- Mastercard International Incorporated v. William GreciaRehearing deniedPTAB · Jul 27, 2017 · IPR2017-00791 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Mastercard’s rehearing request to add Ameerally anticipation grounds for claims 1–4 and 11–21, finding the petition had not adequately asserted or explained those arguments and evidence.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“On request for rehearing, the burden of showing a decision on whether to institute trial should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). For reasons discussed below, Petitioner’s Request is denied.” slip op. at 2
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDenied
“Req. Reh’g, 2–3. But the Board could not have overlooked or misapprehended arguments or evidence that were not specifically identified and explained in the Petition. It is too late for Petitioner to add further explanation in a Request for Rehearing. As noted above, Petitioner failed to identify the place in the Petition where the matter allegedly misapprehended or overlooked by the Board was addressed in the Petition, as is required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). In any event, the reproduced text of Paragraph 83 of Gautier modifies “account identifier” with the parenthetical “(such as an email address”).” Ex. 1011 ¶ 83. The parenthetical is exemplary in nature and indicates only that an email address can be an account identifier, and not that in iTunes the Account Name necessarily is a user’s email address.” slip op. at 5
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)
“we did not state or find that Petitioner’s assertion was not supported by the record evidence. Instead, we determined that why the last step of claim 1 is met by Ameerally was not adequately explained by Petitioner. For instance, with respect to Petitioner’s discussion of Frakes, we stated: The Figure illustrates detailed information kept by Frakes’s iTunes® system for a digital movie file. Id. at 4. Petitioner asserts: “Frakes illustrates ‘Purchased By’ and ‘Account Name’ in the metadata of the iTunes® media file (grayed out in image for privacy, but field illustrated), such that the claimed ‘electronic identification reference’ was necessarily written into the metadata as saved by iTunes®. (Cherukuri Decl. ¶ 139).” Pet. 46. However, neither Petitioner nor Mr. Cherukuri explains why the “Purchased By” or “Account Name” field is necessarily the login information, e.g., the user’s e-mail address, that the iTunes® system had requested and received, as had been explained by Petitioner and Mr. Cherukuri above when accounting for requesting an electronic identification reference and receiving the electronic identification reference. It is not explained why the fields cannot be another identification reference other than the user’s e-mail address. Paper 7, 32. With respect to Petitioner’s discussion of Zweig, we stated: The argument [about Zweig] establishes that, in the metadata for the digital content purchased or downloaded by a user there is an identifier, an electronic identification reference, that identifies that user. However, neither Petitioner nor Mr. Cherukuri explains why that identifier in the metadata is necessarily the login information, e.g., the user’s e-mail address, that the iTunes® system had requested and received, as had been explained by Petitioner and Mr. Cherukuri above when accounting for requesting an electronic identification reference and receiving the electronic identification reference. It is not explained why the fields cannot be another identification reference. Id. at 32–33. With respect to independent claims 11 and 21, we stated that for the same reasons discussed in the context of claim 1, the same operation as is required by claims 11 and 21 is not sufficiently accounted for by Petitioner. Id. at 33.” slip op. at 3
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 8,533,860 - Smart Microwave Sensors GmbH v. Wavetronix LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 17, 2017 · IPR2016-00488 · APJ Daniel N Fishman · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 9, 10, 12, 13, 22, 23, and 25 are unpatentable, including as anticipated by Boles or Farmer and obvious over combinations including Boles, Farmer, Herman, and others.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted
“1. Exhibits 1002, 1008, 1009, and 1012 Patent Owner argues the date printed on each of Exhibits 1002, 1008, 1009, and 1012, is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 as out of court statement offered to prove that truth of the matter asserted—that each document was a printed publication as of the date printed on that document (i.e., that it was sufficiently publicly accessible). Paper 45, 2–3 (citing Standard Innovation Corp. v. Lelo, Inc., Case IPR2014-00148, Paper 41 (PTAB April 23, 2015)). As discussed supra, we agree with Patent Owner that the dates printed on these Exhibits are hearsay with no applicable exception. Thus, we grant Patent Owner’s motion requesting that we exclude the copyright notice date from each of Exhibits 1008, 1009, and 1012, and exclude the date of the EuMC conference on Exhibit 1002. However, we note that the documents per se are not excluded from the record as hearsay—only the date imprinted on each as proof of the printed publication status of each document. The underlying documents of these Exhibits are offered not to prove the publication dates thereof but, instead, are statements offered to demonstrate the knowledge of persons of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner may rely on other evidence to establish the date of public accessibility of each of these documents, the analysis of which we have set forth supra. See Section II.B.1–4.” slip op. at 54
- Skill levelNot reached
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“data about multiple vehicles on a particular section of roadway (PO Resp. 7– 8), Petitioner counters by identifying references in the field of traffic engineering that use mobile sensors (i.e., not at a fixed location) for acquiring “traffic data.” Pet. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1031 ¶¶ 6, 22, 181–183). Referring to pages 7–13 of Exhibit 1031 (Texas Highway Operations Manual discussing “Vehicle-based Equipment”), Patent Owner’s expert testified, on cross-examination, as follows: Q In view of the paragraph, would it be accurate to note that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the equipment located in a vehicle can be used to measure the speed of the traffic stream? A It says that a vehicle-mounted radar unit can be used to measure the timing speed of other vehicles in the traffic stream. It does not say it is used to measure the traffic stream. Q I said measure the speed of the traffic. A Yes. This says it is measuring the speed of vehicles in the traffic stream. Q So one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the equipment located in a vehicle can be used to measure the speed of vehicles in a traffic stream? A That is how it’s worded, the speed of other vehicles in the traffic stream. Ex. 1036, 98:21–99:13. In light of that testimony, we determine that Patent Owner’s expert testimony in support of their assertion is not credible.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Id. at 49:19–50:10. Given, at best, significant ambiguity as to whether the Specification and other evidence requires that “traffic data” must refer to “all or substantially all vehicles,” we are persuaded that such a requirement would not be proper under a broadest reasonable construction. Regarding Patent Owner’s assertion that “traffic data” is limited to data about multiple vehicles on a particular section of roadway (PO Resp. 7– 8), Petitioner counters by identifying references in the field of traffic engineering that use mobile sensors (i.e., not at a fixed location) for acquiring “traffic data.” Pet. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1031 ¶¶ 6, 22, 181–183). Referring to pages 7–13 of Exhibit 1031 (Texas Highway Operations Manual discussing “Vehicle-based Equipment”), Patent Owner’s expert testified, on cross-examination, as follows: Q In view of the paragraph, would it be accurate to note that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the equipment located in a vehicle can be used to measure the speed of the traffic stream? A It says that a vehicle-mounted radar unit can be used to measure the timing speed of other vehicles in the traffic stream. It does not say it is used to measure the traffic stream. Q I said measure the speed of the traffic. A Yes. This says it is measuring the speed of vehicles in the traffic stream. Q So one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the equipment located in a vehicle can be used to measure the speed of vehicles in a traffic stream? A That is how it’s worded, the speed of other vehicles in the traffic stream.” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 6,693,557 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,693,557 - PTAB · Jul 6, 2017 · IPR2017-00245 · APJ Melissa A Haapala · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied the petitioner’s rehearing request, leaving institution on claims 52, 58, 60, and 61 and denial of institution on the remaining challenged claims unchanged.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“instituting an inter partes review of claims 52, 58, 60, and 61 of U.S. Patent No. 6,950,013 (“the ’013 patent”) and denying institution of claims 1, 4, 8– 12, 17, 18, 27, 28, 34, 35, and 45 of the ’013 patent. Paper 11 (“Req. Reh’g”), 1. On rehearing, the burden of showing that the Decision should be modified lies with Petitioner, the party challenging the Decision. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously address in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id. “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“differentiation analysis constitutes error, much less an abuse of discretion. Specifically, under any standard, we disagree that merely because claim 13 sets forth “said download trigger is adapted to require input of an electronic access code,” that the information datalink is able to access the captured data without an authorization code. Even if we were to agree with Petitioner that the “electronic access code” recited in claim 13 is synonymous or related to the “authorization code” recited in claim 1 (see id. at 7), an assertion that itself is dubious given the differences in express claim language, claim 13 merely sets forth a specific technique for inputting the electronic access code via the download trigger. Claim 13 does not negate claim 1’s specific requirement that the captured data is inaccessible without the authorization code — in other words, if the authorization code is not required to be input in the download trigger, it must be provided in another way to access the data. We similarly disagree with Petitioner that the limitations set forth in claim 47 dictate that the data can be transferred (accessed) without an authorization code. Claim 47 merely sets forth the transfer is “in response” to the receipt of the access code, and does not mandate an interpretation that the data can be transferred (accessed) without the authorization code.” slip op. at 3
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“In our Decision, we concluded that Petitioner did not adequately explain or map how either Joao or Mackey discloses captured/stored data being inaccessible without the use of the authorization code. Dec. 10, 15. Petitioner asserts that in reaching our conclusion, we incorrectly interpreted “the captured data being inaccessible without the authorization code” to” slip op. at 2
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 6,950,013 - Arctic Cat, Inc. v. Polaris Industries Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jul 5, 2017 · IPR2017-00455 · APJ Phillip J Kauffman · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims, failing to provide a sufficient rationale for either proposed prior-art combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Petitioner, and for that reason, section 325(d) is not relevant to our analysis. Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 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); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. We consider Patent Owner’s three underlying contentions under this standard.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“cooling air unobstructed by exterior body panels and would avoid receiving hot air from inside the engine compartment, thereby cooling the CVT more effectively, reducing wear, and improving CVT efficiency. Pet. 19, 22; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 48–50, 54, 55, 230, 233; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 4–5. The premise of this reasoning is that airflow to Suzuki’s CVT is obstructed by an exterior body panel or panels. That premise is not supported adequately the record.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“For the purposes of this decision, and on this record, we determine that no claim terms need express interpretation. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only those terms which are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Other
“We reserve ruling on the Motion to Seal. Paper 7 and Exhibit 2015 will remain under seal in the interim. After the absence of a timely request for rehearing, or if filed, after resolution of a request for rehearing, Patent Owner may seek authorization to file a Motion to Expunge Paper 7 and Exhibit 2015. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.71(d)(1), 42.56.” slip op. at 3
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 9,217,501 - Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · May 5, 2017 · PGR2016-00031 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · PGR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, finding no abuse of discretion in instituting PGR despite the district court ruling, secondary-considerations evidence, and § 325(d) arguments.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“I. LEGAL STANDARDS When rehearing a decision whether to institute post-grant review, we review the decision for an “abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “The burden of showing [the] decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in” the briefing. Id.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“§ 325(d), Req. Reh’g 7–11, we disagree. At bottom, § 325(d) is discretionary. See 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) (“the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments were presented to the Office.”) (emphasis added). Patent Owner’s argument amounts to a disagreement about how the panel viewed the Examiner’s treatment of the art and arguments from the related petition for post-grant review in PGR2015-00018. See Req. Reh’g 7–11. Patent Owner fails to point out anything in the prosecution history we overlooked or misapprehended. Id. Instead, the bulk of Patent Owner’s Request is devoted to new legal arguments, not found anywhere in the Preliminary Response, regarding how it believes we should interpret the standard for institution of post-grant review. A party seeking reconsideration “is not supposed to treat the [Board’s] initial decision as the opening of a dialogue in which that party may then use such a motion to advance new theories or adduce new evidence in response to the [Board’s] rulings.” Polsby v. St. Martin’s Press, Inc., No. 97 Civ. 690 (MBM), 2000 WL 98057, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan 18, 2000). We decline to reweigh these same sections of the prosecution history or reconsider the meaning § 324(a) and § 325(d) based on new arguments advanced for the first time in a request for rehearing. Thus, we are not persuaded that we abused our discretion in applying § 325(d) to this case.” slip op. at 10
- Other 314aDecided for petitioner
“First, on this record, we are not persuaded that the district court’s preliminary injunction decision in Tinnus II controlled our independent review of the arguments and evidence submitted by the parties in our proceeding. To the contrary, our reviewing court has noted that a prior judicial opinion does not bind the Board’s review. Thus, generally, we are not required to reach the same conclusion as the district court. See Novartis AG v. Noven Pharms. Inc., No. 2016-1678, 1679, 2017 WL 1229742, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 4, 2017) (“Novartis alleges that a fundamental legal error pervades the PTAB’s Final Written Decisions: the PTAB unlawfully reached different conclusions than our court and the [district court], which addressed the ‘same’ arguments and the ‘same’ evidence and found the Asserted Claims nonobvious in two prior opinions. . . . [E]ven if the record were the same, Novartis’s argument would fail as a matter of law.”). Second, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s characterization that a district court’s standard of a “substantial question of validity” transfers so neatly to our institution standard of “more likely than not.” Req. Reh’g 4. Although “a showing of a substantial question of invalidity, requires less proof than the clear and convincing standard to show actual invalidity,” Erico Int’l Corp. v. Vutec Corp., 516 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2008), it still requires a showing that “in light of the presumptions and burdens that will inhere at trial on the merits” the attacker has “a likelihood of success” in invalidating the patent, Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also PPG Indus., Inc. v. Guardian Indus., Inc., 75 F.3d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“The ultimate question, however, is whether the challenger’s evidence of invalidity is sufficiently persuasive that it is likely to overcome the presumption of patent validity.”). In contrast, there are no presumptions of validity to be overcome in proceedings before the Board. Third, on the record before us, we do not agree that “identical arguments and evidence” are at issue in our proceeding and before the district court as Patent Owner contends. Req. Reh’g 4. For example, the district court conducted a hearing where witnesses gave testimony and were subject to cross examination. Ex. 2003, 1 (noting hearing), 14 (noting testimony by an expert at hearing regarding invalidity). In contrast, at the pre-institution stage for a post-grant review, testimony submitted provided by the parties has not been cross-examined in our proceeding. Moreover, our rules require us to view disputed issues of material fact created by the testimony of the competing declarants in the light most favorable to the Petitioner. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.208(c). There is no similar requirement in a preliminary injunction ruling. Further, even if the same record were before us, this would not constrain our independent review of the arguments and evidence presented by the parties for the purposes of determining whether to institute a post-grant review. See Novartis AG, 2017 WL 1229742, at *3.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“secondary considerations of nonobviousness. Req. Reh’g 5–7. We disagree. Initially, we note that aside from the fact that we must be careful in assigning definitive weight to evidence of secondary considerations at the institution stage before Petitioner has had a chance to respond, even when we evaluated that evidence preliminarily, we did not determine the arguments and evidence presented by Patent Owner in its Preliminary Response to be sufficient to preclude institution. See Dec. 32–33. As we pointed out in our Decision, we reviewed the evidence submitted by the Patent Owner, including evidence purported to show commercial success, copying, and praise. See Dec. 32. However, at that stage in the proceeding, we did not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments. Id. Thus, Patent Owner has not established that the Board overlooked some evidence it was required to consider for institution. A request for rehearing is not an opportunity merely to disagree with the panel’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence.” slip op. at 7
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,315,282 - Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · May 5, 2017 · PGR2016-00030 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · PGR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s request for rehearing, finding no abuse of discretion in its institution decision concerning the district court ruling, secondary considerations, or § 325(d).
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“I. LEGAL STANDARDS When rehearing a decision whether to institute post-grant review, we review the decision for an “abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “The burden of showing [the] decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in” the briefing. Id.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“C. Improper Application of 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) As for Patent Owner’s arguments that we misapplied 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), Req. Reh’g 10–15, we disagree. At bottom, § 325(d) is discretionary. See 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) (“the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments were presented to the Office.”) (emphasis added). Patent Owner’s argument amounts to a disagreement about how the panel viewed the Examiner’s treatment of the art and arguments from the related petition for post-grant review in PGR2015-00018. See Req. Reh’g 10–11. Patent Owner fails to point out anything in the prosecution history we overlooked or misapprehended. Id. Instead, the bulk of Patent Owner’s Request is devoted to new legal arguments, not found anywhere in the Preliminary Response, regarding how it believes we should interpret the standard for institution of post-grant review. A party seeking reconsideration “is not supposed to treat the [Board’s] initial decision as the opening of a dialogue in which that party may then use such a motion to advance new theories or adduce new evidence in response to the [Board’s] rulings.” Polsby v. St. Martin’s Press, Inc., No. 97 Civ. 690 (MBM), 2000 WL 98057, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan 18, 2000). We decline to reweigh these same sections of the prosecution history or reconsider the meaning § 324(a) and § 325(d) based on new arguments advanced for the first time in a request for rehearing. Thus, we are not persuaded that we abused our discretion in applying § 325(d) to this case.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner also asserts that we misapprehended the evidence that it did present. Req. Reh’g 6–9. We disagree. Much of Patent Owner’s discussion amounts to little more than an effort to have us re-weigh the evidence that was before us. See Ahmed v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 247, 249 (7th Cir. 2004) (“A motion that merely republishes the reasons that had failed to convince the tribunal in the first place gives the tribunal no reason to change its mind.”). As we pointed out in our Decision, we accorded the evidence presented little weight because, aside from the fact that we must be careful in assigning definitive weight to evidence of secondary considerations at the institution stage before Petitioner has had a chance to respond, even when we evaluated that evidence preliminarily, we ascertained numerous problems with the evidence that significantly undercut the weight to be accorded. See Dec. 32–33. In particular, we discern that much of the testimony submitted consisted of vague and unsupported assertions deserving of little weight. Although Patent Owner is correct that there is no requirement that the testimony be corroborated, Req. Reh’g 9, a fact finder is entitled to take any corroboration (or lack thereof) into account in determining the weight that the testimony should be accorded. See, e.g., Nigro v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 784 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2015) (noting certain testimony was admissible “though absent corroboration, it may have limited weight”); United States v. Ibisevic, 675 F.3d 342, (4th Cir. 2012) (noting jury entitled to give different weight to corroborated and uncorroborated testimony); United States v. Parry, 649 F.2d 292, 296 (5th Cir. 1981) (noting a “defense discounted by the jury when standing alone, may have been believed when bolstered by corroborative testimony”). Our assessment giving corroborated testimony greater weight is additionally supported by the lack of cross-examination of these witnesses. See Martin–Mendoza v. INS, 499 F.2d 918, 921 (9th Cir. 1974) (approving the hearing officer’s determination that the “weight [of a sworn statement] is necessarily impaired by the fact that the affiant could not be presented for cross-examination”). Moreover, we have broad discretion to determine what weight to give the evidence before us. Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding that Board has discretion to give weight to one item of evidence over another “unless no reasonable trier of fact could have done so”); Velander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[A]ccord[ing] little weight to broad conclusory statements [in expert testimony before the Board] that it determined were unsupported by corroborating references [was] within the discretion of the trier of fact to give each item of evidence such weight as it feels appropriate.”). We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contentions that we erred in weighing its evidence.” slip op. at 8
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,242,749 - Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. William Beaumont Hospital And Elekta, Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · May 4, 2017 · IPR2016-00187 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 25–29 and 35–42 are unpatentable: claims 25–29 and 36–39 as obvious, and claims 35 and 40–42 as anticipated.
RulingsFinal written decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“2. Analysis Petitioner asserts that Jaffray ’97 anticipates claims 35 and 40–42. Pet. 41–45 (citing Exs. 1003, 1004). For example, independent claim 35 recites “providing an existing radiation therapy system that comprises a radiation source that is supported on a support structure.” Petitioner cites Jaffray ’97 for disclosing a rotating gantry including an MV source. Independent claim 35 recites further “attaching an imager that does not directly 5 We refer to the original pagination of Jaffray ’97, and not Petitioner’s pagination. face said radiation source to said support structure.” Petitioner cites Jaffray ’97 for disclosing a kV imager that does not directly face the MV source. Petitioner provides similar analyses for claims 40–42. Patent Owner does not dispute any of the Petitioner’s assertions. 3. Conclusion After considering all of the above-referenced evidence and arguments anew, in light of the appropriate standard, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 35 and 40–42 are anticipated by Jaffray ’97.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), reaffirmed the framework for determining obviousness as set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966). The KSR Court summarized the four factual inquiries set forth in Graham that we apply in determining whether a claim is reasonably likely to be unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows: 1. determining the scope and content of the prior art, 2. ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, 3. resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and 4. considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 406. With these standards in mind, we address the challenges based on obviousness below.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s arguments are not persuasive. Initially, we note that Patent Owner does not dispute that Span discloses the movable imager support system recited in claim 25. Nor does Patent Owner dispute that Span’s movable support system is a known improvement. Ex. 1005, 2:59– 63 (disclosing that due to the movable support structure, imaging equipment “can be very easily moved by rotation of the arm 14 about the pivot 24”). Instead, Patent Owner alleges that one of ordinary skill would not have modified the CBCT system of Jaffray ’97 to include the Span’s movable support system, for the known improvement of facilitating movement of a detector toward and away from a patient, because there is no need for such an improvement for a CBCT system. PO Resp. 14–20 (citing Exs. 1005, 1:12–21, 1:30–35, 2:35–36, 2:38–44, 2:48–55, 2:59–63, 3:2–4, Fig. 1a; 2080 ¶¶ 78–85, 100–103, 117). Patent Owner’s argument is misplaced, because Petitioner’s proffered modification is for the known improvement of movement generally, and not limited to the movement of a detector toward and away from a patient disclosed in Span. Specifically, Petitioner asserts: Jaffray ’97 does suggest that “important characteristics [of the imaging system] include . . . (iii) flexibility of use . . . and, (v) convenience.” (Id. at 5.) Span addresses this flexibility and convenience, explaining that, with the disclosed support structure, equipment “can be very easily moved by rotation of the arm 14 about the pivot 24 . . . .’’ (Ex. 1005 at 2:59–63.) Pet. 27–28. KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 419 (“The second error of the Court of Appeals lay in its assumption that a person of ordinary skill attempting to solve a problem will be led only to those elements of prior art designed to solve the same problem.”). The Petition does not rely on the movement in Span being limited to “toward and away from a patient.” See generally Pet. 27–28.” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’592 Patent would be a person with a graduate degree (M.S. or Ph.D.) in medical physics or a related field (e.g. Physics, Engineering) and three years of experience in radiation oncology physics, imaging science, and image processing related to radiation oncology applications beyond the completion date of their degree. Ex. 2080 ¶ 17. The Declarants are in agreement that the person of ordinary skill in the art has a relatively high level of skill, and also are in agreement as to the basic qualifications for that person. Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s Declarant’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill as our own, if for no other reason than for conciseness, with the understanding that the differences between the proffered levels of ordinary skill are, at best, limited and inconsequential in our analysis.” slip op. at 9
Patent outcomesUS 7,826,592 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,826,592 - Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. William Beaumont HospitalNo claims unpatentablePTAB · May 4, 2017 · IPR2016-00166 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision
Petitioner did not prove claims 43–46, 48–55, 57, 59–66, and 68 unpatentable; strong evidence of industry praise and long-felt need, with commercial success and copying, outweighed the obviousness case.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We begin first with the claim language, and note that “three dimensional information” appears facially to be co-extensive with any information relevant to three dimensions. We discern that “length, width, and depth” are just such information. We have considered Patent Owner’s above-cited portions of the ’502 Patent, but are unpersuaded that those portions narrow “three dimensional information” with sufficient “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision” such that one of ordinary skill would have understood “three dimensional information” as co-extensive with Patent Owner’s proffered construction. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). For example, column 2, lines 42–48 and 51–55 certainly disclose that “volume” is desirable, but does not provide any equivalence between “three dimensional information” and “volume.” Indeed, column 2, lines 54–55 disclose “provide information regarding the location of soft-tissue target volumes,” indicating that “information” is a subset of “volume.”” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Dr. Balter, Petitioner’s expert, proffers that a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art, with respect to and at the time of the’502 patent, would have the following qualifications: “a medical physicist with a Ph.D. (or similar advanced degree) in physics, medical physics, or a related field, and two or more years of experience in radiation oncology physics and image processing/computer programming related to radiation oncology applications.” Ex. 1302 ¶ 14. Dr. Hashemi, Patent Owner’s expert, essentially agrees, with the only major differences to the above being that an M.S. is acceptable in lieu of a Ph.D, and that three years of experience is preferred. Ex. 2080 ¶ 17. Nominally, we accept Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art based on Dr. Balter’s more complete explanation. We note, however, that neither party has explained substantively any significance that the difference in the proffered levels of ordinary skill in the art would have in the obviousness analysis. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966); Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he level of skill in the art is a prism or lens through which a judge, jury, or the Board views the prior art and the claimed invention.”); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.”). To that end, we note that the prior art itself often reflects an appropriate skill level. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“the radiation therapy systems of Adler/Depp to include the CBCT/FPI system of Cho/Antonuk/Jaffray 1997, on pages 33–37 of the Petition which, for the reasons set forth below, we agree with and adopt. Patent Owner asserts that one of ordinary skill would not have modified the radiation therapy systems of Adler/Depp to include the CBCT/FPI system of Cho/Antonuk/Jaffray 1997, because both timing and dosage considerations teach away from the proposed combination. PO Resp. 29–36. We disagree. We begin with timing considerations. PO Resp. 29–34. Fundamentally, Patent Owner asserts that replacing the orthogonal 2-D images projections of Adler/Depp with the CBCT acquired images of Cho/Antonuk/Jaffray 1997 would represent “very poor methodology” because the CBCT system takes a significantly longer period of time to acquire and process images from a patient than the 2-D image system, e.g., 60 seconds to acquire the image, and 30–50 minutes to reconstruct the entire CT conebeam data set. PO Resp. 33–34. According to Patent Owner, such a delay is detrimental in the context of sending targeted radiation to a specific volume within the patient, because during that time, the patient from whom the images was acquired would most likely have shifted positions. PO Resp. 33–35. We are unpersuaded for several reasons. Primarily, we are unpersuaded because a fundamental assumption made by Patent Owner is that the patient must remain unrestrained. Patent Owner makes this assumption based on the assertion that “the primary goal of the Adler/Depp systems is to permit a patient to be relatively unrestrained during the radiotherapy procedure.” PO Resp. 31. We have reviewed Patent Owner’s supporting evidence, and are unpersuaded that the evidence supports Patent Owner’s assertion that “the primary goal of the Adler/Depp systems is to permit a patient to be relatively unrestrained during the radiotherapy procedure.” For example, Patent Owner cites to certain paragraphs of Dr. Hashemi’s Declaration, which in turn cite to certain portions of Depp. Ex. 2080 ¶¶ 107, 123, 126 (citing Ex. 1304, 11:66–12:23, Fig. 9). We have reviewed those portions of Depp, and find that while they do disclose that target location and treatment periods are on the order of seconds, they do not mention anything about “the primary goal of the Adler/Depp systems is to permit a patient to be relatively unrestrained during the radiotherapy procedure.”11 Accordingly, absent such an evidentiary foundation, we do not find credible Dr. Hashemi’s assertions concerning this matter. Even without explicit analysis by Patent Owner, we logically understand the connection between longer image acquisition and processing times, and the higher likelihood of interim patient movement. Absent the aforementioned “primary goal,” however, we are unclear as to why the converse of that goal would not be correct, i.e., that one of ordinary skill would have resolved the timing consideration by restraining the patient.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“the radiation therapy systems of Adler/Depp to include the CBCT/FPI system of Cho/Antonuk/Jaffray 1997, on pages 33–37 of the Petition which, for the reasons set forth below, we agree with and adopt. Patent Owner asserts that one of ordinary skill would not have modified the radiation therapy systems of Adler/Depp to include the CBCT/FPI system of Cho/Antonuk/Jaffray 1997, because both timing and dosage considerations teach away from the proposed combination. PO Resp. 29–36. We disagree. We begin with timing considerations. PO Resp. 29–34. Fundamentally, Patent Owner asserts that replacing the orthogonal 2-D images projections of Adler/Depp with the CBCT acquired images of Cho/Antonuk/Jaffray 1997 would represent “very poor methodology” because the CBCT system takes a significantly longer period of time to acquire and process images from a patient than the 2-D image system, e.g., 60 seconds to acquire the image, and 30–50 minutes to reconstruct the entire CT conebeam data set. PO Resp. 33–34. According to Patent Owner, such a delay is detrimental in the context of sending targeted radiation to a specific volume within the patient, because during that time, the patient from whom the images was acquired would most likely have shifted positions. PO Resp. 33–35. We are unpersuaded for several reasons. Primarily, we are unpersuaded because a fundamental assumption made by Patent Owner is that the patient must remain unrestrained. Patent Owner makes this assumption based on the assertion that “the primary goal of the Adler/Depp systems is to permit a patient to be relatively unrestrained during the radiotherapy procedure.” PO Resp. 31. We have reviewed Patent Owner’s supporting evidence, and are unpersuaded that the evidence supports Patent Owner’s assertion that “the primary goal of the Adler/Depp systems is to permit a patient to be relatively unrestrained during the radiotherapy procedure.” For example, Patent Owner cites to certain paragraphs of Dr. Hashemi’s Declaration, which in turn cite to certain portions of Depp. Ex. 2080 ¶¶ 107, 123, 126 (citing Ex. 1304, 11:66–12:23, Fig. 9). We have reviewed those portions of Depp, and find that while they do disclose that target location and treatment periods are on the order of seconds, they do not mention anything about “the primary goal of the Adler/Depp systems is to permit a patient to be relatively unrestrained during the radiotherapy procedure.”11 Accordingly, absent such an evidentiary foundation, we do not find credible Dr. Hashemi’s assertions concerning this matter. Even without explicit analysis by Patent Owner, we logically understand the connection between longer image acquisition and processing times, and the higher likelihood of interim patient movement. Absent the aforementioned “primary goal,” however, we are unclear as to why the converse of that goal would not be correct, i.e., that one of ordinary skill would have resolved the timing consideration by restraining the patient.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 6,842,502 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,842,502 - Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. William Beaumont HospitalNo claims unpatentablePTAB · May 4, 2017 · IPR2016-00162 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–14, 16–29, 33, and 35–38 were not held unpatentable because the strong evidence of industry praise and long-felt need, with other objective evidence, outweighed the obviousness showing.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other
“its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S.Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016) (affirming that USPTO has statutory authority to construe claims according to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)). Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). For the purposes of this Decision, we determine that only the following claim terms need express interpretation. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”). 7 A.L. Boyer, Laser “cross-hair” sidelight, Med. Phys., 5:58-60 (1978) (Ex. 1108, “Boyer”).” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“dimensional information” appears facially to be co-extensive with any information relevant to three dimensions. We discern that “length, width, and depth” are just such information. We have considered Patent Owner’s above-cited portions of the ’502 Patent, but are unpersuaded that those portions narrow “three dimensional information” with sufficient “reasonable 8 In evaluating the assertions set forth in the Declaration of James Balter, Ph.D., in Support of Petitioner’s Reply (Ex. 1500), we considered Patent Owner’s Motion for Observations on the Cross-Examination of Dr. James Balter (Paper 48) and Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observations on Cross-Examination (Paper 56). 9 In the Decision on Institution, we preliminarily agreed with Petitioner’s proposed construction of “three dimensional information.” Dec. 7–8. clarity, deliberateness, and precision” such that one of ordinary skill would have understood “three dimensional information” as co-extensive with Patent Owner’s proffered construction. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). For example, column 2, lines 42–48 and 51–55 certainly disclose that “volume” is desirable, but does not provide any equivalence between “three dimensional information” and “volume.” Indeed, column 2, lines 54–55 disclose “provide information regarding the location of soft-tissue target volumes,” indicating that “information” is a subset of “volume.” In another example, column 3, lines 40–43, mentions “three-dimensional (3- D) images,” which we agree would appear to require “volumetric” data; however, the claim limitation at issue is the broader term “three dimensional information.” In a further example, column 9, line 62, through column 10, line 5, clearly refers to “volumetric data,” but does not indicate its relation to “three dimensional information.” In yet another example, column 16, lines 43–45 and 58–62, do not recite “three dimensional information,” instead disclosing “3-D structure” and “3-D nature” in relation generally to “volumetric data,” but, again, not in a manner sufficient to indicate a particular relationship. Finally, in regard to assertions set forth in the Declaration of Dr. Hashemi, we discern some merit in his assertion that when reading the claim limitation “three dimensional information” in conjunction with another claim limitation “cone-beam computed tomography,” “a CBCT image is a volumetric image that provides the location, shape, and spatial orientation of the target volume in all directions, not just its length, width, and depth.” Ex. 2080 ¶ 85. The claim limitation at issue, however, reads “an image of said object, wherein said image contains at least three dimensional information of said object based on one rotation of said x-ray source around said object” (emphasis added). Accordingly, the claim limitation does not preclude an image having more information than “information concerning three dimensions of an object (such as length, width, and depth),” such as “a volumetric image of an object generated by reconstructing 2-D projection images.” Under Patent Owner’s construction, however, the image would be required to have such information. We are unpersuaded that such information is required under a proper construction of “three dimensional information” for the reasons set forth supra. We construe “three dimensional information” as “information concerning three dimensions of an object (such as length, width, and depth).”” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for patent owner
“In the Institution Decision, we preliminary determined that “we are not persuaded that the term ‘computer’ fails to recite sufficiently definite structure. As a result, we decline to construe this limitation as a means-plusfunction limitation in accordance with § 112 ¶ 6.” Dec. 10. In its Response, Patent Owner agreed with the Board’s preliminary determination. PO Resp. 11. Petitioner did not address this construction in its Reply. See generally Pet. Reply 1–4. After considering our preliminary determination anew, in light a complete trial record, we remain unpersuaded that the term “computer” fails to recite sufficiently definite structure. Accordingly, we decline to construe this limitation as a means-plus-function limitation in accordance with § 112 ¶ 6.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Dr. Balter, Petitioner’s expert, proffers that a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art, with respect to and at the time of the’502 patent, would have the following qualifications: “a medical physicist with a Ph.D. (or similar advanced degree) in physics, medical physics, or a related field, and two or more years of experience in radiation oncology physics and image processing/computer programming related to radiation oncology applications.” Ex. 1102 ¶ 13. Dr. Hashemi, Patent Owner’s expert, essentially agrees, with the only major differences to the above being that an M.S. is acceptable in lieu of a Ph.D, and that three years of experience is preferred. Ex. 2080 ¶ 17. Nominally, we accept Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art based on Dr. Balter’s more complete explanation. We note, however, that neither party has explained substantively any significance that the difference in the proffered levels of ordinary skill in the art would have in the obviousness analysis. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966); Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he level of skill in the art is a prism or lens through which a judge, jury, or the Board views the prior art and the claimed invention.”); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.”). To that end, we note that the prior art itself often reflects an appropriate skill level. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 10
Patent outcomesUS 6,842,502 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,842,502 - Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. William Beaumont HospitalNo claims unpatentablePTAB · May 4, 2017 · IPR2016-00160 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–14, 16–29, 33, and 35–38 were not held unpatentable because Petitioner failed to show the Jaffray references were prior art or that the asserted combination rendered the claims obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“Having considered the arguments and evidence, we agree with Patent Owner that the ’590 Application provides sufficient written description support for “said computer receives said image of said object and based on said image sends a signal to said radiation source that controls said path of said radiation source.” In particular, we credit the testimony of Dr. Hashemi that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the ’590 Application that components of the disclosed system were computer-controlled based upon, e.g., the depiction of an Elekta SL-20 in 9 Both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion. Figure 3 of the ’590 Application and from the depiction of an electronic portal imaging device. (Ex. 2080 ¶¶ 109–116, 125–132). Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive because they are based upon a construction of the disputed limitation that excludes human intervention. We have construed that limitation, however, to encompass a person or user operating the computer to perform the recited control functions. In post-hearing briefing, both parties agree that this is the proper construction. Papers 80, 81. As a result, even if we assume, as Petitioner contends in Reply, that a person of ordinary skill in the art reading the ’590 Application would have understood that “the step of controlling the path of the beam based on image data was performed by a human operator, not a computer acting autonomously” (Pet. Reply 9) and that “[t]he computer elements connected to table control . . . are all operated in response to commands received from a human operator, and none are tied to table movements specifically based on image data” (id.), it would not show a lack of support for the disputed limitation, because the disputed limitation does not exclude human intervention. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently,” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedNot shown unpatentable
“Having considered the arguments and evidence, we agree with Patent Owner that the ’590 Application provides sufficient written description support for “said computer receives said image of said object and based on said image sends a signal to said radiation source that controls said path of said radiation source.” In particular, we credit the testimony of Dr. Hashemi that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the ’590 Application that components of the disclosed system were computer-controlled based upon, e.g., the depiction of an Elekta SL-20 in 9 Both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion. Figure 3 of the ’590 Application and from the depiction of an electronic portal imaging device. (Ex. 2080 ¶¶ 109–116, 125–132). Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive because they are based upon a construction of the disputed limitation that excludes human intervention. We have construed that limitation, however, to encompass a person or user operating the computer to perform the recited control functions. In post-hearing briefing, both parties agree that this is the proper construction. Papers 80, 81. As a result, even if we assume, as Petitioner contends in Reply, that a person of ordinary skill in the art reading the ’590 Application would have understood that “the step of controlling the path of the beam based on image data was performed by a human operator, not a computer acting autonomously” (Pet. Reply 9) and that “[t]he computer elements connected to table control . . . are all operated in response to commands received from a human operator, and none are tied to table movements specifically based on image data” (id.), it would not show a lack of support for the disputed limitation, because the disputed limitation does not exclude human intervention. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently, on this record, that both Jaffray 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO are prior art to independent claim 1, and the challenged claims that depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artNot shown unpatentable
“Having considered the parties arguments and evidence regarding “[t]he content and nature of the printed publication, as well as the circumstances surrounding its publication” (Katz, 687 F.2d at 455), we are not persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of persuasion by showing sufficiently that the portions of Jaffray 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO on which it relies are the work “others.” Unlike in Katz, where the question was “the sufficiency of applicant’s showing to establish that the subject disclosure was his original work, and his alone” (687 F.2d at 455), the question before us is the sufficiency of Petitioner’s showing to establish that the subject disclosure was the work of the non-inventor coauthors of Jaffray 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378 (“In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the 10 Both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion. 11 At oral argument, counsel for Petitioner indicated that, in his view, it does not matter who has the burden of production. Tr. 20:9, 20:16–17. petitioner to prove ‘unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence,’ 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), and that burden never shifts to the patentee.”); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In the context of the present case, however, the notion of burden-shifting is inapposite because the patentee’s position is that the patent challenger failed to meet its burden of proving obviousness.”); see also Duncan Parking Techs., Inc. v. IPS Group Inc., Case IPR2016-00067, slip op. at 8–13 (PTAB Mar. 27, 2017) (Paper 29). Patent Owner presents testimony of Dr. Jaffray and Mr. Drake that the subject matter relied upon by Petitioner was not the work of the non-inventor coauthors, and after considering all relevant arguments and evidence, we are unpersuaded by Petitioner’s assertions that this testimony is unreliable. Dr. Jaffray testifies, for example, that “[t]he JRO article and the SPIE article disclose work done at the direction of me and Dr. Wong in support of the joint research conducted by the two of us.” Ex. 2077 ¶ 2. Dr. Jaffray further testifies that “with the exception of Dr. Siewerdsen coming up with the pre-reconstruction image processing for the SPIE article, the [non-inventor] co-authors did not come up with the ideas for the systems described in those articles.” Id. ¶ 6. Dr. Jaffray describes the contributions of the co-authors as follows:” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“D. The Challenged Claims – Obviousness over Jaffray 1999 SPIE, Jaffray 1999 JRO, Adler, and Depp Petitioner asserts that a combination of Jaffray 1999 SPIE, Jaffray 1999 JRO, Adler, and Depp renders obvious claims 1–14, 16–29, 33, and 35–38. Pet. 18–58. Petitioner relies solely upon Jaffray 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO for several limitations of claim 1, including, for example, “a cone-beam computed tomography system comprising: an x-ray source that emits an x-ray beam in a cone-beam form towards said object,” and “a flat-panel imager receiving x-rays after they pass through the object, said imager providing an image of said object.” Pet. 29–31. As discussed above, however, we not persuaded that Jaffray 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO are prior art to claims 1–14, 16–29, 33, and 35–38. Moreover, Petitioner does not contend that Adler or Depp teach these limitations. As a result, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–14, 16–29, 33, and 35–38 are obvious over a combination of Jaffray 1999 SPIE, Jaffray 1999 JRO, Adler, and Depp.” slip op. at 31
Patent outcomesUS 6,842,502 not shown unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,842,502
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.