- Jiangsu Favored Nanotechnology Co., Ltd. v. P2i Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 11, 2025 · IPR2024-00380 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 7, and 9–14 are unpatentable as obvious over Cohen and Legein or Francesch and Legein; Petitioner’s motion to strike is denied as moot.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“The parties agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’087 patent in June 20154 “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in a field such as chemistry, physics, or chemical engineering, as well as at least two years of experience with plasma-polymerization techniques.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 22–29); PO Resp. 13 (Patent Owner stating that it “does not dispute this characterization of the level of ordinary skill in the art.”); see also PO Sur-reply 1–2 (noting both parties’ agreement on the education and experience level of the ordinarily skilled artisan).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“On the fully developed trial record, we determine that no claims need an express construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Because of Patent Owner’s shifting definitions of the education and experience level of the ordinarily skilled artisan, it is unclear on the complete record what precise definition Patent Owner and Dr. Senkevitch are applying when arguing the skilled artisan’s capabilities. PO Resp. 13, 22–27, 31–32, 34–40; PO Sur-reply 1–6, 11–13; Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 30, 31, 33, 34, 37, 40, 52–55, 60, 68, 74, 76, 77, 80–86, 89, 91, 94, 95, 100, 102–105, 108, 110, 111, 113–116, 118–120, 122, 124, 127–134. We, therefore, give Dr. Senkevitch’s testimony regarding the capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art minimal weight, which leaves us with Patent Owner’s insufficiently supported arguments regarding the skilled artisan’s capabilities. PO Resp. 13, 22–27, 31–32, 34–40; PO Sur-reply 1–6, 11–13. Moreover, as Petitioner correctly points out, the ʼ087 patent expressly teaches that the precise conditions for forming a protective polymeric coating “will vary depending upon factors such as, without limitation, the nature of the monomer compound, the crosslinking agent, the substrate, as well as the desired properties of the coating” and that such “conditions can be determined using routine methods.” Ex. 1001 15:1–15:5 (emphasis added); Pet. Reply 17. Where the patent itself leaves to the judgment of an ordinarily skilled artisan the assessment of these factors to ascertain suitable conditions for forming the protective coating, we find persuasive Petitioner’s view that it would have been well within the level of ordinary skill to ascertain such suitable conditions.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Patent Owner. Although the claims of the ʼ087 patent recite obtaining the protective cross-linked polymeric coating “by exposing the device or component to a plasma,” the field of endeavor analysis in an analogous art inquiry does not exclusively turn on the claims at issue, but rather takes account of the entirety of a patent’s disclosure. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (explaining that “the PTO must show adequate support for its findings on the scope of the field of endeavor in the application’s written description and claims” (emphasis added)); In re Mettke, 570 F.3d 1356, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (rejecting an argument that the field of endeavor was limited to a claimed “Internet terminal” when “the specification describes various communication media, including facsimile machines and email, as related to the invention.”). This is significant here because the ʼ087 patent discloses that “[t]he … invention relates to protective coatings” and specifically “relates to protective coatings for electronic or electrical devices and components thereof, and methods of forming such coatings.” Ex. 1001, 1:14–17. Based on this disclosure, we find that the ʼ087 patent’s field of endeavor relates to “protective coatings for electronic or electrical devices and components thereof” broadly, not just those formed on such devices or components via a plasma polymerization process as asserted by Patent Owner. Id. Although Cohen does not explicitly disclose that its crosslinked polymers constitute a “protective coating,” Cohen does disclose that its “copolymerizable mixture can be cast into films” (Ex. 1004, 2:61–62), that the polymerization can “effected in situ,” and that the polymers may be used in “numerous” electrical applications (id. at 5:17–25). Tr. 8:9–10:2, 27:2– 21; see Pet. Reply 5 (explaining how “Cohen described insulating polymers that could be applied as films and be used to protect substrates including cables and electrical coils.” (citing Ex. 1004, 2:60–63, 5:13–25)). These disclosures suggest strongly that Cohen’s crosslinked polymers––if cast into a film or formed in situ on an electrical device or component––would serve as a protective coating on that electrical device or component, even though Cohen does not expressly refer to its crosslinked polymers ipsis verbis as a “protective coating.” Thus, we find that Cohen is within the field of endeavor of the ʼ087 patent.” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 11,041,087 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,041,087 - Micron Technology, Inc. v. Katana Silicon Technologies LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00071 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 3–5, 8, 11, 20–22, 27–29, 31, and 33 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of prior art and skilled-artisan knowledge.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“On the fully developed record, we find that Petitioner’s construction, “a layer that adheres,” is more strongly supported by the evidence than Patent Owner’s construction, “a pre-formed layer that is adhered.” Our analysis begins with the claim language. The term “adhesion layer” appears in each of the ’806 patent’s independent claims, which include both method and device claims. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 13:44–63 (claim 1 directed to a “semiconductor device”); id. at 17:58–18:17 (claim 30 directed to a “method of manufacturing a semiconductor device”). Claim 1 recites “a first semiconductor chip having a first adhesion layer adhered to its back surface” and “a second semiconductor chip having a second adhesion layer adhered to its back surface.” Id. at 13:49–51, 13:54–56 (emphasis added). Claim 30 recites the steps of “forming a first insulating adhesion layer on a back surface of a first wafer” and “forming a second insulating adhesion layer on a back surface of a second wafer.” Id. at 17:60–62, 18:3–5 (emphases added). In the absence of contrary evidence, we must assume that the term “adhesion layer” has the same meaning in all claims of the ’806 patent. In re Varma, 816 F.3d 1352, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“the principle that the same phrase in different claims of the same patent should have the same meaning is a strong one, overcome only if ‘it is clear’ that the same phrase has different meanings in different claims,” quoting Fin Control Sys. Pty, Ltd. v. OAM, Inc., 265 F.3d 1311, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). The language of claim 30 and similarly worded claims of the ’806 patent suggests strongly that an “adhesion layer” may be formed in situ on the back surface of a wafer and need not be pre-formed, as argued by Patent Owner. The testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Elenius, supports this interpretation. See Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 43, 50 (testifying that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would recognize that there are multiple methods of forming an ‘adhesion layer’ on the back surface of the semiconductor chip” and that “[p]astes and other adhesives, adhesive agents, adhesive layers or other material that are dispensed onto a substrate or chip back are formed into a layer over time as they harden through curing” (emphasis added)). Thus, the language of claims 30 and 31 does not support Patent Owner’s construction that the “adhesion layer” must be a pre-formed layer that is adhered. Cf. PO Resp. 22–25 (arguing for that construction).” slip op. at 17
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Citing testimony from Dr. Suhling, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the priority date of the ’806 patent would have had i) a bachelor-level degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, material science, or a related subject and five or more years of experience working in the field of semiconductor packaging; ii) a Master’s-level degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, material science, or a related field, and at least 1-3 years of experience in the design/development of semiconductor packages; or iii) a Ph.D.- level degree in mechanical engineering, material science, electrical engineering, or a related field, and at least some experience in the area of semiconductor packaging. Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 28–32). Petitioner further states that “[a]dditional education may substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience may substitute for formal education.” Pet. 18. 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. 2014 ¶ 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. For purposes of this Decision, we find no meaningful differences” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“3. Reasons to Combine Petitioner contends that it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ball’s teachings of stacking chips with Mostafazadeh’s process for applying adhesive to create individual chips with adhesive backsides. Pet. 28–29. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Ball and Mostafazadeh for several reasons, including to provide a more efficient manufacturing process for multichip modules and to simplify the stacking process. Pet. 28–31. Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine Mostafazadeh with Ball because there would have been no reasonable expectation of success and the combination would not have resulted in a functioning semiconductor device. PO Resp. 39. Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner’s combination of Ball and Mostafazadeh would fail for multiple reasons and that Mostafazadeh does not describe multi-chip stacked mounting. Id. at 39–52. Having considered the evidence and arguments, we determine that the preponderance of the evidence favors Petitioner. Petitioner demonstrates persuasively that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasons to combine Ball’s stacked multichip module with Mostafazadeh’s process for applying adhesive at the wafer stage and then dicing to create individual chips with adhesive backsides. Pet. 28–31. In particular, Petitioner shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Mostafazadeh’s teaching of applying the adhesive to a wafer surface and then subsequently dicing the wafer in order to provide a more efficient manufacturing process for multichip modules and to simplify Ball’s process of stacking chips. Id.; see KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (stating that the “mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement” suggests obviousness). The teachings of both Ball and Mostafazadeh support Petitioner’s combination. Ball teaches a stacked multichip module using flip-chip and wire bond interconnections, where a lower chip is flip-chip connected to a substrate using metal bumps, and an upper chip is wire bond connected to the substrate. Ex. 1005, Abstract, 3:42–64, 4:58–59, 5:3–12, 5:18–20, 5:23– 27, Fig. 1. Ball teaches that the upper chip is attached to the lower chip in a back-to-back arrangement with a layer of adhesive applied over a back side of the lower chip. Id. Mostafazadeh teaches a method for applying integrated circuit dies to support surfaces. Ex. 1003, Abstract. In Mostafazadeh’s method, an adhesive coating is formed on a surface of a semiconductor wafer, the adhesive coating is dried, and the semiconductor wafer is diced to form integrated circuit dies, each having an adhesive layer on its mounting surface, i.e., its back surface. Id. at 3:5–11, 5:20–25, 7:9–11, 7:29–8:2, Fig. 2 (steps 104–110). A selected die is then attached to an associated support surface by placing the adhesive layer of the selected die in contact with the associated support surface. Id. at 3:11–13, 8:10–12, Fig. 2 (steps 112–118).” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that Petitioner meets its burden of proof for claim element [3d]. Our finding is supported by Figure 1 of Ball, which depicts a second chip mounted to a first chip in a back-to-back arrangement. Ex. 1002 ¶ 158; Ex. 1005, Fig. 1. More particularly, Ball’s Figure 1 shows that back side 32 of upper die 12 (the claimed “second semiconductor chip”) is mounted to back side 30 of lower die 14 (the claimed “first semiconductor chip”) by adhesion layer 28. Ex. 1005, 5:18–20. Relying on Dr. Suhling’s testimony, Petitioner shows persuasively that “a circuit is formed on the front surface 34 of upper die 12 . . . , as evidenced by bonding pads 36 and wires 38 connecting the upper die’s circuitry to the wiring layer on substrate 16.” Pet. 41; Ex. 1002 ¶ 159. We credit Dr. Suhling’s unrebutted testimony that, “[b]ecause the circuitry is on the front side of upper die 12, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would know that the back surface adhesive layer is ‘where a circuit is not formed.’” Ex. 1002 ¶ 159. Patent Owner argues that, to meet claim elements [3b] and [3d], “a reference must show that an adhesion layer extends to cover the entire back surface of the second semiconductor chip where a circuit is not formed.” PO Resp. 30. We find no support in the claim language or other intrinsic evidence for Patent Owner’s argument. In our view, the phrase “back surface where a circuit is not formed” identifies the back side of the chip as opposed to the front side, where a circuit is formed. Ex. 1001, 14:26–27 (claim element [3d]). Our interpretation is supported by the claim language as a whole. Claim element [3b], for example, recites “a first semiconductor chip having a circuit forming on its front surface and an adhesion layer adhered to its back surface.” Id. at 14:17–19 (emphasis added). In this” slip op. at 47
Patent outcomesUS RE38,806 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR - Micron Technology, Inc. v. Katana Silicon Technologies LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00072 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12–19, 23–26, 30, and 32 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations of prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- 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 find no meaningful differences between the parties’ respective definitions that would materially alter the outcome of this Decision. Nevertheless, 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)Term construed petitioner constructionGranted
“On the fully developed record, we find that Petitioner’s construction, “a layer that adheres,” is more strongly supported by the evidence than Patent Owner’s construction, “a pre-formed layer that is adhered.”” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner shows persuasively that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Mostafazadeh with Ball and Fogal. Pet. 32–33. The evidence discussed above concerning reasons to combine supports a reasonable expectation of success. We are also persuaded by Dr. Suhling’s testimony that the “combination of Ball, Fogal, and Mostafazadeh would require no modification of the multichip modules in Ball and Fogal: rather Mostafazadeh merely explains in more detail methods known in the art for creating chips with adhesive surfaces.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 239; see also id. ¶¶ 62– 69 (describing prior art methods for applying adhesive to the backside of a wafer). For the foregoing reasons, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully combining Ball, Fogal, and Mostafazadeh.” slip op. at 46
- ExcludeOther
“We do not discuss or cite any of these exhibits in this Decision, or rely on any of them in reaching our determination that all of the challenged claims are unpatentable. Because their presence in the record would not affect our analysis in this Decision, we dismiss as moot Petitioner’s motion with respect to these exhibits.” slip op. at 72
Patent outcomesUS RE38,806 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR - Micron Technology, Inc. v. Katana Silicon Technologies LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00073 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–15 are unpatentable under §103: the Board found the asserted combinations taught the limitations, with motivation to combine and a reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“The claim language, “forming” an “adhesion layer on a back surface,” suggests strongly that an “adhesion layer” may be formed in situ on the back surface of a wafer. The testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Elenius, supports this interpretation. See Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 43, 50 (testifying that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would recognize that there are multiple methods of forming an ‘adhesion layer’ on the back surface of the semiconductor chip” and that “[p]astes and other adhesives, adhesive agents, adhesive layers or other material that are dispensed onto a substrate or chip back are formed into a layer over time as they harden through curing” (emphasis added)). Thus, the language of the claims of the ʼ879 patent does not support Patent Owner’s construction that the “adhesion layer” must be a preformed layer that is adhered. Cf. PO Resp. 21–23 (arguing for that construction).” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“For purposes of this Decision, we find no meaningful differences between the parties’ respective definitions that would materially alter the outcome of this Decision. Nevertheless, 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
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Mostafazadeh, could overflow.” PO Resp. 41, 42 (citing Ex. 2014 ¶ 121). According to Patent Owner, the downward pressure during mounting “could cause adhesive to squeeze out.” Id. at 41. We find that Patent Owner’s argument and the corresponding testimony of Mr. Elenius are speculative and do not outweigh Petitioner’s evidence of obviousness. The overflow issue was recognized and addressed by Mostafazadeh. Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, Mostafazadeh provides explicitly that its adhesive layer “covers an entire mounting surface 190 of the selected integrated circuit dies 182 and does not extend beyond a boundary of the mounting surface 190.” Ex. 1003, 10:6–9 (emphasis added). Additionally, Mostafazadeh teaches that when “the adhesive layer is rolled on, it is exactly the same size as the mounting surface and is quite even. Thus, when the die is attached to its supporting surface the adhesive does not extend beyond the mounting surface of the die.” Id. at 9:15–18. Further, Mostafazadeh teaches that its process avoids the adhesive jutting around the edges of the die. Id. at 2:26–28. These teachings support that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully applying Mostafazadeh’s die attachment method to Ball’s multichip device while avoiding adhesive overflow. Next, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s combination would fail” slip op. at 40
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“preponderance of the evidence favors Petitioner. Petitioner demonstrates persuasively that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasons to combine Ball’s stacked multichip module using flip-chip and wire bond connections with Mostafazadeh’s process for applying adhesive to create individual chips with adhesive backsides. Pet. 25–28. In particular, Petitioner shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Mostafazadeh’s teaching of applying the adhesive to a wafer surface and then subsequently dicing the wafer in order to provide a more efficient manufacturing process for multichip modules and to simplify Ball’s process of stacking chips. Id.; see KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (stating that the “mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement” suggests obviousness). The teachings of both Ball and Mostafazadeh support Petitioner’s” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 6,352,879 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 6,352,879 - Favored Tech Corporation v. P2i LtdNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 23, 2021 · IPR2020-00478 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Final written decision
Favored Tech did not prove claims 1–17 unpatentable: Baalmann did not anticipate the asserted claims, and the obviousness grounds lacked adequate disclosure or motivation with a reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionNo construction neededGranted
“After considering Petitioner’s arguments regarding claim 9, Patent Owner’s silence regarding claim 9, and the language in the ’070 patent itself (e.g., Ex. 1001, 11:45–52, 12:60–61), we agree with Petitioner that the term “1H, 1H, 2H, 3H-heptadecafluorodecylacylate” in claim 9 should be construed to correctly recite HDFDA (1H, 1H, 2H, 2H-heptadecafluorodecylacrylate). The error Petitioner identifies is conspicuous and undisputed, and the intrinsic record does not suggest a different interpretation. Fitbit, Inc. v. Valencell, Inc., 964 F.3d 1112, 1119–20 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Novo Industries, L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Additionally, after reviewing the parties’ remaining claim construction arguments and evidence, we determine that we do not need to expressly construe any other terms for purposes of this Decision because, as addressed in detail below, we find Petitioner’s showings deficient for reasons that do not depend on the construction of any claim term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 6
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’070 patent would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in a field such as chemistry, physics, or chemical engineering, as well as at least two years of experience with plasma-polymerization techniques.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 26–31). Patent Owner agrees with this proposed definition “with the understanding that ‘experience with plasma-polymerization techniques’ includes plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) techniques.” PO Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2010 ¶ 20; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 12, 63). In light of the record before us, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. As Patent Owner points out, Dr. Gleason states that PECVD is a form of plasma polymerization, and thus the parties agree that experience with plasma-polymerization techniques would include PECVD. PO Resp. 9; Ex. 1002 ¶ 63. The level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate adequately that each and every element in claim 1, arranged as recited in the claim, is found in a single prior art reference. NetMoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1369; Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Here, Petitioner combines several different teachings from Baalmann to support its anticipation argument. For example, Petitioner relies on the “evacuable chamber with a volume of 1 m3” from Baalmann’s Example 1, but not the power (2kW) expressly disclosed as being used with that reactor of Example 1. Ex. 1004 ¶ 47. With regard to power density, Petitioner relies on Baalmann’s general disclosure that “[t]he electrical power input per chamber volume is set between 0.5 kilowatt/m3 and 5 kilowatt/m3.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 20. As Patent Owner points out, however, that power density range is not tied to any particular reactor volume or plasma zone volume. PO Resp. 19. Baalmann also fails to expressly disclose the plasma zone volume of the reactor in Example 1. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 47–48. To attempt to overcome this absence of an express disclosure, Petitioner argues that, for the reactor used in Example 1, the plasma zone volume and reactor volume are the same based on the configuration of the electrodes in the reactor. Pet. 24–25. Baalmann, however, does not expressly disclose the electrode configuration of the reactor in Example 1. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 47–48. Instead, Petitioner relies on Baalmann’s general disclosure of an embodiment wherein one electrode is formed by the chamber wall itself. Pet. 24–25; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 35, 61. In so doing, Petitioner ignores the fact that Baalmann also states that “[t]wo opposite rod-shaped electrodes may also be used.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 35. In view of this, we disagree with Petitioner’s conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that chamber to be configured as described throughout the rest of the specification: with the chamber wall serving as one of the electrodes.” Pet. 24. Even if we were persuaded by Petitioner’s argument, the fact remains that Petitioner’s anticipation challenge is based on the combination of different features disclosed in separate portions of Baalmann. “Such picking and choosing . . . has no place in the making of a 102, anticipation rejection.” In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587–88 (CCPA 1972) (cited with approval in Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 550 F.3d 1075, 1083 (Fed. Cir. 2008)); see also Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti, Inc., 878 F.3d 1052, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that anticipation is not proven by multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“For all of the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have inferred the volume of the plasma zone10 in Coulson is 470 cm3 based on Coulson’s disclosure of a “glow discharge reactor” having a volume of 470 cm3. Pet. 38; Reply 15–16. In view of this, we are likewise not persuaded that Coulson discloses a power density of 85.1 W/m3, because Petitioner’s 9 Dr. Gleason confirmed that she did not perform any experiments to verify her opinions regarding Coulson’s plasma zone. Ex. 2017, 80:10–18. 10 As noted above, Petitioner presented its argument in the context of its proposed construction of plasma zone. Petitioner did not present an alternative argument supported by sufficient evidence addressing the volume of Coulson’s plasma zone based on Patent Owner’s proposed construction of plasma zone. Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner’s assertion that we do not need to expressly construe the term plasma zone to resolve this issue. Sur-reply 1. argument that Coulson discloses this power density is based on its assertion that Coulson has a plasma zone volume of 470 cm3. Pet. 38. This finding is fatal to Petitioner’s obviousness challenge of claim 1 based on the combined teachings of Baalmann and Coulson because Coulson’s purported disclosure of using a power density of 85.1 W/m3 is an essential component of Petitioner’s obviousness challenge. An obviousness determination requires finding both “that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art . . . and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367-68 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In attempting to establish a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Baalmann and Coulson, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, Petitioner repeatedly refers to using Coulson’s optimized reaction conditions, including power density, in Baalmann’s larger reactor. Pet. 48 (stating that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to maintain the same or similar reaction conditions within a larger reaction chamber that were present in Coulson’s chamber during Coulson’s reported plasma polymerization reactions, including power density and pressure, to preserve the same effective results.”), 48–49 (“That would have included motivation to maintain Coulson’s disclosed power density when scaling up to a larger reaction volume to preserve the beneficial results Coulson reported at that optimized power density.”); Reply 23 (referring to the “straightforward, compelling obviousness case set forth in the petition” that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have expected to succeed performing Coulson’s reactions on a larger scale in view of Baalmann”); 23 (“The petition explained why a POSA would have modified Baalmann to use Coulson’s HDFDA monomer and reaction conditions to produce coatings with a reasonable expectation of success” ), 24 (stating the Petition “explained why a POSA would have expected success using known parameters from Coulson in an established large-scale apparatus”). During the oral hearing, counsel for Petitioner confirmed its obviousness positions depend on using Coulson’s power density. Tr. 20:10–21:16. Accordingly, Petitioner’s failure to demonstrate adequately that Coulson discloses or suggests a power density of 85.1 W/m3 undermines its reason to combine and reasonable expectation of success arguments. Petitioner’s argument that Baalmann discloses the claimed power” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 8,389,070 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,389,070
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.