- Yita LLC / Jinrong (SH) Automotive Accessory Industrial Development Co. Ltd. v. Macneil IP LLCInstitutedPTAB · Jun 13, 2023 · IPR2023-00173 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–6 on the asserted obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). See also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2021) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We need not explicitly construe the term “vehicle floor tray” or any other claim term for the purposes of this decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368 (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)). However, we offer the following reasons for not adopting Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Claim 1 recites the term “vehicle floor tray” but does not recite any specific structural details of the tray. Ex. 1001, 19:42–60. Thus, nothing in the claim language suggests the structural aspects of a vehicle floor tray included in Patent Owner’s proposed construction.” slip op. at 14
- 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 “would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, industrial design, or a closely related field, or equivalent formal training, education, or practical experience in a field relating to product design, CAD, or manufacturing.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27–28). Petitioner further contends that the person of ordinary skill in the art “would also have a minimum of three to five years of experience in plastics engineering, CAD, manufacturing, plastic product design, or a related industry,” but that “a higher level of training or practical experience might make up for less education, and vice-versa.” Id. Patent Owner does not, at this stage of the proceeding, dispute Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 12. For the purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’917 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“In his testimony concerning background prior art, Mr. Perreault relies on two prior art patents that disclose “floor mats” described similarly to Patent Owner’s description of a “vehicle floor tray.” See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–30 (citing Ex. 1013 (“Bailey”); Ex. 1015 (“Tyler”)). Bailey describes a “floor mat” that is “molded or otherwise preformed into a tray-like shape which conforms to the contour of a portion of the carpeted automobile floor. The mat is dimensioned and configured to nest within and abut against the sides of a carpeted floor well of the vehicle.” Ex. 1013, 2:37–42, Fig. 6. Tyler describes “contoured vehicle floor mats” that “mate[] with the vehicle floorboard to hold the mat in place.” Ex. 1013, code (57), 1:52–54. Based on these exhibits, we find that Mr. Perreault’s testimony is not conclusory and not based on an improper definition of floor tray. Based on the present record and after considering Patent Owner’s contentions, Petitioner sufficiently establishes that Stanesic discloses the subject matter of the preamble. In particular, Stanesic discloses “a tray-like central area” and “the raised wall 22 has two walls that rise about one to about two inches from the base 15” (Ex. 1005, 2:61–62), which sufficiently supports Petitioner’s contention that Stanesic discloses, or at least suggests, a vehicle floor tray.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,138,917 - Yita LLC / Jinrong (SH) Automotive Accessory Industrial Development Co. Ltd. v. Macneil IP LLCInstitutedPTAB · Jun 13, 2023 · IPR2023-00172 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–6 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would be unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). See also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2021) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“and Cicotte, the dispute for the first prong of the Advanced Bionics framework revolves around whether Rothkop is cumulative of Exhibits 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 cited in an IDS considered by the Examiner. Petitioner does not dispute that Cicotte is cumulative of Exhibit 2005 or 2006. See Prel. Reply. For the purposes of the § 325(d) analysis, we will assume, without deciding, that Rothkop is cumulative of at least one of the references Patent Owner relies on, i.e., Exhibits 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004. We, thus, assume, without deciding, that the first prong of the Advanced Bionics framework is satisfied and move to the second prong. 4. Advanced Bionics Framework, Prong Two: Has Petitioner Demonstrated that the Office Erred in a Manner Material to the Patentability of the Challenged Claims? The ’655 patent issued from an application filed on August 6, 2014.” slip op. at 45
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“For the following reasons, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Claim 1 recites a “vehicle floor tray” but does not recite any specific structural details of the tray. Ex. 1001, 19:46–2:2. Thus, nothing in the claim language suggests the aspects of a vehicle floor tray included in Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Patent Owner does not direct us to an explicit lexicographic definition of the term “vehicle floor tray” in the Specification of the ’655 patent. Rather, Patent Owner relies on descriptions of aspects of the embodiment disclosed in Figure 1 of the ’655 patent. For example, the ’655 patent generally describes that “[f]loor trays have sidewalls.” Ex. 1001, 1:58. The ’655 patent states that in an “aspect” of the invention, “a vehicle floor tray has a central panel for the placement on the floor of a vehicle foot well, and at least first and second upstanding panels.” Id. at 5:28–30. In column 7, the ’655 patent describes that “[d]isposed around the central or floor panel 102 are a series of upstanding side panels, which will vary in number and configuration from one vehicle model to the next.” Id. at 7:47–49 (emphasis added). These portions of the Specification suggest that the term “vehicle floor tray” should not be limited to any particular number of side panels or any particular configuration such as the side panels are joined to the floor panel and each other. In the Summary of the Invention, the ’655 patent discloses “a vehicle” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“For the following reasons, Patent Owner’s contentions are unavailing based on the present record. First, as discussed above, Patent Owner’s attempt to draw a distinction between floor trays and floor mats is unavailing based on the present record and undercut by its own exhibits describing Patent Owner’s vehicle floor trays as “mats.” See Ex. 2010; Ex. 2012; Ex. 2013; Ex. 2014. Second, as discussed above, the fact that Petitioner has not shown that someone previously scanned a vehicle footwell is unavailing because this challenge is based on obviousness, not anticipation. Third, the sentence in Rothkop that Patent Owner contends discloses a kind of scanner, not what is to be scanned, is “[t]he data input device may comprise a scanner 12 for scanning a physical part such as an existing seat, frame, or vehicle.” Ex. 1006, 4:61– 63. Based on the present record, we do not agree that this sentence discloses a type of scanner. Fourth, Patent Owner’s arguments concerning the claimed invention creating a new product versus reverse engineering an existing product in Rothkop raises potential fact questions that are best resolved at trial based on a fully developed record. Petitioner provides numerous reasons why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Stanesic, Rothkop, and Cicotte in such a manner that teaches or suggests all limitations of claim 1. Pet. 29–34. Petitioner sufficiently supports this reasoning with the testimony of Mr. Perreault that he supports with reference to Stanesic, Rothkop, Cicotte, and other references showing the background art. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 147–157. Further, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s conclusion that the combination of Stanesic, Rothkop, and Cicotte “would be nothing more than applying known techniques . . . to a known method of producing a custom-fit vehicle floor tray . . . that is ready for improvement, yielding the predictable result of generating a custom-fit floor tray.” Compare Pet. 33, with Prelim. Resp. Based on the present record and after considering all of Patent” slip op. at 32
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,899,655 - PTAB · May 15, 2023 · IPR2023-00073 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–15 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on the asserted obviousness combinations.
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. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), institution of an inter partes review is authorized 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.” After considering the information presented in the Petition, Preliminary Response, Reply, and Sur-reply, we determine that the information presented establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’879 patent, based on all grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Although the proposals for the level of skill in the art by the parties’ declarants have differences in wording, we do not find the proposals to be materially different. For purposes of this Decision, we find no meaningful differences between the parties’ respective definitions that would materially alter the outcome of this Decision. Thus, although we do not find the parties’ proposals for the level of skill in the art to be materially different, for purposes of this Decision, based on our review of the ’879 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’879 patent, and cited prior art, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“’879 patent would understand the term “electrode section” recited in the challenged claims to mean “electrical terminals, usually called bond pads, that are part of the substrate’s wiring layer.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 103–107). At this time, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed construction of “electrode section.” See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we need not construe the term “electrode section” because the parties do not identify any material issue that would turn on the construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“adhesion layer” is recited only in the challenged independent claims and in no other claims of the ’879 patent. See Ex. 1001, 13:45–16:65. And each of the independent claims recites “forming” an “adhesion layer” “on a back surface” of a “wafer.” Id. at 13:47–49, 13:54–56, 15:4–6, 15:45–47, 16:48– 50, 16:56–58. In view of this claim language, we construe the relevant claim language “forming an adhesion layer on a back surface of a wafer” as a whole, not just a single term “adhesion layer” in isolation from the rest of the claim language. See Anchor Wall Sys., Inc. v. Rockwood Retaining Walls, Inc., 340 F.3d 1298, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[T]he claim limitation, as a whole, [] must be considered in claim construction.”); United States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 781 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (holding that district court’s interpretation of the term “avoid” without regard to the rest of the limitation was error); see also Lexion Med., LLC v. Northgate Techs., Inc., 641 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[T]he context of the surrounding words of the claim also must be considered in determining the ordinary and customary meaning of those terms.”); IGT v. Bally Gaming Int’l, Inc., 659 F.3d 1109, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“We caution that claim language must be construed in the context of the claim in which it appears. Extracting a single word from a claim divorced from the surrounding limitations can lead construction astray.” (emphasis added)); Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Converse Inc., 183 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Proper claim construction . . . demands interpretation of the entire claim in context, not a single element in isolation.”). Considering the claim language, the Oxford English Dictionary defines “form” as “[t]o construct, frame; to make, bring into existence, produce.”4 Thus, the plain meaning of the claim term to “form[] an adhesion layer on a back surface of a wafer” is “to construct or make an adhesion layer on a back surface of a wafer.” At this time, we do not perceive anything in the claim language that requires any specific method to construct an adhesion layer on a wafer surface. Thus, at least based on the claim language, we are not persuaded at this time that the challenged claims require adhering a pre-formed adhesion layer to a surface of a wafer, as Patent Owner contends. Citing the Specification of the ’879 patent, Patent Owner contends that the recited “adhesion layer” is “a pre-formed layer that is adhered” to the back surface of a wafer because the ’879 patent describes that the “[second semiconductor’s] back surface is adhered to the thermo-compression sheet 6.” Prelim. Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:48–52). The language cited by Patent Owner comes from the ’879 patent’s description of Figure 1, which shows “a semiconductor device in accordance with the first embodiment” of the ’879 patent. Ex. 1001, 5:34–36 (emphasis added), 6:37– 52. A particular embodiment appearing in the written description is generally not incorporated into a claim if the claim language is broader than the embodiment. SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). Further, “it is improper to read limitations from a preferred embodiment described in the specification— slip op. at 31
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,352,879 - PTAB · May 15, 2023 · IPR2023-00072 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims, finding a reasonable likelihood that Micron would prevail on its asserted obviousness grounds.
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. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), institution of an inter partes review is authorized 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.” After considering the information presented in the Petition, Preliminary Response, Reply, and Sur-reply, we determine that the information presented establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’806 patent, based on all grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“words” and because “the numerous (8) independent claims recite two very different interconnection techniques for stacked multichip modules.” Id. Petitioner represents that The current Petition challenges independent claims 1, 2, 23, 24, and 30 in addition to dependent claims 6-7, 9-10, 12-13, 14-19, 25-26, and 32—all of which recite a wire bond interconnection technique. The first Petition (IPR 2023-00071) seeks cancellation of independent claims 3, 27, and 31 in addition to dependent claims 4-5, 8, 11, 20-22, 28, 29, and 33—all of which recite using a combination of flip-chip and wire bond interconnection techniques for stacked multichip modules. Id. at 2–3. Petitioner further states that “each claim is challenged only once.” Id. at 3. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contentions that two petitions are necessary. See generally Prelim. Resp. On the present record, we see no reason to exercise our discretion to deny institution of either petition on the basis of Petitioner filing two petitions to address the large number of claims included in the ’806 patent. See Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 59–60 (Nov. 2019)2 (in determining whether multiple petitions are necessary, the Board may consider petitioner’s explanations regarding “the differences between the petitions, why the issues addressed by the differences are material, and why the Board should exercise its discretion to institute additional petitions if it identifies one petition that satisfies petitioner’s burden under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).”).” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Elenius, states that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical, mechanical or materials engineering and two to three years of experience in the design or development of semiconductor manufacturing, or the equivalent.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 32. Mr. Elenius further states that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. Although the proposals for the level of skill in the art by the parties’ declarants have differences in wording, we do not find the proposals to be materially different. For purposes of this Decision, we find no meaningful differences between the parties’ respective definitions that would materially alter the outcome of this Decision. Thus, although we do not find the parties’ proposals for the level of skill in the art to be materially different, for purposes of this Decision, based on our review of the ’806 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’806 patent, and cited prior art, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art reading the ’806 patent would understand the claim term “electrode section” recited in the challenged claims to mean “electrical terminals, usually called bond pads, that are part of the substrate’s wiring layer.” Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 103–107). At this time, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed construction of “electrode section.” See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we need not construe the term “electrode section” because the parties do not identify any material issue that would turn on the construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). Patent Owner contends that the term “adhesion layer” recited in the challenged independent claims should be construed to mean “a pre-formed layer that is adhered.” Prelim. Resp. 13–15. Patent Owner argues that Ball, Fogal, and Mostafazadeh do not teach “adhesion layer” under Patent Owner’s proposed construction of the term. See, e.g., id. at 16–24. Although Patent Owner’s argument raises an issue of claim construction, we need not expressly construe “adhesion layer” for purposes of this Decision because, as discussed in Section III.D.5 below, Petitioner shows sufficiently that the asserted combination of Ball, Fogal, Mostafazadeh, and the knowledge of a skilled artisan teaches or suggests “adhesion layer” even under Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham - PTAB · May 15, 2023 · IPR2023-00071 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 3–5, 8, 11, 20–22, 27, 28, 31, and 33 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under the asserted obviousness combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“On the present record, we see no reason to exercise our discretion to deny institution of either petition on the basis of Petitioner filing two petitions to address the large number of claims included in the ’806 patent. See Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 59–60 (Nov. 2019)3 (in determining whether multiple petitions are necessary, the Board may consider petitioner’s explanations regarding “the differences between the petitions, why the issues addressed by the differences are material, and why the Board should exercise its discretion to institute additional petitions if it identifies one petition that satisfies petitioner’s burden under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).”).” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), institution of an inter partes review is authorized 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.” After considering the information presented in the Petition, Preliminary Response, Reply, and Sur-reply, we determine that the information presented establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’806 patent, based on all grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Although the proposals for the level of skill in the art by the parties’ declarants have differences in wording, we do not find the proposals to be materially different. For purposes of this Decision, we find no meaningful differences between the parties’ respective definitions that would materially alter the outcome of this Decision. Thus, although we do not find the parties’ proposals for the level of skill in the art to be materially different, for purposes of this Decision, based on our review of the ’806 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’806 patent, and cited prior art, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Considering the claim language of claim 3 as a whole, see Hockerson- Halberstadt, Inc. v. Converse Inc., 183 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Proper claim construction . . . demands interpretation of the entire claim in context, not a single element in isolation.”), we agree with Petitioner that claim 3 does not recite when or how the “adhesion layer” is “adhered to [the first semiconductor chip’s] back surface.” Patent Owner appears to argue that the “first semiconductor chip” with “an adhesion layer adhered to its back surface,” as recited in claim 3, must have been created “in advance,” e.g., by a wafer-level fabrication process, before the chip is mounted in the recited semiconductor device. Patent Owner argues that the patentee recognized that applying a paste or thermo-compression sheet on individual chips during packaging (i.e., mounting of the chips during packaging) caused the “overflow” and “gap” problems. Sur-reply 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:16–24, 2:44–46). According to Patent Owner, “the patentee further recognized that merely switching to a pre-formed solid sheet alone would not solve the problem” because using a thermo-compression sheet on an individual chip for mounting during packaging “results in the same problem as using an adhesive due to the inability to place the chip accurately on the thermo-compression sheet.” Id. at 2–3 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:49–56). Thus, Patent Owner argues the ’806 patent proposes a two-fold solution: “Use a preformed solid sheet and attach that sheet to the back surface of the wafer first” during the wafer fabrication process “before cutting and placing the chip” in a multichip package. Id. at 3 (underlined emphases added). Patent Owner asserts, therefore, “a first semiconductor chip having . . . an adhesion layer adhered to its back surface,” as recited in claim 3, must have a pre-formed adhesion layer adhered to its back surface “in advance” before mounting in a multichip package, such as a solid thermo-compression sheet applied to the backside of a wafer during wafer-level fabrication processing before the chips are produced by dicing. Prelim. Resp. 13–14; Sur-reply 2–3. We note, however, that claim 3 does not recite a “wafer,” placing “an adhesion layer on a back surface of a wafer,” or producing semiconductor chips by dicing or cutting the wafer. See Ex. 1001, 14:14–32. Nor does the claim recite any limitation indicating when or how an “adhesion layer” is “adhered to [the first semiconductor chip’s] back surface.” Thus, at least based on the claim language, claim 3 does not require the recited semiconductor chips with an adhesion layer to have been produced “in advance” before being used for mounting in the recited semiconductor device. Nonetheless, for purposes of this Decision, we need not and do not” slip op. at 34
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham - PTAB · Apr 24, 2023 · IPR2023-00074 · APJ Erica A Franklin · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 5–8, 11, and 15 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 5–7, and 11 are obvious over the May Article.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“Based on our review of the record, we find that Petitioner has not shown persuasively that the Examiner did not consider the same or substantially the same art that Petitioner relies upon for its obviousness challenges. Petitioner’s grounds primarily rely on three different “May” references, only one of which the Examiner considered during prosecution, i.e., the May Article. The additional primary references relied upon by Petitioner are the May Thesis, which provides a more detailed disclosure than the May Article, and the May Abstract, which provides less detail than the May Article, in terms of the HS2, HS3, and HS4 fragments used to generate the disclosed TNS9 vector. Those differences are only material with respect to whether each reference discloses the fragments as recited in independent claim 1, or renders those fragments obvious. As discussed in Section II.D.2., however, we determine that the May Thesis is not prior art. 11 The ’221 application claims priority to provisional application no. 60/301,861 (Ex. 1034) (“the ’861 provisional application”), filed June 29, 2001, and provisional application no. 60/302,852 (Ex. 1035) (“the ’852 provisional application”), filed on July 2, 2001, referred to, collectively, as “the provisional applications,” “the provisionals” and “the Provisionals.” Article, but in less detail, the May Abstract may be considered cumulative to the May Article. Because the May Thesis provides more explicit details regarding the fragments disclosed in the May Article, it may not be considered to be cumulative to the May Article. However, as discussed in Section II.D.2., we determine that the May Thesis is not prior art. When considering the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the May Article or Patent Owner distinguishes the May Article, we note that Patent Owner alleged during prosecution and here that the May Article is not prior art for a number of reasons, including that it is the work of the inventors and that it was published one year or less before the priority date asserted by Patent Owner for the challenged claims. We note also that Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are not entitled to the priority date asserted by Patent Owner, and recognized by the Examiner. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that substantially the same prior art that Petitioner relies upon was previously presented to the Examiner during prosecution. The first part of the § 325(d) framework is, therefore, met. Accordingly, we turn to the second part of the § 325(d) and determine whether error by the Office has been shown. See Advanced Bionics at 8.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) “at the time of the alleged invention would have had: (1) at least an advanced degree (e.g., a Master’s or Ph.D.) in biochemistry, biotechnology, protein chemistry, genetics, molecular and structural biology, bioengineering, or similar disciplines.” Pet. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 14– 15). Petitioner further asserts that a POSA would have had “(2) several years of post-graduate training or related experience in one or more of these areas” and “(3) an understanding of vector design and the effect of LCR fragments on gene expression, including experience with how the LCR regulates gene expression.” Id. At this stage in the proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. Because Petitioner’s uncontested definition of one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable and consistent with the ’061 patent and the prior art of record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner states that “that no term of the ’061 patent requires construction to resolve the challenges in this Petition.” Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 50–51) (footnote omitted). Patent Owner does not argue for any express claim constructions. See Prelim. Resp. Based upon our review of the current record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of deciding whether to institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, “and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 16
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“written description requirement, the disclosure as originally filed does not have to provide in haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue.” Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Rather, “the test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Based on our consideration of the arguments and evidence presented at this stage of the proceeding, we determine, for purposes of this Decision, that claims 1, 2, 5–7, and 11 of the ’061 patent are not entitled to receive benefit of the filing date for either the ’861 provisional application or the ’852 provisional application. In particular, we find persuasive Petitioner’s arguments that the provisional applications do not satisfy the written description requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112 for those claims. Independent claim 1 recites, in part, “a recombinant lentiviral vector which comprises a nucleic acid encoding a functional globin operably linked to a 3.2-kb nucleotide fragment . . . said vector providing expression of the globin in a mammal in vivo.” Ex. 1001, 11:57–67. Independent claim 11 recites, in part, “a recombinant lentiviral vector comprising a nucleic acid encoding a functional globin operably linked to a 3.2-kb nucleotide fragment . . . said vector providing expression of the globin in a mammal in vivo.” Ex. 1001, 12:64–13:7. Based upon our review, we agree with Petitioner that these limitations are not adequately described in the provisional applications. The ’061 patent Specification (and the ’221 Application) describe the term “functional globin gene” as: that does not produce a hemoglobinopathy phenotype, and which is effective to provide therapeutic benefits to an individual with a defective globin gene. The functional globin gene may encode a wild-type globin appropriate for a mammalian individual to be treated, or it may be a mutant form of globin, preferably one which provides for superior properties, for example superior oxygen transport properties. . . . Suitably, the globin may encode α-globin, β-globin, or γ-globin. Ex. 1001, 2:44–55 (emphasis added); see also Ex. 1032, 3:24–4:3 (same). Based on this description, we agree with Petitioner that the ’061 patent claims cover a recombinant vector comprising a nucleic acid encoding a “functional globin” genus that includes wild-type globin and mutant forms of globin, wherein the globin may encode different globin types, i.e., α-, β-, or γ-globin. Patent Owner does not identify, nor do we see, any portion of the provisional applications describing the genus of functional globin. Rather, as Petitioner demonstrates, the provisional applications describe one species of that genus, i.e., the wild-type human β-globin. Pet. 14–18. The provisionals do not describe the “functional globin” genus. Indeed, as Petitioner correctly asserts, during the ’061 patent prosecution, Applicants/Patent Owner, relied on a description of “functional globin,” quoted above, that does not appear and has not counterpart in the provisional applications. Compare Ex. 1001, 2:44–55 and Ex. 1032, 3:24–4:3 with Ex. 1034 and Ex. 1035.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,058,061 - PTAB · Apr 24, 2023 · IPR2023-00070 · APJ Erica A Franklin · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1, 10, 19, and 22 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over the May Article.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“In evaluating matters under § 325(d), the Board uses the following two-part framework: (1) determining whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, determining whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8.” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) “at the time of the alleged invention would have had: (1) at least an advanced degree (e.g., a Master’s or Ph.D.) in biochemistry, biotechnology, protein chemistry, genetics, molecular and structural biology, bioengineering, or similar disciplines.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 14–15). Petitioner further asserts that a POSA would have had “(2) several years of post-graduate training or related experience in one or more of these areas” and “(3) an understanding of vector design and the effect of LCR fragments on gene expression, including experience with how the LCR regulates gene expression.” Id. At this stage in the proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. Because Petitioner’s uncontested definition of one of ordinary skill in record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner states that “no term of the ’179 patent requires construction to resolve the challenges in this Petition.” Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 49– 50) (footnote omitted). Patent Owner does not argue for any express claim constructions. See Prelim. Resp. Based upon our review of the current record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of deciding whether to institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, “and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 15
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“As the Federal Circuit has noted, however, “[i]n order to satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure as originally filed does not have to provide in haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue.” Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Rather, “the test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010).” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,541,179 - Peaklogic, Inc. v. Wave Neuroscience, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 23, 2023 · IPR2022-01527 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied for claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of success on any asserted anticipation or obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review may not be instituted unless the Petition “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.” For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on the grounds advanced here. Accordingly, we deny institution of inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 of the ’554 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Importantly, however, Dr. Silvetz does not cite anything to support his opinion that stimulation at a frequency above the peak alpha frequency moves the peak frequency. Id. Nor does Dr. Silvetz explain why such stimulation moves the peak frequency. Id. Accordingly, Dr. Silvetz’s testimony is entitled to little weight. Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15 (PTAB Aug. 24 ,2022) (Decision Denying Institution) (precedential) (finding that conclusory testimony that “does not cite to any additional supporting evidence or provide any technical reasoning to support [that testimony] . . . is entitled to little weight”); see also, 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); Upjohn Co. v. Mova Pharm. Corp., 225 F.3d 1306, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“Lack of factual support for expert opinion going to factual determinations, however, may render the testimony of little probative value in a validity determination.”) (quoting Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985)); Carella v. Starlight Archery & Pro Line Co., 804 F.2d 135, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Although in some circumstances unsupported oral testimony can be sufficient to provide” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentable
“a) Alleged express disclosure The evidence of record does not support Petitioner’s contention that Klimesch expressly discloses the intrinsic frequency limitation. Although Klimsech discloses treating subjects with rTMS at a frequency one Hz above the intrinsic frequency (IAF + 1 HZ), it does not disclose what effect such treatment has on the intrinsic frequency. See generally, Ex. 1005. Petitioner asserts that “stimulation at IAF + 1 Hz triggered increased EEG output in the EEG band of that stimulation frequency (IAF to IAF + 2 Hz) directly corresponding to enhanced alpha power in that EEG band.” Pet. 24. EEG power is, however, distinct from frequency. See e.g., Ex. 2002, Fig. 1A (spectral analysis plotting frequency on the x-axis and power on the y-axis). Thus, even if we were to credit Petitioner’s assertion that stimulation at IAF + 1 Hz “increased EEG output” and “enhanced alpha power,” such assertion does not support that Klimesch expressly discloses changing the frequency at which peak alpha power is observed.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“1. Claim 1 Petitioner relies on the same evidence discussed in connection with Grounds 1 and 2 to establish disclosure of the intrinsic frequency limitation. Pet. 39 (“For the reasons provided above in Grounds 1 and 2, both Klimesch and Jin disclose this element [the intrinsic frequency limitation] of claim 1. In particular, the recited movement is the natural, inherent consequence of applying a magnetic field to the human brain at or near the subject’s peak frequency in the alpha band”). We have already determined that this evidence is insufficient to support that Klimesch or Jin discloses the intrinsic frequency limitation. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing that the combination of Klimesch and Jin renders claim 1 obvious.” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,480,554 - Peaklogic, Inc. v. Wave Neuroscience, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 23, 2023 · IPR2022-01550 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claim 39 was anticipated by Klimesch or Jin.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2019). An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . 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). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we conclude that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on the grounds advanced here. Accordingly, we deny institution of inter partes review of claim 39 of the ’354 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Claim 39 describes a device used to treat a subject by creating an electromagnetic field to “tune” the brain and affect mood, focus, and cognition of human subjects. Ex. 1001, 62:62–63:34. Briefly, claim 39 recites a device that creates an electromagnetic field using an electromagnet. A first processor “tunes” the brain by firing the magnetic field. The first or a second processor moves one of the recited frequency characteristics in the brain to a preselected different frequency. The term “moves” in claim 39 describes a function of the first or second processor, which provides the means by which the brain frequency is shifted. See MasterMine Software, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 874 F.3d 1307, 1312–1315 (reviewing cases applying and distinguishing reasoning in IPXL Holdings, 430 F.3d at 1383– 84. Unlike IPXL Holdings, there is no confusion here as to when infringement of this claim would occur; infringement occurs when one makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells the claimed apparatus, which is capable of use for treatment. For this reason, we find that the recitation “wherein the first processor or a second processor moves” in claim 39 does not recite a method step, but rather describes the function of the recited structure – the first or second processor – that is capable of performing the recited (a) through (e) steps. MasterMine, 874 F.3d at 1315–16 (“the claims at issue here merely claim that the system ‘possess[es] the recited structure [which is] capable of performing the recited functions.’”) (alterations in original). As a result, we agree with Patent Owner that the recitation “wherein the first processor or a second processor moves” is limiting.7 For purposes of resolving whether to institute trial, we adopt and apply the interpretations stated in the district court’s claim construction order, Ex. 2001.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“(1) Alleged express disclosure The evidence of record does not support that Klimesch expressly discloses the intrinsic frequency limitation. Although Klimsech discloses treating subjects with rTMS at a frequency one Hz above the intrinsic frequency (IAF + 1 HZ), it does not disclose whether the treatment moves the intrinsic frequency. See generally, Ex. 1005. Petitioner asserts that stimulation at IAF + 1 Hz “triggered increased EEG output in the EEG band of that stimulation frequency (IAF to IAF + 2 Hz) directly corresponding to enhanced alpha power in that EEG band.” Pet. 27. Enhancing EEG power is, however, distinct from moving frequency. See, e.g., Ex. 2002, Fig. 1A (spectral analysis plotting frequency on the x-axis and power on the y-axis). Thus, even if we were to credit Petitioner’s assertion that stimulation at IAF + 1 Hz “increased EEG output” and “enhanced alpha power,” such assertion does not support that Klimesch expressly discloses moving the frequency at which peak alpha power is observed. Petitioner also directs us to Klimesch’s disclosure that rTMS at IAF + 1 Hz resulted in “a significant increase in lower-2 and upper alpha desynchronization (ERD) during mental rotation.” Ex. 1005, 1132 (cited at Pet. 27–28). But ERD is also distinct from frequency. See, e.g., Ex. 2002, Fig. 1A (spectral analysis showing ERD as the difference in alpha power when subjects are performing a task as compared to when subjects are in a state of alert wakefulness). Thus, an increase in ERD does not support that Klimesch discloses changing the frequency at which peak alpha power is observed. As Petitioner does not direct us to any other disclosure in Klimesch that supports moving the intrinsic frequency, Petitioner is unlikely to prevail in establishing that Klimesch expressly discloses the intrinsic frequency limitation.12” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Ex. 1001, 34:56–35:5. Although this disclosure supports that the intrinsic frequency can be shifted up or down by applying a “specific magnetic field close to the head,” it does not teach that the intrinsic frequency necessarily shifts every time a magnetic field above or below the patient’s peak alpha frequency is applied. Scaltech Inc. v. Retec/Tetra L.L.C., 178 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Inherency may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient to establish inherency.”). In addition, Petitioner does not direct us to disclosure in the ’354 patent supporting that stimulation at IAF + 1 Hz under the circumstances disclosed in Klimesch, will necessarily shift the intrinsic frequency. See, Ex. 1003 ¶ 20 (testimony of Dr. Silvetz identifying factors that impact how the brain responds to rTMS); Ex. 1001, 40:19–32 (describing “parameters that require optimization for rTMS,” including: “[f]requency, “[i]ntensity, “[d]uration,” and “[s]ite of stimulation”).” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,475,354 - Peaklogic, Inc. v. Wave Neuroscience, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 23, 2023 · IPR2022-01526 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 was anticipated by Klimesch or Jin, or obvious over their combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review may not be instituted unless the Petition “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.” For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on the grounds advanced here. Accordingly, we deny institution of inter partes review of claim 1 of the ’259 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“encountered in the art, the art’s solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Petitioner contends that the person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would have had “a medical degree plus at least two years of academic and/or industry experience in the field of TMS.” Pet. 10. According to Petitioner, “[a]dditional professional and/or technical experience could substitute for education, and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s proposed definition of the POSA for purposes of its preliminary response. See generally, Prelim. Resp. Petitioner’s definition appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’259 patent. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we accept Petitioner’s proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Importantly, however, Dr. Silvetz does not cite anything to support his opinion that stimulation at a frequency above the peak alpha frequency moves the peak frequency. Id. Nor does Dr. Silvetz explain why such stimulation moves the peak frequency. Id. Accordingly, Dr. Silvetz’s testimony is entitled to little weight. Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (Decision Denying Institution) (precedential) (finding that conclusory testimony that “does not cite to any additional supporting evidence or provide any technical reasoning to support [that testimony] . . . is entitled to little weight”); see also, 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); Upjohn Co. v. Mova Pharm. Corp., 225 F.3d 1306, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“Lack of factual support for expert opinion going to factual determinations, however, may render the testimony of little probative value in a validity determination.”) (quoting Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985)); Carella v. Starlight Archery & Pro Line Co., 804 F.2d 135, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Although in some circumstances unsupported oral testimony can be sufficient to prove prior knowledge or use, it must be regarded with suspicion and subjected to close scrutiny.”). peak alpha frequency moves the peak frequency to a higher frequency is not specific to the conditions under which rTMS was administered in Klimesch. This is problematic because Dr. Silvetz also testifies that the brain’s response to rTMS varies depending on the conditions under which it was administered. Ex. 1003 ¶ 20 (“The brain’s natural response varies depending on factors such as: a) the location of the electromagnet; b) the frequency of stimulation; c) the duration of stimulation; d) the number of stimulation pulses administered; e) the amplitude of the pulses administered; and f) the patient’s physiology.”). In summary, given that it not accompanied by supporting evidence, does not provide any technical reasoning, and is not specific to Klimesch, we give little weight to Dr. Silvetz’s testimony in determining whether Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that Klimesch inherently discloses the intrinsic frequency limitation. We do not determine here that Dr. Silvetz’s testimony is incorrect, only that it is insufficiently supported by evidence and technical reasoning to be accorded substantial weight.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Although the parties have briefed construction of the terms “preselected intrinsic frequency” and “preselected Q-factor” (Pet. 13–20; Prelim. Resp. 11–16), there does not appear to be any dispute regarding the “preselected” aspect of these claim terms. Pet. 18, 20 (proposing that “preselected intrinsic frequency” and “preselected Q-factor” be construed to require “a fixed target [intrinsic frequency/Q-factor] . . . chosen before treatment”); Prelim. Resp. 16 (proposing that the Board should adopt the district court’s claim construction: “a targeted [intrinsic frequency/Q-factor] chosen before treatment”); Reply 4 (“the parties to the IPRs have agreed that, for the purposes of these IPRs, the Board should accept the claim construction as adopted by the district court”). Accordingly, we do not find it necessary to construe any claim terms in order to resolve this proceeding. See Vivid Techs. 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 8
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,446,259
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.