- Micron Technology, Inc. / Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. et al. v. Besang Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00900 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 13–17 were not shown unpatentable: Lee-based grounds fail on the stackable add-on layer limitation, and Watanabe-based grounds fail on nonvolatile memory, enablement, or motivation to combine.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“meaning in the art. See Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (stating that, absent an accepted meaning in the art, “we construe a claim term only as broadly as provided for by the patent itself”). Thus, we must attempt to discern the meaning of this term from the claim language itself and from the remainder of the intrinsic record. See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“It is well-settled that, in interpreting an asserted claim, the court should look first to the intrinsic evidence of record, i.e., the patent itself, including the claims, the specification and, if in evidence, the prosecution history.”). Upon review of the parties’ arguments and the intrinsic record, we agree with Petitioner that the ’702 patent does not support a construction of “stackable add-on layer” that encompasses memory cells formed by sequential deposition on a substrate without being formed and then added to a separately formed substrate.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“As discussed above, we construe “stackable add-on layer” to not include memory cells that are formed by sequential deposition on or above a substrate without being added to a separately formed substrate. It is undisputed, and indeed it is Petitioner’s assertion, that Lee’s memory devices are formed by sequential deposition. See Pet. 52 (asserting that in Lee “the layers of the array are directly deposited on the layers of each underlying level, and the array is deposited on the interlayer insulating layer formed over a substrate”); see also id. at 70 (“Lee discloses forming vertical memory devices through layer-by-layer sequential deposition on the substrate . . . .”). Therefore, Petitioner does not show that Lee discloses every limitation of independent claim 13 under our claim construction. Thus, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 13 would have been obvious in view of Lee. 3. Claims 14 and 15 Claims 14 and 15 depend from claim 13. Ex. 1001, 12:35–42. Petitioner’s arguments for these claims do not remedy the deficiencies noted above with respect to independent claim 13. Pet. 54–59. Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 14 and 15 would have been obvious in view of Lee alone. E. Claims 16 and 17 over Lee and Endoh Petitioner contends the subject matter of claims 16 and 17 would have been obvious over the combined disclosures of Lee and Endoh. Pet. 59–69. Petitioner’s arguments with respect to these claims, however, do not remedy the deficiencies noted above with respect to Lee and its monolithic, sequentially deposited memory array. Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 16 and 17 would have been obvious over Lee and Endoh.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“combined Lee and Watanabe to achieve improved integration density. Pet. 71. Petitioner concedes, however, that the benefits of Lee’s design related to 3-D integration and improved integration density would be obtained if Lee’s memory structures are formed using either Lee’s monolithic construction method or Watanabe’s alternative stacking method. Pet. Reply 13–14 (citing Ex. 1041 ¶ 34). Thus, we are not persuaded that improved integration density provides a sufficient rationale for Petitioner’s combination of Lee’s memory device and Watanabe’s stacking method. Petitioner argues that Watanabe’s stacking method “improves the accuracy of the wiring” because the wiring is made “for each planar member.” Pet. 72 (citing Ex. 1005, 6:1–3). Watanabe also states that its disclosed methods provide “a low interconnection wire resistance.” Ex. 1005, 6:20–23. Petitioner does not, however, explain sufficiently how Watanabe’s stacking method would improve Lee’s device. For example, Petitioner does not address whether the alleged wiring benefit already existed in Lee’s monolithic array or explain how this benefit would also apply to Lee’s particular memory array, which differs in construction and elements from Watanabe’s device. This diminishes Petitioner’s benefits-based motivation to combine arguments. In general, a petitioner need not demonstrate that a particular alternate method would improve a prior art device in order to show a motivation to combine. Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2023); see Pet. Reply 20 (citing Intel). But here, Petitioner affirmatively invokes improvement of Lee’s device as a reason for the combination, and we must evaluate Petitioner’s contention. Moreover, any relative lack of improvement or benefits must be weighed against any problems the alternative method would introduce. See Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 795–96 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (noting that simultaneous advantages and disadvantages to a proposed combination must be analyzed to determine whether the disadvantages “outweighed any reason to combine”). Here, as discussed above in more detail with respect to the ground based on Watanabe, the evidence shows that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected Watanabe’s bonding temperature of 900– 1000° C to damage the electronic devices in an underlying substrate. Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 75–76; Ex. 2028, 123:13–124:7; Ex. 2027, 715. The expected damage to Lee’s device, when balanced against the limited evidence of a benefit to the combination,7 outweighs the reason to combine Lee and Watanabe set forth in the Petition. Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 13 would have been obvious over Lee and Watanabe. 2. Analysis – Claims 14 and 15 Claims 14 and 15 both depend directly from independent claim 13. Ex. 1001, 12:35–42. Petitioner’s arguments with respect to claims 14 and 15 do not remedy the deficiencies noted above with respect to independent claim 13. Pet. 73. Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that these claims would have been obvious over Lee and Watanabe.” slip op. at 40
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedOther
“We credit the testimony of Dr. Przybylski that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Watanabe’s stacked structure would be severely impacted if bonded at a temperature above 900° C, as disclosed in Watanabe. Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 76–77. Dr. Przybylski’s opinion is supported by Dr. Lee’s testimony (Ex. 2028, 123:13–124:7, 125:6–126:7), as well as Watanabe (Ex. 1005, 6:6–14) and Batude (Ex. 2027, 715). As further discussed below, we find that Petitioner has not rebutted Patent Owner’s showing of nonenablement, and Patent Owner has carried its burden to demonstrate that Watanabe was not enabled for bonding temperatures of 900–1000° C, as of the 2004 filing date of the ’702 patent.” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 7,378,702 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,378,702 - Aptiv Services US, LCC v. Microchip Technology Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 7, 2024 · IPR2024-00803 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–18 obvious over Verhaege, Verhaege and Miller, or Ker.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“To institute an inter partes review, we must determine “that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to any claim challenged in the Petition. Thus, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelOther
“(‘POSITA’) in the field of the ’665 patent in 2007 would have at least a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field and three to five years of experience in integrated circuit design.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51). Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s definition is “excessively high.” Prelim. Resp. 3 n.1. In Patent Owner’s view, “a POSITA would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or an equivalent technical degree and two years of experience in mixed-signal (i.e., analog/digital) circuit design.” Id. (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 30–34). We need not resolve this dispute because our decision would be the same under either definition.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). In Patent Owner’s view, “the claims require sharing ESD charge from one pad with a different I/O pad.” Prelim. Resp. 27. Patent Owner argues that charge sharing is the only way that charging the pad capacitance can reduce a maximum voltage, as recited. Id. at 24–25. Apart from the charge sharing, Patent Owner argues that the recited enable or control circuitry is not located in the circuit where the ESD event occurs. Id. at 27–33. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner disagrees with this interpretation. Id. Petitioner, though, argues that it would have been obvious to duplicate Verhaege’s and Ker’s protection circuits. See, e.g., id. at 18 (discussing claim 1 and Verhaege), 48 (discussing the Verhaege-Miller combination), 66 (discussing claim 1 and Kerr). For example, Petitioner argues that “a POSITA would have been motivated to use the improved protection circuit of Verhaege, apply it at every I/O pad, and share the ESD energy across multiple pad circuits as taught by Miller.” See id. at 48 (emphasis added). From statements like these, Patent Owner draws the conclusion that Petitioner must also be interpreting the claims to require charge sharing. Prelim. Resp. 25–27. For the reasons discussed in Section II.C below, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of showing that any claims are unpatentable even under the implied claim construction used in its obviousness rationale. The Board need not expressly construe any claims in reaching that conclusion.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner argues, “It would have been obvious to a POSITA that, because an ESD event could occur at any I/O pad, the Verhaege invention should be repeated at every I/O pad.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 67); id at 30–32 (claim 6); id. at 43 (claim 14). Yet Petitioner acknowledges that “there were many obvious ways to activate multiple circuits during an ESD event.” Id. at 51. The Petition does not sufficiently explain why it would have been obvious to have chosen the way that is claimed. See id. at 18, 30– 32, 43. Rather, Petitioner’s obviousness rationale appears to be based on impermissible hindsight gleaned entirely from the challenged patent’s 1327, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“It appears that [the expert] relied on the . . . patent itself as her roadmap for putting what she referred to as pieces of a ‘jigsaw puzzle’ together.”). For this additional reason, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenges to claims 1, 6, and 14.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,564,665 - ROKU, Inc. v. Ecolink Intelligent Technology, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 28, 2024 · IPR2023-00792 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 6, 11, 12, and 16 are unpatentable as obvious over Lamb and Williams; claims 1 and 11 are also unpatentable as obvious over Sharma.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“In sum, we determine that Mr. McNair has experience in residential security and alarm systems and sixty years of experience in the research, design, development, and engineering of the technology underlying such systems that is sufficient for him to at minimum possess ordinary skill in the art. Id. ¶¶ 6–12. Also, his years of experience at the Security and System Reliability Architecture Group at AT&T Bell labs alone (id. ¶ 10; see also, id. at p. 147) meets the three or more years of commercial design and development experience in security and alarm systems, under Patent Owner’s definition (PO Resp. 6 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 34)). Thus, on this record, we disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that Bruce McNair lacks knowledge and skill at least of an ordinarily skilled artisan—even under Patent Owner’s definition. See PO Resp. 6. In this decision, we assign Bruce McNair’s testimony the appropriate weight, as discussed in our analysis below.” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, in electrical engineering, or a related field, and approximately two or more years of experience or equivalent study in sensor systems.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 10031 ¶¶ 37–40). Petitioner also asserts that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. at 12–13. Patent Owner disagrees and argues, [A person of ordinary skill in the art] would have had at least a bachelor’s or equivalent degree in electrical or electronic engi-neering or an equivalent field, and three or more years of com-mercial design and development experience in residential or business security and alarm systems. 1 Exhibit 1003 is the declaration of Bruce McNair. The differences between the two skill levels does not affect the Board’s analysis of Petitioner’s challenge. In fact, Patent Owner’s addition of experience in “security and alarm systems” only increases the skill level of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 6. Our conclusion that Petitioner has shown that all challenged claims are unpatentable is the same under either definition.” slip op. at 4
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Either way, “defining a particular claim term by its function is not improper.” Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1374–75 (Fed. Cir. 2014). For example, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has found that there is “nothing improper about defining ‘datalink’ as a link that conveys data.” Id. at 1375. “Many devices take their names from the functions they perform. The examples are innumerable, such as ‘filter,’ ‘brake,’ ‘clamp,’ ‘screwdriver,’ or ‘lock.’” Id. (quoting Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d 1580, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Here, the functions recited in claims 1 and 11 limit what the “timed alarm signal” indicates, how it is used as well as its relationship to a timer, alarm, and security panel. If not for a timer associated with the security panel, there is no clear purpose for transmitting the “timed alarm signal” only when the specific determination is made, and that claimed determination would be rendered superfluous. A construction that requires the purpose of initiating a timer associated with the security panel is consistent with rest of the functions and steps recited in claims 1 and 11. Considering the claim as a whole, the other expressly recited functions and steps support our decision to include the signal’s purpose in our construction.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We disagree. Petitioner’s obviousness rationale is persuasive and supported by the evidence of record. See In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Essentially, Lamb assumes that the detected person is authorized. Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 37, 40, 58–59, cited in Pet. 17. Williams’s system permits authorized persons to use the space, while retaining security against intruders. Ex. 1010, 2:31–38, cited in Pet. 18. Petitioner persuasively supports the assertion that waiting for an authorization code would enhance system security in Lamb because one of ordinary skill in the art would been motivated “to verify—and not assume— that a potential alarm was triggered by an authorized person.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1010, 2:35–38). We credit Bruce McNair’s testimony on this issue (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 52–54) because it is supported by the record (Ex. 1010, 2:31–38; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 37, 40, 58–59).” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 10,692,340 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,692,340 - PTAB · Oct 28, 2024 · IPR2024-00714 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–20 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Valve would prevail on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“To show that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the challenging party must demonstrate that each and every claim element, arranged as recited in the claim, is found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The limitations may be present in the reference “either explicitly or inherently.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We consider prior art references “together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)).” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or an equivalent degree), and two years of practical or industry experience in the field of human computer interaction (HCI), including implementation of computer-based systems and software for providing haptic feedback effects to a user.” Prelim. Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 33). Patent Owner also argues that formal education could substitute for practical experience, and vice versa. Id. The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill appear to be substantially similar, supported by testimonial evidence, and consistent with the asserted prior art and the types of problems and solutions in the ’907 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:14–62. Although we discern no difference in the outcome of this decision from choosing one over the other, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill for this decision because it is sufficiently persuasive to meet Petitioner’s “reasonable likelihood” burden at institution. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“At this stage, we disagree with Patent Owner that the term defining in claim 1 requires that the recited position and range information must be user-modifiable. Although claims 8 and 15 (not claim 1) recite a “program comprising instructions for . . . defining position and range information,” nothing in these claims explicitly requires that this program has any interaction with a user. Ex. 1001, 14:24–25, 14:64–65. Also, although the ’907 patent disclosure refers to computer architecture components for rendering a haptic effect within a boundary range, Patent Owner has not pointed to any disclosure in the ’907 patent suggesting that range settings must be user-modifiable. The ’907 patent does refer to “trigger data” that is “based on user input data,” but this trigger data appears to be collected by firmware, suggesting that the user’s involvement in creating trigger data consists of simply pulling or pushing the triggers of the controller. See Ex. 1001, 7:1–6, 8:10–16 (trigger data is “received from [the] controller . . . by peripheral firmware”), 8:58–65 (trigger data is obtained from potentiometers in the controller and sent to peripheral firmware), Fig. 3 (showing “[t]rigger data” 323 as part of peripheral firmware 320). Further, the ’907 patent discloses that the primary and secondary ranges at least “may be fixed or variable.” Ex. 1001, 5:29–30. This suggests that an embodiment in which all the range information is fixed (i.e., unalterable by a user) would be within the scope of the claimed invention. As to Patent Owner’s argument that defining would exclude something that is pre-defined, Patent Owner provides no evidence of this in the ’907 patent, its prosecution history, or extrinsic evidence. We find the proposition that something “pre-defined” is not “defined” illogical, and we” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“To show that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the challenging party must demonstrate that each and every claim element, arranged as recited in the claim, is found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The limitations may be present in the reference “either explicitly or inherently.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We consider prior art references “together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)).” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,627,907 - PTAB · Oct 11, 2024 · IPR2024-00730 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 4, 5, 10, and 11 were anticipated or obvious over Lee or Zheng.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“The Petition, to justify institution of review, must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that the Petition has not met this standard. Therefore, we decline to institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“capability to include one or both first CBs and second CBs within any one of the CBGs. Prelim. Resp. 9–10. The plain and ordinary meaning of the CB/CBG limitation, however, does not provide such a requirement. Instead, the plain and ordinary meaning of “each of the multiple CBs is included in any one of the multiple CBGs” simply requires that at least one CBG contain each CB. Although the description in the Specification of the configuration example of Figure 11(c) arguably describes the capacity of a system to include the first and second CBs in any one of CBGs, the Specification’s permissive language does not appear in the challenged claims. That description reads:” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“multiple CB/CBG limitation, we nevertheless find it necessary to construe the limitation. Upon review of the record, we construe the limitation as requiring that at least one CBG includes each of the multiple CBs. The plain meaning of “each of the multiple CBs is included in any one of the multiple CBGs” is that each CB is included in a CBG, which means that at least one CBG includes each of the multiple CBs. Further, the Specification supports construing the limitation to have this plain meaning. Figure 11 of the ’509 patent, shown below, provides a configuration example of CBGs (Ex. 1001, 23:7–8):” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“multiple CB/CBG limitation, we nevertheless find it necessary to construe the limitation. Upon review of the record, we construe the limitation as requiring that at least one CBG includes each of the multiple CBs. The plain meaning of “each of the multiple CBs is included in any one of the multiple CBGs” is that each CB is included in a CBG, which means that at least one CBG includes each of the multiple CBs. Further, the Specification supports construing the limitation to have this plain meaning. Figure 11 of the ’509 patent, shown below, provides a configuration example of CBGs (Ex. 1001, 23:7–8):” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 11,196,509 - Google LLC v. Safecast Limited LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 3, 2024 · IPR2023-00652 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6–9, and 12–15 are unpatentable as obvious over Plotnick and Parekh; the Board did not reach the Plotnick-only ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that an artisan of “ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical or computer engineering, or equivalent education or work experience, and at least two years of work or research experience in multimedia systems.” Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 41–45). In the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner “adopt[s] Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art because it comports with the technology and claims of the ’302 Patent as well as the asserted prior art.” Prelim. Resp. 8. Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the Response. See Reply 1; see generally Response. Based on a review of the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. As Patent Owner argues, Petitioner’s proposed art and ’302 patent specification, except that we delete the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the stated amount of experience.” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther
“Petitioner persuasively explains further as follows: By the 2000s, the V-chip was known by POSITAs, and even in mainstream media, as a technology that would enable parents to program restrictions in their TVs to block offensive content from being played to their children. [Ex. 1040] ¶226. Thus, the motivation to reduce the risk of minors being exposed to inappropriate content was well-known by POSITAs at the time of the invention. Ex-1040 ¶227. This motivation applied equally, if not even more so, when PVR technology made it possible to record content for time-shifted viewing and thus made it possible to record late night content and for playback during the day. Ex-1040 ¶227. Plotnick itself describes that “the relative appropriateness of the prepared ad schedule may change as circumstances change” and that “[s]uch circumstances may include, but are not limited to, the time of day, program or type of program being watched channel selection, identity of the current viewer, and timing/duration of the upcoming avail.” Ex- 1006 ¶51 (incorporated by reference into Ex-1005 ¶¶2–14, 36, 194); Ex-1040 ¶227. Plotnick thus teaches and provides a motivation to ensure that time-shifted advertisements are appropriate for the time of day that they are played, including considerations based on the identity of the viewer. Id. And a POSITA would have looked to common standards, including local broadcasting regulations, to determine what timing and general public as appropriate. Ex-1040 ¶228. Reply 14–15. As Petitioner shows, Plotnick, viewed through the lens of a person of ordinary skill in the art aware of well-known program restrictions to block offensive TV content from children, teaches restricting time-shifted viewing of inappropriate ads based on the time of day and identity of the viewer in order to comply with local regulations, thereby further suggesting implementing Parekh’s FCC time restrictions. Accordingly, as outlined above, the record supports Petitioner’s showing based on the combined teachings of the references.” slip op. at 35
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed board own§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“claims 1 and 12, Petitioner contends that the corresponding structure is “hardware and/or software arranged to perform steps 102, 104, and 112 of FIG. 8 of the ’302 Patent, as described at 6:40–62 and 7:17–27 of the specification.” Pet. 16–17. Tracking the claim language in limitations 1.e.1 and 1.f, Petitioner identifies the recited function of the “control means” as follows: (1) “to read said first field and said clock signal and said rules database”; (2) “to apply said local broadcasting time regulation to each advertisement before said advertisement is shown”; and (3) “to update the second field in the header of said advertisement when said advertisement is again shown during time-shifted viewing.” Id. at 16. However, steps 102, 104, and 112 of Figure 8 represent structure do not clearly link to recited functions (1)–(3) of the control means. First, steps required by claim 1. See Ex. 1008, Fig. 8 (Step 102 describing a “mix of adverts”; step 112 describing “record any key depressions”), 7:17–17 (describing other functionality not required by the claim 1). Second, to the extent the process flow of Figure 8 also represents some algorithmic structure, it is unclear how much of any such structure clearly links to the recited functions of claim 1––as opposed to the unclaimed functionality described in Figure 8. As we did in the Institution Decision, we construe the corresponding structure of the control means as PVR hardware and/or software arranged to perform the recited functions of (1) to read said first field and said clock signal and said rules database; (2) to apply said local broadcasting time regulation to each advertisement before said advertisement is shown; and (3) to update the second field in the header of said advertisement when said advertisement is again shown during time-shifted viewing. See Inst. Dec. 12. It is uncertain whether the specification clearly links specific hardware and/or software to these claimed functions, other than generally disclosing a PVR, which Petitioner also points to as corresponding structure. See Pet. 17 (pointing to the disclosed PVR as performing disclosed steps 102, 104, 112); Ex. 1001, 4:43 (describing “a PVR 60 for use in a system according to the invention” according to Figure 4 (described above)).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“asserting that Plotnick does not teach a first field with “a local broadcasting time,” “the time of day at which said advertisement may be shown,” or similar specific language, limitation 1.c.1 does not require such specificity. PO Resp. 10; Sur-reply 5–6, 18.5 Rather, limitation 1.c.1 recites “a header comprising a first field related to a local broadcasting time regulation,” as Petitioner argues. See Reply 5. Like the claim language, the ’302 patent specification also does not support Patent Owner’s narrow claim construction requiring a specific form of a time of day restriction in the header’s first frame. The specification generally states that “[e]ach advert . . . contains a header . . . which records . . . any restriction on the time of day at which it may be viewed.” Ex. 1001, 3:67–4:24 (emphasis stated). It also generally states that “[t]he time of day 5 The Response at page 10 obliquely slips in what appears to be a claim construction argument in one sentence and the Sur-reply adds pages to expand the argument. Compare Response 10 (possible claim construction argument) and Reply 5–6 (refuting Patent Owner’s argument by relying on “the words of the claims), with Sur-reply 4–6 (expounding on the claim construction argument), 15–19 (similar). regulations.” Id. at 3:14–15 (emphasis added). In any event, even if these embodiments specify a certain form for the time of day information or restriction (they do not), limitation 1.c.1 is broader than these embodiments because it does not require storing a specific form for a time of day restriction or information in the first header frame either directly or by implication. The Sur-reply points to Table 1 of the ’302 specification, but Table 1 lists several items, including a “Field Name” that includes “Warnings,” namely, “Keywords to match against viewing regulations.” See id. at 4:1–22 (Table1, “Fields in advertisement headers”); Sur-reply 5–6 (arguing without support that “claim 1 requires the ‘first field’ to have ‘a local broadcasting time’ of the advertisement which is regulated by the ‘local broadcasting time regulation’), 18 (arguing that (1) “[n]either Parekh nor Plotnick discloses ‘the metadata of an advertisement includes the local broadcasting time regulation,’” and (2) “‘the time of day at which said advertisement may be shown’ is not included in the metadata of the combination of Plotnick and Parekh.”).6 Patent Owner appears to rely on the disclosure of the “Time of Day” Field Name in Table 1 and describes “[c]ode to indicate time of day when advert may be shown.” See Sur-reply 5–6 (reproducing Ex. 1001, Table 1). Again, limitation 1.c.1 is broader than various descriptions of different types of header fields described in the specification, for example, it 6 These two Sur-reply arguments contradict each other by implying the metadata (claimed header first frame) must include both “the local broadcasting time regulation” and “the time of day at which said advertisement must be shown.” In any case, as determined herein, limitation 1.c.1 requires neither.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 9,392,302 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,392,302 - PTAB · Sep 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00582 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–6, 14–16, and 19 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood Valve would show at least one claim unpatentable based on Pratt.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“To show that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the challenging party must demonstrate that each and every claim element, arranged as recited in the claim, is found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The limitations may be present in the reference “either explicitly or inherently.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We consider prior art references “together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)). A claim is unpatentable under § 103 if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). When a ground in a petition is based on a combination of references, we consider “whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” Id. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties agree that formal education could substitute for practical experience, and vice versa. Pet. 6, Prelim. Resp. 21. The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill appear to be substantially similar, supported by testimonial evidence, and consistent with the asserted prior art and the types of problems and solutions in the ’738 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:6–61. Although we discern no difference in the outcome of this decision from choosing one over the other, we adopt Valve’s proposed level of skill for this Decision because it is sufficiently persuasive to meet Valve’s “reasonable likelihood” burden at institution. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“B. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION In an IPR, we construe a patent claim “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). This generally includes “construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id. The ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term “is its meaning to the ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent,” and “as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313, 1321. Neither party argues that we should construe any particular claim terms explicitly. Pet. 8; Prelim. Resp. 21. We agree that, for the purpose of institution, we do not need to adopt explicit constructions for any claim terms. To the extent that the meaning of claim language is disputed, we discuss it below in the context of the prior art. 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))).” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“To show that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the challenging party must demonstrate that each and every claim element, arranged as recited in the claim, is found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The limitations may be present in the reference “either explicitly or inherently.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We consider prior art references “together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)).” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,175,738 - PTAB · Sep 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00646 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–18 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Al-Shyoukh and Ivanov.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“and Trademark Office under 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a), we may institute an inter partes review when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). Applying that standard, we institute an inter partes review of all the challenged claims of the ’074 patent for the reasons explained below. This is a preliminary decision, and we will base our final written decision on the full trial record.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Relying on Dr. Chen’s testimony, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Master’s Degree in Electrical Engineering, or alternatively a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical Engineering and two years of experience working on analog circuit design.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 38). At this stage, Petitioner’s argument is uncontested, and it appears to be supported by the types of problems and solutions in the ’074 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:25–2:44. Thus, we adopt the formulation preliminarily for this decision.” slip op. at 9
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“claim constructions that correspond to constructions it expects Patent Owner to assert. See Pet. 20 n.2. After Patent Owner filed its Preliminary Response, Petitioner notified us that the district court in the parallel district court litigation issued a claim construction order interpreting two terms relevant to this proceeding, as shown below: Claim Term District Court’s Construction” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for petitioner
“limitation was indefinite because it was subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112 para. 6 and the ’074 patent failed to disclose sufficient corresponding structure. See Ex. 3001, 9. However, in its Petition, Petitioner adopts what it understands to be Patent Owner’s claim-construction in the parallel proceeding: “that 1[d] is not a means-plus-function element under [§ 112 paragraph 6], and to the extent it is, the claimed function is to enable/disable the biasing circuit for reducing standby current, and the corresponding structure is the signal input line at node M in Figure 3.” Pet. 21–22. Assuming that limitation 1[d] does not invoke § 112 paragraph 6, Petitioner argues that “Al-Shyoukh discloses inputs from a biasing circuit into its LDO but does not specify a design,” but Ivanov discloses a specific design for implementing the recited enable/disable function, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to incorporate Ivanov’s design into Al-Shyoukh’s LDO. Pet. 22–26 (citing Ex. 1004, 1732; Ex. 1005, 1:6–18, 3:43–49, 3:54–63, 4:26–33, 5:19–25, 6:7–22, 6:47–54, Figs. 1, 2; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 60–70). Alternatively, if limitation 1[d] invokes § 112 paragraph 6 and Patent Owner is correct that the corresponding structure is the signal input line at node M in Figure 3 of the ’074 patent, Petitioner argues that this structure is identical to Ivanov’s input line 8. Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1001, Figs. 1, 3; Ex. 1002 ¶ 69).” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,471,074 - PTAB · Sep 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00310 · APJ Mary C Hoffman · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 4–6 and 8 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 4–6 and 8 are obvious over Lee1 and Lee2.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Based on the current record and for the reasons explained below, Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims of the ’207 patent. We institute this inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“In its Preliminary Response, “Patent Owner generally concurs with [Petitioner’s] description, though would propose that a POSITA only needs two years of experience . . . . [but] does not believe any difference between Patent’s Owner’s view and Petitioners’ view affects the unpatentability analysis.” Prelim. Resp. 24. We agree with Patent Owner that the difference between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s formulations would not affect our analysis of patentability. We preliminarily adopt Petitioner’s formulation, which is supported by expert testimony and is generally consistent with the level of skill reflected in the Specification and the prior art. See, e.g., Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“When construing claim terms, we first review the language of the claims. TQ Delta, LLC v. DISH Network LLC, 929 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The claim recites four terms: “preambleInitialReceivedTargetPower(0),” “preambleInitialReceivedTargetPower(1),” “powerRampingStep(0),” and “powerRampingStep(1).” Ex. 1001, 36:57–62. These terms represent outputs of, or values dependent on, inputs (0) or (1). Id. at 29:30–53; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 21– 23. Given that claim 4 separately lists initial power values “preambleInitialReceivedTargetPower(0)” and “preambleInitialReceivedTargetPower(1),” we are skeptical of Petitioner’s argument that these two values should be construed to mean a single value (i.e., preambleInitialReceivedTargetPower), because that would render the separate listing superfluous. Moreover, if the two values “preambleInitialReceivedTargetPower(0)” and “preambleInitialReceivedTargetPower(1)” were construed to mean single value preambleInitialReceivedTargetPower, the additional “(0)” and “(1)” claim language would be superfluous. See In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970) (“All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art.”); Dig.-Vending Servs. Int’l, LLC v. Univ. of Phx., Inc., 672 F.3d 1270, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (noting “the importance of construing claim terms in light of the surrounding claim language, such that words in a claim are not rendered superfluous”); Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“A claim construction that gives meaning to all the terms of the claim is preferred over one that does not do so.”); Elekta Instrument S.A. v. O.U.R. Sci. Int'l, Inc., 214 F.3d 1302, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (construing claim to avoid rendering the 30 degree claim limitation superfluous); Gen. Am. Transp. Corp. v. Cryo–Trans, Inc., 93 F.3d 766, 770 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (rejecting the district court’s claim construction because it rendered superfluous the claim requirement for openings adjacent to the end walls).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“The obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Because the prior art need not explicitly disclose or explicitly suggest the proposed modification (here, at least according to Patent Owner, making initial power and power ramping dependent on procedure type), the absence of precise teachings regarding the proposed modification does not undermine the grounds of unpatentability. Lee2 discloses initial power and power ramping functions dependent on input. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 63, 71–74. Specifically, Lee2 discloses using, based on measured signal power (RSRP), event/distance as input for initial power and power ramping. Id. Lee2 does not, nor could it, address using procedure type as input for initial power and power ramping because Lee2 only discloses 1 type of procedure––the conventional 4-step. Ex. 1006, Fig. 3. Per Lee1, reducing from the conventional 4-step to 2-step is a development in the technology to reduce time delay. Ex. 1005 ¶ 6. Although not discussed in Lee1, the prosecution history shows that switching from 4-step to 2-step is similarly based on measured RSRP. Prelim. Resp. 39 (discussing prosecution history); Ex. 4039–40. Patent Owner’s declarant also acknowledges that there is a correlation (albeit unreliable) between RSRP and distance. Ex. 2002 ¶ 27 (“RSRP may or may not correspond to distance in the real world due to various wireless artifacts . . . .”). Accordingly, we are preliminarily persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art, facing the needs created by the development of new types of procedures (i.e., the 2-step), and upon recognizing the link between event/distance, procedure type, and measured RSRP, would have, in light of Lee2, seen a benefit and had a reasonable expectation of success in using initial power and power ramping functions dependent on procedure type.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,932,207 - Nespresso USA, Inc. v. K-Fee System GmbHAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 10, 2024 · IPR2023-00485 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 are unpatentable as obvious over the combined disclosures of Yoakim, Jarisch, Rossi, and Castellani.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“have a bachelor’s degree in engineering plus five years of experience in design of mechanical beverage systems, or similar products.” Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 40). In the Institution Decision, we preliminarily determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have a bachelor’s degree in engineering plus five years of experience in design of mechanical beverage systems, or similar products, as well as experience with sensors for recognizing an identifier.” Inst. Dec. 8 (emphasis added). Neither party disputes this conclusion. PO Resp. 9; see generally Pet. Reply. As such, we adopt our preliminary definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan for purposes of this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“designing medical devices and components, and that those experiences represent work designing products similar to mechanical beverage systems, Patent Owner fails to direct the Board to evidence sufficient to establish that this experience, in the aggregate, amounts to at least “five years” or involved “experience with sensors for recognizing an identifier.” Inst. Dec. 8 (adopting Patent Owner’s own proposed definition of one of ordinary skill in the art); see Sur-reply 3–4 (citing Ex. 1066, 34:16–35:9; Ex. 1067, 101:3– 12, 102:20–104:9; Ex. 2017 ¶¶ 3–4, 8–10) (failing to establish adequately, if at all, how Dr. Howle’s qualifications include the requisite minimum five-year period of relevant design experience). Accordingly, we determine that Dr. Howle is not qualified to offer expert testimony from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art in this proceeding.10 See Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 22 F.4th 1369, 1376–77 (Fed. Cir. 2022). The Federal Circuit has explained that “[t]o offer expert testimony from the perspective of a skilled artisan in a patent case,” including the issue of patent “validity,” the “witness must at least have ordinary skill in the art.” Id. (Board’s emphasis). “Without that skill, the witness’[s] opinions are neither relevant nor reliable.” Id. at 1377.” slip op. at 13
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“Second, Patent Owner and Dr. Howell assert that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood upon reading the second German application that the capsule features described would be intended to be combinable with each of the described embodiments.” PO Resp. 40; Ex. 2017 ¶ 61. But Patent Owner and Dr. Howell do not explain how a barcode could be used in the devices depicted in Figures 16–18, which place the detection means 2.4.2 on the outer circumference of the flange (not its underside) and rely on toothed-rings physically interacting with either the chamber, retaining arms, or a pinion. Ex. 1047, 12:22–31, 13:8–18. Indeed, the second German priority application explains that means 2.4.2 physically interacts with retaining arms 30 (embodiments of Figures 16 and 17) or a pinon (embodiment of Figure 18), and if means 2.4.2 were not present in these embodiments the capsule would either “drop through into a waste container” or could not be inserted through the insertion shaft. Id. at 12:22– 27, 13:9–12, 13:16–35 (noting that in the embodiment disclosed in Figure 18 a pinon interacts with means 2.4.2 and only when means 2.4.2 “is formed complementary to the teeth of the means” can the capsule be inserted). At no point does the second German application identify means 2.4.2 as a barcode or suggest a barcode could be used as the detection means. The second German application also states that A person skilled in the art is also aware that for example the insertion shaft may also contain a sensor, for example a camera, clear, however, that element 27 is part of the brewing chamber, and not the capsule. Ex. 1047, 12:27–31, 13:5–8, 13:21–26, 15:36. Thus, we are not persuaded that the toothed ring is in fact on the bottom side of the flange. which senses the shape of the means 2.4.2. For example, it would be possible, in the present case, for the shape of the teeth and/or the spacing between the same to be sensed. This signal, in turn, is passed to a control means, which frees, for example, the brewing chamber if the capsule is the correct one. Ex. 1047, 14:11–19. Again, despite using a camera to determine if a capsule is “the correct one,” the second German application does not suggest using a barcode in place of the toothed-ring structure, or suggest moving the location of the detection means 2.4.2 from the outer surface to the underside of the flange. This reinforces that the inventors did not contemplate using a barcode in the embodiments depicted in Figures 16–18.” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“As asserted by Petitioner, Jarisch teaches how to move a code in a centrifugal brewing system to the bottom of the flange and how to configure a light-conductive material so that the detector’s light source will reach the bottom of the flange. Pet. 48–49; Pet. Reply 23–24 (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 184–185; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 82–84, Fig. 5). And, although Figure 61 of Yoakim discloses a flare in its brewing chamber, bodily incorporation is not required, and we are directed to no persuasive argument or evidence that Yoakim could not be configured with a straight chamber, as generally depicted in Figure 5 of Jarisch. Pet. Reply 24 (noting that Dr. Howle’s testimony on this subject is “conclusory” and depends on “bodily incorporation”). As such, we credit the testimony of Mr. Jobin that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to place the code at the bottom of the flange and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in so doing.17 Ex. 1003 ¶ 184. Patent Owner further contends that Yoakim requires that the capsule holder be capable of receiving a set of multiple volume capsules and that 17 As discussed above, Mr. Jobin has extensive experience in the design of brewing devices. Conversely, Dr. Howle has limited experience in this field and is not one of ordinary skill in the art. Although Mr. Jobin’s testimony is more persuasive regardless of the discrepancy in experience between the two declarants, when this difference in design experience is considered, it only serves to increase the weight we give to Mr. Jobin’s testimony. there is a “snug fit” to avoid “unbalances.” PO Sur-reply 8 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 205, 479, 484, 507, 512). According to Patent Owner, Petitioner does not explain adequately how the use of Jarisch’s “straight chamber” with a capsule holder that does not engage with the side wall of the capsule would allow insertion of the multiple volume capsules or permit a “snug fit.” Id.; PO Resp. 28. Patent Owner’s assertion that Yoakim discloses the use of certain capsules that might not fit into a device with Jarisch’s non-flared structure is ineffective to undercut the sufficiency of Petitioner’s showing on this point. As noted by Patent Owner, Yoakim discloses the use of certain capsules which might not fit into a device with Jarisch’s non-flared structure. But Petitioner is not seeking a bodily incorporation of Yoakim and Jarisch, and other embodiments of Yoakim do not require the type of flared capsule identified by Patent Owner. Ex. 1004, Fig. 63. Moreover, we are directed to no persuasive evidence that Jarisch’s lack of contact between the capsule side wall and the holder would render the device inoperable or even less effective. Id. (citing Ex. 2019, 36:18–37:6; Ex. 1005 ¶ 23 (Jarisch explaining that its device includes a capsule holding means and that the capsule may be successfully driven in rotation). As such, we credit the testimony of Mr. Jobin that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood how to design the chamber of Yoakim to allow reading of a barcode on the underside of the flange and that this design would allow for successfully receiving single-serve capsules and driving them in rotation. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 182–184; Ex. 1005 ¶ 23.” slip op. at 39
Patent outcomesUS 11,230,430 unpatentable§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,230,430
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.