- Google LLC / Ecobee Technologies Ulc v. Ecofactor, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 6, 2023 · IPR2022-00686 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 7, and 15–20 are unpatentable: claims 15, 19, and 20 as obvious over Hildebrand and Van Ostrand; claims 1–3, 7, 16, and 17 over those references and Rosen; and claim 18 over those …
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“the art would have combined the relevant teachings of Hildebrand and Van Ostrand with a reasonable expectation of success. As discussed above, Hildebrand is directed to a system for monitoring the efficiency of an HVAC system to determine when there is a fault. See Section II.E.1, supra; Ex. 1002 ¶ 60. Using much of the same data as Hildebrand, Van Ostrand teaches a method to determine which stage in a multiple stage HVAC system failed. See Section II.E.2; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 60–61. Van Ostrand further teaches that the “[typical] HVAC system include[s] multiple stages of heating and/or cooling capacity.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 4. Because Hildebrand is silent as to which stage of the typical system—which has multiple stages— has failed, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have turned to Van Ostrand for that determination. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 61–62. This modification would allow the Hildebrand system to detect which specific stage has failed. See Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 29–33. And because Van Ostrand represents a known method of detecting fault, it would have been obvious to use it to improve Hildebrand in a predictable way with a reasonable expectation of success. Ex. 1002 ¶ 63; see also KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 416–21. Petitioner has also sufficiently shown that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have added Rosen’s use of internet weather to the Hildebrand-Van Ostrand combination. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 115 (“Hildebrand and Van Ostrand are applied as I describe above with respect to Ground 1, with outside temperature over the Internet from a weather data provider. In my opinion, it would have been obvious to obtain outside temperature measurements from the Internet, thus replacing Hildebrand’s use of outside temperature sensors.”). Specifically, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have seen an advantage in avoiding the expense of obtaining, wiring and servicing an extra outside temperature sensor by obtaining weather information from the Internet as taught by Rosen. Ex. 1002 ¶ 120; see also Section II.F.1 (describing Rosen). Because it is undisputed that Rosen teaches using computer programming and network communications that were well-known and established at the relevant time period, there was a reasonable expectation of success. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 120–121.” slip op. at 35
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“There is also no dispute that ym is the output from a computer model. See Pet. 69; PO Resp. 32. Again, that is consistent with Spalink, which defines item 310—which generates ym—as a reference model. Ex. 1008 Fig. 3; ¶ 75 (describing ym as the output of the refence model). Thus, there is no meaningful dispute that the comparison shown in Figure 3—which the Petition relies on—is a comparison between a first HVAC system and a model, not a second HVAC system as recited in claim 8. Accordingly, that comparison does not teach or suggest “compar[ing] the relative efficiency of the first HVAC system and the second HVAC system” as recited in claim 8. Petitioner’s arguments that the data in the reference model comes from other buildings is inapposite. Although Petitioner accurately describes how reference model 310 is based on “data 367 collected from different buildings” (Ex. 1008 ¶ 77), Petitioner has not shown that a computer model is a second HVAC system. Therefore, comparing the output of a building to a model based on buildings does not teach or suggest the necessary comparison between the first HVAC system and the second HVAC system recited in claim 8.” slip op. at 57
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“claims 5 and 6. See Pet. 7 (listing of grounds), 45 (Ground 2 heading). However, the “Claim Mapping” section only discusses claims 1–3, 7, 15–17, and 20. Pet. 49–50. We noted this lack of mapping in the Institution Decision. Inst. Dec. 20. In its Reply, Petitioner argues as follows: The Institution Decision states “that the Petition omits any particular mapping for claim 5, 6, and 19” in the context of this Ground. (See Institution Decision, 20). Petitioner respectfully submits that the Petition makes clear that the claim mapping for these dependent claims is the same as in Ground 1, “with the exception that the outside temperature measurements, first recited in claim elements [1c] and [15c], come from an Internet weather data source.” (See Pet., 49). Pet. Reply 21–22 n.3. However, the Petition does not support that argument. Instead, page 49 of the Petition—which is all Petitioner cites to—does not mention claims 5 and 6. Instead, the page Petitioner cites shows that Petitioner misleadingly cropped the quotation. The full quotation below shows that page 49 of the Petition does not list claims 5 and 6: CLAIMS 1, 7, 15 AND 20 Independent claims 1 and 15, and their respective dependent claims 7 and 20, are obvious in the same manner discussed in Ground 1, with the exception that the outside temperature measurements, first recited in claim elements [1c] and [15c], come from an Internet weather data source. Pet. 49 (bold in original) (italics added to emphasize cropped language). Our rules require that “[t]he petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). Petitioner did not do that with respect to” slip op. at 39
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“b) Our Analysis We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that Hildebrand teaches or suggests limitation [1c]. The gravamen of Petitioner’s argument is that Hildebrand’s HVAC system is limited to HVAC system 12—the heating system, cooling system, and fan. See Pet. 12 (“The HVAC system is ‘HVAC system 12’ . . . .”); Ex. 1004, 4:1–10 (describing HVAC system 12). Although nominally supported by Mr. Shah’s testimony, that testimony is conclusory, parrots the Petition, and provides no corroborating evidence to show that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that an HVAC system was limited to the heating and cooling systems. We give Mr. Shah’s testimony on that point no weight. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”); Verlander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Board has discretion to accord little weight to broad conclusory statements from expert witness); 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.”). Moreover, Petitioner’s argument is inconsistent with Mr. Shahs’ direct testimony that clearly states that the HVAC system is broader then just the heating and cooling system and fan and includes other elements, such as thermostats and HVAC control systems. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 65 (“HVAC communications, and software, were widely known and understood.”). Applying Mr. Shah’s definition, the HVAC system as recited in claim 1 includes more than Hildebrand’s heating and cooling systems. Indeed, when discussing dependent claim 5, Petitioner argues that Hildebrand’s HVAC system also includes a thermostat. See Pet. 39. We do not find the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) finding in an ITC proceeding involving a different record (and different patent) to be persuasive. Although the ALJ considered Hildebrand, there is nothing in the excerpt of the opinion to conclude that he considered Mr. Shah’s definition of an HVAC system. See Ex. 1010, 475–76. Nor is it clear from the record that the ALJ considered contrary testimony from Patent Owner’s expert. Id. Hildebrand Figure 1 shows an HVAC system including heating and” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 8,019,567 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,019,567 - Google LLC / Ecobee Technologies Ulc v. Ecofactor, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 6, 2023 · IPR2021-01218 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 7, and 15–20 are unpatentable on specified §103 grounds; claims 4–6 and 8–14 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The ’567 patent is directed to a using a thermostat to detect faults in the HVAC system. See Ex. 1001, code (57). That aligns more closely with and HVAC control systems—than the one proposed by Petitioner—which focuses on energy controls. Compare Ex. 2002 ¶ 27, with Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31– 33. Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s propose definition. However, we consider the parties’ positions to be substantially similar, and note that neither party argues that the level of skill is determinative to the outcome of the case. Accordingly, we would have reached the same factual findings and conclusions of law had we adopted Petitioner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“We decline to find Dr. Palmer less credible based solely on his experience. In judging the credibility of experts, we focus on whether the witness offers corroboration for his opinions, provides opinions that are consistent with the prior art, and the witness’ cross-examination testimony. Moreover, we note that Mr. Shah and Dr. Palmer substantially parrot the Petition and Patent Owner Response, respectively. Such testimony is generally unhelpful. Testimony which goes into more detail and expands on the points made in the papers (but not going beyond the points made in the papers) is more helpful and, as a general matter, given more weight so long as it is consistent with, and supported by, the other evidence in the record.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Because no express construction is needed for our decision, we do not construe any of the claim limitations. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“that Hildebrand teaches or suggests limitation [1c]. The gravamen of Petitioner’s argument is that Hildebrand’s HVAC system is limited to HVAC system 12—the heating system, cooling system, and fan. See Pet. 12 (“The HVAC system is ‘HVAC system 12’ . . . .”); Ex. 1004, 4:1–10 (describing HVAC system 12). Although nominally supported by Mr. Shah’s testimony, that testimony is conclusory, parrots the Petition, and provides no corroborating evidence to show that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that an HVAC system was limited to the heating and cooling systems. We give Mr. Shah’s testimony on that point no weight. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”); Verlander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Board has discretion to accord little weight to broad conclusory statements from expert witness); 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.”).” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 8,019,567 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,019,567 - Shenzen Chic Electrics Co., Ltd. v. Pilot, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 9, 2023 · IPR2021-01232 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 4–20 are unpatentable as obvious; claim 3 was not shown unpatentable because Petitioner presented no evidence under the adopted construction.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“of battery charging systems.” Pet. 8. Patent Owner states that it adopts this definition for purposes of its Response. PO Resp. 4. In light of the record before us, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on our review of the ’653 patent and the prior art of record, we determine that the definition offered by Petitioner comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’653 patent and the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). It is also consistent with the level of skill in the art adopted in the 777 IPR, which also involves the ’653 patent. IPR2021-00777, Paper 7 at 6–7.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“construction “contradicts the technical disclosure of the ’653 patent” and that “[t]he proper construction of this term is ‘switching circuit under control of the microcontroller that selectively conducts power supply or power outage for the load.’” Pet. Suppl. Br. 3.10 In particular, Petitioner contends that claim 3, through claim 1, only recites one connection between the microcontroller and the first battery, such that the connections in claim 3 do not allow the power supply from the first battery to pass through the microcontroller to the load. Pet. Suppl. Br. 4–5. Claim 1, however, recites “an automobile charger, comprising . . .” which is an open-ended term, meaning that claim 1 is not limited to only the connections expressly recited therein. Petitioner’s arguments do not address this open-ended aspect of the plain language of the claims. Petitioner also argues that the language of claim 3 is consistent with its construction because claim 3 “places the switching circuit between the second pole of the first battery . . . and the second lead of the load.” Pet. Suppl. Br. 5. Although Petitioner’s interpretation may be consistent with the language in claim 3, we discern nothing in claim 3 that expressly limits the placement of the switching circuit, especially considering the open-ended “comprising” language used in claims 1 and 3.” slip op. at 11
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“Specifically, Dr. Kirtley testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that connections between components depicted as single lines in Yu’s figures “may comprise multiple connections, such as multiple signal connections, and common power and ground connections for sensors and microprocessors.” Ex. 1020 ¶ 84 (citing Ex. 1021 (US 7,973,534 B2)). We credit Dr. Kirtley’s testimony, as Patent Owner does not dispute the substance of Dr. Kirtley’s testimony or the supporting exhibit. Instead, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner is attempting to “sneak in new evidence that is improper in a reply” and create a new ground. Sur-reply 13–15. We disagree, as Petitioner and Dr. Kirtley offer this evidence to demonstrate what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood in considering Yu—not as a new ground. Moreover, Petitioner properly offered this exhibit and Dr. Kirtley’s testimony in response to Patent Owner’s arguments that claim 1 requires negative side switching, which Yu does not disclose. In its Reply, Petitioner is entitled to “respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). A party also may submit rebuttal evidence in support of its reply. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1077–78 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, we find Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 4 is unpatentable as obvious in view of Yu and Thomason. As discussed above, we disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments regarding negative pole switching, and find that Petitioner presents persuasive evidence that Yu teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1. Petitioner also presents undisputed evidence that Yu and Thomason teach or suggest the additional limitations in claim 4. Pet. 52–54. Additionally, Petitioner directs us to a disclosure in Thomason itself regarding a protection mechanism to prevent the jump starter from self-destructing, and presents testimony from Dr. Kirtley that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Thomason’s teaching in order to avoid damage to Yu’s internal battery, and would have been able to implement Thomason’s teachings. Pet. 52–54; Reply 20–21; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 189–192. Patent Owner and Mr. McAlexander do not challenge or otherwise refute this testimony. PO Resp. 9–10. Thus, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions, Petitioner does direct us to evidence in the asserted prior-art references themselves that provide a reason to combine their teachings, and does not rely solely on conclusory statements regarding the similarities of Yu and Thomason to support its obviousness challenge. In view of Petitioner’s persuasive evidence demonstrating where the prior-art references teach or suggest each limitation in the challenged claims, and explaining why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the prior-art references with a reasonable expectation of success, we find Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 4 is unpatentable as obvious in view of Yu and Thomason.” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 10,046,653 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,046,653 - Google LLC v. Ecofactor Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 17, 2022 · IPR2021-00982 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 and 10–19 are unpatentable: claims 1–7 and 11–19 as obvious over Wedekind and Ehlers, and claim 10 as obvious over Wedekind, Ehlers, and Jenkins; claims 20–30 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We note that the parties agree on the educational background of a person of ordinary skill in the art. And although the parties offer different levels of experience for a person of ordinary skill in the art, there is some overlap, as both parties require experience with HVAC systems. Pet. 15 (requiring experience with “building energy management”); PO Resp. 5–6 (requiring experience with HVAC controls, and acknowledging that “building energy management” includes controlling HVAC systems). Accordingly, we do not consider the difference between the parties’ proposals to be material. Moreover, neither party asserts that its positions or the outcome depends on which definition we apply in this proceeding.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“B. Claim Construction In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms according to the standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–17 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Under Phillips, claim terms are afforded “their ordinary and customary meaning.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. “[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Id. at 1313. “Importantly, the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Id.” slip op. at 11
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“Reply ignore the express statement in the Petition characterizing sensors 36 in Wedekind as “a source external to the building.” Sur-reply 2 (quoting Pet. 28), 3. Patent Owner also argues this is a new argument that we should disregard. Sur-Reply 2. We disagree. Although Patent Owner is correct that Petitioner contends Wedekind’s outside air temperature sensors 36 are a source external to the building, that is not the only argument Petitioner presents. In the Petition, Petitioner contends more generally that Wedekind’s outside air temperature sensors 36 “measure the outside air temperature.” Pet. 28. Petitioner also argues that Ehlers provides weather data including outside temperatures, and that the source of the data is a weather service provider that is external to the building. Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1008, 9:53–54, 35:13–17). Petitioner further argues that it would have been obvious “to replace Wedekind’s outside temperature sensors 36 with receiving outside temperature data from a network connection,” as Ehlers teaches. Pet. 32. In view of this, we agree with, and are persuaded by, Petitioner’s argument that it does not rely only on Wedekind to meet the limitation that “the second data from the network connection is collected from a source external to the building.” Reply 10. Additionally, the presence of these arguments in the Petition undermines Patent Owner’s assertion that Petitioner is attempting to present new arguments in the Reply. Similarly, Petitioner acknowledges in the Petition that Wedekind does not expressly teach the second data is received from a network connection, and, therefore, relies on Ehlers’ disclosure of receiving data from a network connection. Pet. 30; Reply 11. Patent Owner does not dispute that Ehlers discloses receiving weather data from a network connection. See PO Resp. 15–28; Sur-reply 3–8. In view of the foregoing, Petitioner has demonstrated persuasively that the combined disclosures of Wedekind and Ehlers teach or suggest “the one or more processors further configured to receive a second data from a network connection, wherein the second data from the network connection is collected from a source external to the building” claim 1 requires.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We find Petitioner’s arguments to be persuasive. Petitioner presents undisputed evidence, based on the disclosure of Wedekind and Ehlers, that obtaining outside temperatures either from local sensors or over a network was known in the art. Pet. 28–32; Ex. 1006, 4:45–47; Ex. 1008, 9:50–63. Petitioner also directs us to evidence, including in Ehlers itself, supporting Petitioner’s reasoning that replacing Wedekind’s outside air temperature sensors with a network-based weather data service would have saved the cost and effort of installing multiple sensors. Pet. 32; Ex. 1002 ¶ 103; Ex. 1008, 39:54–57; Reply 13. As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner does not directly challenge Petitioner’s argument and evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to modify Wedekind in view of Ehlers to avoid the cost and effort of installing multiple sensors. Reply 13.5 Indeed, Patent Owner acknowledges that Wedekind “expressly indicates that there must be multiple sensors of outdoor temperature for sufficient accuracy in Wedekind’s complex computational model.” PO Resp. 26; Ex. 1006, 3:62–67. The need for multiple sensors in Wedekind 5 We recognize Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to connect Wedekind’s outside air temperature sensors 36 to a network because it would “increase costs.” PO Resp. 23–24. Patent Owner, however, presents this argument before it addresses Petitioner’s proposed combination of Wedekind and Ehlers. See PO Resp. 23–24 (referring to cost increases first, and addressing the proposed combination of Wedekind and Ehlers in the next paragraph). Thus, Patent Owner’s cost argument does not appear to address Petitioner’s assertion regarding cost savings in view of the proposed combination. Nor does Patent Owner present evidence regarding, or explain adequately, what costs it is referring to, or how those costs would increase. PO Resp. 23–24; Ex. 2005 ¶ 61. By way of contrast, Petitioner’s arguments regarding cost savings are supported by the disclosure of Ehlers itself. Ex. 1008, 39:54–57. strengthens Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of Ehlers’ teaching regarding avoiding the cost and effort of installing multiple sensors, would have had reason to modify Wedekind in view of Ehlers. Additionally, Patent Owner’s own declarant characterized Ehlers’ discussion of “lowering the cost of installation and ongoing maintenance” as “teach[ing] away from external sensors.” Ex. 1023, 58:7–18. These arguments and evidence undermine Patent Owner’s assertion that Petitioner failed to provide any analysis as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Wedekind in view of Ehlers. Sur-reply 3–4; PO Resp. 25–28. Petitioner also argues, and provides evidence in the form of testimony from Dr. Shah demonstrating, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify Wedekind’s system by connecting Wedekind’s processing means to a network connection such as Ehlers’ phone input or communications link, and would have obtained predictable results. Pet. 33; Ex. 1002 ¶ 104. Patent Owner does not dispute this evidence. To the contrary, Patent Owner appears to concede that the proposed combination would work, although not as reliably as Wedekind’s hardwired system. PO Resp. 25–26. As a result, and in the absence of any evidence or argument suggesting otherwise, we credit Dr. Shah’s testimony. Furthermore, Ehlers teaches, in connection with providing data obtained from a weather service provider over a network, that “[t]he data may be provided at regular intervals and be sufficiently localized for acceptable accuracy.” Ex. 1008, 9:58–60. This statement from Ehlers itself undermines Patent Owner’s arguments regarding alleged problems with transmitting data over networks and insufficient accuracy, including Patent Owner’s argument that Wedekind teaches away from the approach used by Ehlers. PO Resp. 25–28. Nevertheless, even if we were to give Patent Owner the full credit of its arguments regarding unreliable transmission of data over networks and data obtained from weather service providers being less useful than data obtained from sensors at a specific structure, obviousness “does not require that the motivation be the best option, only that it be a suitable option from which the prior art did not teach away.” PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197-98 (Fed. Cir. 2014). As discussed above, Petitioner’s evidence and arguments demonstrate that using Ehlers’ network to transmit temperature data was at least a suitable option. For all of the foregoing reasons, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated persuasively that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to modify Wedekind in view of Ehlers, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. iii.” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 10,612,983 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,612,983 - NXP B.V. / NXP USA, Inc. et al. v. Bell Semiconductor, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 6, 2022 · IPR2021-00967 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 9–20 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have possessed “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related field as well as at least four years of experience in high-frequency circuit engineering and development.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 26–27). For purposes of the Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal (Inst. Dec. 17–18), and neither party addresses the level of ordinary skill in the post-institution briefs (see generally PO Resp.; Reply; Sur-reply). In this Decision, we again adopt the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner. This level of skill is consistent with the Specification of the ’269 patent and the asserted prior art, and it is supported by the testimony of Dr. Choi. Accord Inst. Dec. 17–18.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“on an integrated circuit package substrate for connecting with a printed circuit board.” PO Resp. 9–12; Sur-reply 1–2. Petitioner disagrees. Reply 6. But, because we find that Petitioner has shown that Chin suggests implementing its invention in an IC9 package substrate as Patent Owner’s proposed construction would require (infra § III.D.2.), we need not resolve this dispute. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe 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, if we needed to substantively address this dispute, we would reject Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Patent Owner advocates limiting the scope of this claim term to include only the contact pads in a particular location (i.e., the PCB-side of the IC package substrate),10 but the intrinsic record does not support importing such a limitation into the claim. Patent Owner identifies (and we perceive) no passage in the intrinsic record that redefines the term “contact pads” or disavows part of its scope. See Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (explaining that a term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning unless a patentee acted as his own lexicographer or disavowed claim scope). Rather, Patent Owner’s argument is that the term should be limited because the Specification only discusses “contact pads” in that location and does not apply its invention to other pads” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner’s ultimate assertion that the plain language of the claim is informative of its proper meaning, such that “vias connecting the contact pads with one of the electrically conductive layers” means that vias are used to connect the recited contact pads with an electrically conductive layer. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. After considering the parties’ arguments, we determine that no other claim terms require an express construction. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“we agree with Petitioner that Chin explains that its “concepts apply equally to an integrated circuit package substrate.” Pet. 22. In particular, we find that Chin discloses an IC package substrate. See Ex. 1004, 1:61–62 (referring to “a substrate used inside a BGA package”); see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 28–30 (Dr. Choi explaining that a BGA is a type of IC package). We credit Dr. Choi’s testimony on this point because it is logical and supported by cited evidence. See, e.g., Ex. 1014, 45;12 Ex. 1016, 5–7. We are also persuaded that Chin expressly suggests implementing its invention in an IC package substrate. Chin begins its description by stating that “[t]he present invention relates generally to the design and fabrication of printed circuits and multi-layered substrates.” Ex. 1004, 1:7–8 (emphasis added). Chin also states that its invention “is illustrated by way of example, and not by way of limitation,” in its figures. Ex. 1004, 3:26–27. Similarly, Chin’s final paragraph states that alternative implementations “will be apparent to those skilled in the art,” and it states that “semiconductor implementations . . . are contemplated as within the scope of the present invention” as they use “similar layered printed circuit routing techniques.” Ex. 1004, 5:54–6:10. Moreover, as background for its invention, Chin addresses problems encountered as signal speed increases and explains that “excess parasitics that limit the bandwidth” are caused by an impedance mismatch between landing pads and their associated interconnect conductors. Ex. 1004, 1:35–56. Chin then states: One example is the use of a ball-grid-array (BGA) package in a multi-gigahertz printed circuit board. The landing pads of current state of the art BGAs are typically 25–30 mils in 12 Unless otherwise noted, our citations refer to page numbers added to an exhibit by Petitioner or Patent Owner rather than the document’s native page numbers. diameter, which is significantly larger than the typically 5 mil microstrips used in interconnecting conductors. Another example is a substrate used inside a BGA package. Typical solder ball landing pad sizes for current technology BGA substrates are on the order of 20–25 mil, significantly larger than the typically 3 mil traces used in microstrip interconnects. Ex. 1004, 1:56–65 (emphasis added). Accordingly, given the context provided by Chin (see Ex. 1004, 1:7–8, 5:54–6:10), we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood this passage (see Ex. 1004, 1:61–65) to suggest applying Chin’s disclosure to an IC package substrate. Accord Inst. Dec. 23–24.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 8,288,269 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,288,269 - NXP B.V. / NXP USA, Inc. et al. v. Bell Semiconductor, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 6, 2022 · IPR2021-00966 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 4, and 12–17 are unpatentable; claims 2, 3, 5–11, 18, and 19 were not shown unpatentable, primarily because the Board found deficiencies in the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“B. The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Our reviewing court has explained that “the level of skill in the art is a” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“1. Is the Preamble a Limitation? Patent Owner argues that the preamble of claim 1 is limiting. PO” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAOther
“2. “contact pads” Patent Owner argues “that the term ‘contact pads’ refers to the pads” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“combination of Chin and HighSpeed. Petitioner does not sufficiently explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Chin and HighSpeed in the manner proposed. We agree with Patent Owner that simply characterizing references as being from the same field of endeavor is not sufficient to support an obviousness conclusion. PO Resp. 56; see ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1327–28 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Furthermore, Petitioner’s analysis that it would have been obvious to arrange Chin in view of HighSpeed to have the second layer be a routing layer because the arrangement “is one of a finite number of possibilities and within the skill of a POSITA to try” is incomplete. Pet. 80. The Supreme Court in KSR held that “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (emphasis added). Petitioner, however, never addresses, or otherwise presents evidence showing, a design need or market pressure to solve a problem. See Pet. 58–59, 65, 80; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 165, 177, 232 (repeating material in the Petition). Additionally, testimony from Dr. Choi that “there are many ways to achieve the same result” of an impedance match in Chin, undermines Petitioner’s “finite number” argument.32 Ex. 2032, 196:20–23. For these reasons, as well as those discussed in Section II.E.2 supra,” slip op. at 65
Patent outcomesUS 8,049,340 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,049,340 - The Noco Company, Inc. v. Pilot, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 3, 2022 · IPR2021-00777 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 4–9, 11–18, and 20 are unpatentable; claim 3 was not shown unpatentable, because the adopted construction foreclosed the asserted obviousness ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering (or equivalent subject) together with two or three years of experience in [the] automotive electrical systems industry.” Pet. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 13). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s definition or offer its own. Mr. McAlexander indicated that he adopted Petitioner’s definition for purposes of his declaration. Ex. 2005 ¶ 16. In light of the record before us, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on our review of the ’653 patent and the prior art of record, we determine that the definition offered by Petitioner comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’653 patent and the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of the phrase “the switching circuit conducts power supply or power outage for the load through the microcontroller.” Petitioner’s construction is consistent with the plain language of the claim, and comports with the Federal Circuit’s decision in Chef America. Ex. 1001, 6:13–14; Chef Am., 358 F.3d at 1373–74 (holding that courts may not redraft claims to make them operable or sustain their validity, and construing the claims “based on the patentee’s version of the claim as he himself drafted it”). Additionally, the Specification of the ’653 patent states that “the automobile start control module conducts the power supply or power outage for the load module through the microcontroller.” Ex. 1001, 1:61–65. Furthermore, Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s arguments or evidence, or present a competing construction. In view of this, we construe the phrase “the switching circuit conducts power supply or power outage for the load through the microcontroller” to mean “[t]he power for charging the load passes through the microcontroller.” Pet. 15; Reply 3–6.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We determine that we do not need to expressly construe any other terms for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Ex. 1008 ¶ 12 (under the heading “Basis for My Opinion”). In addition to this general statement, Dr. Kattamis also cites to exhibits in specific paragraphs of the Kattamis Declaration to support the statements made therein. See, e.g., Ex. 1008 ¶ 18 (citing Ex. 1013), ¶ 22 (citing Ex. 1014), ¶¶ 63–68 (citing Krieger and Richardson), ¶¶ 70–74 (citing Baxter and Krieger), ¶¶ 76–79 (citing Richardson and George). In view of this, we consider Dr. Kattamis to have provided a sufficient disclosure regarding the basis for his opinions to at least avoid a determination that the Kattamis Declaration, in its entirety, is entitled to little or no weight. The fact that Dr. Kattamis, in preparing the Kattamis Declaration, re- used material he had previously written for an earlier proceeding involving a different patent does not justify a different outcome. To the extent Dr. Kattamis used previously prepared material in the Kattamis Declaration, he indicates that he “reviewed all of these passages in detail and confirmed that they were all still accurate and suitable for inclusion in his declaration in the current proceeding.” Reply 8; Ex. 1016 ¶ 6. Additionally, as Patent Owner demonstrates, Dr. Kattamis supplemented the re-used material by adding, where appropriate and necessary, language directed to the facts of this proceeding and specific citations to exhibits in this proceeding. See PO Resp. 8–9 (showing in redline the additions Dr. Kattamis included in the Kattamis Declaration).” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 10,046,653 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,046,653 - Stahls’ Inc. v. Jodi A. Schwendimann, F/K/A Jodi A. Dalvey, And Nucoat, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 14, 2021 · IPR2020-01122 · APJ Michelle N Ankenbrand · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–15 and 18 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 16 and 19 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish required limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In the Decision on Institution, we determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’475 patent would have had “a Bachelor’s degree in Chemistry, Chemical Engineering, Imaging Technology or Material Science with at least one year of experience in coating technologies and imaging technologies, or at least five years of work experience in the field of coating technologies and imaging technologies.” DI 8 (adopting Dr. Ellison’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art). For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we maintain our determination from the Institution Decision because neither party disputes that determination and that level of ordinary skill is consistent with the record. See Resp. 20–21; see generally Reply.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction, which departs from the constructions in the Arkwright Lawsuit and the Delaware Lawsuit, which both require actual melting, not just softening, and construe “mix” to have its plain and ordinary meaning. Ex. 1038, 17; Ex. 1045, 8–11. Accordingly, we maintain our construction of the term “white layer” from the Institution Decision. Further, to the extent Patent Owner argues that our construction of “white layer” requires an actual transfer of an image onto a substrate (for example, after printing, using heat), we disagree. See, e.g., Reply 5; Tr. 32:15–33:19, 46:15–49:25. Although we construe the term “white layer” as comprising a polymer that melts and mixes “during application,” this merely reflects a property of the polymer that occurs, for example, once heat is applied to an image transfer sheet. It does not mean that transferring an image from a sheet to a substrate must occur to satisfy claims 1 and 13. We discuss this in more detail below with respect to our construction of the preamble of claims 1 and 13, and in our prior art analysis of these claims. We note, however, that Patent Owner states that “the parties’ disputes with respect to the construction of the ‘white layer’ make no difference to the Board’s resolution of this matter.” Resp. 23.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“steps. Ex. 1012, 12:42–67. In its Response, Patent Owner argues that the order of the method steps, i.e., “providing an ink-jet transfer article,” “wherein the substrate member is peeled away,” “wherein the opaque first layer and the second layer are applied to the dark-colored or black receiving member,” and “wherein heat is applied” is sequential. Resp. 23–24. Patent Owner explains that “[t]his is because the Claim requires ‘that received indicia face upwards,’” and “[i]f one were to place the transfer so that received indicia faces upwards, but not remove the backing paper before applying heat, then the backing paper (sandwiched between the fabric and the transfer) would prevent the transfer from adhering to the fabric.” Id. In its Reply, “Petitioner does not dispute Patent Owner’s position that the step of ‘peeling’ the substrate is performed before the step of applying the opaque layer and second layer to the receiving member and the steps recited thereafter.” Reply 2. Both parties agree that the steps of method claim 19 must be performed in sequential order. Thus, we need not construe this aspect of the claim language because it is not in controversy. Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“Owner waited until the Sur-reply to address this issue with any level of specificity, which calls into question the timeliness of its argument. See PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (“CTPG”) (Nov. 2019) 73–74, available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated (“Sur-replies should only respond to arguments made in reply briefs, comments on reply declarations testimony, or point to cross-examination testimony.”); Paper 10, 10 (“any arguments not raised in the response may be deemed waived”). Nevertheless, we disagree with Patent Owner that “ink-jet transfer” is essential to claims 1 and 13. Claims 1 and 13 are not method claims. Rather, as Petitioner argues, both claims are directed to an article of manufacture made of structurally complete components that does not require an ink-jet transfer, even though the article may be used for such a purpose. See Reply 2–4; see also Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1358–59 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“A preamble is not regarded as limiting [] ‘when the claim body describes a structurally complete invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention.’”) (citation omitted). The body of claim 1 does not reference “an ink-jet transfer” at all. See Ex. 1012, 11:35–41. And although claim 13 also recites that the article is “for transferring an image to a fabric material” and comprises a layer that is “ink-receptive,” these recitations are not essential to understanding the claim; nor do they show that the claim requires an ink-jet transfer. See id. at 12:13–14, 12:20–22. Rather, the first phrase merely recites an intended use of the article, and the second phrase merely describes a layer’s ability to receive ink. Accordingly, we determine that the preambles of claims 1 and 13 are not limiting. As such, Patent Owner’s arguments that the combined teachings of Akada and Takao fail to disclose or suggest an “ink-jet transfer” article are unpersuasive. See, e.g., Resp. 38, 41; Sur-reply 20–22. Even if we were to find the preambles limiting, Petitioner establishes that an “ink-jet transfer article” would have been obvious given the prior art disclosures. See Pet. 30, 45 (asserting that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that Akada’s and Takao’s thermal transfer printing method was interchangeable with an ink jet printing method); (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 120–121; Ex. 1030, 3:26–29); Reply 24 (“Akada’s dye sublimation transfer sheets are ‘ink-jet transfer articles’ because they can effectively be printed on with ink-jet technology”), 29 (citing Ex. 1039 ¶ 27; Ex. 1019, 7:63–8:4) (“Takao itself teaches that its thermal transfer image-receiving sheet may receive the image in the form of a ‘hot melt ink layer of colorant, such as a pigment’”).” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 7,766,475 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,766,475 - Satco Products, Inc. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 22, 2021 · IPR2020-00836 · APJ Erica A Franklin · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 10, 15, 18, and 21 are unpatentable; claims 2, 3, 11, 12, 17, and 19 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art The level of skill in the art is a factual determination that provides a” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“take issue with the Board’s construction of ‘phase voltage’ in the Institution Decision as it does not implicate any dispute here.” PO Resp. 3. In the Reply, Petitioner also does not challenge the Board’s preliminary determination. See generally Pet. Reply. Having considered the record as a whole, we see no reason to depart from our preliminary finding. Accordingly, we find that the Specification defines “phase voltage,” i.e.,” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“dimming circuit’ that must be part of the ‘driver circuit,’” without requiring it to be completely distinct from the phase switch or other elements of the driver circuit. Pet. Reply 5. Accordingly, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction that limits the dimming circuit to “a circuit, separate and distinct from the phase switches, that provides a dimming effect.” See PO Resp. 25. Instead, we recognize the ordinary and customary meaning for the “dimming circuit,” i.e., any circuit comprised in the driver circuit that is capable of providing a dimming effect.” slip op. at 28
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“proposed construction for “phase switch.” Rather, as discussed above, we have found that the Specification broadly defines the term without requiring the device to determine when to turn itself on or off. As defined in the Specification, “The phase switch is a general term to indicate any device that, when turned on, conducts electrical current.” Ex. 1001, 3:43–44 (emphasis added). There is no dispute between the parties that Chiang’s CCUs are devices that, when turned on, conduct electrical current. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Chiang’s CCUs are a “plurality of phase switches.”” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 7,081,722 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,081,722 - Stahls’ Inc. v. Jodi A. Schwendimann, F/K/A Jodi A. Dalvey, And Nucoat, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 1, 2021 · IPR2020-00633 · APJ Avelyn M Ross · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 6–7, 9–14, and 16 are unpatentable as obvious over Williams; claim 8 was not shown unpatentable over Asajima.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“In the Decision on Institution, we determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’581 patent would have at least a Bachelor’s degree in Chemistry, Chemical Engineering, Imaging Technology or Material Science with at least one year of experience in coating technologies and imaging technologies, or at least five years of work experience in the field of coating technologies and imaging technologies. DI 11 (adopting Patent Owner’s proposed definition). For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we maintain the determination from the Decision on Institution because neither party disputes that determination and because that level of skill is consistent with the record. PO Resp. 13; Pet. Reply 3.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“1. “white layer”12 In the Decision on Institution, we construed the term “white layer” to mean “a layer comprising a concentration or configuration of pigment providing a white background for received indicia and which further comprises a polymer that melts and mixes with another layer or layers 12 Although the term “white layer” is not expressly recited in claim 6 of the ’623 patent, both parties agree that all claims of the ’623 patent require a white layer that melts and mixes. See, e.g., Pet. 12–13; PO Resp. 13–15, 28, 37, 42, 49. during application.” DI 13. Our construction was based on the parties’ agreement that the claims of the ’623 patent require a white layer that melts and mixes with another layer and the claim construction the district court in the Arkwright Lawsuit adopted. Ex. 1031, 17 (Arkwright Markman Order”). The district court in the Delaware Litigation also adopted a similar construction of “white layer.” Ex. 1045, 6 (Delaware Markman Order). In the Decision on Institution, we rejected Patent Owner’s attempt to broaden the interpretation adopted in the Arkwright Lawsuit to include “a polymer that softens or melts and mixes to some degree with another layer.” Id. (Patent Owner’s modifications indicated with underlining); Prelim. Resp. 14. Patent Owner reasserts that “[t]hese additions properly and importantly clarify ‘melt’ and ‘mix,’ consistent with the district court’s holding, the ‘623 Patent’s disclosure, and Schwendimann’s statements in the Interference.” PO Resp. 14. But, Patent Owner states that “the parties’ disputes with respect to the construction of the ‘white layer’ make no difference to the Board’s resolution of this matter” (PO Resp. 14–16) and Petitioner asks that we “adopt the same constructions” as in the Delaware Litigation (Pet. Reply 1–2 (citing Ex. 1045, 9)). Accordingly, we maintain our construction of the term “white layer.”” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“2. remaining terms Petitioner contends that we should construe the term “release layer” and Patent Owner asks that we construe “image transfer sheet.” Pet. 13; PO Resp. 15–17. Because resolution of the issues before us does not require construction of either “release layer” or “image transfer sheet,” we need not provide any express constructions for those terms. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedReference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“It is well established . . . that when a party seeks to prove conception through an inventor’s testimony the party must proffer evidence, ‘in addition to [the inventor’s] own statements and documents,’ corroborating the inventor’s testimony.” Apator, 887 F.3d at 1295 (quoting Mahurkar, 79 F.3d at 1577). Patent Owner attempts to establish an invention date “no later than December 16, 1997,” based on Ms. Schwendimann’s testimony, the Formula Books, and the Contact Report. Patent Owner first argues that Ms. Schwendimann’s testimony, as corroborated by the Formula Books, details each limitation of the challenged claims. PO Resp. 21–24 (claim charts); Sur-reply 3. It is undisputed, however, that the Formula Books are unwitnessed. Sur-reply 5 n.2; Tr. 59:12–60:6. According to the Federal Circuit, the unwitnessed Formula Books alone cannot corroborate Ms. Schwendimann’s testimony regarding a purported invention date between 1996 and 1998. Apator, 887 F.3d at 1297; Brown, 276 F.3d at 1335; Procter & Gamble, 566 F.3d at 998–99. slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS RE41,623 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
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.