- PTAB · Aug 19, 2024 · IPR2024-00611 · APJ Michael G Mcmanus · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–23 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Ungerank and Scholz.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“3. Whether Petitioner has Demonstrated a Reasonable Likelihood of Prevailing “In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). Further, Petitioner bears the “burden to demonstrate both that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention[s], and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” In re Magnum Oil Tools, Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation and internal quotation omitted). Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and evidence of record, we are persuaded that Petitioner demonstrates sufficiently that Ungerank and Scholz teach or suggest each limitation in claim 1. Petitioner also sets forth sufficient reasoning with a rational underpinning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Ungerank and Scholz in the manner recited in claim 1, with a reasonable expectation of success, so as to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). Further, Petitioner bears the “burden to demonstrate both that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention[s], and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” In re Magnum Oil Tools, Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation and internal quotation omitted). Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and evidence of record, we are persuaded that Petitioner demonstrates sufficiently that Ungerank and Scholz teach or suggest each limitation in claim 1. Petitioner also sets forth sufficient reasoning with a rational underpinning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Ungerank and Scholz in the manner recited in claim 1, with a reasonable expectation of success, so as to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“A reference does not teach away if it “does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (cleaned up). The Federal Circuit has explained that “a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit ... should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be” slip op. at 21
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialInstituted
“Petitioner argues that the Board should not exercise its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C §§ 314(a) or 325(d). Pet. 62–69. Patent Owner does not address discretionary denial. In view of the absence of argument from Patent Owner and minimal evidence bearing upon discretionary denial, we determine that there is no basis for discretionary denial.” slip op. at 29
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,471,380 - Hoya Optical Labs Of America, Inc. v. Inland Diamond Products Co.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · May 23, 2019 · IPR2018-00178 · APJ Michael G Mcmanus · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 7, 8, and 12 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 2, 4–6, and 9–11 were not proven unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“The claims at issue are apparatus claims rather than process claims. Accordingly, no specific means of achieving the interference fit is required. We construe “interference fit” as a structural limitation specifying the relationship of the bevel and frame. Even if construed as a product-by-process limitation (with the process being the insertion of a lens within a frame of lesser size), “determination of patentability is based on the product itself.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Patent Owner frames its proposed construction in terms of the process by which the fit comes about, but says little about the structural characteristics of the interference fit upon assembly. The Specification teaches that pressure upon the lens would lead to compression of the vertex. Ex. 1001, 4:40–55. That the vertex is in a compressed state is separately required in all claims by the “in compression” limitation. Id. at 8:54, 9:24. In view of the foregoing and in light of the parties’ arguments following institution, we modify our preliminary construction to recognize that an interference fit in this context implicates associated compressive forces. We, therefore, construe “interference fit” to mean “a relationship of the bevel of the lens and the receiving channel bottom of the eyeglass frame where such parts are in contact so as to exert frictional and compressive forces that secure the lens in place.”” slip op. at 17
- Expert testimonyNot reached
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner sets forth a rationale to combine the teachings of Gottschald and Schaeffer. Id. at 20. Petitioner argues that the teachings of Gottschald are applicable to the prescription lenses of Schaeffer as follows: POSITA would have been motivated by these teachings to use the method and device of Gottschald, with no change in its function, to edge the prescription plastic lens blank described by Schaeffer “so that the spectacle lens edge machining directly delivers a spectacle lens which is suitable for the selected spectacle frame, which has been ground to shape and which is provided with a bevel” (Gottschald, p. 6), and thereby to obtain the expected result of a “prescription plastic lens for use in an eyeglass frame” as recited in claim 1. Id. at 20. Patent Owner does not challenge the adequacy of Petitioner’s rationale with specificity. See PO Resp. 48–54. Rather, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner relies on “mere conclusory statements” throughout the Petition. Id. at 49. Such a generalized argument has little force. Having reviewed the evidence as a whole, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Gottschald (regarding lens edging) and Schaeffer (regarding prescription lenses) in the manner Petitioner proposes.” slip op. at 28
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached
Patent outcomesUS 8,636,360 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,636,360
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.