- Orthocision, Inc. v. Pain Teq, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Sep 20, 2023 · IPR2023-00625 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 over all five asserted § 103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“institute trial in an inter partes review. We may institute an inter partes review if the information presented in the petition filed under 35 U.S.C. § 311, and any preliminary response filed under § 313, shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314. After reviewing the parties’ submissions, we conclude Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in showing that at least one challenged claim of the ’129 patent is unpatentable under the presented grounds. Therefore, we grant institution of inter partes review. Our reasoning is discussed below. A.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties appear to largely agree on who the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been in terms of education and field of work experience; the disagreement being on the precise type and focus of that experience. Each party cites only its witness’s definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan as support for its proposed definition. Neither party nor their witnesses cite any further supporting evidence for their proposed definitions.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“Considering the parties’ proposed interpretations, we find Petitioner’s unsupported on the current record. The portion of the ’129 patent’s written description and Petitioner’s proposed interpretation of “open tip” share little in common, for example, the Specification does not mention “an exposed tapered edge,” much less, suggest that the term “open tip” requires such. See Pet. 19. On the other hand, Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation is more supported in view of the ’129 patent’s Specification and the plain language of the claim as some sort of “opening” seems necessary for an “open tip.” Prelim. Resp. 10. However, Patent Owner appears to read too much structure from the written description into the claim language as a limitation because it is not apparent that an “open tip” requires all the structural features proposed by Patent Owner, i.e., the distal end of the abrading head has a leading edge that encloses the opening. “[W]hile it is true that claims are to be interpreted in light of the specification . . . , it does not follow that limitations from the specification may be read into the claims. . . . [T]he claims define the invention.” Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1581–82 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The claim terms “open” and “tip” and their combination, “open tip,” are common words, used in their ordinary way, and are understandable on their face. And, what the ’129 patent’s written description makes clear is that the abrading head of the invention has a void (some empty space) and that the tip of the abrading head is open to that void. See Ex. 1001, 6:14–50. This would include, but is not limited to Patent Owner’s proposed tip where the leading edge entirely encloses the void. Thus, we interpret the claim term “open tip,” consistently with the” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner
“A claim limitation is presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (or pre- AIA § 112(6)) if, as here, it explicitly uses the term “means” and includes functional language; this presumption is overcome if the limitation further includes the structure, material, or acts necessary to perform the recited function. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc). Here, the word “means” is recited, followed by functional language, and the claim recites no structure associated with the means or function. Moreover, the parties appear to agree that this is a means plus function limitation. See Pet. 19–20; Prelim. Resp. 10–19. We find “releasing means” is a means plus function limitation and, based on the plain language of the claim, the recited “releasing means” is a component element of the also recited “slide hammer assembly,” as the above-quoted claim language defines. Ex. 1001, 13:10–17.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,020,129 - Pioneer Pet Products, LLC v. Oil-Dri Corporation Of AmericaNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 12, 2023 · IPR2022-00691 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–17 were not shown unpatentable under any of the three §103 grounds because the Petition failed to establish a required limitation for each combination.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The level of ordinary skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, we may consider certain factors, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” Id.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“For purposes of the present invention, the term “removably clumpable” refers to a litter that, when exposed to a wetting agent forms one or more clumps having a firmness of sufficient structural integrity and hardness to withstand mechanical separation from unwetted litter for disposal. A litter material having a clump strength of ≤1.33 using the Standard Drop Method Test (described below) 30 seconds, 1 hour, 12 hours, 24 hours, 36 hours or 72 hours after the clump is formed by exposure to a liquid is removably clumpable. A litter that is removably clumpable, i.e., has a clump strength of ≤ 1.33 using the Standard Drop Method Test, has a clump strength that is substantially the same as a litter comprised of only the sodium bentonite of the litter. PO Resp. 23–24 (quoting Ex. 1001, 5:24–36). Patent Owner contends that this passage makes clear that it “defined the term ‘removably clumpable’ to mean a litter having a clump strength of ≤ 1.33 using the Standard Drop Method Test at various times after the clump has formed.” Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:24–36, 11:5–7). Patent Owner further contends that Petitioner abandoned the claim construction it proposed in the Petition in its pre- Institution Decision Preliminary Reply, and that Petitioner now agrees with Patent Owner’s proposal, which we adopted in the Institution Decision. Id. (citing Paper 8, 1; Ex. 2012, 23:13–24:1).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Although Mr. Raymond opines that “a PHOSITA would have clearly understood” that the combination satisfies the limitation, his opinion lacks adequate explanation to support his conclusion. See Ex. 1006 ¶ 139. 8 Patent Owner contends that in order to perform the calculation necessary to determine compliance with the 47% of the total external surface area limitation, the “loose fill bulk density” and “particle size distributions” (not mere average particle sizes) must be known. See PO Resp. 6. Petitioner disagrees, but attempted to follow the method set forth in the ’393 patent in its argument and evidence filed in connection with its Reply. See Tr. 8:15– 9:8. Petitioner does not meet its burden to show the combination teaches a limitation by simply stating that a PHOSITA would recognize that the limitation would be met, without explaining how or providing the data necessary to test the assertion. Because neither the Petition nor the declaration of Mr. Raymond identifies any particle sizes for the cellulose-containing filler material it relies on or any method of calculating the total surface area of the litter formulation, without that information, Petitioner fails to show that the proposed combination would have inherently, or necessarily, met the 47% of the total external surface area limitation.” slip op. at 20
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)). Our rules also state that a “reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition or patent owner response.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); see also PTAB Consolidated Patent Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 21, 2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/tpgnov.pdf, 73 (“Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.”). Because of the governing statute, rule, and case law, “an IPR petitioner may not raise in reply ‘an entirely new rationale’ for why a claim would have been obvious.” Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1330–31 (Fed. Cir. 2019); see also Intelligent Bio-Systems, 821 F.3d at 1369–70 (concluding that reply brief and accompanying declaration exceeded the proper scope of reply due to introduction of new theories and reliance on new evidence); Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Continental Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1286–87 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that the petitioner improperly shifted its position away from that in the petition by relying on a different portion of a prior art reference and proposed modification). In other situations, “a reply may be proper if it is responsive and simply expands on previously raised arguments.” Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., 76 F.4th 1376, 1383–84 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (summarizing cases). Accordingly, “there is no blanket prohibition against the introduction of new evidence during an IPR.” Id. at 1384. In some situations, for example, a reply may permissibly expand upon previously-made arguments in the petition without amounting to the introduction of a new rationale and without citing new evidence. See Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, 901 F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2018). slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 9,439,393 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,439,393 - Rideco Inc. v. Via Transportation, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 17, 2023 · IPR2022-00740 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Final written decision
Petitioner failed to prove claims 1–13, 15, and 17–20 unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds, chiefly because Lambert did not teach system-selected virtual bus stops.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Having considered the parties’ arguments and evidence of record, we adopt Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill. We find that Petitioner’s level of skill is consistent with the problems identified and solutions provided in the ’411 patent and the prior art. In particular, we agree with Petitioner that the relevant field of art is not limited to the backend artificial intelligence components in a ride-sharing system, as Patent Owner contends. See Pet. Reply 6–7; see also PO Resp. 20–23. We disagree with Patent Owner’s assertions that the ’411 patent is directed towards a complex artificial intelligence system far beyond the scope of traditional navigation systems. See PO Resp. 20–23. Neither Patent Owner nor its expert, Dr. Jacquillat, cites to the patent to explain why the art of the ’411 patent is limited to artificial intelligence components in determining the relevant skill in the art. See id.; see also Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 41–51. As Patent Owner acknowledges, the ’411 patent makes no reference to “artificial intelligence” directly, and Patent Owner instead relies upon declarant testimony to argue that the patent is directed towards an advancement in artificial intelligence. PO Sur-reply 11. Patent Owner claims that “programming a computer to make decisions in the place of humans is a form of artificial intelligence.” Id. Regardless, we need not determine the precise definition of artificial intelligence to determine the relevant skill in the art for a patent that never even uses the term. We agree with Petitioner that a skilled artisan with an understanding of computer programming and navigation systems, as well as two to four years of experience in location-based systems, would understand the “computer-implemented transportation system” of the ’411 patent. In summary, we find that the relevant level of ordinary skill in the art “would have been a person having (i) a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a similar technical field[;] (ii) a working knowledge of computer programming and navigation systems; and (iii) two to four years of experience with location-based systems, user interfaces and databases.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 37).” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyDecided for petitioner
“Additionally, we find that Mr. Andrews’s background would qualify him as a person of ordinary skill in the art even if we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Under Patent Owner’s proposal, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a “degree in computer science, operations research, industrial engineering, applied mathematics, or a related field with at least two years of experience with optimization modeling, large scale optimization algorithms, or artificial intelligence solutions in the context of ride-sharing systems.” PO Resp. 30 (emphasis added). The record demonstrates that Mr. Andrews meets these qualifications. Mr. Andrews possesses a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and a Master of Science degree in Electronic Engineering, which we find to be in a “related field.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 6. Additionally, Mr. Andrews has significantly more than two years of experience in the fields Patent Owner suggests are relevant as evidenced by, for example, Mr. Andrews’s testimony that he has experience in “locationbased systems,” and “work[ing] in database dispatch systems for fleet management.” Ex. 2023, 44:2–9; 44:15–19. This experience demonstrates that Mr. Andrews had at least two years of experience in “optimization modeling.” The parties agree, however, that Mr. Andrews does not have experience working with ride-sharing systems. Nevertheless, Patent Owner’s definition includes artisans who lack that particular experience. Specifically, Patent Owner’s definition provides that: A person with an advanced degree (a master’s or Ph.D.) in computer science, operations research, industrial engineering, applied mathematics or a related field and a focus on data science, artificial intelligence or operations research would also have been an ordinary artisan in the field of the ’411 patent even if that person lacked two years of specific experience with ride-sharing systems. PO Resp. 20 (emphases added). In other words, even if the first prong of Patent Owner’s definition requires the expert’s experience to be “in the context of ride-sharing systems,” Mr. Andrews would nevertheless satisfy the qualifications of a POSITA under the second prong, which does not require experience with “ride-sharing systems.” See id. This Decision does not turn on the differences between the parties’ characterization of a skilled artisan.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“The parties are in agreement. Despite the parties’ briefing on this term, the parties do not dispute the construction of “virtual bus stops.” Absent any controversy, we adopt the parties agreed-upon construction of the term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating 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))). Specifically, we adopt the parties’ construction that “virtual bus stops” means “pickup and dropoff locations selected by the ride-sharing system itself.” Compare PO Resp. 23, with Pet. Reply 4. We further adopt the parties’ construction that the system need not use artificial intelligence—whatever that may mean—to select the virtual bus stops. Compare PO Sur-reply 5, with Pet. Reply 4; see also supra § III.A (“[W]e need not determine the precise definition of artificial intelligence to determine the relevant skill in the art pertaining to a patent that never even uses the term.”).” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“performs actions (see, e.g., Ex. 1004, 2:49–52; 2:63–67, 3:19–20, 3:34–35), we decline to infer from Lambert’s single sentence (id. at 4:17–23) that Lambert’s server is also programmed to perform the step of “dynamically selecting pickup and dropoff locations” (i.e., virtual bus stops). In other words, if Lambert’s server was programmed to select pickup and dropoff locations, as Petitioner would have us believe, we find that Lambert’s disclosure would have stated so. It does not.” slip op. at 39
Patent outcomesUS 10,197,411 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,197,411 - PTAB · Aug 11, 2023 · IPR2023-00540 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 21–30, 36, and 37 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success and declining § 325(d) denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“institute an inter partes review. The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” The Supreme Court has held that the Board, in a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b), may not institute review on less than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355–56 (2018). Moreover, in accordance with our rules, “[w]hen instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2020); see also PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (interpreting the statute to require “a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”). Applying those standards, and upon considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’915 patent. We also decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution under § 325(d). Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims (i.e., claims 1, 21–30, 36, and 37) of the ’915 patent, based on the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“[a] two-part framework: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). Advanced Bionics states that “[p]reviously presented art . . . includes art provided to the Office by an applicant, such as on an Information Disclosure” slip op. at 40
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“A motivation to combine may be found “explicitly or implicitly in market forces; design incentives; the ‘interrelated teachings of multiple patents’; ‘any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent’; and the background knowledge, creativity, and common sense of the person of ordinary skill.” ZUP, LLC v. Nash Mfg., Inc., 896 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). “The motivationto-combine analysis is a flexible one.” Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2023). And “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“A reference teaches away ‘when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken’ in the claim.” Meiresonne v. Google, Inc., 849 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “A reference that ‘merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into’ the claimed invention does not teach away.” Id. On this record, we are not persuaded that this is a teaching away for several reasons. First, the combination seeks to improve the operation of Armitage by incorporating Barone’s filter, not altering Barone. Thus, it is unclear how this alleged teaching away in Barone would discourage a person of ordinary skill from modifying Armitage. Second, on this record, we understand the statement as expressing a preference, and does not rise to the level of a teaching away. Thus, we are not persuaded that Barone teaches away from the combination. Accordingly, we find, on the current record, that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Armitage with Barone. slip op. at 31
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,137,915 - PTAB · Aug 11, 2023 · IPR2023-00538 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–10, 13–18, and 20–32 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability and declining § 325(d) denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“institute an inter partes review. The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” The Supreme Court has held that the Board, in a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b), may not institute review on less than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355–56 (2018). Moreover, in accordance with our rules, “[w]hen instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2020); see also PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (interpreting” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Based on this record, it appears that the main distinction between Petitioner’s ordinary skilled artisan and Patent Owner’s is that Patent Owner further requires familiarity with wireless networks. We note, however, that the monitoring systems of the asserted prior art include wireless networks. In view of this, because Petitioner’s requirement of experience designing railcar, train, vehicle, or any other similar monitoring systems includes some familiarity with wireless networks, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’223 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our obviousness evaluations below. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art, itself, can reflect appropriate level of ordinary skill in art). We note that our decision would be the same applying either party’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“this proceeding. Pet. 15. Patent Owner asserts that the term “housing” means “an enclosure.” Prelim. Resp. 29. Having considered the record, we determine that no express claim construction is necessary for any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 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 16
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“30 of the ’223 patent are entitled to claim priority back to the ’713 application. The test for sufficiency of written description “is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). In particular, we do not agree with Patent Owner that it can simply pluck the temperature sensor from LeFebvre and insert it into the sensor device disclosed in the ’713 application. Novozymes A/S v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS, 723 F.3d 1336, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“Working backward from a knowledge of [the claims], that is by hindsight,” [patentee] seeks to derive written description support from an amalgam of disclosures plucked selectively from the [prior] application.”) (first alternation in original).” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,365,223 - PTAB · Jul 26, 2023 · IPR2023-00539 · APJ James P Calve · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–18 and 20–22 on all four § 103 grounds because the petition showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the record, we determine that the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. We therefore grant institution of an inter partes review. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting . . . review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“An ordinary meaning of “heuristic” is “involving or serving as an aid to learning, discovery, or problem-solving by experimental and especially trial-and-error methods.” Merriam-Webster.com at “http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heuristic” (accessed June 12, 2023) (Ex. 3001). Heuristics in the ’673 patent are (1) empirical data used to correlate sensed bearing adapter temperature to bearing temperature, (2) correlating sensed pressure in a trainline to brake pressure, (3) converting bolster/side frame displacement to load, (4) estimating a temperature of tank contents from inner jacket temperature, (5) using dynamic bearing data at an adapter with a fast Fourier transform (FFT) algorithm to isolate dominant modes, and amplify at rolling frequency to indicate faults, (6) converting radial acceleration to vehicle speed using dynamics and wheel and axle diameters, (7) using dynamic bearing data at an adapter and kurtosis in a time domain with a probability density function to indicate bearing damage, (8) applying a probability density function and kurtosis to dynamic data at a bearing adapter and other truck components to indicate track defects, (9) using a simple FFT algorithm with data from adapters to isolate known hunting frequencies or detect flange impacts to identify hunting, and (10) correlate wheel temperature to tread temperature using empirical data. Ex. 1001, 8:20–12:39 (chart of sensed parameter, sensor type, output, and heuristic). Interpreted in light of the ’673 patent specification, a “heuristic” is a rule, algorithm, function, formula, graphing function, or similar mechanism applied to data to assist in analyzing and/or interpreting the data.” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“II. DISCUSSION A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been a person with at least a B.S. degree in electrical or mechanical engineering or a related field with at least two years’ experience designing monitoring systems for railcar components, or monitoring systems for similar industrial equipment with rotating components,” and “[l]ess work experience could be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree, and vice versa.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 45). 2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) included revisions to 35 U.S.C. § 103 that became effective on March 16, 2013. Changes made to 35 U.S.C. § 103 in the AIA do not apply to any application for patent filed before March 16, 2013. Because the ’673 patent has an effective filing date before March 16, 2013, we refer to the pre-AIA versions of § 103. 3 US 2007/0152107 A1, published July 5, 2007 (Ex. 1005, “LeFebvre”). 4 US 2007/0208841 A1, published Sept. 6, 2007 (Ex. 1007, “Barone”). 5 US 2011/028540 A1, published Nov. 17, 2011 (Ex. 1006, “Armitage”). Patent Owner contends that a skilled artisan “is a person with at least a B.S. degree in electrical or computer science or a related field, with at least two years’ experience with sensing systems for railcars or similar industrial equipment, including familiarity with wireless networks and heuristics and statistical data analysis for failure prediction,” and “[l]ess work experience could be compensated for by a higher level of relevant education and vice versa.” Prelim. Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 36–40). We adopt Patent Owner’s proposed level as more consistent with the ’673 patent and prior art, but our analysis is the same under either proposal.” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDecided for petitioner
“We apply the following two-part framework under § 325(d): (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). To determine whether the Petition presents “the same or substantially the same” art or arguments previously presented to the Office, we consider the factors set forth in Becton, Dickinson.6 Id. at 7 n.8. Becton, Dickinson provides a non-exclusive set of factors to use in applying the framework of 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 49
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,981,673 - Rideco Inc. v. Via Transportation, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 23, 2023 · IPR2022-00286 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations failed to teach or render obvious system-selected virtual bus stops and a pair of associated stops.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“2. Discussion We have considered the parties’ arguments and evidence of record, and we adopt Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill because it is consistent with the problems identified and solutions provided in the ’824 patent and the prior art. In particular, we agree with Petitioner that the relevant field of art is not limited to backend artificial intelligence components in a ride-sharing system as Patent Owner contends. See Pet. Reply 10–11; see also PO Resp. 31–32. We disagree with Patent Owner’s assertions that the ’824 patent is directed towards a complex artificial intelligence system far beyond the scope of traditional navigation systems. See PO Resp. 31–32. Neither Patent Owner nor its expert, Dr. Jacquillat, cites to the patent in determining the relevant skill in the art to explain why the art of the ’824 patent is limited to artificial intelligence components. See id.; Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 41–51. As Patent Owner acknowledges, the ’824 patent makes no reference to “artificial intelligence” directly, and Patent Owner instead relies upon declarant testimony to argue that the patent is directed towards an advancement in artificial intelligence. PO Sur-reply 11. Patent Owner claims, without support, that “programming a computer to make decisions in the place of humans is a form of artificial intelligence.” Id. Regardless, we need not determine the precise definition of artificial intelligence to determine the relevant skill in the art pertaining to a patent that never uses the term. We agree with Petitioner that an artisan with an understanding of computer programming and navigation systems as well as two to four years of experience in location-based systems would understand the “computer-implemented transportation system” of the ’824 patent. In summary, we find that the relevant level of ordinary skill in the art “would have been a person having (i) a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a similar technical field[;] (ii) a working knowledge of computer programming and navigation systems; and (iii) two to four years of experience with location-based systems, user interfaces and databases.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 37).” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Having addressed the relevant skill in the art, we address Patent Owner’s contention that Mr. Andrews “is not qualified to offer opinions concerning the artificial intelligence components of a ride-sharing system that are at issue in the ’824 patent.” PO Resp. 37. As discussed previously, we disagree with Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for a person of ordinary skill in the art, and have adopted Petitioner’s position. Patent Owner does not offer an opinion as to whether Mr. Andrews would be qualified as a person of ordinary skill in the art under Petitioner’s definition. The record reflects that Mr. Andrews possessed an advanced degree in electronic engineering, had a working knowledge of computer programming and navigation systems, and had more than two years of experience with location-based systems, user interfaces, and databases at the time of the ’824 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 4–19; Ex. 1009. Therefore, we find that Mr. Andrews is qualified to offer opinions as a person of ordinary skill in the art for the ’824 patent under the relevant definition. Additionally, we find that Mr. Andrews’s background would qualify him as a person of ordinary skill in the art even if we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Under Patent Owner’s proposal, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a “degree in computer science, operations research, industrial engineering, applied mathematics, or a related field with at least two years of experience with optimization modeling, large scale optimization algorithms, or artificial intelligence solutions in the context of ride-sharing systems.” PO Resp. 30 (emphasis added). The record demonstrates that Mr. Andrews meets these qualifications. Mr. Andrews possesses a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and a Master of Science degree in Electronic Engineering, which we find to be in a “related field.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 6. Additionally, Mr. Andrews has significantly more than two years of experience in the fields Patent Owner suggests are relevant as evidenced by, for example, Mr. Andrews testimony that he has experience in “location-based systems,” and “work[ing] in database dispatch systems for fleet management.” Ex. 2023, 44:2–9; 44:15–19. Furthermore, given Mr. Andrews’s advanced degree, Patent Owner’s definition would allow Mr. Andrews to have less than two years of experience in the pertinent fields. PO Resp. 30; Ex. 1003 ¶ 6.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningNo construction neededOther
“Under these circumstances, where the parties now agree that the ordinary meaning should apply to “virtual bus stops” and the district court adopted the same approach, we see no reason to depart from applying the ordinary meaning in this proceeding. We therefore apply the plain and ordinary meaning proposed by the parties, where “virtual bus stops” means “pickup and dropoff locations selected by the ride-sharing system itself.” As to the construction of dependent claim 8, we agree with Patent Owner that we need not formally construe the term to resolve the issues before us. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating 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))). As to Petitioner’s remaining arguments, we do not read artificial intelligence or other limitations into the claims as Petitioner warns against, and Petitioner does not argue for any specific construction in relation to these arguments that would require us to resolve a specific claim construction dispute. See Pet. Reply 4–10.” slip op. at 16
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Ex. 1004, 4:17–23. The Petition does not cite to any declarant support, additional prior art, other embodiments in Lambert, or any obviousness analysis when addressing “virtual bus stops.” See Pet. 25. Although for later aspects of claim 1 the Petition relies on Poykko and an obviousness analysis when arguing that it would have been obvious to configure Lambert’s server to operate in a certain way (e.g., to access memory that includes a database of locations as taught by Poykko), the Petition does not rely on such an analysis when first addressing “virtual bus stops” alone. See id. The combination of Lambert’s statement above with Poykko and other aspects of Lambert, potentially with allegedly obvious modifications of Lambert, may serve as the basis of Petitioner’s arguments for these later limitations involving “virtual bus stops,” but these later allegations do not reach back and redefine Petitioner’s more limited argument with respect to “virtual bus stops” in isolation.8 To the extent Petitioner argues in its Reply that a combination of Lambert and Poykko or other obviousness arguments 8 In our Institution Decision, we noted that Patent Owner, at that stage of the proceeding, failed to properly address Petitioner’s proposed combination of Lambert and Poykko for various “virtual bus stop” limitations. Inst. Dec. 22–23. That said, we do not view the Petition’s arguments and evidence as to “virtual bus stops” limitation in isolation, prior to addressing the “memory” limitation and adding Poykko and obviousness to the analysis, as relying on a combination of Lambert and Poykko or obviousness. See Pet. 25. satisfy the “virtual bus stops” limitation, we agree with Patent Owner that this introduces an improper new theory in the Reply. See PO Sur-reply 20– 22.” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 9,816,824 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,816,824 - Nanobebe US Inc. v. Mayborn (UK) LimitedInstitutedPTAB · Jun 16, 2023 · IPR2023-00467 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Institution
Instituted review of claims 14, 16, 17, and 19 on all asserted grounds; the Meyers and Sepehr obviousness challenge met the reasonable-likelihood threshold.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“Here, the record does not support a finding that Comotomo and Nanobebe have any relationship, let alone a “significant” one. We credit the testimony of Petitioner’s co-founder and executive chairman, Mr. Lanternari, that Petitioner “was not involved in the preparation and/or filing of the Comotomo IPR petitions, nor was Comotomo involved in the preparation and/or filing of [Petitioner’s] petitions.” Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 1, 14. Additionally, Patent Owner accused Petitioner and Comotomo of patent infringement based on different products. See id. ¶ 14. This difference further distinguishes the facts from Valve Corporation. See Valve Corp. 9–10.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a), we have authority to institute an inter partes review if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Reply, the Sur-reply, and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims of the ’930 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 14, 16, 17, and 19 of the ’930 patent on the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“engineering, industrial design, or similar technical field, and with 2 or more years of practical experience related to the design of infant feeding products or comparable industry.” Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 47). Petitioner further submits that “[a]dditional education could compensate for less practical experience and vice versa.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 47). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art as it appears consistent with the ’930 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 12
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The Markman Order provided a thorough and reasoned explanation of the construction, citing evidence and argument submitted by both parties. See Ex. 2008, 12–15. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the District Court’s construction, and conclude that “domed configuration” shall mean “wide circular bottom with an arc-shaped cross-sectional profile.” Id. at 15. If either party disagrees with this construction, that party shall explain why the construction is in error in its next substantive brief. 2. “teat portion” In the Markman Order, the District Court adopted the parties agreed- upon construction that “teat portion” shall mean “the entire part projecting generally perpendicular to the mouth of the vessel and disposed above the areola portion.” Ex. 2008, 5 (citing transcript from Markman hearing). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the District Court’s construction. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). If either party disagrees with this construction, that party shall explain why the construction is in error in its next substantive brief.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,952,930 - Nanobebe US Inc. v. Mayborn (UK) LimitedInstitutedPTAB · Jun 16, 2023 · IPR2023-00465 · APJ Ulrike W Jenks · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 21–24, 26, and 27, finding a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over Ishimaru and Kurkjian; it also instituted the Ishimaru–Atkin ground under the all-or-nothing rule.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDenied
“Absent a “significant relationship” between Petitioner and Comotomo, on this record, the General Plastic factors are of “little probative value.” Cf. Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Scramoge Tech. Ltd., IPR2022-00284, Paper 12 at 12 (PTAB Jun. 22, 2022) (finding Factor 2 “of little probative value” where “there is no significant relationship” between petitioners). Furthermore, “[a]ny ‘implicit’ relationship created merely by challenging the same claims of the same patent with similar allegations of unpatentability is not the sort of ‘significant relationship’ contemplated by Valve [Corporation].” See Ebates Performance Mktg., Inc. v. IBM, IPR2022-00646, Paper 10 at 9 (PTAB Oct. 25, 2022).” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSITA” or “POSA”) “would have a B.S. in Mechanical or Industrial Engineering; Materials Science, Product Design, or equivalent field, with 3-5 years of academic or industry experience with fluid dynamics, or a comparable industry.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 47). Petitioner further submits that “[a]dditional education could compensate for less practical experience and vice versa.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 47). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art as it appears consistent with the ’244 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 11
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“(i) Domed Shape We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s repeated arguments that Kurkjian is a narrow nipple and bottle design and thereby cannot meet the dome shaped limitation as recited in claim element 21(H) (Prelim. Resp. 29, 34, 38); and that Petitioner has not provided “argument and evidence as to how the prior art applies to the construed term ‘domed shape.’” See Prelim. Resp. 26. Petitioner identifies that Kurkjian has a nipple and collar design where “the edge of the collar that has the widest circumference” and a sloping outer contour, thereby, meeting the domed shape limitation. Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 415). Changes in the size and proportion do not render a product patentable unless it performs differently. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 463 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package “of appreciable size and weight [ ] requiring handling by a lift truck” were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.). The ’244 patent Specification does not define “wide” but suggests that the base portion of the teat be shaped like a breast. Ex. 1003, 4:3–5 (“The shape of the teat is also similar to the human breast, the base portion 116 being shaped like a breast and having a wide, domed configuration.”), see also id. at 7:17, 8:19. Suggesting that the design is intended to be shaped like a natural breast says nothing about the requisite width of the dome because breasts come in all shapes and sizes. Increasing the diameter of Kurkjian’s bottle and corresponding nipple and collar would not be expected to change the function of the feeding bottle. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that the” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 11,207,244 - Yita LLC / Jinrong (SH) Automotive Accessory Industrial Development Co. Ltd. v. Macneil IP LLCInstitutedPTAB · Jun 13, 2023 · IPR2023-00173 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–6 on the asserted obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). See also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2021) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We need not explicitly construe the term “vehicle floor tray” or any other claim term for the purposes of this decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). However, we offer the following reasons for not adopting Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Claim 1 recites the term “vehicle floor tray” but does not recite any specific structural details of the tray. Ex. 1001, 19:42–60. Thus, nothing in the claim language suggests the structural aspects of a vehicle floor tray included in Patent Owner’s proposed construction.” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, industrial design, or a closely related field, or equivalent formal training, education, or practical experience in a field relating to product design, CAD, or manufacturing.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27–28). Petitioner further contends that the person of ordinary skill in the art “would also have a minimum of three to five years of experience in plastics engineering, CAD, manufacturing, plastic product design, or a related industry,” but that “a higher level of training or practical experience might make up for less education, and vice-versa.” Id. Patent Owner does not, at this stage of the proceeding, dispute Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 12. For the purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’917 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“In his testimony concerning background prior art, Mr. Perreault relies on two prior art patents that disclose “floor mats” described similarly to Patent Owner’s description of a “vehicle floor tray.” See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–30 (citing Ex. 1013 (“Bailey”); Ex. 1015 (“Tyler”)). Bailey describes a “floor mat” that is “molded or otherwise preformed into a tray-like shape which conforms to the contour of a portion of the carpeted automobile floor. The mat is dimensioned and configured to nest within and abut against the sides of a carpeted floor well of the vehicle.” Ex. 1013, 2:37–42, Fig. 6. Tyler describes “contoured vehicle floor mats” that “mate[] with the vehicle floorboard to hold the mat in place.” Ex. 1013, code (57), 1:52–54. Based on these exhibits, we find that Mr. Perreault’s testimony is not conclusory and not based on an improper definition of floor tray. Based on the present record and after considering Patent Owner’s contentions, Petitioner sufficiently establishes that Stanesic discloses the subject matter of the preamble. In particular, Stanesic discloses “a tray-like central area” and “the raised wall 22 has two walls that rise about one to about two inches from the base 15” (Ex. 1005, 2:61–62), which sufficiently supports Petitioner’s contention that Stanesic discloses, or at least suggests, a vehicle floor tray.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,138,917
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.