• Necksgen, Inc. v. Simpson Performance Products, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Jul 25, 2018 · IPR2018-00133 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place its denial of institution because Petitioner did not show the asserted art taught claim 1[d] or establish motivation to combine with a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. STANDARD OF REVIEW When considering a request for rehearing, the Board reviews its decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if the decision was based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if an unreasonable judgment is made in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Additionally: “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. 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).” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “the Preliminary Response. In our Decision, we determined that “[w]e do not need to construe expressly any claim terms for purposes of this Decision” because it did not appear, from the arguments presented, that any claim terms were in dispute. Dec. 6. When we considered the parties’ positions in reaching our Decision, we were aware that the term “tether” was defined in the ’529 patent, even though Petitioner did not state that expressly. In other words, we understood, and now explicitly determine, that the patentee acted as his own lexicographer by setting forth a specific definition for “tether” in the ’529 patent. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (if the specification “reveal[s] a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess[,] . . . the inventor’s lexicography governs”) (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).” slip op. at 4

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Motivation to Combine & Reasonable Expectation of Success Petitioner contends that we abused our discretion by failing to consider the appropriate claim scope when evaluating motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success. Req. Reh’g 10–14. First, as discussed above, we did not fail to consider the appropriate claim scope. Second, we have now set forth that claim scope expressly. In light of our discussion above, our analysis regarding motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success is no different from that which we set forth in our Decision. Dec. 11–15. Petitioner’s reiteration of the same positions set forth in Petition does not persuade us that we abused our discretion in finding that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of demonstrating that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been promoted to modify and combine the teachings as proposed by Petitioner with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded by Petitioner’s argument that we abused our discretion with respect to these issues.” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,351,529
• Fredman Bros. Furniture Company, Inc. v. Bedgear, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 12, 2018 · IPR2017-00352 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 8–13, 15–18, and 20–24 are unpatentable: Rasmussen anticipates claims 1, 4–6, 8, 11, 13, 17, 18, 22, and 23; the remaining challenged claims are obvious over the stated combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownNo construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “construction’ as used herein refers to a construction having overall porosity greater than the inherent porosity of the constituent material or inherently having high porosity.” Ex. 1049, 1:37–40. Based on the full record, we agree with parties that “open cell construction” is defined in the specification, and we interpret it in accordance with that definition to mean “a construction having overall porosity greater than the inherent porosity of the constituent material or inherently having high porosity.” See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“Although an inventor is indeed free to define the specific terms used to describe his or her invention, this must be done with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.”).” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “various prior art approaches employed, the types of problems encountered in the art, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology involved, and the educational background of those actively working in the field.” Jacobson Bros., Inc. v. U.S., 512 F.2d 1065, 1071 (Ct. Cl. 1975); see also Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. U.S., 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting with approval Jacobson Bros.). We find, based on our review of the record before us, that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it is consistent with the record’s indication of “the various prior art approaches employed, the types of problems encountered in the art, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology involved, and the educational background of those actively working in the field.” See, e.g., Pet. 7–12 (“Technology Background”); PO Resp. 3–4 (“Background of the Relevant Technology at the Time of the ’134 Patent”); Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 2–4; Ex. 1008; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 3–6; Ex. 1044; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 36–54. We resolve any differences in favor of including “several years of industry experience in applying the moisture and heat transfer properties of materials” as part of “at least one year of experience in the design of pillows and other sleep-related textile products” of a person holding a “bachelor’s degree in textile science, textile engineering, or a similar field.” See Rhodes Decl. ¶ 5 (“I am also an adjunct professor . . . teaching . . . an entry level course for textile and fashion majors.”), ¶ 6 (“I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Textile Design.”), ¶ 70 (“I met at least these minimum qualifications to be a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention.”); Ex. 1062 ¶ 4 (“I teach concepts relating to moisture and heat transfer in my textile curriculum in my academic role as a professor”). Therefore, we apply Petitioner’s definition, quoted above, in our analysis of the challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Pet. 15–16.” slip op. at 58

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedDecided for petitioner
  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Based on the full record, Petitioner sufficiently shows that Rasmussen’s “highly porous” “3D textile material” discloses the open cell construction of claim 1. Also, even if Rasmussen uses the “3D textile” broadly, the full record persuades us that Rasmussen discloses the limitations of claim 1. PO Resp. 4, 12–28; Rhodes Decl. ¶ 117; Ex. 1006 ¶ 29; Ex. 1007 ¶ 25; Parachuru Decl. ¶ 93. Also, our interpretation of the limitations of claim 1 does not require modifying or transforming a constituent base material. Patent Owner also responds that “Petitioner never even argues that the ‘interlaced,’ ‘spaced-apart,’ or ‘mesh’ strand structures are inherent from Rasmussen’s disclosure of 3-D textiles.” PO Resp. 55. Patent Owner states that “both parties’ experts acknowledge that 3D textiles, as well as highly porous 3D textiles, can have multiple possible configurations other than the ones recited in the claims,” and thus, Rasmussen does not disclose inherently the claimed structures. Id. at 55–57 (citing Parachuru Decl. ¶¶ 67–73, 92– 94, 158–160, 168–169; Ex. 2016, 15:23–16:7, 31:21–32:6, 36:3–7, 36:14– 18, 37:7–21, 49:4–12, 50:15–51:12, 52:19–53:3, 123:7–23, 135:23–136:24). The record, however, indicates that “highly porous” “3D textile material” has “interlaced strands or spaced-apart strands,” as argued by Petitioner and as required by claim 1. For the above reasons, Petitioner persuades us by a preponderance of the evidence that Rasmussen anticipates claim 1 based on disclosures related to its core.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 8,646,134 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,646,134
• Fredman Bros. Furniture Company, Inc. v. Bedgear, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 12, 2018 · IPR2017-00351 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10, 12–15, and 17–20 are unpatentable: Rasmussen anticipates the challenged claims, and Rasmussen combined with Doak, Mason, or Burton renders claims 5, 6, 12, and 19 obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner’s statement that the claim language “does not address (i.e., require or restrict) air entering through a structure other than a panel (e.g., a gusset) nor does it address any such air exiting the pillow in a particular manner (e.g., through a panel, gusset, or other structure).” See PO Resp. 47. The claim language requires “at least some air which enters through the panels” exits through the gusset alone or in combination with another structure. See id. The portions of the specification cited by Patent Owner support its above-quoted statement because the cited portions describe that the pillow allows lateral ventilation, gusset 20 provides venting, gusset 20 permits air exchange, and the panels can be made of open cell construction. See PO Resp. 48–49; Ex. 1047, 1:37–40, 2:12–15, 4:34–36, 4:56–58. Further interpretation is not required for determining whether Petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence the unpatentability of claim 1. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (construing explicitly only those claim terms in controversy and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “The specification of the ’883 patent states that an “‘open cell construction’ as used herein refers to a construction having overall porosity greater than the inherent porosity of the constituent material or inherently having high porosity.” Ex. 1047, 1:44–47. Based on the full record, we agree with parties that “open cell construction” is defined in the specification, and we interpret it in accordance with that definition to mean “a construction having overall porosity greater than the inherent porosity of the constituent material or inherently having high porosity.” See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“Although an inventor is indeed free to define the specific terms used to describe his or her invention, this must be done with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.”).” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “Based on the full record, we concur with the parties that an express interpretation for “gusset” is not necessary for determining whether Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenge claims are unpatentable. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803. We also determine that express interpretation of any other claim term is not necessary. See id.” slip op. at 15

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner also argues that the claims of the ’883 patent are not entitled to a priority date before June 22, 2012. Pet. 24. Petitioner argues that Rasmussen (Ex. 1006) is § 102(b) prior art, if the challenged claims are entitled only to a priority date of June 22, 2012. Petitioner alternatively argues that a provisional application (Ex. 1007, to which Rasmussen claims priority, see Ex. 1006, [30]) is § 102(e) prior art, if the challenged claims are entitled to the earlier priority date of June 22, 2011. Pet. 24. Petitioner, thus, provides parallel citations to Rasmussen and the provisional application, which Petitioner asserts is identical to Rasmussen. Pet. 24 n.1; Ex. 1057 (comparison of Rasmussen and its provisional). As discussed below, the full record persuades us that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–4, 7–10, 13–15, 17, 18, and 20 are anticipated by Rasmussen under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or § 102(e).” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 9,015,883 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,015,883
• Fredman Bros. Furniture Company, Inc. v. Bedgear, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 12, 2018 · IPR2017-00350 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11, 13, 15–22, 24, 25, and 27–34 are unpatentable; claim 23 was not shown unpatentable, because the Rasmussen anticipation challenge failed.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd mixedMixed

    “Accordingly, Petitioner has not persuaded us that claim 23 is” slip op. at 62

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “Accordingly, Petitioner has not persuaded us that claim 23 is” slip op. at 62

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableUnpatentable

  Patent outcomesUS 8,887,332 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,887,332
• Campbell Soup Company / Campbell Sales Company et al. v. Gamon Plus, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 2, 2018 · IPR2017-00087 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–16 were cancelled at Patent Owner’s request; claims 27, 28, and 32–35 were not shown unpatentable over the instituted §103 grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the earliest priority date of the claims, would have had either: “(1) a Bachelor’s Degree in Industrial Design and at least 1-2 years of experience in designing gravity feed display dispensers, or (2) 5-10 years of experience in designing gravity feed display dispensers.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 36). Patent Owner does not propose an explicit level of ordinary skill in the art in its Response. Consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, 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), we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 18

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “construed according to their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In our Institution Decision, we construed several claim terms recited in claims 1–17. Inst. Dec. 13–20. Patent Owner requests cancellation of claims 1–16 and we did not institute inter partes review of claim 17. Thus, none of the claim terms we construed previously are at issue in the trial. Additionally, Patent Owner’s Response and Sur-Reply and Petitioner’s Reply do not request that we construe any additional claim terms. Accordingly, we need not construe expressly any claim terms to resolve the controversy before us. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803.” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “how or why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been led to combine Weichselbaum and Nesso in the manner claimed. On that point, the Petition rests on bare opinion testimony that is not tethered to any disclosure in the prior art or other objective proof. Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 168–170). We are mindful that a reason to combine prior art may exist “in the content of the public prior art, in the nature of the problem addressed by the invention, or even in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art.” Princeton Biochemicals Inc. v. Beckman Coulter Inc., 411 F.3d 1332, 1338-39 (Fed. Cir. 2005). But when we turn to the opinion testimony that undergirds Petitioner’s argument on the reasons to combine, we find no objective proof and inadequate reasoning. Id. Ultimately, Petitioner presents two very weak reasons based on unstated and unexplained factual assumptions in support of its view that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to modify Weichselbaum. Additionally, as explained above, Petitioner takes conflicting positions as to how Nesso’s second chute would be incorporated in Weichselbaum’s device and the record remains unclear as to the precise structure resulting from Petitioner’s combination. Accordingly, Petitioner fails to provide sufficient clarity regarding the specific modifications to Weichselbaum, fails to provide a sufficient reason with rational underpinning as to why and how one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Weichselbaum in light of Nesso, and appears, on this record, to engage in an impermissible exercise of hindsight reconstruction to make out a reason to combine the applied references in the manner claimed. Further, in light of the full trial record, including Patent Owner’s evidence of secondary considerations discussed below, we are persuaded that the bare opinions set forth in the Visser Declaration (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 168–170) are entitled to little weight. See Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“Lack of factual support for” opinion testimony “going to factual determinations” may be of little probative value in validity determination.”).” slip op. at 36

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Commercial successObjective indicia with nexusDecided for patent owner

    “specific product and that product ‘is the invention disclosed and claimed in the patent.’” WBIP, 829 F.3d at 1329 (citation omitted). The presumption is rebuttable, but “a patent challenger cannot successfully rebut the presumption with argument alone—it must present evidence.” Id. (citation omitted). Patent Owner has shown that the asserted objective evidence, discussed further below, is tied to a specific product and that product “is the invention disclosed and claimed in the patent.” Id. (quoting J.T. Eaton & Co. v. Atl. Paste & Glue Co., 106 F.3d 1563, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). “This showing––that the specific products are embodiments of the claimed invention and that the proffered objective evidence relates to these products—is sufficient to establish the presumption of nexus for the objective considerations at issue in this case.” Id. at 1330. It is, therefore, Petitioner’s burden to rebut that presumption. Id. at 1329 (“a patent challenger cannot successfully rebut the presumption with argument alone— it must present evidence”); see Tr. 46:20–47:8 (Petitioner agreeing that nexus is presumed and that Petitioner has the burden to overcome the presumption.). Petitioner does not rebut the presumption of nexus. First, Petitioner’s entire argument is phrased as challenging whether Patent Owner satisfied its burden of establishing nexus, as opposed to whether Petitioner rebuts the presumption of nexus. Pet. Reply 20–21 (“It is Patent Owner’s burden to establish a nexus.”) (citing CaptionCall LLC v. Ultratec Inc., IPR2013- 00540, Paper 78 at 50 (PTAB Mar. 3, 2015)). Second, Petitioner points to other factors, including higher prices and increased advertising, referred to in Campbell’s annual reports that contributed to increased soup sales. Pet. Reply 21–22. There is no dispute that other factors also contributed to the increase in soup sales. But, there is also no dispute that Campbell’s own statements, through its Annual Reports and Mr. Finnel’s interview, tie increased soup sales expressly to Gamon’s display racks. Additionally, Campbell’s internal presentation describes Gamon’s IQ Maximizer as “Breakthrough Gravity Feed Shelving” and attributes the following to the display racks based on the results of its study: • +13.6% volume lift for Corporate Brand • +10% volume lift for Condensed Segment • +9.3% volume lift for Campbell’s Condensed • +5.5% volume lift for Wet Soup Category • Encourages purchase of additional varieties • Billboard effect improves branding: 210% larger • Positive labor impact due to elimination of shelf conditioning Ex. 2032, 4. Although other factors had some degree of impact on commercial success,29 we determine that Patent Owner has established that an appreciable amount of Campbell’s increased commercial success of soup during the relevant time period is attributable to the display rack covered by claim 27 of the ’111 patent. Accordingly, Gamon’s sales to Campbell of about $31 million from 2002–2009 as well as a portion of the increased sales of Campbell’s soup using Gamon’s display racks provide a strong showing of commercial success of the commercial embodiment of claim 27 of the ’111 patent.” slip op. at 61

  Patent outcomesUS 8,827,111 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,827,111
• Campbell Soup Company / Campbell Sales Company et al. v. Gamon Plus, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 27, 2018 · IPR2017-00096 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision

  The sole claim is unpatentable under § 102 over Pendergrast and under § 103 over Pendergrast alone or with Knott.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “Manufacturing, L.L.C. (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition to institute an inter partes review of the claim for “[t]he ornamental design for a gravity feed dispenser display” in U.S. Patent No. D595,074 (“the ’074 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Gamon Plus, Inc. (“Gamon” or “Patent Owner”) did not file a Preliminary Response to the Petition. Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we instituted an inter partes review of the challenged claim. Paper 9 (“Dec.”).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “[A] design[er] of ordinary skill in the field of the ’074 Patent would have been a person with a background or familiarity with commercial dispensers, and particularly dispensers for consumer commodities such as cans, bottles, or small packaged items. . . . The designer of ordinary skill would also have a basic understanding of physics and or mechanics, which may include practical experience in the field of studying consumer commodity dispensers, or may include high school or introductory college level physics coursework. The designer of ordinary skill would also have a basic understanding of the dimensions and functions afforded to cans and bottles in the context of packaging. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 21, 22. We agree with Mr. Gandy’s undisputed testimony as to the designer of ordinary skill based on the final trial record.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “Based on these contentions, Petitioner proposes the broadest reasonable construction of the ’074 patent claim is “the ornamental design of either two or three adjacent cylindrical objects in a gravity feed dispenser display, each cylindrical object comprising a smooth curved surface with planar ends, as shown in the drawings of the ’074 Patent.” Pet. 26 (emphasis omitted). Based on the undisputed arguments above, and considering the relationship of the prior art to the claimed design, we find it helpful to describe verbally certain features of the claim for purposes of this Decision. See Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 680. We interpret the scope of the claimed design based on the unique or distinctive shape or appearance of the cylindrical objects that is not dictated by function. Based on the final record before us, we find persuasive Petitioner’s contention that the specific arrangement of the cylindrical objects is dictated primarily by function. The precise placement of cylindrical objects is controlled by the use of the gravity feed dispenser and the natural resting position of one cylindrical object on two others. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Fig. 4. Our invalidity analysis below focuses on what the claimed cylindrical objects contribute to the design’s overall ornamentation. See Richardson, 597 F.3d at 1293–94 (factoring out purely functional aspects of a design patent from an obviousness analysis). Neither party has indicated that our claim interpretation from the Decision to Institute (Dec. 3–8) is improper and we do not perceive any reason or evidence that recommends any deviation from our initial construction. We therefore convey the scope of the claim of the ’074 patent as: “the ornamental design of a gravity feed dispenser display depicting either two or three adjacent cylindrical objects, each cylindrical object comprising a smooth curved surface with planar ends, as shown in the drawings of the ’074 patent.” See Dec. 8.” slip op. at 7

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Based on the record before us, Petitioner has established persuasively that both embodiments of the ’074 patent design and the design of Pendergrast are substantially the same under the ordinary observer analysis. Both designs are for a gravity feed dispenser display. Petitioner establishes that the ornamental design of the cans of Pendergrast are substantially identical to the ’074 patent cylindrical objects, with each having a smooth curved surface with planar ends. See Ex. 1003, Fig. 1, 3; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 42–47. Further, although not required under our claim construction, the placement and positioning of Pendergrast’s cylindrical objects are also substantially the same as that of the ’074 patent. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 46. Accordingly, based on the final record before us, Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Pendergrast anticipates the claim of the ’074 patent.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS D595,074 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
• Campbell Soup Company / Campbell Sales Company et al. v. Gamon Plus, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 27, 2018 · IPR2017-00095 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held the sole claim unpatentable under § 103 over Linz and, separately, over Johnson.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Gandy, opines: [A] designer of ordinary skill in the field of the ’644 Patent would have been a person with a background or familiarity with commercial dispensers, and particularly dispensers for consumer commodities such as cans, bottles, or small packaged items. . . . The designer of ordinary skill would also have a basic understanding of physics and or mechanics, which may include practical experience in the field of studying consumer commodity dispensers, or may include high school or introductory college level physics coursework. The designer of ordinary skill would also have a basic understanding of the dimensions and functions afforded to cans and bottles in the context of packaging. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 21, 22. We agree with Mr. Gandy’s undisputed testimony as to the designer of ordinary skill based on the final trial record.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “not expire before a final written decision is issued shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). With respect to design patents, it is well-settled that a design is represented better by an illustration than a description. Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 679 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc) (citing Dobson v. Dornan, 118 U.S. 10, 14 (1886)). Although preferably a design patent claim is not construed by providing a detailed verbal description, it may be “helpful to point out . . . various features of the claimed design as they relate to the . . . prior art.” Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 679–80; cf. High Point Design LLC v. Buyers Direct, Inc., 730 F.3d 1301, 1314–15 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (remanding to district court, in part, for a “verbal description of the claimed design to evoke a visual image consonant with that design”). When construing a design patent for an article that contains both functional and ornamental aspects, a patent owner “is entitled to a design patent whose scope is limited to [the ornamental] aspects alone and does not extend to any functional elements of the claimed article.” Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc., 597 F.3d 1288, 1293–94 (Fed. Cir. 2010).” slip op. at 4

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “We agree that Linz properly serves as a primary reference because it creates basically the same visual impression as the claimed design to the ordinary designer. In re Rosen, 673 F.2d at 391. A side-by-side comparison reveals that there are only minor differences in the claimed design of the ’644 patent and the corresponding portions of Linz. Figure 1 of the ’644 patent (left) and Figure 1 of Linz (right) are reproduced below. Ex. 1001, Fig. 1; Ex. 1007, Fig. 1. We also reproduce the top view of the ’644 patent (left) and a similar top view of Linz (right) below. Ex. 1001, Fig. 6 (top view); Ex. 1008, Fig. 4 (modified top plan view). Both designs have an opaque rectangular surface area, a label area that is symmetric and curved convexly forward. The label area for both is similarly taller vertically than it is wide horizontally. Given the close similarity between Linz and the claimed design of the ’644 patent, we determine that Petitioner establishes sufficiently based on the final record that Linz creates basically the same visual impression as the patented design. Additionally, Petitioner establishes sufficiently how and why a designer of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the Linz design to arrive at the claimed design of the ’644 patent. See Pet. 38–39. Specifically, Petitioner notes that Linz discloses stops extending inward from the bottom ends of the frame portions in order to restrain vertical movement, and Petitioner argues that a designer of ordinary skill in the art would extend the stops in Linz across the entirety of the bottom edge of the display area in order to create a design that secures the display from vertical movement. Id. at 39. Petitioner also establishes sufficiently how the “claimed design would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill” (Apple, 678 F.3d at 1329), by arguing that the design modification would be particularly obvious considering three of the four sides of the display are already restrained from movement. Pet. 39. Accordingly, based on the final record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the claim of the ’644 patent would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention over the teachings of Linz.” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “Additionally, Petitioner establishes sufficiently how and why a designer of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the Linz design to arrive at the claimed design of the ’644 patent. See Pet. 38–39. Specifically, Petitioner notes that Linz discloses stops extending inward from the bottom ends of the frame portions in order to restrain vertical movement, and Petitioner argues that a designer of ordinary skill in the art would extend the stops in Linz across the entirety of the bottom edge of the display area in order to create a design that secures the display from vertical movement. Id. at 39. Petitioner also establishes sufficiently how the “claimed design would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill” (Apple, 678 F.3d at 1329), by arguing that the design modification would be particularly obvious considering three of the four sides of the display are already restrained from movement. Pet. 39. Accordingly, based on the final record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the claim of the ’644 patent would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention over the teachings of Linz.” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS D621,644 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
• Askeladden LLC v. Purple Leaf, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 13, 2018 · IPR2016-01722 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11 are unpatentable as obvious over four combinations; claims 12–17 are unpatentable as anticipated by Hughes.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Because it is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, 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), we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 6

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Neither party proposes that we expressly construe any claim terms, and we determine that none of the claims terms require an express construction to resolve the issues before us. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 5

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosures of Carlson and Stilp because Carlson discloses “transferring data . . . via [a] cellular network.” (Ex. 1003, 4:62–64.) As such, Carlson expressly discloses the combination of its payment system with conventional cellular systems, which are described by Stilp. Moreover, Stilp discloses a registration procedure that allows cellular devices to discover each other’s presence. (Ex. 1005, 2:46–64.) It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to modify the payment processing network (310) or access device (e.g., a POS terminal) (Ex. 1003, 4:61–61[2]) of Carlson to include the process of searching for available wireless devices in a manner similar to the cellular telephone discovery and registration process disclosed by Stilp to enable the Carlson payment processing network or access device to discover mobile phone devices (such as mobile phone 304) to participate in a mobile payment system, as disclosed in Carlson. A person of ordinary skill in the art therefore would have combined Carlson and Stilp to make the” slip op. at 8

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Anticipation by Hughes A prior art reference anticipates a patent claim if it “discloses each and every element of the claimed invention arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim.” Monsanto Tech. LLC v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 878 F.3d 1336, 1342–43 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Petitioner contends that Hughes discloses each and every element of claims 12–17. Pet. 23–31.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 8,744,963 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,744,963
• Askeladden LLC v. Purple Leaf, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 13, 2018 · IPR2016-01721 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11 are unpatentable: claims 10–11 anticipated by Sirbu; claims 1–9 obvious over the specified combinations of Sirbu with Hughes and additional references.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “December 14, 1999, would have had either: “(i) a Bachelor-of-Science degree in Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, or Computer Engineering, or equivalent, and two (2) years of prior experience in software development, or (ii) a post-graduate degree in Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, or Computer Engineering, or equivalent.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1502 ¶¶ 22–26). Because it is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, 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), we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “construed according to their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). There is a presumption that claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the specification. See In re Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Nonetheless, if the specification “reveal[s] a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess[,] . . . the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Another exception to the general rule that claims are given their ordinary and customary meaning is “when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Uship Intellectual Props., LLC v. United States, 714 F.3d 1311, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am., LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Additionally, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Although Petitioner proposes that we construe the term “receipt” (Pet. 6), we determine that no express construction is necessary for purposes of this Decision and decline to expressly construe the term. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803 (only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 6

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Anticipation by Sirbu A prior art reference anticipates a patent claim if it “discloses each and every element of the claimed invention arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim.” Monsanto Tech. LLC v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 878 F.3d 1336, 1342–43 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Petitioner contends that Sirbu discloses each and every element of claims 10 and 11. Pet. 6–12.” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “Additionally, Petitioner asserts: One of ordinary skill in the art plainly would have recognized to include built-in cellular telephone functionality in a customer terminal for performing payment transactions, as taught in Hughes, in the customer computer 10 of Sirbu, as doing so would “provide[] portability for the terminal” (Ex. 1506, 11:1–4) by eliminating the necessity of a wired terminal connection. Indeed, Hughes recognizes that by including built-in cellular telephone functionality, the terminal becomes “more portable than” an alternative without such functionality (Ex. 1506, 10:64–67). One of ordinary skill in the art would plainly have recognized the benefits of including cellular connectivity in Sirbu’s customer computer, as doing so would have permitted the user to perform Sirbu’s purchase transactions without being tethered to a wired data connection. Pet. 13 (alteration by Petitioner) (citing Ex. 1502 ¶ 86). We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, and we find that a preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s arguments. We hereby adopt Petitioner’s position on the facts as our own, including Petitioner’s citations to the evidence of record as reflected in pages 12–20 of the Petition. Accordingly, Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Sirbu and Hughes would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1, 3, and 6–9 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 8,527,407 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,527,407
• Askeladden LLC v. Purple Leaf, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 13, 2018 · IPR2016-01720 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, and 6–9 are unpatentable as anticipated by Takayama; claims 2, 4, 5, 10, and 11 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Because it is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, 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), we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 7

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Anticipation by Takayama A prior art reference anticipates a patent claim if it “discloses each and every element of the claimed invention arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim.” Monsanto Tech. LLC v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 878 F.3d 1336, 1342–43 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Petitioner contends that Takayama discloses each and every element of claims 1, 3, and 6–9. Pet. 7–25.” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “reference, including a claim chart and detailed discussion explaining how the references meet each limitation of the challenged claims. Pet. 25–41. In particular, Petitioner relies upon Rolf as teaching the following step of claim 10: “presenting the receipt to the payee without revealing at least part of said structured remittance data.” Ex. 1001, 20:43–44; Pet. 25–28, 34. Additionally, Petitioner asserts: One of ordinary skill in the art plainly would have recognized to modify Takayama such that the merchant terminal displays (i.e., presents), instead of or in addition to the clearing completion notification 8418, the receipt message 8419 (which contains the receipt 13708) on the merchant terminal LCD, based on the teachings of Rolf, as doing so would have provided the payee with additional information “relating to the sale just made”, as taught by Rolf (Ex. 1004, 6:7–14). Indeed Takayama already discloses that the displayed information on the merchant terminal is used “to notify the operator (merchant) that the settlement process has been completed” (Ex. 1003, ¶ 813), and by further displaying the information contained within the receipt message 8419 (such as the clearing number 13703 and transaction number 13704), the payee could have had immediate access to such transaction information for additional verification or review.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 8,527,407 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,527,407

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.