the role of boot processor” means logic that causes the system to identify the spare processor as the boot processor (e.g., in a device tree) which then causes the spare processor to appear as the boot processor to the system during runtime. Ex. 1001, 5:39–55, 10:43–67 (describing why boot processors are treated differently even after the boot process has completed); compare id. at 9:37– 10:42 (process for recovering from loss of lockstep of a non-boot processor without using a spare), with id. at 10:43–11:42 (process for recovering from loss of lockstep of a boot processor using a spare because boot processors, during runtime, need special treatment); see also 15:21–42 (emphasizing that spares are only needed for recovering boot processors). We construe transferring a “role of boot processor” to mean transferring an identification in the system of which processor is the boot processor. This construction comports with the embodiments described in the specification. We do not adopt an additional requirement that this procedure also requires designating which processor will boot the system in the next reboot, which is not disclosed in the specification.” slip op. at 26

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Based on the clear support in the specification for the above interpretation, we see no need to resort to extrinsic evidence. Seabed Geosolutions (US) Inc. v. Magseis FF LLC, 8 F.4th 1285, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“If the meaning of a claim term is clear from the intrinsic evidence, there is no reason to resort to extrinsic evidence.”) (citing Profectus Tech. LLC v. Huawei Techs. Co., 823 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Extrinsic evidence may not be used ‘to contradict claim meaning that is unambiguous in light of the intrinsic evidence.’” (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1324)). In general, the cited portions of testimony from the declarants from both parties in the briefs do little more than point to the portions of the ’781 patent described above or argue about what a boot processor does during booting. See, e.g., Pet. Reply 2–8. The specification makes clear that it is focused on the role of boot processor during runtime because of problems encountered during runtime; it is not focused on the boot processor during booting. Ex. 1001, 5:39–55, 10:43–67. Thus, the testimony about what a boot processor does during booting, or that the primary function of the boot processor is to boot, is not particularly pertinent, and does not undo the unambiguous discussion in the ’781 patent.” slip op. at 27

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “whether they are the boot processor or not (Ex. 1008, 238, 710), Petitioner does not explain how such information is exposed to the BIOS or operating system, nor how it is changed during runtime, after its purpose has been fulfilled. In sum, even if Petitioner’s proposed combination swaps the spare processor for the processor that booted the system, Petitioner’s proposed combination does not appear to transfer the role of boot processor to the spare processor. At best, Petitioner’s proposed combination transfers the tasks of one processor to another. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 15 (Fox describing its disclosure as “updat[ing] the ‘active’ processor list” and “[re-]allocat[ing] the threads that were running on the failing processor”), 46 (transferring “processes (instructions, threads, etc.) initially allocated to the failing processor” to the spare processor)). Of the art of record, we are only aware of the ’781 patent transferring a designation of which processor is the boot processor during the swap to a spare processor. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 10:43– 55, 11:10–12, 16:19–21, 17:51–55; claims 1, 9, 16, 25. In conclusion, we find that Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, how the prior art teaches “transferring” a “role of boot processor” as required by limitation 1[c].” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 7,627,781 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,627,781
• Adobe Inc. v. Jonathan E. JaffeNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 4, 2026 · IPR2024-01352 · APJ Bach V Hoang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6 were not shown unpatentable under any asserted §103 ground because the references did not teach monitoring the physical coupling between the sensor and memory.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The Institution Decision adopted and applied Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill because Petitioner’s “definition generally comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings” slip op. at 11

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

    “The parties present various claim construction arguments, disputing the meaning of three limitations recited in claim 1: “a sensor, which is tightly coupled to said memory”; “monitoring the integrity of the tight coupling between said memory and said sensor”; and “based on.” See Pet. 9–14; PO Resp. 5–12; Pet. Reply 4–9; PO Sur-reply 4–11. For purposes of this Decision, we do not need to discuss the construction of “based on.” See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those 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)). As explained below, this Decision turns on whether Glass or Rieger discloses limitation [1c] reciting “monitoring the integrity of the tight coupling between said memory and said sensor.” Ex. 1001, 20:65–66; see infra §§ II.C.2, II.E.1, II.F. That limitation recites an element which overlaps with the earlier-recited limitation “a sensor, which is tightly coupled to said memory.” To reach our decision, we need only provide a limited discussion of two of the parties’ claim construction arguments. Our analysis follows.” slip op. at 13

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

    “said integrity is compromised, then also providing an indication of said compromised integrity.” Ex. 1001, 20:65–21:2. Although Petitioner points out that the limitation does not expressly recite “‘specifically’ monitoring the tight coupling” (Pet. Reply 8), the structure of the clause suggests that the tight coupling is specifically monitored. At a high level, the limitation is straightforward in its recitation that the integrity being monitored is “of the tight coupling” (Ex. 1001, 20:65–66 (emphasis added)), plainly suggesting that the tight coupling is specifically monitored. More granularly, breaking the relevant clause down to its grammatical parts, the clause recites a gerund (“monitoring”) acting on a direct object (“the integrity”) which is modified by a prepositional phrase (“of the tight coupling”). Notably, the object of the preposition (“of”) is “the tight coupling.” Altogether, this reads that the integrity being monitored is specifically of the tight coupling. Also, the claim recites that “if said integrity is compromised, then also providing an indication of said compromised integrity.” Therefore, from the claim language we know that the “integrity” of the tight coupling is something that may be “compromised,” which is consistent with Patent Owner’s proposed construction of determining whether the physical coupling has been “accessed or disturbed.” Petitioner’s interpretation effectively inserts additional language into the limitation such that the limitation includes monitoring the integrity of a device containing or surrounding the tight coupling, such as a camera (or camera housing), e.g., “monitoring the integrity of a camera that includes the tight coupling.” But, because the plain reading and the structure of the limitation reads that it is specifically the tight coupling’s integrity—not another physical structure, like a camera—which is being monitored, a monitored is not consistent with the language of the claim. See PO Resp. 9 (arguing that “Petitioner’s construction is improper because the claim language explicitly requires monitoring the physical coupling between the memory and the sensor as opposed to some third structure” (emphasis omitted)).” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “package 50 does not specifically monitor the integrity of the coupling between Glass’s sensor and the memory and, instead, argues that Glass detects tampering of all “the components and interconnections contained in that packaging,” e.g., control logic 44, cropper 46, compressor 47, MUX 45, code generator 48, and the various interconnections between those components. See Pet. Reply 16; Ex. 1005, 5:13–41. As explained above, we construe “monitoring the integrity of the tight coupling between said memory and said sensor” to mean determining whether the physical 7 Petitioner does not assert that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Glass’s device in any way; Petitioner solely argues that Glass teaches limitation [1c], based on Petitioner’s proposed claim construction. See Pet. 30–32 (“Glass discloses this limitation.”); Pet. Reply 16–17 (“Glass and Rieger disclose the ‘monitoring’ step.”). disturbed, which specifically requires monitoring the physical coupling between the sensor and the memory. See supra § II.C.2. As we agree with Patent Owner that this limitation requires monitoring the physical coupling between the sensor and the memory, monitoring Glass’s tamper resistant package 50 does not teach or disclose “monitoring the integrity of the tight coupling between said memory and said sensor.” Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner fails to show that Glass teaches or suggests [1c] monitoring the integrity of the tight coupling between said memory and said sensor when said at least one internal and unique parameter is generated, and, if said integrity is compromised, then also providing an indication of said compromised integrity, as required by claim 1. Consequently, we determine that Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Glass.8” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 6,757,828 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,757,828
• Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. Pictiva Displays International Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 4, 2026 · IPR2024-01223 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 34–37 and 40–46 were not shown unpatentable because Suzuki’s organic barrier layer was not shown to meet the agreed construction of “planarization layer.”

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “layer of material that planarizes such that the propagation of defects from one layer to another layer can be interrupted and the topography of the underlying layer and/or structure is not reproduced.” PO Resp. 10. According to Patent Owner, we should adopt this construction because the parties agreed to it in a related district court proceeding and it is supported by the intrinsic evidence. Id. at 10–14. Petitioner does not dispute this 1 Japanese Published Application No. H09-245964, Pub. Sep. 19, 1997 (Ex. 1010, “Kijima”) (English translation). 2 US 6,198,217, Pub. Mar. 6, 2001 (Ex. 1012, “Suzuki”). 3 US 6,087,196, Pub. July 11, 2000 (Ex. 1013, “Sturm”). 4 WO 2001/08242, Pub. Feb. 1, 2001 (Ex. 1016, “Duthaler”). 5 Japanese Published Application No. H10-41069, Pub. Feb. 13, 1998 (Ex. 1014, “Fujimori”) (English translation). construction. Paper 33, 6:17–8:1; see Pet. Reply 5. We adopt the parties’ agreed-to construction.” slip op. at 4

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Petitioner argues Suzuki’s organic barrier layer does not reproduce the underlying layer’s/structure’s topography because “Suzuki’s organic barrier layer 20 ‘makes a smooth surface on the relatively irregular surface of the cathode 18.’” Pet. Reply 7 (quoting Ex. 1012, 5:59–67). We disagree. Instead, we agree with Patent Owner that Suzuki’s irregular-surface smoothing describes covering defects, not suppressing the underlying cathode’s topography. PO Sur-reply 5. The smooth-surface passage that Petitioner highlights comes immediately after two sentences describing inevitable “defects,” “pinholes,” and “foreign matter” on the cathode surface and before a sentence describing “ensuring the formation of the layer 22, which is substantially defect-free.” Ex. 1012, 5:52–67. Suzuki’s organic barrier 20 “makes a smooth surface” by covering defects because the defects are the only source of the “irregularity” that Suzuki refers to here. Id. We note Mr. Humphrey’s testimony, which we credit in this regard, that the “defects are created incidentally on the surface of the underlying layer and are generally not considered to be part of the underlying layer’s topography, which is a macroscopic property by design” and that the organic layer is not a planarization layer because it would reproduce the topography of the underlying layer. Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 47–48. Because the parties’ agreed-to construction of “planarization layer” “requires ‘a layer of material that planarizes’ for two distinct functions,” Petitioner’s showing of just one of those functions is insufficient. PO Sur-reply 2.” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “G. Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Materials Science, or a related field, and at least one year of experience in display technologies” and that “[a]dditional education might compensate for a deficiency in experience, and vice-versa.” Pet. 14–15. Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the level of skill reflected in both the prior art and the ’389 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 6

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “which is substantially defect-free.” Ex. 1012, 5:52–67. Suzuki’s organic barrier 20 “makes a smooth surface” by covering defects because the defects are the only source of the “irregularity” that Suzuki refers to here. Id. We note Mr. Humphrey’s testimony, which we credit in this regard, that the “defects are created incidentally on the surface of the underlying layer and are generally not considered to be part of the underlying layer’s topography, which is a macroscopic property by design” and that the organic layer is not a planarization layer because it would reproduce the topography of the underlying layer. Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 47–48. Because the parties’ agreed-to construction of “planarization layer” “requires ‘a layer of material that planarizes’ for two distinct functions,” Petitioner’s showing of just one of those functions is insufficient. PO Sur-reply 2.” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 6,949,389 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,949,389
• Alamar Biosciences, Inc. v. Olink Proteomics ABNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 4, 2026 · IPR2024-01353 · APJ Tawen Chang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable: the asserted obviousness grounds failed, including because Kanan and Neri did not teach selecting the claimed cis-reactive cells.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Accordingly, for purposes of this decision we adopt Petitioner’s proposal of a person of ordinary skill in the art, with the following changes noted in italics below: A person with “an advanced degree, such as a Ph.D., in organic chemistry, molecular biology, biochemistry, or a related field; and about two years of experience in industry and/or laboratory experience relating to small molecules and proteins and would have been familiar with nucleic acid chemistry and conventional hybridization techniques; and (b) access to one or more team members having an advanced degree, such as a Ph.D., in organic chemistry, molecular biology, biochemistry, or a related field; and about two years of experience in industry and/or laboratory experience relating to high throughput screening techniques such as nucleic acid sequencing. A person could also have qualified as a POSA with less formal education and more technical or professional experience.11 We emphasize, however, that our decision would not change if we instead used Patent Owner’s proposed definition of a POSA.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Because the parties have placed the limitation “selecting all cis- reactive cells exhibiting the detectable trace” into controversy, we construe the term below, but only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those 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)). For the reasons discussed below, we agree with Patent Owner that the plain and ordinary meaning of this phrase, in light of the language of the claims, the Specification, and the prosecution history of record, requires “selecting all of the [molecular complexes or structures] meeting the defined criteria for [cis-reactive cells (CRCs)] and exhibiting the detectable trace.” Sur-reply 8 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 94, 98–119). We further agree that cis-reactive cells should be construed to mean “an association of at least two interactor moieties, joined by an associated oligonucleotide.” (PO Resp. 9 (quoting Ex. 1001, 9:35-37)). Accordingly, we determine that, properly construed, the claims require that what is “selected” at step 1(d) — what is differentiated or set apart from other molecular complexes or structures in the reaction mixture at the conclusion of step 1(d) — to be “an association of at least two interactor moieties joined by an associated oligonucleotide” that exhibits the detectable trace.” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree that Petitioner has not shown that the combination of Kanan and Neri teaches “selecting all cis-reactive cells exhibiting the detectable trace,” as we have construed that phrase above. In particular, we determine that, properly construed, the limitation requires the selection of “all associations of at least two interactor moieties joined by an associated oligonucleotide and exhibiting the detectable trace.” Instead, as described in Kanan, what is “selected” is the molecules of interest joined by bond formation, with only one of the molecules of interest coupled to a nucleic acid moiety. Thus, the selected molecular complex or structure does not comprise two interactors (i.e., two molecules of interest coupled to NAMs). Moreover, to the extent there are two interactors, they are joined by the bond between the molecules of interest rather than an associated oligonucleotide.” slip op. at 35

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “III. PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE Patent Owner moved to exclude Exhibit 1008, on the ground that it contains settlement statements and that Rule 408 of the Federal Rule of Evidence prohibits Petitioner from using the statements to impeach or contradict Patent Owner. Mot. 5. Because we do not rely in our analysis on this exhibit, we dismiss the Motion to Exclude as moot.” slip op. at 43

  Patent outcomesUS 7,883,848 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,883,848
• Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Technologies, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 24, 2026 · IPR2024-01256 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 10–14, 16, and 17 were not shown unpatentable because Ahn and Chaudhri did not teach or suggest the claimed movement of an object during the gesture.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “interface objects and, more specifically, the display of user interfaces on applications, in accordance with contacts on the touch-sensitive surface of a display. Ex. 1001, (54), Abstr. Consistent with the scope of the ’727 patent, we find that the level of skill in the art is reflected in a person having a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, human-computer interaction, or a comparable field and at least two years of professional experience working with graphical user interfaces, human-computer interfaces, or equivalents.” slip op. at 6

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

    “Because there is no dispute as to the scope and meaning of these terms, and for consistency with the Decision on Institution, we apply the meaning of the terms “blur” and “distance magnitude” as stated above where applicable. However, we note that our determination does not hinge on the meaning of these terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 8

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

    “it was “known to utilize ‘cues’ to help the user know what gesture to utilize and whether they are correctly performing the gesture (e.g., graphics such as movable images that help the user visualize the correct gesture and how to complete it successfully).” Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1005, Abstract, ¶¶ 54, 62, 73). This sentence does not cure the deficiency noted above regarding Petitioner’s reliance on Ahn’s graphic shadow moving with a gesture. Chaudhri is relied on for the proposition that, Ahn’s graphic shadow is “[i]ndeed” a movable image known to give a user a visual cue. Id. But no such “cue” is provided in Ahn by the graphical shadow alone, because there is no movement of that object. The Petition does not present argument that a Chaudhri object is the movable object or how any of Chaudhri’s teachings of movable objects would have suggested to modify Ahn “to thereby move” the graphical shadow.” slip op. at 18

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “the theory that Ahn’s graphic shadow moves. Reply 3−4. Petitioner interprets the sentences in Ahn we have analyzed above in conjunction with testimony of Dr. Terveen to argue that temporal descriptions in Ahn make it obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to drag in the right direction while continuing to press the graphic 1800. Id. (citing Exs. 1004 ¶¶ 117−119, Ex. 1023 ¶ 10). The Petition, however, relies on an Ahn disclosing a moving graphic shadow according to the embodiment of Figure 18(a), as described in paragraph 118. Petitioner now changes its theory of how Ahn’s graphic shadow would move according to paragraph 119, i.e., that although the graphic shadow is merely pressed (in the embodiment shown in Figure 18(b)) it would also be dragged while pressed. Reply 3. Not only is this a shift from the theory Petitioner presents in the Petition, it is not persuasive. As Patent Owner argues, and we agree, there is no cogent explanation for modifying the graphic shadow embodiment of Figure 18(b), especially in light of Ahn’s disclosure that the graphic shadow disappears when pressed and the menu list is displayed as emerging. Sur-reply 2−3. In other words, Petitioner’s new argument does not account for Ahn’s teaching that the objective of the graphic shadow is merely to notify the user of the start of the gesture, and once that start of the gesture is detected (the press on the graphic shadow), paragraph 119 informs us that there is no longer a need for the graphic shadow—it disappears from the display. Ex. 1004 ¶ 119. The Petition does not offer any argument for a theory in which the gesture of paragraph 119 (the press, not a touch and drag operation) results in graphic 1800 disappearing, while also moving during the disappearance. We are mindful that “[i]t is impermissible within the framework of section 103 to pick and choose from any one reference only so much of it as will support a given position to the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference fairly suggests to one skilled in the art.” Bausch & Lomb, Inc. v. Barnes-Hind / Hydrocurve, Inc., 796 F.2d 443, 448 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). Consequently, we determine that Petitioner’s argument in Reply belatedly relying on the different embodiment of paragraph 119 is improper new argument, and that even if considered it is not persuasive.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 11,740,727 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,740,727
• Hanwha Solutions Corporation v. Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 24, 2026 · IPR2024-01198 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 10–20 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not establish the claimed metal impurities or a reason to combine Istratov’s gettering process with the cited solar-cell references.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “These disclosures, taken together, indicate that “metal impurities” are undesirable, and, accordingly, the term “metal impurities” is not meant to include intentionally added dopants. The undesirability of “metal impurities” is also demonstrated by the Specification’s instruction that “contaminants and/or impurities” are used interchangeably throughout. Ex. 1001, 5:8–9. In that regard, “iron, nickel, and/or chromium, among others” are the only exemplary metal impurities and/or metal contaminants identified in the Specification. Id. at 4:65–5:1 (“In an embodiment, the silicon substrate 202 can have contaminants and/or impurities 220, for example metal contaminants and/or metal impurities, such as iron, nickel and/or chromium, among others); 5:35–39 (“In an embodiment, the heating can include gettering contaminants, e.g., metal impurities and/or metal contaminants, from the substrate to the emitter region. In an example, the metal impurities and/or metal contaminants can be iron, nickel, and/or contaminants 520, e.g. metal impurities and/or contaminants, can be located in the second emitter region 512 . . . the metal impurities 520 can be iron, nickel and/or chromium, among others.”). And metal impurities and metal contaminants are both described as gettering from the silicon substrate to the emitter region. See id. at 5:5–9 (“A gettering process can be used to trap the metal impurities 220 in the emitter regions 212, reducing recombination within the silicon substrate 202 and improving overall cell lifetime.”); 5:35– 40 (“In an embodiment, the heating can include gettering contaminants, e.g. metal impurities and/or metal contaminant[s], from the substrate to the emitter region. In an example, the metal impurities and/or metal contaminants can be iron, nickel and/or chromium among others.”); 6:5–8 (“In an embodiment, the heating can getter 232 contaminants 220 from, or nearby, the surface 204 of the silicon substrate 202 and/or from within the silicon substrate 202 to the emitter region 212.”) Accordingly, the Specification conveys that “metal impurities” are metal contaminants that are detrimental to the electrical conduction of solar cells.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Petitioner fails to sufficiently demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that a POSITA would have been motivated to look to Istratov’s gettering process to improve Choi’s solar cell. Although Petitioner argues that a POSITA would have been motivated to look to Istratov’s gettering process upon identifying detrimental levels of metal impurities in Choi’s substrate, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Holman levels of metal impurities in Choi’s substrate, what level of metal impurities would be “detrimental,” or what detriment the metal impurities would cause. In that regard, Petitioner does not direct us to, nor do we discern, any teachings in Choi regarding the presence of metal impurities in the silicon substrate, let alone iron and/or copper impurities such as those described in Istratov.” slip op. at 24

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “We agree with Petitioner. As the Board indicated in Chicago Mercantile Exchange, whether a document qualifies as a printed publication requires a legal determination based upon evidence and “the issue of whether there is sufficient evidence in the record . . . should be presented in the patent owner response—not a motion to exclude.” Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Paper 35 at 52. Although addressing the admissibility of evidence (authenticity or hearsay) underlying the factual determinations of whether Exhibits 1018, 1034, and 1120 may be the subject of a motion to exclude, Patent Owner’s arguments in the Motion address whether there is sufficient evidence to establish that these exhibits are prior art, not the general admissibility of the documents. See Mot. 3–6; Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Paper 35 at 52. be excluded. These exhibits, for the most part, are offered to support Dr. Holman’s testimony regarding the background of the technology (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 42, 43, 45–52, 56, 57 (citing Ex. 1018), 55, 67 (citing Ex. 1034)) or what the ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood (Pet. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1120); Ex. 1089 ¶¶ 46–48, 56, 59, 60, 69 (citing Ex. 1120)). Furthermore, Exhibit 1018 was authored by Dr. Holman, and is identified in the curriculum vitae appended to Dr. Holman’s declaration in support of the Petition. Ex. 1003, 224 (App’x. A). Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s motion to exclude” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 11,251,315 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,251,315
• Penumbra, Inc. v. Rapidpulse, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 17, 2026 · IPR2024-01261 · APJ Jamie T Wisz · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not teach the claimed predetermined cycle for controlling distal fluid flow.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “(1) a person with a B.S. in engineering or an equivalent field, with two-four years of academic or industry experience in aspiration embolectomy and thrombectomy or comparable industry experience who would, where appropriate, work or consult with others, including a physician, to develop embolectomy or thrombectomy devices; or (2) an interventional neurosurgeon with at least three years of experience developing and/or using medical devices in embolectomy or thrombectomy procedures, and who would, where appropriate, work or consult with others, including an engineer, to develop such a medical device. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 48). Petitioner also contends that, “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience, or more relevant education but less practical experience, may also meet this standard.” Id. Patent Owner states that for purposes of its PO Response, it “accepts ¶ 44). We adopt Petitioner’s characterization because it is consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected by the ’402 patent and the cited prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 8

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

    “specification explicitly includes sensors similar to those in the prior art in support of their argument that the claimed “predetermined cycle” must not exclude the use of such sensors. Pet. Reply 15 (citing Ex. 1001, 32:55–33:7, 40:66–41:5, 44:9–29). We reviewed the portions of the specification cited by Petitioner. We agree with Patent Owner that one excerpt discussing sensor use appears to be directed to triggering the predetermined cycle rather than causing timing changes during the cycle itself (Ex. 1001, 32:55–66) (describing use of a pressure sensor to “determine when the vacuum channel 3 is clogged by a thrombus and automatically perform the unclogging procedures described herein”), while another excerpt discusses a sensor that Petitioner that the ’402 patent discusses the use of sensors to “tune” the system and that such “tuning” can be done statically (setting the cycle timing in advance) or dynamically (adjusting the timing during the cycle itself). See Ex. 1001, 48:19–49:50. Overall, we find that these disclosures involving sensors demonstrate that sensors may be used in various ways in different embodiments. However, none of these disclosures explicitly discuss the use of sensors in conjunction with a “pre-determined cycle.” Therefore, we find that the ’402 patent specification’s discussion of “sensors” are not particularly informative as to the appropriate construction of a “predetermined cycle” and do not outweigh the other explicit disclosures of “predetermined cycle” in the patent. We next turn to the other intrinsic evidence discussed by the parties — the prosecution history. As discussed by Patent Owner, in the Notice of Allowance, the Examiner found that Garrison did not teach or suggest a “predetermined cycle” because Garrison’s controller “changed the cycle of opening and closing the valves based on feedback from sensors.” Ex. 1004, 86. We acknowledge that the patent applicant filed subsequent comments during prosecution in which they stated that they “do[] not concede that the Examiner’s characterizations of the terms of the claims and the prior art are correct.” Id. at 29. However, we agree with Patent Owner that the importance of the Examiner’s statement in the Notice of Allowance does not rely on it being an express disclaimer (a standard which it does not meet). PO Sur-reply 8. We also considered Petitioner’s contention that the Examiner’s interpretation of Garrison may have been in error (PO Resp. 16); however, even if this were true, the Examiner’s statement still provides helpful insight into how the Examiner was interpreting the term sensors to change the opening and closing of valves during a cycle was not a “predetermined cycle.” Id. at 86. In sum, we find that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is consistent with the usage of the term “predetermined cycle” in the ’402 patent specification and prosecution history. Thus, after considering all of the cited evidence, we construe “predetermined cycle” to mean that “the timing of the sequence of valve operations in the cycle is determined beforehand, i.e., fixed, rather than varying based on feedback after operation begins.”” slip op. at 14

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

    “2. Other Terms The parties also provided proposed constructions for the limitations of “[limited/limiting] to a positive amount of exit flow” and “control[ling] fluid flow in and out from the distal end of the catheter.” See Pet. 15–16; Pet. Reply 1–8; PO Resp. 22–24; PO Sur-Reply 2–6. However, having evaluated the arguments and evidence before us, we determine that construction of these terms is not necessary for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner that neither Petitioner nor Mr. Brown propose any combination of Yang and Mullins that does not include Mullins’s pressure sensor in order “to control fluid flow in and out from the distal end of the catheter.” Indeed, in addressing the “predetermined cycle” limitation, Mr. Brown contends that Mullins discloses a “cycling controller that ‘varies aspiration pressure according to sensed pressure within the catheter lumen.’” Ex.1005 ¶¶ 131–32 (citing, e.g., Ex.1008, 27:40–28:20 (“[a] novel aspect of this pump system is the incorporation of feedback into the pump algorithm in order to produce more effective pressure cycling”)). This use of a sensor to change pressure during a cycle, is not a “predetermined cycle” under our construction. combinations is its discussion of distal end flow control, not for its sensors.” Pet. Reply 17 (citing Ex. 1035 ¶ 83). However, Petitioner’s obviousness grounds rely on the combination of Yang and Mullins, especially with regard to Mullins’s disclosure of “a controller” in order “to control fluid flow in and out.” As discussed above, Mullins relies on the sensor-feedback approach in order to control flow and we find that Petitioner has not presented persuasive evidence of how the combined disclosures of Yang and Mullins would control flow without using Mullins’s sensor feedback approach. See W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (error to “consider[] … references in less than their entireties, i.e., in disregarding disclosures in [them] … that diverge from and teach away from the invention”). Therefore, we determine that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that the combination of Yang and Mullins discloses or renders obvious “a controller configured to open and close the vacuum valve and the vent valve in a predetermined cycle to change a level of vacuum at the distal end of the catheter and to control fluid flow in and out from the distal end of the catheter.” Accordingly, having considered the parties’ respective evidence and arguments, we find that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 of the ’402 patent would have been unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Yang and Mullins.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 11,406,402 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,406,402

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.