- Ewald Dörken AG v. Schaeffler Technology AG & Co. KG.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 20, 2025 · IPR2024-01365 · APJ James J Mayberry · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all three obviousness grounds because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1–7.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024) (permitting the Board to institute trial on behalf of the Director). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Petitioner contends that “[a] person having ordinary skill in the art (‘POSITA’) would have been a person having, as of 21 July 2017: (1) at least an undergraduate degree in engineering and/or material science, or similar education; and (2) two or more years of experience with coatings.” Pet. 7–8; see Ex. 1009 ¶ 25 (providing the same level of ordinary skill). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 5. We apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We determine that this definition is consistent with the prior art of record and the skill reflected in the Specification of the ’756 patent, based on our review of the record.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningNo construction neededOther
“Petitioner submits that . . . the claims should be given their plain and ordinary meaning.” Pet. 11. Patent Owner does not propose any specific constructions. See Prelim. Resp. 4–5.8 We determine that we need not expressly construe any other claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes on the current record. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (emphasis added)) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). To the extent that the scope of any other claim term requires discussion, however, we provide it in our assessment of the challenges, which we turn to next. slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18–19. Petitioner provides no additional discussion on this disclosure, including how it satisfies the zinc flake coating limitation. See Pet. 15–17, 20. Petitioner’s sole citation to Dr. Haber’s declaration associated with this claim limitation is to paragraph 35, which provides the same claim chart as is in the Petition. See Pet. 17; Ex. 1009 ¶ 35.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,098,756 - PTAB · Jan 27, 2025 · IPR2024-01142 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 5, 6, 8, 13, 14, 16, and 18 under § 314(a), concluding the Fintiv factors favored discretionary denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“denial because district court is very likely to address patentability issues at trial before we would issue a final written decision. Factors 3 and 4 weigh marginally against discretionary denial. Factor 5 either weighs in favor of discretionary denial or is neutral, but even if it were neutral, factor 2 alone outweighs the marginal weight of factors 3 and 4. Based on our assessment, we determine that Fintiv Factors 1–5 favor exercising discretion to deny institution. With that determination in mind, we proceed to evaluate Fintiv Factor 6. G. Fintiv Factor 6: Other Circumstances that Impact the Board’s Exercise” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot reached
“We further note that Petitioner’s general view that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jung to arrive at the pertinent limitation is not well supported and somewhat circular. See Pet. 42–43. It is inadequately explained why a skilled artisan would have reasonably sought to modify Jung so that it then “expressly teaches” what is required by the claims, as is advanced by Petitioner. See id. at 42. It is a dubious proposition that simply seeking to account for the requirements of the challenged claims serves as suitable reasoning that would have prompted modification of the “express[] teach[ings]” of a reference.” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“[A] person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’868 patent (“POSITA”) would have had a B.S. in Electrical Engineering or a related field with at least three years of experience designing, developing, and/or testing telecommunication systems. Ex-1003, ¶ 48. A POSITA would also have familiarity with the wireless standards and well-known protocols for accessing wireless networks. Id. More education may supplement practical experience or vice versa. Id. Pet. 20–21. Patent Owner does not offer an assessment of its own, or dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. For this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“proceeding. See Pet. 12. Patent Owner provides a construction of the phrase “to derive, based on a beam reference signal of the network beam, a UE beam,” which Patent Owner contends is not necessary to substantiate its arguments, but is offered to “elucidate[] the distinction between the ’868 Patent and the alleged prior art from the reasons” offered by Patent Owner in its Preliminary Response. PO Resp. 8. In particular, Patent Owner contends that the above-noted phrase means “selecting a UE beam from a plurality of candidate UE beams based on a beam reference signal of the network beam.” Id. Patent Owner explains the basis for its proposed construction of the relevant phrase through citation to content of the ’868 patent including Figures 21 and 22 of the patent along with description of those Figures. See Prelim. Resp. 8–10. In reviewing the basis for Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction, we conclude that the construction has ample and adequate support in the record before us. We determine that no other claim term need be addressed expressly See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,887,868 - PTAB · Jan 27, 2025 · IPR2024-01121 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution under Fintiv, finding that the parallel district court proceedings would likely address patentability before a final written decision and the merits were not compelling.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“In Fintiv, the Board explained that “cases addressing earlier trial dates as a basis for denial under NHK Spring have sought to balance considerations such as system efficiency, fairness, and patent quality.” Fintiv, Paper 11 at 5. Fintiv sets forth six non-exclusive factors for determining “whether efficiency, fairness, and the merits support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding.” Id. at 6. These factors consider the following: 1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted; 2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision; 3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties; 4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding; 5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party; and 6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion, including the merits. Id. at 5–6. In evaluating these factors, “the Board takes a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review.” Id. at 6.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“2. Claim Construction In interpreting the claims of the ’402 patent, we “us[e] the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim[s] in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b).” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). The claim construction standard includes construing claims in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claims as would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. See id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The parties each contend that resolution of this proceeding does not require that the meaning of any claim term be made explicit. See Pet. 15; Prelim. Resp. 8. We agree. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 18
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“1. Level of Ordinary Skill As part of our compelling-merits analysis, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312– 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (the level of ordinary skill is pertinent to claim construction); Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kan. City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966) (the level of ordinary skill is one of the factors to consider when determining obviousness). Petitioner proposes the following: [A] person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’402 patent (“POSITA”) would have had a B.S. in Electrical Engineering or a related field with at least three years of experience designing, developing, and/or testing telecommunication systems. Ex-1003, ¶ 73. A POSITA would also have familiarity with the wireless standards and well-known protocols for accessing wireless networks. Id. More education may supplement practical experience or vice versa. Id. Pet. 21–22. Patent Owner does not offer an assessment of its own, or dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. For this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 17
- BurdenNot reached
“outset, we note that the language of claims 1 and 12 is clear in reciting the presence of two distinct signals, i.e., a control signal and a reference signal, and that it is the control signal that “triggers” transmission of the reference signal. See Ex. 1001, 14:5–6, 60–62. Patent Owner credibly argues that the “two-step embodiment” of Figure 10 of the ’402 patent, and in particular steps 1005 and 1010, describe the control and reference signal transmissions that are encompassed by claims 1 and 12. See Prelim. Resp 8–10. Patent Owner also credibly argues that the Figure 10 embodiment is distinct from other disclosed embodiments, including the “single-step embodiment” of Figure 8. See id. at 10–11. Patent Owner further explains reasonably that the content of column 6 of the ’402 patent on which Petitioner relies has a more “natural reading” in distinguishing between separate transmission of a “control signal” that “triggers” separate transmission of a “reference signal” as described in connection with Figure 10 as juxtaposed with transmission of a “control channel,” which is distinct from a control signal, and a “reference signal” that may constitute a single transmission, as is described in conjunction with Figure 8. See id. at 16–17. It logically follows that if, as Patent Owner credibly argues, the claims of the ’402 patent do encompass the latter transmission scheme, rather than the former, then Petitioner’s reliance on Moon, as presented in its Petition, is insufficient to account for those claims. On this record, we need not decide whether Petitioner would likely prevail on the above-noted issues as Patent Owner raises sufficiently substantial arguments that the preliminary evidence, if unrebutted in trial, does not plainly lead to a conclusion that claim 1 is unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. Because, as noted above, Patent Owner has identified potentially dispositive gaps or flaws in Petitioner’s apprehension as to what is adequate in Moon’s disclosure to account for the claims of the ’402 patent, Petitioner’s proposed grounds cannot be said to rise to the level of a “compelling” meritorious challenge.” slip op. at 22
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,148,402 - Alivecor, Inc. v. Apple Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 23, 2024 · IPR2023-00950 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–14 were not shown unpatentable; claims 15–22 were shown unpatentable over Markel. The revised contingent motion to amend was dismissed as moot.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“In carefully and faithfully wrangling the parties’ views and explanation as to the meaning of limitation [1.c.iii], we conclude that Petitioner’s “correct interpretation” of that limitation is that a first pad is recognized as a distinct structure or component from a first portion of an enclosure, and that the pad is positioned underneath that first portion in a manner such that the pad is concealed from a user. We adopt that interpretation. We determine that it is unnecessary to discuss an express construction for any other term to resolve this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 19
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is somewhat broader in both education and proposed work experience. Patent Owner’s proposed work experience is somewhat vague and potentially outside the scope of the claimed invention. For example, the requirement that the person of ordinary skill in the art have experience with the “capture and processing of data or information, including but not limited to physiological information,” would seemingly encompass data processing areas that do not relate to the scope of the claimed invention. We adopt Petitioner’s level of the level of ordinary skill in art because it is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). Nevertheless, our analysis and the end result are the same under either proposed definition.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner makes a more persuasive case as to what a person of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would have understood from Markel’s disclosure. In particular, we agree with Patent Owner that the record before us readily conveys that a skilled artisan would have followed Markel’s practice of forming or molding electrodes from conductive plastic rather than locating a separate electrode component underneath a conductive plaster layer. See, e.g., PO Resp. 30–31 (“[a] POSITA would find nothing in cited portions of Markel to inform or encourage placement of an electrode underneath an exterior layer.”). Indeed, as Patent Owner articulates, Petitioner “fails to provide any reasoning as to why a POSITA would have found Markel’s method of concealment to be deficient, or why a POSITA would have been motivated in light of Markel’s manner of concealment to nevertheless place an electrode underneath the exterior portion of the device.” Id. To that end, we credit Dr. Kenny’s supporting testimony as consistent with Markel’s express teachings. See, e.g., Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 77–83; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 81–88. We credit that testimony over the countervailing testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Berger (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 122, 135–139), as we agree with Patent Owner that Dr. Berger’s testimony “is not supported by Markel’s actual disclosures.” PO Resp. 31.” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner does not appear to disagree that Markel, itself, does not convey that an electrode, or any structure identifiable as a “pad,” is positioned underneath any surface of any enclosure. Rather, Petitioner’s theory of unpatentability is premised on modification of Markel to so position such a pad. Although seemingly acknowledging that Markel contemplates a concealment technique involving molding an electrode into an exterior surface, Petitioner extrapolates from that disclosure that a skilled artisan would be motivated to try an alternative means of concealing an electrode pad by placing the pad underneath an outer layer or portion, i.e., “audio output portion 610.” See Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 135). Neither Petitioner, nor Dr. Kenny, however, meaningfully explains why a skilled artisan would have deviated from Markel’s express teachings of concealing an electrode via molding techniques to then arrive at an entirely different concealment approach of placing an electrode pad underneath the audio output portion. Petitioner’s modification proposal in that regard appears borne of hindsight bias based on the disclosure of the ’257 patent rather than any dutiful consideration of what Markel’s actual teachings would have conveyed to a skilled artisan. See Ex. 2004 ¶ 84 (Dr. Kenny explaining why Petitioner’s proposed modification to Markel to hide the electrode underneath a plastic conductive layer was based on improper hindsight). Such hindsight bias is impermissible. See, e.g., Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co., 848 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention.”). Patent Owner makes a more persuasive case as to what a person of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would have understood from Markel’s disclosure. In particular, we agree with Patent Owner that the record before us readily conveys that a skilled artisan would have followed Markel’s practice of forming or molding electrodes from conductive plastic rather than locating a separate electrode component underneath a conductive plaster layer. See, e.g., PO Resp. 30–31 (“[a] POSITA would find nothing in cited portions of Markel to inform or encourage placement of an electrode underneath an exterior layer.”). Indeed, as Patent Owner articulates, Petitioner “fails to provide any reasoning as to why a POSITA would have found Markel’s method of concealment to be deficient, or why a POSITA would have been motivated in light of Markel’s manner of concealment to nevertheless place an electrode underneath the exterior portion of the device.” Id. To that end, we credit Dr. Kenny’s supporting testimony as consistent with Markel’s express teachings. See, e.g., Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 77–83; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 81–88. We credit that testimony over the countervailing testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Berger (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 122, 135–139), as we agree with Patent Owner that Dr. Berger’s testimony “is not supported by Markel’s actual disclosures.” PO Resp. 31.” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 10,076,257 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,076,257 - PTAB · Dec 16, 2024 · IPR2024-00997 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 1–10, exercising its discretion under § 314(a) because the Fintiv factors favored denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“Based on the preliminary record, we can reasonably expect trial in the parallel district court proceedings to begin four to five months prior to the deadline for our final written decision, based on the scheduled trial date and the median time-to-trial statistics. See Fintiv Memo 8–9 & n.12 (approving the use of median time-to-trial statistics). Even if the proceedings are staggered, at least one of the proceedings would likely begin and conclude well before our decision, making it highly likely that there will be duplicate efforts in evaluating the challenged claims based on the prior art. Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that the second factor weighs substantially in favor of discretionary denial.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“and Trademark Office under 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a), we may only institute an inter partes review when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). However, institution of inter partes review is discretionary. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“ordinary skill in the art. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312– 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (the level of ordinary skill is pertinent to claim construction); Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kan. City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966) (the level of ordinary skill is one of the factors to consider when determining obviousness). For this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, which is “the equivalent of an undergraduate degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or Computer Engineering; familiarity with the relevant 3GPP standards as of this time; and at least two years of experience in design, development, and/or testing of cellular networks.” Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 43–44). Although Patent Owner argues for a higher level of ordinary skill (see Prelim. Resp. 7–8), our determination that the Petition lacks compelling merits would be the same under Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The parties argue that we need not address any claim-construction issues for our analysis, and we agree. See Pet. 15; Prelim. Resp. 25. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,798,754 - Elmos Semiconductor SE v. Texas Instruments IncorporatedInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 5, 2024 · IPR2024-00802 · APJ Bach V Hoang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood that any of claims 1–20 would be unpatentable on any asserted obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having reviewed the parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that “a person having ordinary skill in the art (‘POSITA’) at the relevant time, would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or equivalent experience of at least two years working in the field of the design electrical driver systems for Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs).” Pet. 20. Patent Owner has not addressed the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, as articulated above. We determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ432 Patent and the prior art of record. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). We note, however, that the open-ended language “at least” expands the range of education and experience indefinitely with no upper bound. Therefore, we do not adopt this aspect of Petitioner’s formulation.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Based on the record before us, we do not find it necessary to expressly construe any claim terms or phrases to reach our decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (claim terms need to be construed “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Petitioner’s constructions do not affect our determinations, and, even under Petitioner’s constructions, Petitioner fails to show a reasonable likelihood of success with respect to its proposed grounds of unpatentability for the challenged claims of the ’432 Patent.” slip op. at 10
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“First, even under Petitioner’s assertion that “controller RG . . . performs the functions of an error amplifier and amplifier output stage” (id. at 37), Petitioner has not adequately shown that controller RG meets all three of “an error amplifier,” “a control voltage,” and “an amplifier output stage.” Petitioner’s assertions that those elements are “interior to” or “include[d]” in controller RG are conclusory and unsupported. Petitioner summarizes and reproduces portions of Sudhaus regarding the output currents of controller RG, but has not explained the relevance of its summary and reproduction with respect to each recited claim element. See id. at 37–38 (citing Ex. 1005, 2:32–33, 4:25–28, 4:46–50, 8:47–55), 40– 41. Nor has Petitioner explained why or how the summarized or reproduced portions of Sudhaus show that those claim elements are interior or included in controller RG. See id. Further, Petitioner also fails to show how Sudhaus teaches the claimed interactions and relations between the error amplifier, control voltage, and amplifier output stage. The claim recites the error amplifier compares voltages to “generate a control voltage” and the amplifier output stage controls output current “based on the control voltage.” Petitioner has not explained what specific signal controller RG generates that teaches a “control voltage” used to control output current. Nor has Petitioner stated, let alone explained how, controller RG generates a control voltage in the claimed manner and controls output current based on that control voltage. Simply because controller RG produces outputs that are allegedly similar to the claimed outputs does not by itself show that controller RG produces the claimed outputs using the claimed elements in the claimed manner.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 11,653,432 - PTAB · Nov 1, 2024 · IPR2024-00850 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 3–12, 14, and 23–27 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of proving them obvious over Raizer and Hangzhou.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged invention of the ’632 Patent would have been a person with a working knowledge of mechanical design and automation. That person would have had a Bachelor of Science degree in an academic discipline emphasizing the design of mechanical, automation, and robotics technologies, in combination with training or at least one to two years of related work experience. Alternatively, that person could have also had a Master of Science degree in a relevant academic discipline with less than a year of related work experience in the same discipline. (Ex. 1003, ¶¶42-43). More education can supplement practical experience and vice versa (Ex. 1003, ¶¶42-43).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner contends that any claim term has a meaning other than its ordinary and customary meaning. See, e.g., Pet. 4; Prelim. Resp. 8. Having considered the record, we determine that no express claim construction is necessary for any claim term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“reasons why a skilled artisan would have sought to combine the teachings of Raizer and Hangzhou. See supra § IID.3. On this record, and for purposes of institution, we find those contentions persuasive. For example, as Petitioner observes (see, e.g., Pet. 7), and which is not disputed by Patent Owner, Hangzhou sets forth that, in the area of automating warehouses, it is a known and recognized practice to provide pathways (e.g., auto-guided trolley passage spaces 112) underneath shelving units for movement of automated trolleys or robots. See, e.g., Ex. 1006 ¶ 48 (“an auto-guided trolley 200 preferentially travels in column laneways 32 and in auto-guided trolley passage spaces 112”); Fig. 2. Patent Owner also does not meaningfully dispute Dr. Derby’s testimony that “[i]t was well known to elevate the shelving units above the floor so that robots loaded with containers can travel underneath thereby allowing for more flexible route planning and the elimination of bottlenecks.” See Ex. 1003 ¶ 107; see also id at Section VI., ¶¶ 45–53 (describing in detail, with citation to record evidence, that one of ordinary skill in the art understood that shelving units could be elevated above warehouse floors).” slip op. at 27
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“PETITION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 314 IS WARRANTED Patent Owner requests that we exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314. See Prelim. Resp. 34–36. The principle basis for that request is that the panel should accept Patent Owner’s arguments as to insufficient reason or motivation to combine the teachings of Raizer and Hangzhou, and exercise discretion to deny on that basis. See id. at 34. As set forth above, however, on this record we conclude that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood in its challenge to all the challenged claims.” slip op. at 30
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,472,632 - Nintendo Co., Ltd. / Nintendo Of America Inc. v. Gamevice, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 29, 2024 · IPR2023-00643 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 are unpatentable as obvious over Willner and Park; the Board did not reach the other instituted grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The main distinction between Petitioner’s ordinarily skilled artisan and Patent Owner’s is that Patent Owner’s definition requires “a mechanical engineering degree” whereas Petitioner’s definition allows for a degree in “mechanical, electrical, or computer engineering.” See Pet. Reply 16 (citing Pet. 13). However, Mr. Kitchen states that he qualifies as one of ordinary skill in the art based on Patent Owner’s proffered definition “even without an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering” because he has “over 40 years of experience in the design and development of interactive products, including specifically with respect to handheld gaming devices.” Ex. 1033 ¶ 7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 24–30). Mr. Kitchen asserts that his experience is in “the same category of products claimed in the ’393 patent and described in the prior art references at issue in this proceeding.” Id. In view of this and based on the complete record before us, we view the parties’ proposals as substantially the same because Petitioner’s proposed definition includes the requisite education Patent Owner’s definition requires. Thus, we find (as we did in the Institution Decision) that Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’393 patent and the prior art of record. See Inst. Dec. 20–21 (citing Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355). More particularly, we do not agree with Patent Owner that the education component for the level of ordinary skill in the art for computing gaming devices would be limited to just mechanical engineering. We note that, based on the record and evidence before us, our decision and analysis would be the same applying either party’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“After reviewing the full record, we determine that it is unnecessary to construe the term “confinement structures,” as it appears in the limitation “a pair of confinement structures” to reach a determination in this proceeding. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). However, we will address the parties’ dispute regarding whether the prior art discloses or teaches physical component(s) that hold(s) a computing device within our merits analysis below. The parties do not dispute the construction of any other claim terms and we find that no other terms require express construction to resolve the controversy between the parties. Accordingly, we do not construe any other claim terms expressly. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375 (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“First, the test for obviousness “is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference, . . . but rather whether ‘a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention.’” Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Pet. Reply 11–12 (arguing the same). Second, we disagree with Patent Owner’s assertion that the proposed combination would fail “to retain[] computing device 10 in position during normal user operation” because Park’s adjustable bridge “configuration does not allow mobile phone (1) to be seated for stability in the device.” PO Resp. 20 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 42; Ex. 2004 ¶ 68). At the outset, we note that Patent Owner’s argument mischaracterizes the disclosure of Park. Instead, we find Park discloses that a “basic configuration of [Park’s] game pad device for a mobile phone according to the present invention” “sufficiently allows mobile phone (1) to be mounted on the device according to the present invention and used.” Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 25, 41. Although Park discloses that “mobile phone (1) may come loose during gaming or become detached in severe cases” (id. ¶ 41), we do not view this disclosure to otherwise negate Park’s teaching that its adjustable bridge (30,40) “sufficiently allows mobile phone (1) to be mounted on the device according to the present invention and used.” Id. We credit Mr. Kitchen’s declaration testimony to that effect. See Ex. 1033 ¶ 47 (declaring that one of ordinary skill in the art would have “understood this disclosure to mean that a computing device (mobile phone) would have been secured by the device for normal use . . . as part of a handheld gaming device.”).” slip op. at 24
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner and find more credible Mr. Kitchen’s opinion regarding “normal user operation.” In doing so, we credit Mr. Kitchen’s opinion that Willner’s sidewalls would “function to secure the sides of the computing device and hold it in place” and, “[i]n the combination, Park’s bridge would be adjusted to reduce the length of the bridge and thereby ‘mount’ a computing device by having Willner’s side walls (confinement structures) ‘apply pressure’ to opposing sides of the computing device.” Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 154–156 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 38–41). We note that the ’393 patent operates in a similar manner using a sufficient compressive load to hold a computing device. More particularly, the ’393 patent discloses that [t]he expansion and contraction of the distance between the pair of confinement structures 316, facilitates placement of the computing device 302 between the pair of confinement structures 316, the application of sufficient compressive load being placed on the computing device 302 to securely hold the computing device between the pair of confinement structures 316. Ex. 1001, 10:11–20. Thus, we find Mr. Kitchen’s opinion credible and supported by the complete record. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the combination of Willner and Park teaches or suggests “a pair of confinement structures,” as recited by limitation 1[b][1].” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 10,391,393 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,391,393 - Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 15, 2024 · IPR2023-00745 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 and 8–22 were not shown unpatentable because Mills did not disclose the required embedded structure and Markel combined with Mills did not teach it; the revised motion to amend was dismissed as moot.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsNot reached
“Patent Owner’s Revised Contingent Motion to Amend asserts that in “the event the Board finds at least one challenged [Revised Motion to Amend] claim unpatentable, [Patent Owner] respectfully requests that the Board grant this Motion with respect to the corresponding proposed substitute claim(s).” Paper 27, 1. Because we determine that Petitioner has not established that any of the challenged claims 1–4 and 8–22 are unpatentable, Patent Owner’s Revised Contingent Motion to Amend is moot.” slip op. at 61
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is somewhat broader in both education and proposed work experience. Patent Owner’s proposed work experience is somewhat vague and potentially outside the scope of the claimed invention. For example, the requirement that the person of ordinary skill in the art have experience with the “capture and processing of data or information, including but not limited to physiological information,” would seemingly encompass data processing areas that do not relate to the scope of the claimed invention. We adopt Petitioner’s level of the level of ordinary skill in art because it is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). Our analysis and the end result are the same under either proposed definition.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“structure where a lead is embedded in a portion of the enclosure from other embodiments where a lead is merely positioned against or in parallel contact with a portion of the enclosure. See Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 36–37. The Specification describes distinct embodiments such as “lead 472 of the heart sensor can be positioned against the back surface of bezel 460,” or “[a]lternatively, lead 472 can be placed within the thickness of bezel 460 (e.g., in a pocket within the bezel wall), but underneath the outer surface of the bezel.” Ex. 9:44–48. We agree with Patent Owner, and Dr. Kenny, that “[t]his passage distinguishes a lead that is embedded in a portion of the enclosure from a lead that is merely ‘positioned against’ or in parallel contact with a portion of the enclosure.” PO Resp. 6–7 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 33–35). See also Ex. 2008, 31:10–33:18, 109:18–110:19 (Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Oslan, suggesting that a first component or object in parallel contact with and positioned under a second component or object would not necessarily indicate that the first component or object is embedded in the second component or object). Similarly, we also agree that “the claims of the ’257 use the term ‘embedded in’ while also using the word ‘embedded’ in other contexts, which” indicates distinct claim scope for “the term ‘embedded in,’” versus “the broader term ‘embedded.’” Ex. 2003 ¶ 38. For instance, claim 9 distinctly requires “embedded with,” which is a broader term that, according to Dr. Kenny, encompasses embodiments where a lead may be adjacent/parallel to the first portion of the enclosure. Id.” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“under the exterior of the first portion” (see Pet. 21–22, 24–25; Pet. Reply 4); and (3) leaf spring 62 is embedded in housing 12 and electrode 14 (see Pet. 22–24). None of Petitioner’s mappings disclose every element of claim 1 and Petitioner improperly jumps between these various mappings without fully examining a single mapping for each and every limitation of claim 1. See Pet. 18–25. In essence, Petitioner invites the Board to piece together a single theory that meets all claim elements from these disparate theories that each require distinct structure within Mills. See Amazon.com, Inc., et al. v. Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) PTE. LTD., IPR2017-01112, Paper 11, at 13 (PTAB Aug. 23, 2017) (“Petitioner is inviting us to assume the role of archeologist of the record, which invitation we decline.”).” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 10,076,257 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,076,257 - Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 1, 2024 · IPR2023-00734 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 are unpatentable as obvious under §103 over the combinations of prior art identified in the eight grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We discern no material difference between the parties’ definitions. Cf. PO Resp. 14 (Patent Owner stating that “[t]he analysis presented [in the Response] remains unchanged even if [Petitioner’s proposed] skill level is applied.”). Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. We note, however, that were we to adopt Patent Owner’s assessment, the outcome of this Decision would be the same.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner proposes constructions for certain terms concerning the cover material—“a cover formed from a dielectric material,” “a transparent substrate,” and “a cover comprising a non-conductive material”—and window terms such as “defines at least one window” and “window defined.” Pet. 7–10. Patent Owner states that it does not take a position regarding Petitioner’s offered constructions. PO Resp. 15. On this record and for purposes of this decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to make the proposed combination and would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in making that combination. See, e.g., PO Resp. 34–35. These arguments are not persuasive at least because Patent Owner’s motivation requirement and implied definition of success are not sufficiently tied to the claimed invention. See, e.g., Elekta Ltd. v. ZAP Surgical Sys., Inc., 81 F.4th 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“Reasonable expectation of success refers to the likelihood of success in combining references to meet the limitations of the claimed invention.”). Patent Owner would require a successful outcome to be “quick and efficient wireless charging.” See PO Resp. 34–35. In making these arguments, Patent Owner is improperly superimposing the purported goals and purpose of Honda, the secondary reference, onto the ordinary artisan. See, e.g., id. at 41–45. However, the intended purpose of a prior art reference does not control the obviousness inquiry. Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Our reviewing court recently explained: The [motivation-to-combine] inquiry is not whether a relevant artisan would combine a first reference’s feature with a second reference’s feature to meet requirements of the first reference that are not requirements of the claims at issue. A contrary view would run counter to established principles, including that the claim defines the invention whose obviousness is being assessed and that a skilled artisan may be motivated to combine particular features of different references, e.g., to secure some benefits at the expense of others, even when bodily incorporation would be impossible or inadvisable. Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 73 F.4th 950, 957 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Petitioner’s combination yields the benefit of the addition of wireless charging capability to a biosensor device. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find that benefit to be a motivating reason to make the combination. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 176 (Dr. Duckworth’s motivation opinion based, in part, on “Kotanagi’s own statement that its rechargeable battery can be recharged ‘in a contactless state.’”); id. ¶ 149 (Dr. Duckworth describing a motivating factor in “Honda’s teaching of a wireless receive coil near a rear opening similar to that taught in Kotanagi (where both Honda’s and Kotanagi’s openings have a cover glass)” and opining that, in the proposed modifications, “the resulting magnetic flux would pass through the cover glass, as taught by Honda”); see also Ex. 1052, 45:16–46:2 (Dr. Anthony, on cross-examination and after being asked whether wireless charging is an improvement over wired charging for a consumer watch, responding that “in some instances it could be, and in others it may not be.”). And, as to a reasonable expectation of success, Patent Owner admits that “Petitioner has presented a device configuration in which a wireless charging coil could be provided in Kotanagi’s through hole 22.” PO Resp. 54; see also id. at 3 (Patent Owner arguing that “the size of coil that could be provided in this allegedly available space would be small and would significantly limit the amount of wireless power signal transmission,” but not arguing that even Patent Owner’s purported size-limited configuration would be inoperative); see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 155–156 (Dr. Duckworth credibly testifying that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kotanagi and Honda).” slip op. at 27
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“would limit the size and positioning of a charging coil, and that the purported combination, as characterized by Patent Owner, would result in a “significantly degrad[ed] wireless charging efficiency” of Honda’s coil. PO Resp. 41–42; see id. at 36–45, id. at 55 (Patent Owner arguing that, “given the size restrictions imposed by Kotanagi,” the housing and cover glass cannot be expanded to allow for a larger coil). Patent Owner further argues that the combination would have to be configured a certain way and that the resulting configuration would “would frustrate Honda’s goals and intended purpose.” Id. at 37–38, 40–41; see also, e.g., id. at 43–44 (Patent Owner arguing that the combination, as characterized by Patent Owner, would inject noise and interference that are contrary to Honda’s goals of quick and efficient power transmission). We do not agree with this line of argument. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The person of ordinary skill in the art is not compelled to blindly follow the teaching of one prior art reference over the other without the exercise of independent judgment. See Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984). As the Supreme Court recognized in KSR, “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” 550 U.S. at 421. Dr. Duckworth persuasively testifies that, “if, under the relevant engineering trade-offs, a POSITA wanted to increase charging speed, consistent with Honda’s teachings, Honda would have provided the motivation and information to either re-size or reshape Kotanagi’s protrusion and/or cover glass to provide for a larger coil.” Ex. 1060 ¶ 346; see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 157–159 (“[I]t would have been feasible to make the second modification option discussed above: to enlarge Kotanagi’s opening and cover glass to make room for a coil behind the cover glass, surrounding the LED and PD.”); Ex. 2039, 47:5–10 (“[A] POSITA would view Honda’s teachings to either modify Kotanagi to position wireless charging coil behind Kotanagi’s cover glass or enlarge the Kotanagi’s opening and cover glass to make room for a coil behind the cover glass.”); PO Resp. 44 (Patent Owner admitting that Honda teaches that metal is inferior for power transmission and “[t]his is precisely why Honda seeks to provide glass for its rear cover.”). And, although the references express certain goals, Patent Owner does not adequately identify any disclosure in either reference that disparages Petitioner’s articulated combination. See DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“A reference does not teach away, however, if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not ‘criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage’ investigation into the invention claimed.”). Even if, as Patent Owner argues, the proposed combination would not quickly charge the device, this is not dispositive. Dr. Anthony agrees that “[d]evices, depending on their use and their function, can benefit from either fast charge or trickle charge or a little bit of charge.” Ex. 1052, 19:3–6. “It’s not necessary to show that a combination is ‘the best option, only that it be a suitable option.’” Intel Corp., 21 F.4th at 800 (quoting PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197–98 (Fed. Cir. 2014)); see also In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[J]ust because better alternatives exist in the prior art does not mean that an inferior combination is inapt for obviousness purposes.”); Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.”). Based upon the final record before us, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider even a slow charging configuration to be a suitable option.” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 10,942,491 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,942,491
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.