- Champion Laboratories, Inc. / First Brands Group, LLC v. Hengst SENo claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 8, 2025 · IPR2024-00603 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8–11, 15–17, 19, 23–25, and 28–30 were not shown unpatentable over Yokoyama, Yokoyama and Cline, or Honermann and Cline.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“On this record, we determine that the level of ordinary skill is reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (specific findings on the 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, 163–64 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). Because the level of ordinary skill in the art is not in dispute, and because the parties’ definition is consistent with the disclosures in the ʼ203 patent, the prior art, and the declaration testimony of Mr. Nranian and Dr. Basirat, we view the prior art and arguments through this lens when determining whether the claims are unpatentable as obvious over the prior art.5 See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17 (identifying “the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art” as an underlying factual inquiry to be resolved in deciding obviousness, which is a question of law).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Although the parties spend significant portions of their briefing discussing the term “eccentric” and how it applies to certain figures from the ʼ203 patent and the relied-upon prior art, we determine that it is not necessary to expressly construe the term “eccentric” beyond the parties’ agreed-upon definition. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to 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))). Rather, we adopt Patent Owner’s proffered definition because it is consistent with the intrinsic record and because it is not in dispute. Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that the plain meaning of the term “eccentric” is defined as “located elsewhere than at the geometric center; also: having the axis or support so located.” PO Resp. 18–19 (citing the Merriam-Webster online dictionary definition of the term “eccentric” for support). Petitioner agrees with this definition. Pet. 35 (asserting that certain prior art elements are eccentric “because they are not located at the center of the filter insert or housing”); Pet. Reply 9 (arguing that certain elements are eccentric because they “do not have an axis located at the geometric center”); id. at 10 (arguing the eccentricity of an element that does “not have an axis in the center” which has “an off-center axis”); see also Ex. 2017 ¶ 33 (Dr. Basirat testifying that “[a] POSITA would understand that ‘eccentric’ in the context of [the] ʼ203 patent, means that central axis is located elsewhere than at the geometric center [and] not placed centrally or not having its axis or other part placed centrally”). The parties’ definition of “eccentric” is also consistent with the usage of the term in the ʼ203 patent. Ex. 1001, 10:23–31; Fig. 17.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Rather, we adopt Patent Owner’s proffered definition because it is consistent with the intrinsic record and because it is not in dispute. Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that the plain meaning of the term “eccentric” is defined as “located elsewhere than at the geometric center; also: having the axis or support so located.” PO Resp. 18–19 (citing the Merriam-Webster online dictionary definition of the term “eccentric” for support). Petitioner agrees with this definition. Pet. 35 (asserting that certain prior art elements are eccentric “because they are not located at the center of the filter insert or housing”); Pet. Reply 9 (arguing that certain elements are eccentric because they “do not have an axis located at the geometric center”); id. at 10 (arguing the eccentricity of an element that does “not have an axis in the center” which has “an off-center axis”); see also Ex. 2017 ¶ 33 (Dr. Basirat testifying that “[a] POSITA would understand that ‘eccentric’ in the context of [the] ʼ203 patent, means that central axis is located elsewhere than at the geometric center [and] not placed centrally or not having its axis or other part placed centrally”). The parties’ definition of “eccentric” is also consistent with the usage of the term in the ʼ203 patent. Ex. 1001, 10:23–31; Fig. 17.” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“(opining that “Patent Owner’s construction of ‘having an axis no located in a geometric center’ is too narrow”). Mr. Nranian’s Declaration testimony in this respect is not persuasive for several reasons. First, it is internally inconsistent. Compare Ex. 1016 ¶ 3 (criticizing the “axis” language in Patent Owner’s definition), with id. ¶¶ 9, 11 (relying on that very language to support an argument). Also, Mr. Nranian’s proposed definition of “eccentric” to merely mean “not located at the center” begs the question of what, precisely, is “the center”? Mr. Nranian does not persuasively explain how far a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand she could travel from the exact center point of an object and still be in “the center” of that object. See Tr. 10:13–19 (Judge McGee asking whether the center is “a miniscule point in the middle of [the] disc”); see also id. at 10:25–12:26 (Judge Weatherly highlighting the significant ambiguity in referring to something as in “the center”). Also, Mr. Nranian’s opinion is inconsistent with how the ʼ203 patent compares something that is “central,” i.e., “at the center,” and something that is “eccentrically” located. Ex. 1001, 7:13–14 (describing pipe nozzle 15 as “central”); id. at 8:53–56 (describing a “through hole” as “located in the center of the front panel 22” depicted in Figures 7 and 8); id. at 10:23–31 (describing return 12 as “in the center” and outlet 13 as “eccentrically thereto” in Figure 17). Patent Owner’s colorized and annotated Figure 7 is reproduced below: Patent Owner’s colorized and annotated version of Figure 7 of the ʼ203 patent illustrates “central pipe nozzle 15” in yellow passing through the “through hole” located in “the center” of front panel 22. PO Resp. 20. Significantly, pipe nozzle 15 and the through hole in panel 22 are both described as “central” and in “the center” but must have different diameters; otherwise, “central pipe nozzle 15” would not be capable of traveling through “through hole 22.” Ex. 1001, Fig. 7. Thus, the ʼ203 patent intrinsically bases whether an element is “central” or “in the center” on whether its axis is located at the geometric center. This is also illustrated in Figure 17 of the ʼ203 patent, reproduced below: Figure 17 of the ʼ203 patent illustrates filter housing 10 with return 12 “in the center . . . and, eccentrically thereto, the outlet 13 with the seat 14 for the blocking element 24.” Ex. 1001, 10:23–30. Finally, Mr. Nranian’s narrow interpretation of “eccentric”––which excludes the “having the axis or support so located” in the geometric center language––is at odds with the arguments it was proffered to support. Cf. Pet. Reply 9 (arguing that certain elements are eccentric because they “do not have an axis located at the geometric center”); id. at 10 (arguing the eccentricity of an element that does “not have an axis in the center” which has “an off-center axis”).” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 9,023,203 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,023,203 - Markforged Inc. v. Continuous Composites, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 26, 2023 · IPR2022-00679 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12, 20, and 21 were not proven unpatentable; the asserted obviousness grounds failed for insufficient motivation to combine, teaching away, or missing claim limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“Patent Owner statutorily disclaimed claims 13–19 on July 25, 2023, rendering Petitioner’s Grounds 4, 9, and 10 moot. Ex. 2008. Thus, our Final Written Decision does not address Petitioner’s Grounds 4, 9, and 10. The Board heard oral arguments in an in-person hearing conducted on July 27, 2023. See Paper 23.” slip op. at 4
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“(“POSITA”) would have had a master’s or bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, materials science, or a related degree, and either at least 3–5 years of experience (with a master’s degree), or at least 5–6 years of experience (with a bachelor’s degree), in composite materials or additive manufacturing. Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 36). Patent Owner states that it “does not agree that Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art accurately reflects the level of ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date . . . [, but r]egardless [of] the level of skill, . . . the Petition does not show the challenged claims are unpatentable.” Resp. 14–15. Patent Owner does not propose a different level of skill in the art. See id. at 15 (“Patent Owner reserves the right to propose a level of ordinary skill in the art later in this proceeding, or in other proceedings.”). On this record, we determine that the level of ordinary skill is reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (specific findings on the 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))). Although a more specific definition is not necessary, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition because, on this record, it is consistent with the disclosures of the asserted prior art references. Neither party, however, advances information explaining how or why the result in this case would change based on the level of ordinary skill determined by the Board.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner advances no specific construction of any claim term, but rather proposes that “claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning.” Pet. 14. Patent Owner asserts that the term “anchor” should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning, which, according to Patent Owner, is “contact to which the path of composite material is adhered to enable pulling of the path.” Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2006, 2, 53). Petitioner responds that “[i]n the parallel litigation, the Court has construed ‘anchor point’ and ‘anchor’ as ‘a contact point to which the path is affixed and that serves as an origin point for the formation of the path.’” Reply 3. On the complete record, we determine that no claim term needs an express construction to resolve the controversy. C. GROUND 1 – ALLEGED OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 20 AND 21 OVER LIPSKER” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“combining multiple embodiments from a single prior art reference (Resp. 31), i.e., “there must be a motivation to make the combination and a reasonable expectation that such a combination would be successful, otherwise a skilled artisan would not arrive at the claimed combination.” In re Stepan, 868 F.3d 1342, 1346 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2017). On this record, Petitioner fails to provide any such motivation to combine the embodiment in Lipsker’s Figure 2 with those of Figures 4A, 4B, 4C, and 5 to arrive at the subject matter of claim 20. Pet. 23–31. Rather, Petitioner merely points to the disparate embodiments of Figures 2, 4A, 4B, 4C, and 5 and portions of Lipsker’s disclosure pertaining to those embodiments, and asserts that Lipsker “discloses” the individual limitations recited in claim 20. See, e.g., id. at 25 (Petitioner, relying on Figure 2, asserting that “Lipsker discloses the preamble of Claim 20”), 27 (Petitioner, relying on Figure 5, asserting that “Lipsker discloses Element 20[a]”), 28 (quoting Lipsker’s descriptions of wire and adhesive dispensed separately as depicted in Figure 2, and asserting “Lipsker discloses Element 20 [c]”), 29 (pointing to Figures 4A, 4B, and 4C and asserting “Lipsker discloses Element 20[d]”). Pointing to disparate embodiments without providing a sufficient motivation to combine them is not enough to establish the obviousness of claim 20 as a whole. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (holding that a claim “composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art”).” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 10,744,708 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,744,708 - Apple Inc. v. Parus Holdings, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 9, 2021 · IPR2020-00687 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7, 10, and 14 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not establish that Ladd’s speech-recognition device recognizes speech without predefined voice patterns.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“The parties agree that this term at least requires a “speech recognition device that recognizes spoken words without . . . using predefined voice patterns,” but disagree as to whether it should require a device that recognizes spoken words “without adapting to individual speakers.” PO Resp. 21 (“The proper construction of ‘speaker-independent speech recognition device’ is consistent with the construction issued by the Western District of Texas, though it does not include all of that court’s construction, and requires at least ‘speech recognition device that recognizes spoken words without using predefined voice patterns.’”); Reply 2 (“For purposes of this IPR, Apple submits the Court’s construction should be applied.”). The dispute regarding whether the term should preclude adapting to individual speakers does not impact any issue in this proceeding, and Petitioner has agreed to Patent Owner’s construction in this proceeding, so long as we do not resolve the dispute over adapting to individual speakers. Tr. 12:24–13:4 (“JUDGE McKONE: So you’d be happy if we essentially adopted Parus’s construction with a footnote or some kind of note that we’re not resolving the issue of adapting to individual speakers? MS. BAILEY: That would be fine for purposes of this IPR, Your Honor.”). We adopt the parties’ agreed approach. For purposes of this proceeding, “speaker-independent speech recognition device” means “speech recognition device that recognizes spoken words without using predefined voice patterns.” This is consistent with the ’084 patent’s statement (relied on by both parties) that “[t]he voice browsing system recognizes naturally spoken voice commands and is speaker-independent; it does not have to be trained to recognize the” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“least a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or an equivalent degree, with at least two years of experience in interactive voice response systems, automated information retrieval systems, or related technologies. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 28). On the complete record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of one of ordinary skill in the art for essentially three reasons. First, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s assertion. See generally PO Resp. Also, neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.’”); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (finding that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not err in concluding that the level of ordinary skill in the art was best determined by the references of record). C. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 1–7, 10, and 14 (Grounds 1–3)” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“speech-recognition device” discussed supra, this limitation requires a “speech recognition device that recognizes spoken words without using predefined voice patterns.” A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). Obviousness is resolved based on underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). Petitioner bears the burden of proving unpatentability of the challenged claims, and the burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Petitioner must demonstrate obviousness by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d); see also Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to” slip op. at 25
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“A motion to exclude should be directed to the admissibility of evidence. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64; Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 79 (November 2019) (“TPG”) (“A motion to exclude must explain why the evidence is not admissible (e.g., relevance or hearsay) but may not be used to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to prove a particular fact.”). According to the Trial Practice Guide, a motion to exclude is not a vehicle to “address arguments or evidence that a party believes exceeds the proper scope of reply or sur-reply.” TPG 79. Rather, “[i]f a party believes that a brief filed by the opposing party raises new issues, is accompanied by belatedly presented evidence, or otherwise exceeds the proper scope of reply or sur-reply, it may request authorization to file a motion to strike.” Id. at 80. Patent Owner did not file a motion to strike. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude does not address the admissibility of Dr. Terveen’s testimony. Rather, it argues that the testimony exceeds the proper scope of reply evidence, either because it does not respond to the Patent Owner Response or because Petitioner did not follow our rules in seeking to submit supplemental information. See generally Mot. Excl. Thus, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude does not state a proper basis for excluding evidence and, therefore, we deny the motion for that reason.” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 9,451,084 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,451,084 - Apple Inc. v. Parus Holdings, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 9, 2021 · IPR2020-00686 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18–21, and 25–30 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish the claimed speaker-independent speech recognition device.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“predefined voice patterns,” but disagree as to whether it should require a device that recognizes spoken words “without adapting to individual speakers.” PO Resp. 21 (“The proper construction of ‘speaker-independent speech recognition device’ is consistent with the construction issued by the Western District of Texas, though it does not include all of that court’s construction, and requires at least ‘speech recognition device that recognizes spoken words without using predefined voice patterns.’”); Reply 2 (“For purposes of this IPR, Apple submits the Court’s construction should be applied.”). The dispute as to whether the term should preclude adapting to individual speakers does not impact any issue in this proceeding, and Petitioner has agreed to Patent Owner’s construction in this proceeding, so long as we do not resolve the dispute over adapting to individual speakers. Tr. 12:24–13:4 (“JUDGE McKONE: So you’d be happy if we essentially adopted Parus’s construction with a footnote or some kind of note that we’re not resolving the issue of adapting to individual speakers? MS. BAILEY: That would be fine for purposes of this IPR, Your Honor.”). We adopt the parties’ agreed approach. For purposes of this proceeding, “speaker-independent speech recognition device” means “speech recognition device that recognizes spoken words without using predefined voice patterns.” This is consistent with the ’431 patent’s statement (relied on by both parties) that “[t]he voice browsing system recognizes naturally spoken voice commands and is speaker-independent; it does not have to be trained to recognize the voice patterns of each individual user. Such speech recognition systems use phonemes to recognize spoken words and not predefined voice patterns.” Ex. 1001, 4:38–43; see also PO Resp. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:34–43);” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner, relying on the testimony of Dr. Terveen, contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or equivalent degree, with at least two years of experience in interactive voice response systems, automated information retrieval systems, or related technologies, such as web-based information retrieval systems.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 28). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposal or offer an alternative. Also, neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of one of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the technology described in the Specification and the cited prior art. On the complete record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 12
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“A motion to exclude should be directed to the admissibility of evidence. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64; TPG 79 (“A motion to exclude must explain why the evidence is not admissible (e.g., relevance or hearsay) but may not be used to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to prove a particular fact.”). According to the Trial Practice Guide, a motion to exclude is not a vehicle to “address arguments or evidence that a party believes exceeds the proper scope of reply or sur-reply.” TPG 79. Rather, “[i]f a party believes that a brief filed by the opposing party raises new issues, is accompanied by belatedly presented evidence, or otherwise exceeds the” slip op. at 41
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“corresponding to an unclaimed second step not part of speech recognition would be an impermissible new argument presented for the first time in the Reply. As explained in the Board’s Trial Practice Guide, Petitioner’s change in direction exceeds the proper scope of a reply: Generally, a reply or sur-reply may only respond to arguments raised in the preceding brief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23, except as noted above. “Respond,” in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing. While replies and sur-replies can help crystalize issues for decision, a reply or sur-reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence may not be considered. The Board is not required to attempt to sort proper from improper portions of the reply or sur-reply. Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 74 (November 2019) (“TPG”).7 If Petitioner is arguing that Ladd’s description of voice patterns and speech patterns is not describing speaker-independent speech recognition, then Petitioner’s Reply does not simply respond to the Patent Owner Response or attempt to crystalize the issues in dispute. Rather, the Petition expressly relied on certain disclosure in Ladd to show the functionality claimed in limitation 1[c], while the Reply attempts to re-cast that same disclosure as describing functionality separate from that of limitation 1[c]. This would be a new theory.” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 7,076,431 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,076,431 - Favored Tech Corporation v. P2i LtdNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 23, 2021 · IPR2020-00478 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Final written decision
Favored Tech did not prove claims 1–17 unpatentable: Baalmann did not anticipate the asserted claims, and the obviousness grounds lacked adequate disclosure or motivation with a reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionNo construction neededGranted
“After considering Petitioner’s arguments regarding claim 9, Patent Owner’s silence regarding claim 9, and the language in the ’070 patent itself (e.g., Ex. 1001, 11:45–52, 12:60–61), we agree with Petitioner that the term “1H, 1H, 2H, 3H-heptadecafluorodecylacylate” in claim 9 should be construed to correctly recite HDFDA (1H, 1H, 2H, 2H-heptadecafluorodecylacrylate). The error Petitioner identifies is conspicuous and undisputed, and the intrinsic record does not suggest a different interpretation. Fitbit, Inc. v. Valencell, Inc., 964 F.3d 1112, 1119–20 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Novo Industries, L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Additionally, after reviewing the parties’ remaining claim construction arguments and evidence, we determine that we do not need to expressly construe any other terms for purposes of this Decision because, as addressed in detail below, we find Petitioner’s showings deficient for reasons that do not depend on the construction of any claim term. 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 6
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’070 patent would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in a field such as chemistry, physics, or chemical engineering, as well as at least two years of experience with plasma-polymerization techniques.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 26–31). Patent Owner agrees with this proposed definition “with the understanding that ‘experience with plasma-polymerization techniques’ includes plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) techniques.” PO Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2010 ¶ 20; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 12, 63). In light of the record before us, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. As Patent Owner points out, Dr. Gleason states that PECVD is a form of plasma polymerization, and thus the parties agree that experience with plasma-polymerization techniques would include PECVD. PO Resp. 9; Ex. 1002 ¶ 63. The level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate adequately that each and every element in claim 1, arranged as recited in the claim, is found in a single prior art reference. NetMoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1369; Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Here, Petitioner combines several different teachings from Baalmann to support its anticipation argument. For example, Petitioner relies on the “evacuable chamber with a volume of 1 m3” from Baalmann’s Example 1, but not the power (2kW) expressly disclosed as being used with that reactor of Example 1. Ex. 1004 ¶ 47. With regard to power density, Petitioner relies on Baalmann’s general disclosure that “[t]he electrical power input per chamber volume is set between 0.5 kilowatt/m3 and 5 kilowatt/m3.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 20. As Patent Owner points out, however, that power density range is not tied to any particular reactor volume or plasma zone volume. PO Resp. 19. Baalmann also fails to expressly disclose the plasma zone volume of the reactor in Example 1. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 47–48. To attempt to overcome this absence of an express disclosure, Petitioner argues that, for the reactor used in Example 1, the plasma zone volume and reactor volume are the same based on the configuration of the electrodes in the reactor. Pet. 24–25. Baalmann, however, does not expressly disclose the electrode configuration of the reactor in Example 1. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 47–48. Instead, Petitioner relies on Baalmann’s general disclosure of an embodiment wherein one electrode is formed by the chamber wall itself. Pet. 24–25; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 35, 61. In so doing, Petitioner ignores the fact that Baalmann also states that “[t]wo opposite rod-shaped electrodes may also be used.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 35. In view of this, we disagree with Petitioner’s conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that chamber to be configured as described throughout the rest of the specification: with the chamber wall serving as one of the electrodes.” Pet. 24. Even if we were persuaded by Petitioner’s argument, the fact remains that Petitioner’s anticipation challenge is based on the combination of different features disclosed in separate portions of Baalmann. “Such picking and choosing . . . has no place in the making of a 102, anticipation rejection.” In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587–88 (CCPA 1972) (cited with approval in Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 550 F.3d 1075, 1083 (Fed. Cir. 2008)); see also Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti, Inc., 878 F.3d 1052, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that anticipation is not proven by multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“For all of the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have inferred the volume of the plasma zone10 in Coulson is 470 cm3 based on Coulson’s disclosure of a “glow discharge reactor” having a volume of 470 cm3. Pet. 38; Reply 15–16. In view of this, we are likewise not persuaded that Coulson discloses a power density of 85.1 W/m3, because Petitioner’s 9 Dr. Gleason confirmed that she did not perform any experiments to verify her opinions regarding Coulson’s plasma zone. Ex. 2017, 80:10–18. 10 As noted above, Petitioner presented its argument in the context of its proposed construction of plasma zone. Petitioner did not present an alternative argument supported by sufficient evidence addressing the volume of Coulson’s plasma zone based on Patent Owner’s proposed construction of plasma zone. Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner’s assertion that we do not need to expressly construe the term plasma zone to resolve this issue. Sur-reply 1. argument that Coulson discloses this power density is based on its assertion that Coulson has a plasma zone volume of 470 cm3. Pet. 38. This finding is fatal to Petitioner’s obviousness challenge of claim 1 based on the combined teachings of Baalmann and Coulson because Coulson’s purported disclosure of using a power density of 85.1 W/m3 is an essential component of Petitioner’s obviousness challenge. An obviousness determination requires finding both “that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art . . . and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367-68 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In attempting to establish a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Baalmann and Coulson, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, Petitioner repeatedly refers to using Coulson’s optimized reaction conditions, including power density, in Baalmann’s larger reactor. Pet. 48 (stating that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to maintain the same or similar reaction conditions within a larger reaction chamber that were present in Coulson’s chamber during Coulson’s reported plasma polymerization reactions, including power density and pressure, to preserve the same effective results.”), 48–49 (“That would have included motivation to maintain Coulson’s disclosed power density when scaling up to a larger reaction volume to preserve the beneficial results Coulson reported at that optimized power density.”); Reply 23 (referring to the “straightforward, compelling obviousness case set forth in the petition” that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have expected to succeed performing Coulson’s reactions on a larger scale in view of Baalmann”); 23 (“The petition explained why a POSA would have modified Baalmann to use Coulson’s HDFDA monomer and reaction conditions to produce coatings with a reasonable expectation of success” ), 24 (stating the Petition “explained why a POSA would have expected success using known parameters from Coulson in an established large-scale apparatus”). During the oral hearing, counsel for Petitioner confirmed its obviousness positions depend on using Coulson’s power density. Tr. 20:10–21:16. Accordingly, Petitioner’s failure to demonstrate adequately that Coulson discloses or suggests a power density of 85.1 W/m3 undermines its reason to combine and reasonable expectation of success arguments. Petitioner’s argument that Baalmann discloses the claimed power” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 8,389,070 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,389,070
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.