- PTAB · Apr 11, 2025 · IPR2024-01498 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–19, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on multiple obviousness grounds, while declining institution under Ground 9 at the preliminary merits stage.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “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) (2018). The Supreme Court has held that a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on less than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). After considering the information presented by the parties, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one of claims 1–19 of the ’752 patent is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“summarized above, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 1 and 4–14 are obvious over the combination of Native and Bianchi ’254. In particular, we are persuaded by Petitioner that the combination of Native and Bianchi ’254 discloses a deodorant stick comprising each element of claims 1 and 4–14. Pet. 41–50. We also find that Petitioner has shown sufficiently on the record before us that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to implement Bianchi ’254’s hardness range in Native’s formula. Here, we credit Dr. Michniak-Kohn’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood how to adjust hardness using the structurants in a deodorant composition. Ex. 1002 ¶ 41, 191–192.” slip op. at 20
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“biased testimony from an employee” and the Petition therefore lacks sufficient evidence to establish the images provided in the Squatch declaration as containing prior art printed publication material. Id. at 27–28 (citing Finnigan Corp. v. ITC, 180 F.3d 1354, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[T]he law has long looked with disfavor upon invalidating patents on the basis of mere testimonial evidence absent other evidence that corroborates that testimony.”); Nobel Biocare Services AG v. Instradent USA, Inc., 903 F.3d 1365, 1377-78 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“corroboration is required of any witness whose testimony alone is asserted to invalidate a patent, regardless of his or her level of interest.”). 3. Discussion Having considered the parties’ positions and evidence of record, summarized above, we find Patent Owner to have, at this stage of the proceeding, the better position.. Accordingly, we determine that there is insufficient evidence to indicate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in establishing that that claims 15–19 would have been obvious over the combination of Squatch and Sturgis for the reasons set forth in the Preliminary Response and summarized above. However, we will make our final determination on these issues on the full record developed during this proceeding. See Hulu LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018- 01039, Paper 29, 11 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential) (“To prevail in a final written decision in an inter partes review, the petitioner bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that a particular document is a printed publication.”).” slip op. at 30
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Prelim. Resp. 29–38. In determining whether to deny institution under § 325(d), we use the following 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 [the] 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, 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). The Becton, Dickinson factors provide useful insight into how to apply the framework under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Id. at 9 (referencing Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8, 17– 18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to § III.C.5, first paragraph)).” slip op. at 32
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,844,752 - Kinderfarms LLC v. Genexa Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 24, 2025 · PGR2023-00051 · APJ Deborah Katz · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–24 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over FR458 with the ’4666 patent and WO133; claims 1–17 are also unpatentable over WO742 with the ’4666 patent and WO133.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties’ positions about the level of ordinary skill in the art are similar. (See Pet., 13–14; see PO Resp., 10–12.) In light of the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a bachelor of science degree in a relevant life sciences field, such as chemistry, biochemistry, or pharmacy, with at least three to four years of work or laboratory experience in pharmaceutical formulations and would have had access to team members having experience in pharmaceutical formulation and pharmaceutical regulatory approvals. (See Pet. 13–14; see PO Resp. 10–12; see Dec. 6–7.) Both of the parties’ proposals as to the level of ordinary skill in the art are consistent with the disclosure of the ’795 patent and the asserted prior art. The distinction between the parties’ proposals is minimal and would not change the outcome of this Decision. Thus, we adopt and apply Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Although Petitioner puts forth constructions for terms in the claims of the ’795 patent, Patent Owner argues that we need not expressly construe any terms to resolve the controversy between the parties. (See Pet. 14–19; see PO Resp. 12.) Except as indicated below, we agree that express construction of the claim terms is not required because the parties do not materially dispute the meanings of the terms. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (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))). Limitation (c) of claim 1 recites “syrup formulation” once and then “syrup” by itself twice. The parties agree that two recitations of “syrup” by itself mean and are synonymous with “syrup formulation.” (See Tr. 15:16– 19 (counsel for Petitioner: “[T]he term, syrup, by itself, means the formulation. And for that reason, we--it’s our position that it’s the syrup formulation that has the specific viscosity requirements as well as the other features that we discussed.”); 31:17–20 (counsel for Patent Owner: “But those wherein clauses, what it’s referring to, the syrup formulation and the syrup -- it was all to a complete to a final formulation, right, it’s not just the agave syrup. Everybody here recognizes and understands that from that perspective.”).) Thus, the parties agree that the “viscosity of less than 1500 centipoise at about 22 degrees” limits the final “pharmaceutical syrup formulation for oral administration,” not the “agave syrup” limitation in limitation (b) of claim 1.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner argues further that Dr. Crowley testifies that, “[g]enerally, suspensions having a viscosity in the range of 20 to 150 cP are considered readily pourable,” but that this range is well below the viscosity range of 200–900 cP taught in WO133 and the preferred viscosity range of 1000–3000 cP taught in the ’4666 patent. (See PO Resp. 45 (quoting Ex. 1003 ¶ 59).) Dr. Crowley testifies that “increasing the viscosity of a suspension formulation has been shown to impair the dissolution characteristics of immediate release acetaminophen” and that, “[w]ith respect to suspensions for oral administration, having a higher viscosity is generally not desirable.” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 59.) According to Patent Owner, this is a “teaching away” because Petitioner’s own expert testimony demonstrates a motivation not to combine the acetaminophen formulation of FR458- Example 1 with the 1000-3000 cP range of the ’4666 patent and the 200-900 cP range of WO133 since by his own admission doing so would yield bad results (i.e., impairing the dissolution characteristics of the acetaminophen) and generally undesirable higher viscosity. (PO Resp. 46 (citing Berkland Decl., Ex. 2009 ¶ 148).) Dr. Crowley’s cited testimony, however, is about general characteristics of suspensions for oral administration, whereas the WO133 refers specifically to sweetened analgesic formulations. (See Ex. 1006, 8:1– 3 (“The viscosity of the acetaminophen composition generally ranges from about 200–900 centipoise, preferably from about 300–700 centipoise.”); see Pet. Reply 8–9.) As Petitioner notes, Dr. Crowley also testifies that the viscosity of 29 commercially available, pediatric liquid oral antibiotic formulations were measured and determined to range from 20 to 1,780 cP” and that “[t]he viscosity of Children’s Tylenol has been reported to be less than 1,000 centipoise at shear rates between 0.05 and 0.2 reciprocal seconds.” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 58.) Thus, we are not persuaded that Dr. Crowley’s testimony contradicts the teachings regarding viscosity of analgesic formulations in the cited prior art.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 11,617,795 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 11,617,795 - PTAB · Jan 29, 2025 · IPR2024-01173 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–7 and 9–19 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3 and 14–17 are unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“the following 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 [the] 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.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“information presented in the Petition shows “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) (2018). The Supreme Court has held that a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on less than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). After considering the information presented by the parties, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one of claims 1–7 and 9–19 of the ’647 patent is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“this record, articulate a rational motivation to combine supported by Dr. Michniak-Kohn’s testimony, stating that both Lesniak and Bianchi are in the same field as the ’647 patent, which all relate to personal care compositions like deodorant and/or antiperspirant sticks and all discuss hardness as a relevant and measurable parameter for stick compositions. Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1001, Abst., 15:6–44, 18:64–26:36; Ex. 1003, Abst., 3:39, 4:22, 8:43–46, 9:45, 9:60–62, 10:17–27, 15:41–42; Ex. 1006, Abst., 1:8–35, 2:56–58, 6:23–29); Ex. 1002 ¶ 81. As Petitioner points out, Lesniak discloses formulating deodorant sticks that have a desirable “skin feel,” prompting a POSA to review a publication like Bianchi ’518 to determine consumer-acceptable hardness ranges in formulating a stick composition. Pet. 31–32 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:16–35; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 77–79). As Dr. Michniak-Kohn testifies, testimony which we credit based on the record before us, “by the time of the filing of the ’647 Patent, a POSA would have known that hardness was an ‘important physical parameter affecting consumer acceptance,’ and would have looked to achieve hardness levels that were taught in the field to achieve consumer acceptance,” such as Bianchi ’518. Ex. 1002 ¶ 77. Although Bianchi ’518 describes typical hardness levels of suspensoid antiperspirant sticks as they relate to “the invention,” there is nothing in Bianchi ’518 that would limit the application of preferred hardness levels only to the formulations of Bianchi ’518. See Ex. 1006, 6:23–29; see generally Ex. 1006. Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions about a dearth of explanation by Petitioner as to how Lesniak would be modified to achieve the hardness disclosed in Bianchi ’518, Petitioner explains how the hardness of Lesniak’s deodorant stick could be adjusted to achieve the hardness Petitioner sufficiently explains on this record how this would be done: A POSA would have readily understood how to adjust the hardness of the stick, using Lesniak’s ingredients, inasmuch as a POSA would have known that adjusting the amount of structurant (using less if the deodorant was too hard, and vice-versa) could achieve the target hardness. For instance, Lesniak describes formulating a deodorant stick with 8% to 19% of a primary structurant, such as beeswax, and also optionally including 3% to 15% of a secondary structurant, such as sunflower seed wax and/or hydrogenated castor oil. A POSA would have understood that the hardness could be adjusted by altering the amount of the primary structurant and/or by incorporating secondary structurants.” slip op. at 30
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther
“sticks that have a desirable “skin feel,” prompting a POSA to review a publication like Bianchi ’518 to determine consumer-acceptable hardness ranges in formulating a stick composition. Pet. 31–32 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:16–35; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 77–79). As Dr. Michniak-Kohn testifies, testimony which we credit based on the record before us, “by the time of the filing of the ’647 Patent, a POSA would have known that hardness was an ‘important physical parameter affecting consumer acceptance,’ and would have looked to achieve hardness levels that were taught in the field to achieve consumer acceptance,” such as Bianchi ’518. Ex. 1002 ¶ 77. Although Bianchi ’518 describes typical hardness levels of suspensoid antiperspirant sticks as they relate to “the invention,” there is nothing in Bianchi ’518 that would limit the application of preferred hardness levels only to the formulations of Bianchi ’518. See Ex. 1006, 6:23–29; see generally Ex. 1006. Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions about a dearth of explanation by Petitioner as to how Lesniak would be modified to achieve the hardness disclosed in Bianchi ’518, Petitioner explains how the hardness of Lesniak’s deodorant stick could be adjusted to achieve the hardness Petitioner sufficiently explains on this record how this would be done: A POSA would have readily understood how to adjust the hardness of the stick, using Lesniak’s ingredients, inasmuch as a POSA would have known that adjusting the amount of structurant (using less if the deodorant was too hard, and vice-versa) could achieve the target hardness. For instance, Lesniak describes formulating a deodorant stick with 8% to 19% of a primary structurant, such as beeswax, and also optionally including 3% to 15% of a secondary structurant, such as sunflower seed wax and/or hydrogenated castor oil. A POSA would have understood that the hardness could be adjusted by altering the amount of the primary structurant and/or by incorporating secondary structurants.” slip op. at 30
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,905,647 - PTAB · Jan 28, 2025 · IPR2024-01084 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 1–4, 8–18, 22–30, and 34–39; Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood that Shiplacoff, alone or combined with Nan, renders at least one challenged claim obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“purposes of institution, we are sufficiently persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that Shiplacoff renders obvious claim 1.” slip op. at 25
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDecided for petitioner
“Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (“Advanced Bionics”). With respect to the first issue, previously presented art includes, among other things, “art provided to the Office by an applicant, such as on an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), in the prosecution history of the challenged patent.” Id. at 7–8. With respect to the second issue, institution generally will be denied if a “petitioner fails to make a showing of material error,” and “[i]f reasonable minds can disagree regarding the purported treatment of the art or arguments, it cannot be said that the Office erred in a manner material to patentability.” Id. at 8–9. “[T]his framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9.” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“2. Reasons to Combine Shiplacoff and Nan Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the touch gestures of Nan in Shiplacoff’s device that includes a touch screen for the benefits of avoiding latency and not displaying on-screen controls. Pet. 43–44. Petitioner contends that using the gestures of Nan, which include factors such as length, speed, hold time, and number of fingers, to execute a change from one of Shiplacoff’s display modes to another, does no more than yield predictable results. Id. at 43, 45. We are sufficiently persuaded that Petitioner has shown a reason to use the edge gestures of Nan to switch from one of Shiplacoff’s display screens to another.” slip op. at 26
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, human-computer interaction, or a comparable field and at least two years of professional experience in the design and development of graphical user interfaces (GUIs), human-computer interfaces, or equivalents thereof. Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 22). Petitioner’s declarant, Loren Terveen, Ph.D., testifies that “[s]uch experience could be obtained through research and study in a graduate program or through comparable exposure through industry employment, and additional years of experience could substitute for the advanced-level degree.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 22. Patent Owner notes that it does not agree with Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, “but does not believe that resolving the level is necessary to resolve the issues raised in this preliminary response.” Prelim. Resp. 7.” slip op. at 5
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,649,578 - PTAB · Jan 28, 2025 · IPR2024-01083 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–3, 7, 9, 10, and 101 on the asserted §103 ground over Ahn, Chaudhri, and Hinckley.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Director may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and preliminary 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.” For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to claims 1–3, 7, 9, 10, and 101 of the ’413 patent on the ground of unpatentability asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“through industry employment, and additional years of experience could substitute for the advanced-level degree.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 30. Patent Owner notes that it does not agree with Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, “but does not believe that resolving the level is necessary to resolve the issues raised in this preliminary response.” Prelim. Resp. 6. As Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears commensurate with the subject matter before us, we apply Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision. Also, the level of ordinary skill in the art can be evidenced by the references cited, and we find it commensurate with the cited references in this proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We construe only those claim terms that require analysis to determine whether to institute inter partes review. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”). Petitioner and Patent Owner contend that no claims need to be construed in order to resolve a controversy. Pet. 4– 5; Prelim. Resp. 6–7. We agree with the parties that no terms need to be construed expressly for this Decision. We discuss claim interpretation to the extent necessary in the context of analyzing the asserted grounds to determine whether to institute trial. We highlight that for the term “a magnitude of the blurring,” Patent Owner contends that “the amount of surface area that a translucent menu is displayed over a screen is not a magnitude of the blurring,” but provides no further construction of the term, other than a statement that even under Petitioner’s interpretation of “blurring,” the grounds are deficient. Prelim. Resp. 32–33 & n.4. On the present record, Petitioner’s proposed construction appears correct, and for purposes of institution, we apply this proposed construction of “a magnitude of the blurring” as discussed below in our analysis of limitation [1.d.ii]; the construction of this term may be addressed by the parties as this inter partes review proceeds.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“For purposes of this Decision, we find Petitioner cites sufficient evidence to support its contention that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the teachings of Ahn and Chaudhri.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,642,413 - PTAB · Jan 27, 2025 · IPR2024-01085 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–4, 6–10, 17, 19, 22–26, 28–30, 32, 33, 36, 41, 48, 58–62, 64, 65, 67, 69, 70, 73, 77, 82, and 83 on all asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314, which requires demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner indicates it “does not necessarily agree with all aspects of Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, but does not believe that resolving that level is necessary to resolve the issues raised in this preliminary response.” Prelim. Resp. 4. Dr. Davis indicates that his opinions provided in his declaration in support of Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response are “provided from the perspective of the POSITA” proposed by Dr. Cockburn. Ex. 2001 ¶ 24 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 26). We are persuaded, on the present record, that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level reflected by the ’580 patent and the prior art of record. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends “no claim terms need be construed to resolve issues of controversy in the present Petition.” Pet. 2. Similarly, Patent Owner indicates that no formal constructions are necessary at this point in the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 3. We agree with the parties that no terms need to be construed expressly for this Decision. We discuss claim interpretation to the extent necessary in the context of analyzing the asserted grounds to determine whether to institute trial.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner’s alleged motivation for modifying Ramos’ Zlider to be transparent is superficial and conclusory.” Prelim. Resp. 24; see generally Prelim. Resp. 24–26. As noted above, Petitioner relies on evidence from Ording itself and Dr. Cockburn’s testimony that relies on evidence to support its conclusion. Thus, we do not agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s motivation is insufficient for institution. Patent Owner also argues, relying on Dr. Davis’ declaration testimony, that the Vernier on a semitransparent Zlider widget would be “completely illegible” in some circumstances “rendering the very core of Ramos’ work unusable.” Prelim. Resp. 24–25 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 88); see Ex. 2001 ¶ 88 (not adding reasoning or evidence beyond that in the Patent Owner Preliminary Response). On this preliminary record, it would appear that when the Zlider widget and the portion of the image underlying the Zlider widget are the same color, the semitransparent Zlider widget may not work as well as when the Zlider widget and the underlying image are different colors. That does not outweigh, for purposes of determining whether to institute trial, the prior art evidence that Petitioner offers of the from Ording and other prior art references on which Dr. Cockburn’s declaration testimony relies. Ex. 1003 ¶ 66 (citing Ex. 1025 ¶¶ 77, 94, 101; Ex. 1026 ¶¶ 153, 162); see Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 799– 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (determining that a showing of the obviousness in predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions requires only a showing that the combination be a suitable option, rather than a showing that it is the best option). Petitioner also contends, relying on declaration testimony from Dr. Cockburn, that one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references in the manner proposed by Petitioner. Pet. 33–34. Petitioner contends that implementing the Zlider widget “described in the Ramos Paper and Ramos Video in a device, as taught by Ording, would have required only routine knowledge well within the skill of a POSITA” and would involve “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable results” described by Petitioner’s proposed combination of the references. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 67). Petitioner’s support for reasons one of ordinary skill would have made” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,649,580 - PTAB · Jan 23, 2025 · IPR2024-01104 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–18 based on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“consider “whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6, 8. “An example of a material error may include misapprehending or overlooking specific teachings of the relevant prior art where those teachings impact patentability of the challenged claims.” Id., 8 n.9. We evaluate Becton, Dickinson factors (c), (e), and (f) to determine whether Petitioner has demonstrated material error. Id., 10. Those factors are: (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; . . . (e) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. Becton, Dickinson, Paper 8 at 17–18.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“summarized above, we are persuaded, based on the current record, that persons of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Lesniak, Phinney, and Bianchi ’518 to arrive at the deodorant stick of at least claim 1 with a reasonable expectation of success for the reasons stated in the Petition. Pet. 24–37. In particular, we are persuaded by Petitioner that Lesniak teaches natural anhydrous personal care compositions, including a deodorant stick in the form of an antiperspirant stick. Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:16–35, 4:22, 5:5–32, 10: 27, 10:32–33). Lesniak explains that such compositions include at least one antimicrobial (i.e., zinc oxide) and a where the compositions are free of an aluminum salt. Id., 24–25. While Petitioner concedes that Lesniak does not expressly teach that its compositions include magnesium hydroxide, for that element, Petitioner combines Phinney disclosure for using magnesium hydroxide as an antimicrobial in a deodorant stick. Id., 25–26 (citing Ex. 1004, 2:33–37). And Petitioner provides a reason to combine Lesniak and Phinney, noting that “[b]oth Lesniak and Phinney are directed to deodorants with ‘natural ingredients’ and both describe the use of known antimicrobials”. Id., 26–27 (citing to Ex. 1003, 4:61–5:31, 9:45, 10:27, 10:31–33, 3:39–4:21, 8:31–9:59; Ex. 1004, 1:5–9, 1:15–19, 5:52–67, 6:31–34, 8:40–44). Petitioner concludes that “a POSA would have been motivated to incorporate magnesium hydroxide into Lesniak’s composition following Phinney’s guidance, as this combination would improve odor protection while maintaining the ‘natural’ composition intended by Lesniak.” Pet. 27; Ex. 1002 ¶ 62 (same). Petitioner also concedes that Lesniak also does not expressly teach hardness as measured by penetration within an ASTM-D 1321 needle test, but that Bianchi ’518 discloses a hardness range by needle penetration. Id at 26–28. By combining these references of record in the manner proposed by the Petitioner, we are persuaded on the record before us that those of ordinary skill in the art would combine the teachings of Lesniak, Phinney, and Bianci ’518 to meet each limitation of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in the Petition. See e.g. id., 27 (“a POSA would have known that hardness was an ‘important physical parameter affecting consumer acceptance,’ and would have looked to achieve hardness levels that were taught in the field to achieve consumer acceptance”); see also Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 63–64 (same). Patent” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“summarized above, we are persuaded, based on the current record, that persons of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Lesniak, Phinney, and Bianchi ’518 to arrive at the deodorant stick of at least claim 1 with a reasonable expectation of success for the reasons stated in the Petition. Pet. 24–37. In particular, we are persuaded by Petitioner that Lesniak teaches natural anhydrous personal care compositions, including a deodorant stick in the form of an antiperspirant stick. Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:16–35, 4:22, 5:5–32, 10: 27, 10:32–33). Lesniak explains that such compositions include at least one antimicrobial (i.e., zinc oxide) and a where the compositions are free of an aluminum salt. Id., 24–25. While Petitioner concedes that Lesniak does not expressly teach that its compositions include magnesium hydroxide, for that element, Petitioner combines Phinney disclosure for using magnesium hydroxide as an antimicrobial in a deodorant stick. Id., 25–26 (citing Ex. 1004, 2:33–37). And Petitioner provides a reason to combine Lesniak and Phinney, noting that “[b]oth Lesniak and Phinney are directed to deodorants with ‘natural ingredients’ and both describe the use of known antimicrobials”. Id., 26–27 (citing to Ex. 1003, 4:61–5:31, 9:45, 10:27, 10:31–33, 3:39–4:21, 8:31–9:59; Ex. 1004, 1:5–9, 1:15–19, 5:52–67, 6:31–34, 8:40–44). Petitioner concludes that “a POSA would have been motivated to incorporate magnesium hydroxide into Lesniak’s composition following Phinney’s guidance, as this combination would improve odor protection while maintaining the ‘natural’ composition intended by Lesniak.” Pet. 27; Ex. 1002 ¶ 62 (same). Petitioner also concedes that Lesniak also does not expressly teach hardness as measured by penetration within an ASTM-D 1321 needle test, but that Bianchi ’518 discloses a hardness range by needle penetration. Id at 26–28. By combining these references of record in the manner proposed by the Petitioner, we are persuaded on the record before us that those of ordinary skill in the art would combine the teachings of Lesniak, Phinney, and Bianci ’518 to meet each limitation of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in the Petition. See e.g. id., 27 (“a POSA would have known that hardness was an ‘important physical parameter affecting consumer acceptance,’ and would have looked to achieve hardness levels that were taught in the field to achieve consumer acceptance”); see also Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 63–64 (same). Patent” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA” or “POSITA”) at the time of the invention “would have (1) at least a B.S. or equivalent degree; and (2) at least two years of experience in cosmetics formulations.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 26–28). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal about the POSA’s qualifications. Prelim. Resp. 8. For this Decision, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposal above, which does not appear to be inconsistent with the level of skill reflected in the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,540,999 - PTAB · Jan 22, 2025 · IPR2024-01090 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–3, 21, 29–31, 42–44, 54, and 62–65 based on the §103 combination of Blumenberg, Bhumkar, and Griffin.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“In an inter partes review, the petitioner must show with particularity why each challenged claim is unpatentable. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b). The burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Patent Owner may bear a burden of production, however, to show that the Challenged Claims are entitled to the benefit of an earlier filing date. Id. at 1379–80.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“On this record, we preliminarily agree with Petitioner that the claim limitations amount to a combination of known elements that a POSITA could have combined to achieve predictable results. See Intel, 21 F.4th at 799–800 (determining that a showing of the obviousness in predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions requires only a showing that the combination be a suitable option). Among other reasons, the preliminary record supports Petitioner’s arguments that combining the teachings of Blumenberg, Bhumkar, and Griffin amounts to applying known solutions in the field of computer interfaces with predictable outcomes. See Pet. 12–18. As noted above, we encourage the parties to address the scope and meaning of the “when” limitations as a matter of claim interpretation, but we do not currently understand the plain language of Limitation [1.o] to require that the “portion of the second web page” or “menu” is displayed only after expiration of the “second user-configurable predefined duration,” termed by Patent Owner the “Alternative Modification.” Again, we encourage the parties to fully address this issue as a matter of claim construction. We additionally note that, even if we were to interpret the claims to require that the recited functions of Limitation [1.o] occur only the “prerequisite elements” are satisfied, we are still preliminarily persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that combined teachings of the prior art satisfy the claim elements as a mere combination of known elements combined according to their known functions with predictable results.” slip op. at 27
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“scenarios. Pet. 1 (characterizing three claimed scenarios as (i) an “inadvertent” contact, (ii) a “tap” contact, and (iii) a “hold” contact), 4 (“Independent Claims 1 and 42 outline three scenarios regarding a user’s contact with a touch screen device”); Prelim. Resp. 3 (“With respect to claim 1, these three scenarios include: . . . .”); see Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 28 (“As recited in claim 1, the three different claimed functionalities are executed ‘when’ the prerequisite elements are met (described as three scenarios by Dr. Cockburn.”) (citing Ex. 1001, 102:50–103:55; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 33–35), 29–32 (describing the first, second, and third scenarios). In substance, the parties’ dispute appears to concern whether the plain language of the claims requires that a recited function must be performed only after or in response to expiration of a threshold (and other prerequisites), as opposed to requiring a function that begins before and continues after expiration of a threshold. Notably, dependent claim 3 recites: “The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the electronic device is configured such that the first feedback that is perceptible by touch is output prior to the display of the menu.” Ex. 1001, 104:1–4 (emphasis added). Given that independent claim 1 is necessarily broad enough to include claim 3, it seems on this record that the functions recited in Limitation [1.o] necessarily can happen at different times, as opposed to, for example, only responses that are triggered by the so-called “prerequisite elements.” We encourage the parties to address this issue as a matter of claim interpretation in future briefing. Based on the current record, however, we determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any claim terms at this stage of the proceeding. 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)).” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,725,581 - PTAB · Jan 16, 2025 · IPR2024-01088 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Apple would prevail on its § 103 challenges.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information 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.” For the reasons that follow, we institute inter partes review as to the challenged claims of the ’758 patent on all grounds of unpatentability presented.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 7 (internal citations omitted) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 41–53). For the purposes of institution, Patent Owner did not dispute this level of skill. Prelim. Resp. 6 (“Patent Owner does not necessarily agree with all aspects of Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, but does not believe that resolving that level is necessary to resolve the issues raised in this preliminary response.”) The portion of the definition proposed by the Petitioner requiring “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a comparable field and at least two years of professional experience working with graphical user interfaces and applications for computers” appears to be consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’758 patent and prior art of record and is supported by declarant testimony. We adopt this as the definition of one of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of this Decision. We note that since it is unclear whether the bachelor’s degree in the proposed definition is considered by Petitioner to be “an advanced-level degree” we do not adopt the portion of the definition relating to the substitution of years of experience for a degree at this time. Additionally, we do not herein adopt Petitioner’s proposed additional requirement that one of ordinary skill “would have possessed extensive background knowledge and understanding of the pertinent technologies employed by the ’758 patent.” Pet. 7.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner also notes that in the pending District Court Litigation, Petitioner contends that eight claim terms found in the challenged claims are indefinite: “performing an operation [in connection with / on] the first application icon,” “application-launch criteria,” “action-option-display criteria,” “operation criteria,” “movement criteria,” “action options,” “action option objects,” and “evaluating the first single-finger touch input against at least one of a plurality of criteria, including evaluating a duration of the first single-finger touch input against at least one of: one or more application-launch criteria, one or more action-option-display criteria, or one or more operation criteria, and further including evaluating a movement of the first single-finger touch input against one or more movement criteria.” Prelim. Resp. 6–7 (citing Ex. 2003, 9–75). Patent Owner further notes that, contrary to its position in the pending District Court Litigation, Petitioner does not assert that any of these terms are indefinite in this proceeding. Id. For institution and on our present record, we determine that none of these claim terms require construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). 3. Other Terms For institution and on our present record, no other claim terms require construction. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We determine that, on this record and for the purposes of institution, Petitioner has made a sufficient showing regarding motivation for its proposed combination of Chaudhri, Martyn, and Griffin. For the combination of Chaudhri and Martyn, we determine, on the present record and for the purposes of institution, that Petitioner has sufficiently shown support for the use of Martyn’s snap-shot menu with Chaudhri’s user interface. We acknowledge Patent Owner’s declarant’s examples of instances in which devices that incorporated “popular user interface features . . . did not achieve the same level of success because of poorly articulated design implementation.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 127 (cited at PO Resp. 23). However, on the present record, this evidence does not specifically address whether one of ordinary skill would have found such examples significant enough or relevant enough to the proposed combination to dissuade one of ordinary skill from considering such a combination to be reasonably likely to succeed, especially in light of the testimonial evidence before us that similar menus were often incorporated into GUIs similar to Chaudhri’s, which is adequately supported by reference to numerous examples. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 43–48, 64–65 (cited at Pet. 16). Additionally, we find compelling that Chaudhri describes a pop-up dialogue sub-menu for a different purpose (modifying the user interface object). See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 274, 317, Figure 5LLL; Pet. 18–19; Ex. 1003 ¶ 69. On the present record, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the use of the similar snap-shot menu from Martyn (offering different functionality) to be further prompted by this sub-menu, and not to have been redundant or “already solved” in Chaudhri, as Patent Owner argues (PO Resp. 26–27). See Pet. 18–19; Ex. 1003 ¶ 69. introduced to the combination of Chaudhri and Martyn to address a conflict that arises because Petitioner proposes a combination of Chaudhri and Martyn that “create[s] a conflict of assigning two functions to the same gesture.” PO Resp. 20. However, Petitioner provides a number of rationales to combine, and Petitioner’s argument that one of ordinary skill would have sought details from Griffin to implement Chaudhri’s teachings describing different user functionality being launched by user touches of different user durations (Pet. 19–21) adequately supports the use of the material from Griffin in the proposed combination. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 217, 218; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 70–73, 75; see also PO Resp. 24 (describing “multiple types of gestures” used Chaudhri). While the proposed combination of Chaudhri and Martyn would, as Petitioner asserts, result in “three distinct operations invoked by duration-based touch gestures at an application icon” (Pet. 21), two of these distinct operations are found in Chaudhri’s teachings, and thus, on the present record, the motivation to look to Griffin does not arise only from the proposed combination of Chaudhri with Martyn. On the present record and for the purposes of institution, we determine that Petitioner has adequately shown that one of ordinary skill would have looked to Griffin to supply additional information regarding implementation of Chaudhri’s (and the Chaudhri and Martyn combination’s) use of parameters of a user’s touch, including duration, to enable different functionalities. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 40, 53, Fig. 7; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 70–73, 75. With respect to the use of the “press-and-hold” feature from Martyn, rather than other possibilities from Martyn for triggering its snap-shot menu and rather than adding a second touch point as Patent Owner suggests (PO Resp. 27–28, 32, 33 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 142–143, 156, 166, 172–173)), on to have been a suitable option. Pet. 15–16; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 49–53, 63–64; Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 799–800 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (determining that a showing of the obviousness in “predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions” (as per KSR, 550 U.S. at 417) requires only a showing that the combination be a suitable option, rather than a showing that it is the best option).” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,656,758 - PTAB · Jan 14, 2025 · IPR2024-01087 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–13, 15–35, and 37–43 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Apple would show at least one challenged claim unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We determine Petitioner’s showing discussed above regarding Limitations [1.i–1.l] to be sufficient for institution. Petitioner’s showing in large measure relies on Hackborn’s straightforward description of changing the appearance of grass displayed in “live” wallpaper in response to a finger swipe in combination with Westerman’s disclosures of interpreting user input on touch screens as swipes. See, e.g., Pet. 22–23; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 28, 33; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 18–19. With regard to the contested Limitations [1.i and 1.k], we note particularly that Petitioner’s combination relies on Westerman’s disclosure of interpreting user inputs that exceed various thresholds as “a swipe event.” This showing is sufficient for institution to show the threshold determination required by Limitation [1.j]. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 19; Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 19). Petitioner’s combination relies on Hackborn’s animation of the grass on the wallpaper “that makes the grass blades look as if the finger is actually contacting them as it drags across the screen of the device.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 33; see Pet. 23 (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 33). On this preliminary record, Petitioner’s position that “the farther the swipe, the more extreme the grass movement expected from Hackborn” naturally follows from Hackborn’s description. Pet. 23. As such, we determine Petitioner’s showing that the proposed combination of Hackborn and Westerman changes the grass appearance based at least in part of the magnitude of the swipe to be sufficient for institution for Limitation [1.k].” slip op. at 23
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, human-computer interaction, or a related field, and would have had at least two years of relevant work experience in the design and development of graphical user interfaces (GUIs), human-computer interfaces, or equivalents thereof.” Pet. 9 n.2 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 26); Ex. 1003 ¶ 26. Dr. Cockburn also indicates that “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education and vice versa.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 26.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“At this stage, we agree with the parties that no terms need to be construed expressly. We discuss claim interpretation to the extent necessary in the context of analyzing the asserted grounds.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Hackborn’s mobile device with a touch screen able to display “live” wallpaper and Westerman’s techniques for interpreting swipe gesture inputs, including distinguishing between tap and swipe gestures using predetermined thresholds. Pet. 9–11, 12–13; see Pet. 9–14 (describing Petitioner’s “Hackborn-Westerman Combination”). Petitioner contends that “[a] POSITA reviewing Hackborn would have naturally looked to Westerman to better understand how to implement Hackborn’s teachings, for example, how to discern between different user inputs (e.g., tap or swipe).” Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 52). Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references in the manner Petitioner proposes. Pet. 13–14. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that, because “recognizing predetermined touch inputs was known, and Hackborn and Westerman both describe the use of touchscreen devices and would have reasonably understood the combination of Hackborn and Westerman to be successful with no unexpected results.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 53; Ex. 1004 ¶ 28, Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 18, 19, 25, 41, 59, 61–64).” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,656,755
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.