- Lenovo (United States) Inc. / Motorola Mobility LLC v. Theta IP, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 16, 2024 · IPR2023-00697 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 8 were not proven unpatentable: Rauhala does not disclose the required simultaneous signal-strength determinations, and Masaaki does not cure the deficiency for claim 4.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Following institution, Patent Owner maintained the same level of ordinary skill proposed in its preliminary response and did not address our discussion of the level of ordinary skill in the art in the Institution Decision. PO Resp. 24–25; see also Prelim. Resp. 24. For the reasons discussed in the Institution Decision, we adopt and apply for this Decision the level of ordinary skill articulated by Petitioner and used previously in our Institution Decision. See Dec. 8–10. In light of our review of the complete record, we find that this formulation is consistent with the ’825 patent, the prior art of record, and is supported by the testimony of Dr. Baker. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 27– 31. Our decision would not change, however, if we had applied Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 12
- 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 that the desired signal and interferer signal must be received at the same time. The plain language of the claim requires the wireless transceiver to “receiv[e] a wireless signal having a desired signal and an interferer signal,” the determining of a signal strength of the interferer signal and the determining of a signal strength of the desired signal must be performed at the same time; otherwise, the determinations of signal strengths would not be of the same wireless signal. The specification supports this understanding. “When a receiver is actively receiving a desired signal, each block in the signal path has at its input the desired signal as well as noise and possibly interfering signals.” Ex. 1001, 5:20–22; see also id. at 5:31–33 (“FIGS. 2A and 2B illustrate examples of desired signals, interferers, and noise that may be received by one of the various circuits in a” slip op. at 21
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that Rauhala does not state that the signal strengths are measured simultaneously or at the same time. Indeed, as discussed above, Rauhala indicates unequivocally in the same paragraph the opposite—that detector DET provides to control unit 42 “an indication about either the receive channel signal strength RSS or the strength of any signal on the reception band.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 17. Rauhala describes that “control unit 42 provides two one-bit control signals cA and cM” based on indications received from detector DET. Id. Importantly, Rauhala indicates that “at the same time as” describes how the control unit 42 uses the received inputs RSS and RSSn shown in Figure 4, which are described earlier in paragraph 17 as indications of either RSS or RSSn from detector DET. Id. (“Signal cA is 0 when signal RSS is greater than S4 and signal RSSn is at the 11 Dr. Baker’s reply declaration correctly quotes Rauhala paragraph 17 but cites to paragraph 18. We deem this harmless error. same time smaller than Sn. . . . Signal cM is 1 when signal RSS is not greater than S4 and signal RSSn is at the same time at least Sn. Otherwise, signal cM is 0.”). The burden remains on Petitioner to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Rauhala discloses the disputed limitations as arranged or combined in the claim. Petitioner does not persuasively reconcile these “either/or” statements regarding the functioning of detector DET with the “at the same time as” statements regarding control signals output by control unit 42 in paragraph 17. We do not find persuasive Petitioner counsel’s position expressed at the hearing that Rauhala’s “either/or” statements are “simply an imprecise description” (Tr. 16:22–24). We do not see a lack of precision in Rauhala’s “either/or” statements.” slip op. at 30
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“When asked at his deposition to explain Rauhala’s use of the word “or” regarding the functioning of detector DET, Dr. Baker asserted that “[detectors] can be designed to determine RSS or RSSn.” Ex. 2016, 85:5– 12. We find Dr. Baker’s testimony that “it’s reasonable that if you can design . . . the detector to detect one or the other, you can also design it to detect both” to be without factual support. Id. at 85:13–16. He points to no textbook or other independent evidence to support that would have led one of ordinary skill to design such a detector or to support that one of ordinary skill would have understood Rauhala’s detector to be so designed. Furthermore, Dr. Baker recognizes that “Rauhala doesn’t teach the details of what’s in the detector.” Id. at 91:6–7. We give little weight to Dr. Baker’s unsupported testimony that one could design a detector to detect both RSS and RSSn from the same wireless signal. See 37 C.F.R. 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., No. IPR2022-00624, 2022 WL 3648989, at *6 (PTAB 2022) (precedential) (Director affirming because “the cited declaration testimony is conclusory and unsupported, adds little to the conclusory assertion for which it is offered to support, and is entitled to little weight”).” slip op. at 31
Patent outcomesUS 10,129,825 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,129,825 - Lenovo (United States) Inc. / Motorola Mobility LLC v. Theta IP, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 16, 2024 · IPR2023-00698 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 7–11, 13, and 19–21 were not shown unpatentable because Rauhala does not disclose simultaneous desired and interferer signal-strength determinations, defeating anticipation and the obviousness combination.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The two proposals are materially similar in the education requirement, but differ marginally in professional experience required (three versus five years). See supra. While we were persuaded, on the preliminary record, that both Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposals were consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’202 patent and the prior art of record, on balance, we determined that Petitioner’s proposal was a better reflection of the level of skill in the prior art, and we therefore adopted it for our Institution Decision. See Institution Dec. 12–13. For this Decision, we adopt the description of the person of ordinary skill articulated by Petitioner and used previously in our Institution Decision. In light of our review of the complete record, we find that this formulation is consistent with the ’202 patent, the prior art of record, and is supported by the testimony of Dr. Baker. See Baker I Decl. ¶¶ 28–32. Our Decision would not change, however, if we had applied Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“85:13–16. He admits that “Rauhala doesn’t teach the details of what’s in the detector.” Id. at 91:6–7. He points to no textbook or other independent evidence that would have led a person of ordinary skill to design such a detector. Our Trial Practice Guide cautions against crediting such unsupported testimony: The Board has broad discretion to assign weight to be accorded expert testimony. Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010). However, the testimony must be based on sufficient facts and data. Fed. R. Evid. 702(b). “Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 35 (Nov. 2019).7 We therefore give Dr, Baker’s unsupported testimony on this issue little weight.” slip op. at 24
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“We construe claim terms only as relevant to the parties’ contentions and only to the extent necessary to resolve the issues in dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Having considered the positions of the parties, we find that for the purpose of this decision, we do not need to construe these terms to resolve a dispute.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“requirement.” Pet. Reply 5. We do not agree with Petitioner. We find that the language of the claims supports Patent Owner’s argument that the desired signal and the interferer signal are received together. As discussed infra, claim limitations 7.7 and 7.8 recite determining a signal strength of the interferer signal and determining a signal strength of the desired signal. These determinations must be performed at the same time; otherwise, the determinations of signal strengths would not be of the same wireless signal. See Larson II Decl. ¶ 70; Baker II Decl. ¶¶ 48–49 (explaining that consideration of signal strengths detected at the same time would be “essential”). The specification of the ’202 patent further supports this finding: “When a receiver is actively receiving a desired signal, each block in the signal path has at its input the desired signal as well as noise and possibly interfering signals.” Ex. 1001, 5:22–24; see also Figs. 2A, 2B (showing interferer signals and desired signals together).” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 10,524,202 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,524,202 - Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 25, 2024 · IPR2023-00341 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–16 were not shown unpatentable over Lebrun and Wang or over Prajapat and Wang because the combinations did not teach key invitation and webpage retrieval limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“of the parties, we found that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) “would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, 7 Patent Owner has not offered objective evidence of non-obviousness. See generally PO Resp.; PO Sur-reply; see also Pet. 21 (indicating Petitioner is not aware of any evidence of secondary considerations). least two years of work experience in software development and/or web-based software,” which reflected Petitioner’s proposal. Dec. 12; see Dec. 10–12 (discussing the respective proposals and level of ordinary skill reflected in the challenged patent and asserted prior art). Patent Owner accepts this level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 37. Accordingly, we apply this determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner’s citations in this regard to Dr. Lieberman’s declaration do not adequately support Petitioner’s “forwarding” contention. Pet. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37, 149); Ex. 1003 ¶ 37 (indicating the challenged patent describes the invitation as being sent by email, instant message, or social network communication); Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (describing the group-surfing server receiving the session-creation message, creating the group-surfing session, and “inform[ing] the participants in the group-surfing session”). Petitioner does not identify any testimony from Dr. Lieberman that supports Petitioner’s Reply position that Lebrun’s group-surfing server “forwards” the session-creation message to the group-surfing session participants, nor are we aware of any such testimony. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (The group-surfing server “responds to the group session request ‘by (1) creating a group-surfing session, and (2) informing the participants [web clients] in the group-surfing session.”); see generally Ex. 1034. Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 29
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedGranted in part
“surfing server as forwarding the session-creation message to the invited web client. PO Sur-reply 12. Although Lebrun describes the group-surfing server as “informing the participants in the group-surfing server session” after receiving the session-creation message and creating the group-surfing session, Lebrun does not describe forwarding or otherwise sending the session-creation message to the participants. Ex. 1005, 32:26–28, 44:12–14. Petitioner’s citations in this regard to Dr. Lieberman’s declaration do not adequately support Petitioner’s “forwarding” contention. Pet. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37, 149); Ex. 1003 ¶ 37 (indicating the challenged patent describes the invitation as being sent by email, instant message, or social network communication); Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (describing the group-surfing server receiving the session-creation message, creating the group-surfing session, and “inform[ing] the participants in the group-surfing session”). Petitioner does not identify any testimony from Dr. Lieberman that supports Petitioner’s Reply position that Lebrun’s group-surfing server “forwards” the session-creation message to the group-surfing session participants, nor are we aware of any such testimony. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (The group-surfing server “responds to the group session request ‘by (1) creating a group-surfing session, and (2) informing the participants [web clients] in the group-surfing session.”); see generally Ex. 1034. Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“receive webpage content from the website server in particular ways as identified in limitations [1e] and [1g]. Similarly, claim 1 requires the invitee device to retrieve data from the website server in response to receiving “the information related to the shared web browsing interaction from the synchronization server” (limitation [1f.iii]). For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence its combination of Lebrun and Wang does so. For the required website server interaction, in its Petition, Petitioner relies on Lebrun’s description of an alternative embodiment applicable only when no cookies or other identity information are involved (Ex. 1005, 35:17–19). See, e.g., Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1005, 35:17–19). As Patent Owner indicates, this alternative is not relevant to the subject matter recited in claim 1 which requires identity information. PO Resp. 45. Petitioner does not address this shortcoming in its Reply. See generally Pet. Reply. Rather, in its Reply, for website server interaction, Petitioner relies on Lebrun’s functionality of sending a web page from the web server to the web client as shown in Lebrun’s Figure 1. See, e.g., Pet. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1005, 32:21–24, 31:27–30, Fig. 1). Specifically, Petitioner contends that Lebrun discloses that (i) a URL for the initial web page is included in session-creation message 151 (Ex. 1005, 32:21–24), (ii) the web site sends a web page directly to the web client (Fig. 1), and (iii) the web site delivers information 132 to web clients or the group-surfing server 140 “in response Pet. Reply 11. Although this shows the web site sending a web page directly to a web client, the prior art of Lebrun does not do so in the manner required by the claims (limitations [1e], [1f.i], [1f.iii], [1g]).” slip op. at 46
Patent outcomesUS 9,483,448 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,483,448 - Guardant Health, Inc. v. University Of WashingtonNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 10, 2023 · IPR2022-00817 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–30 were not proven unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish a reason to combine the Travers references with a reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Furthermore, the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Here, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art by March 20, 2012 would typically have an advanced degree, such as a Ph.D., with research experience in genomics, molecular biology, bioinformatics, or a related field, or could have less education but significant professional experience in one or more of these fields. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 46–47). Patent Owner states that for the purposes of this proceeding, it does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the skill level. PO Resp. 5 (citing Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 28–30). After reviewing the record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition as it is consistent with the prior art’s demonstration of the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languagePlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner argues that, in a few instances, the ’127 patent discloses “sequence reads” as corresponding to “multiple and distinct sequencing reactions.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 4:12–18, 4:45–49, 9:5–9, 9:11–12). Those disclosures, however, relate to “only one method for making the invention and do[] not automatically lead to finding a clear disavowal of claim scope.” Cont’l Cirs. LLC v. Intel Corp., 915 F.3d 788, 797 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Patent Owner does not point to, and we cannot find, any intrinsic evidence that would limit “sequence reads” as Patent Owner contends. Patent Owner also relies on Travers as extrinsic evidence that supports its argument. PO Resp. 9. Specifically, Patent Owner contends that Travers “refers to the sense and antisense target DNA sequences as subreads, which are distinct from the ‘raw read sequence’ or ‘raw read’ that comprises all of the subreads physically linked together.” Id. (citing Ex. 1021, 2). Patent Owner, however, ignores that Travers ’075 refers to the sequence of a sense or antisense strand as a “sequence read,” and not a subread. See Ex. 1018 ¶ 61. As a result, we find insufficient evidence to support Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “sequence read” as requiring “multiple and distinct sequencing reactions.”7 Claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Based on the complete record, we see no need to expressly address any other claim term.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments. First, the prior art references Petitioner relies on relate to sequencing SMRTbell templates; specifically, they teach two polymerase binding sites in the two hairpin adapters per SMRTbell molecule, one on each end of the target molecule. See Ex. 1021, Fig. 1. They do not speak to concatemers with multiple polymerase binding sites interspersed along the molecule. Second, as explained above, a two-round RCR already generates three polymerase binding sites. See Ex. 2014 ¶ 178. Thus, even if we were to agree with Petitioner that the optimal stoichiometric ratio for SMRTbell templates applies to RCR produced concatemers, the polymerase to concatemer template ratio is at least three, i.e., 50% higher than the number Petitioner points to.11 See Reply 16 (citing Ex. 1035, 34). 11 The product of one round of RCR replication has only two polymerase binding sites. But, with only one copy of A and A each, it would not satisfy Third, and most importantly, the prior art does not support Petitioner’s arguments. The SMRT sequencing “approach is based on eavesdropping on a single DNA polymerase molecule working in a continuous, processive manner.” Ex. 2021, 1 (“Within each [ZMW] chamber, a single DNA polymerase molecule is attached to the bottom surface.”). Indeed, in SMRT sequencing, polymerase molecules are randomly distributed among the ZMWs, leading to a Poisson distribution of occupancy. At optimal loading, the distribution is 36.8% empty ZMWs, 36.8% with just one polymerase, and 26.4% with two or more. In this experiment, ~35% of the ZMWs produced traces indicative of single DNA polymerase occupancy, of which 82% produced full-length reads.” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached
“3. Summary In sum, Petitioner has not met its burden to show that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reason to sequence RCR replicated concatemers on PacBio’s sequencing platform with a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, Petitioner has not shown the Travers references render the claims 1–10, 12, and 15–28 obvious.12 F. Other Grounds Claim 11 depends from claim 1. Petitioner asserts that claim 11 would have been obvious over the combination of Travers ’075, Travers 2010, and NEB Expressions. Pet. 58–60. 12 The parties dispute whether there are objective indicia to support a conclusion of nonobviousness. PO Resp. 68–74; Reply 23–27; Sur-reply 27–29. We do not address this issue because we determine Petitioner has not met its burden in showing the reason to combine/modify the Travers references or the reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 45
Patent outcomesUS 10,760,127 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,760,127 - Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Aortic Innovations, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 25, 2023 · IPR2022-00556 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted references did not teach or suggest the limitation requiring no outer graft covering between the fibers and outer frame.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“As the plain language of the claim term suggests, an “outer graft covering” must cover some, or all, of the metallic outer frame of the prosthetic heart valve. Consequently, and according to the plain and ordinary meaning, we understand an “outer graft covering” to be a structure, 29 such as a cloth, fabric or other material, that covers all, or part of, the metallic outer frame. Importantly, because an outer graft covering must cover the external surface of the outer frame, and specifically “between the first portion of fibers and the outer frame,” we understand this claim term to mean that the cover must extend over (i.e., “cover”) not only the struts and members of the metallic outer frame, but must also cover the open spaces, or interstices, in the spaces between those struts and members. Consequently, the ordinary and customary meaning of the limitation “free of an outer graft covering between the fibers and the outer frame” is that there can be no such outer graft covering present anywhere between the outwardly extending fibers and the metallic outer frame.” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“As an initial matter, there is little disagreement between the parties and their experts that PET can be a graft covering. However, the disputed limitation requires something more. Specifically, it requires that “the outer seal is free of an outer graft covering between the fibers and the outer frame.” We are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence of record, that Levi, Spenser II, or Walther, upon which Petitioner relies, teaches or suggests the incorporated limitation of claim 1 reciting “wherein the valve assembly is free of an outer graft covering between the first portion of fibers and the outer frame.” In our analysis, we must first determine what is meant by the claim term “outer graft covering.”” slip op. at 29
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Furthermore, our understanding of an outer graft covering as a material or structure that covers at least a portion of the outer surface of the prosthetic heart valve, such that both the struts and members of the metallic outer frame, as well as the interstices between those struts and members, is covered by the outer graft covering, reinforces our prior conclusion that the outer skirt of Levi constitutes an outer graft covering that is prohibited by challenged claim 1. We consequently conclude that Petitioner has not met 35 its burden with respect to demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Levi teaches or suggests the limitation reciting “wherein the outer seal is free of an outer graft covering between the fibers and the outer frame.”” slip op. at 35
Patent outcomesUS 10,987,236 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,987,236 - Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Aortic Innovations, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 24, 2023 · IPR2022-00034 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision
Petitioner failed to show claim 6 unpatentable because none of the seven asserted grounds established the required absence of an outer graft covering between the fibers and outer frame.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“November 2012 would have been an interventional cardiologist with a working knowledge of heart valve designs and endovascular prostheses.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“We determine that, as the plain language of the claim term suggests, an “outer graft covering” must circumferentially cover some, or all, of the metallic outer frame of the prosthetic heart valve. See Merriam-Webster, Cover, available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cover (last visited March 2, 2023) (defining “cover,” relevantly, as “something that is placed over or about another thing”). See Ex. 3004. Consequently, we understand an “outer graft covering” to be a structure, such as a cloth or fabric or other material, that circumferentially covers all or part of, the metallic outer frame. Importantly, because an outer graft covering must cover the external surface of the outer frame, we understand this claim term to mean that the cover must extend over (i.e., “cover”) not only the struts and members of the metallic outer frame, but must also cover the open spaces, or interstices, in the intervals between those struts and members. Consequently, we construe the limitation reciting “free of an outer graft covering between the fibers and the outer frame” to mean that there can be no such outer graft covering present anywhere between the outwardly extending fibers and the metallic outer frame.” slip op. at 40
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, or otherwise provide any additional argument or evidence to demonstrate that the outer skirt of Levi does not constitute the outer graft covering prohibited by claim 6. Consequently, our initial determinations stand. Furthermore, our definition of outer graft covering herein as “a material or structure that circumferentially covers at least a portion of the outer surface of the prosthetic heart valve, such that both the struts and members of the metallic outer frame, as well as the 45 interstices between those struts and members, is covered by the outer graft covering” reinforces our prior conclusion that the outer skirt of Levi constitutes an outer graft covering that is prohibited by claim 6. We consequently conclude that Petitioner has not met its burden with respect to demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Levi teaches or suggests the limitation reciting “wherein the outer seal is free of an outer graft covering between the fibers and the outer frame.”” slip op. at 45
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Both the descriptions and Figure 22 of Spenser II show a cloth covering the proximal outer surface of the metallic outer frame of the prosthetic heart valve, including the spaces between the struts and members of the frame. Furthermore, the reference discloses that any fibers extending outwardly from the cloth arise from the surface of the cloth, and are not attached directly to the frame, as depicted in Figure 11 of the ’846 Specification. Thus, even were such fibers made of the same material as the cloth, which is not clear from the reference’s disclosure, the cloth would be between the surface-residing fibers and the metallic outer frame. We conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the sleeve-like cloth or fabric of Spenser II corresponds to an outer graft covering between its fibers and its outer frame, and such a covering would be between Spencer II’s surface fibers and its metallic outer frame. Such an outer graft cover is expressly prohibited by the language of claim 6, even if it and associated extending fibers are of the same material.” slip op. at 48
Patent outcomesUS 10,966,846 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,966,846 - Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cardiovalve Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 6, 2022 · IPR2021-01051 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision
The Board granted the non-contingent motion to amend, canceling claims 1–10 and replacing them with claims 11–20, which Petitioner failed to prove unpatentable over Goldfarb ’267.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“We conclude that Petitioner’s arguments are insufficient to meet its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Goldfarb ’267 anticipates, or renders obvious, the limitation of proposed substitute claim 11 reciting “advancing the end of the first-clip arm and the end of the second-clip arm out of the delivery tube before advancing the support portion out of the delivery tube” merely requires advancing the ends of the clip arms out of the delivery tube “before advancing the support portion out of the delivery tube.” Moreover, Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive with respect to proposed substitute dependent claims 12–20 due to their dependence from, and incorporation of, the limitations of proposed substitute claim 11. See Supp. Mot. Amend. 1, Reply Supp. Mot. Amend. 1. We therefore conclude that these proposed substitute claims are similarly neither anticipated by, nor obvious over, Goldfarb ’267. III. CONCLUSION We GRANT Patent Owner’s non-contingent Motion to Amend and Supplemental Motion to Amend, canceling original claims 1–10 and replacing them with substitute claims 11–20. Additionally, for the foregoing reasons, and after having analyzed the entirety of the record and assigning appropriate weight to the cited supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner has failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that proposed substitute claims 11–20 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 57
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Having weighed the evidence and Petitioner’s argument, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art as: (1) a mechanical or biomedical engineer with at least three years of experience in designing or developing medical devices who would, where necessary or desired, work or consult with others including a physician to develop such a medical device; or (2) an interventional cardiologist or cardiac surgeon with at least three years of experience developing and/or using medical devices in the heart, and who would, where necessary, work or consult with others including an engineer to develop such a medical device. See Pet. 15–16.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Vesely. Ex. 1003. We have reviewed the credentials of Dr. Vesely and consider him qualified to provide the opinions for which his testimony has 4 Goldfarb et al. (US 7,563,267 B2, July 21, 2009) (“Goldfarb ’267”) (Ex. 1005). 5 Petitioner refers to Goldfarb’s ’267 disclosure of a further alternative at Ex. 1005 col. 27 ll. 57–60 as Embodiment A. See Pet. 19. We understand the asserted Embodiment A to encompass the description that extends to Ex. 1005 col. 28, l. 9. See Pet. 24–48. 6 Goldfarb et al. (US 7,635,329 B2, December 22, 2009) (“Goldfarb ’329”) Ex. 1006. 7 Ex. 1005 cols. 17–23, ll. 66–29, Figs. 9–16; see Pet. 21–22. been submitted. See id. ¶¶ 1–9; see also Ex. 1004 (Dr. Vesely’s curriculum vitae).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“is described in Goldfarb ’267 as plainly a single, unitary structure and, as such, each portion argued as separate elements by Petitioner (i.e., male element (yellow), female element (green), coupling member 19 (blue) and flexible arms 19A and 19B (dark blue)) together form a solid, single component. Thus, all of the “elements” described by Petitioner as being “separate” are in fact a single unit that: (1) bears the weight of the fixation device during delivery; (2) absorbs and transfer the axial and rotational forces imposed by the shaft 12; and (3) holds the device in the correct orientation. Petitioner points to no disclosure of Goldfarb ’267 that suggests these elements act independently or separately to perform the functions of the unitary component, nor can we discern any such disclosure. We therefore find that Petitioner’s argument that only the “male element” portion of coupling member 19 constitutes the “support portion” recited in proposed substitute claim 11 is an arbitrary and unduly restrictive interpretation of the reference’s disclosure. This is particularly true given that Petitioner points to no portion of the male element of coupling member 19 performing a supporting function that is not shared by the other elements of coupling member 19. We conclude that the better understanding of the reference is that the entirety of coupling member 19 (including flexible arms 10A and 19B11) constitutes an analogous support portion, as recited by substitute claim 11, because it provides a unitary structure that performs the supporting functions enumerated by Petitioner.” slip op. at 41
Patent outcomesUS 10,702,385 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,702,385 - Apple Inc. / HTC Corporation et al. v. Invt Spe LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 25, 2020 · IPR2018-01473 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5–9, and 11 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Keskitalo and Lindell because Petitioner did not adequately explain why a skilled artisan would combine their teachings.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that “[c]laim 1 includes limitations in means-plus[-]function format, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the [Applicant] intended to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.”3 Pet. 7; see also Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In the Decision on Institution, we addressed Petitioner’s proposed constructions of the means-plus-function terms (Pet. 10–12), and we determined that Petitioner has set forth proposed structures that support these limitations. Dec. on Inst. 8–12; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) (2018).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“As for the other claim limitations of independent claims 1, 6, and 7, and claims 2, 3, 5, 8, 9 and 11 depending therefrom, neither party has proposed a construction of any other term. See Pet. 6–7; PO Resp. 12–13. We determine that we need not further construe expressly any other claim terms to resolve the arguments before us. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (explaining that only claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. to an inter partes review).” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). In that regard, Petitioner’s expert, Andrew C. Singer, Ph.D., testifies that a POSITA at the time of the invention would have been a person having a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or the equivalent plus three years of experience working with digital communication systems or in network engineering or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering with an emphasis on communication systems or the equivalent plus one year of experience working with digital communication systems or in network engineering. Pet. 4–5; Ex. 1003 ¶ 35. Patent Owner does not dispute Dr. Singer’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. We adopt and apply Dr. Singer’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected by the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that absent evidence to the contrary, “the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“position of Patent Owner. In particular, we are unpersuaded by Petitioner’s contention that it would have been obvious to modify Keskitalo such that its predetermined thresholds for transmission power are average transmission power values in accordance with the teachings of Lindell. Pet. 26. That is, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated by the preponderance of the evidence that it would have been obvious to have used Lindell’s average transmission power values as Keskitalo’s predetermined thresholds for transmission power. See Harmonic, 815 F.3d at 1363 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) as requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”); Magnum Oil Tools, 829 F.3d at 1380 (holding that Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements”).” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 6,611,676 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,611,676 - Securus Technologies, Inc. v. Global Tel*link CorporationNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 16, 2017 · IPR2016-01123 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–11 were not shown unpatentable under either § 103 ground because Petitioner failed to explain adequately why or how a skilled artisan would combine the references.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner proposes constructions for the claim terms “continuous noise detection algorithm” and “power distribution filter algorithm.” Pet. 24–28. Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s proposed constructions for these terms. Prelim. Resp. 8–11. After analyzing the claims and supporting specification of the ’726 patent, we determine that we need not provide express constructions for the disputed claim terms in order to reach our decision.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not dispute Dr. Williams’ testimony. See generally Prelim. Resp. Patent Owner’s Declarant, Dr. Leonard J. Forys (“Dr. Forys”), however, proffers his own assessment regarding a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’726 patent. According to Dr. Forys, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or an equivalent field as well as at least 3–5 years of academic or industry experience in communications systems, or comparable industry experience.” Ex. 2002 ¶ 29. Dr. Forys does not address Dr. Williams’ testimony in this regard or otherwise indicate whether his analysis would change if Dr. Williams’ proffered level of ordinary were adopted. Id. We have reviewed the ’726 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’726 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of Dr. Williams and Dr. Forys (who mostly agree as to the level of skill of an ordinarily skill artisan). Based on our review, we adopt and apply Dr. Williams’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention for purposes of this Decision. In addition, our analysis would not change if Dr. Forys’ proffered level of ordinary skill were adopted.” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“time of the ’726 patent would likely understand the relationship between power and energy. We also agree that there is a relationship between power and energy, and that it is possible to derive information about one from the other. See Ex. 1012, 18:14–25:8; Ex. 2001, 25:10–27:14; Ex. 2005, 238. Based on the evidence of record, we do not agree, however, that power and energy “are essentially equivalent and can be used interchangeably” as asserted in the Petition. See id.; see Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 174–177). Nor do we agree one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the Gupta energy threshold is the same as the power level threshold disclosed in Li. See Ex. 1012, 18:14–25; Ex. 2001, 25:10–27:14; Ex. 2005, 238. Petitioner’s reliance on Dr. Williams’s testimony regarding Gupta’s disclosure that “[a] minimum energy threshold may be programmed to [the cadence tone’s] required power level for a valid signal on a line” is equally unpersuasive. Ex. 1009 ¶ 181 (citing Ex. 1004, 6:41–44). We are unpersuaded because neither Petitioner nor Dr. Williams explains sufficiently how Gupta’s minimum energy threshold relates to a required power level or how it relates to Li’s power estimator and the purpose of Li’s power estimators. Given the lack of equivalence between power and energy, we find Petitioner fails to present sufficient evidence explaining why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have switched from detecting a power threshold, such as that described in Li and required by the challenged claims, to detecting an energy threshold as disclosed in McNitt and Gupta. Petitioner must articulate a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the prior art references. Personal Web Techs. v. Apple, 848 F.3d 987, 991–92 (Fed. Cir. 2017); In re NuVasive, 842 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Company, 848 F.3d 1358, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[I]t is insufficient to simply conclude the [prior art] combination would have been obvious without identifying any reason why a person of skill in the art would have made the combination.”); see Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention”). Conclusory statements alone, even those provided by a declarant, are inadequate to demonstrate a rationale for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the teachings from prior art references. NuVasive, 842 F.3d at 1383. Instead, Petitioner’s arguments must be supported by a “reasoned explanation.” Id. (citing In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). We understand that a person of ordinary skill is a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton, but “[w]ithout any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to arrive at the claimed invention, we are left with only hindsight bias that KSR warns against.” Metalcraft, 848 F.3d at 1367 (“‘[T]he obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation,’ we also recognize that we cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention” (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 420–21)).” slip op. at 30
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner must articulate a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the prior art references. Personal Web Techs. v. Apple, 848 F.3d 987, 991–92 (Fed. Cir. 2017); In re NuVasive, 842 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Company, 848 F.3d 1358, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[I]t is insufficient to simply conclude the [prior art] combination would have been obvious without identifying any reason why a person of skill in the art would have made the combination.”); see Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention”). Conclusory statements alone, even those provided by a declarant, are inadequate to demonstrate a rationale for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the teachings from prior art references. NuVasive, 842 F.3d at 1383. Instead, Petitioner’s arguments must be supported by a “reasoned explanation.” Id. (citing In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). We understand that a person of ordinary skill is a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton, but “[w]ithout any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to arrive at the claimed invention, we are left with only hindsight bias that KSR warns against.” Metalcraft, 848 F.3d at 1367 (“‘[T]he obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation,’ we also recognize that we cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention” (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 420–21)). We agree with Petitioner that the cited references do not need to be physically combinable to render claim 1 obvious. In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.”); see also In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). Obviousness, however, “may not be established using hindsight or in view of the teachings or suggestions of the inventor.” Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d 1085, 1087 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1551, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Additionally, it is impermissible for Petitioner to “use the claimed invention as an instruction manual or ‘template’ to piece together the teachings of the prior art so that the claimed invention is rendered obvious.” In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 987 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Accordingly, Petitioner must set forth clearly in the Petition which references it is relying on for each specific limitation and how those combined teachings would render the challenged claims obvious. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3).” slip op. at 31
Patent outcomesUS 8,630,726 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,630,726 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v. Elm 3ds Innovations, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 22, 2017 · IPR2016-00770 · APJ Glenn J Perry · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 12, 13, 24, 36, 37, 38, 83, 86, 87, and 132 were not shown unpatentable over the asserted combinations because the evidence did not establish substantial flexibility or motivation for the proposed dielectric substitutions.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner, with support of its declarant Paul D. Franzon, Ph.D., contends that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the inventions of the challenge patents “would have had at least a B.S. degree in electrical engineering, material science, or equivalent thereof, and at least 3–5 years of experience in the relevant field, e.g., semiconductor processing.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 52–53). Dr. Franzon’s testimony as to the level of 12 ordinary skill is based on “the type of problems encountered in the art, prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 53. Patent Owner did not propose expressly a particular level of ordinary skill. See generally PO Resp. At the oral hearing, Petitioner indicatedthat there did not seem to be any dispute as to the correct level of ordinary skill. Tr. 112:11–14 (“I don’t think there was any dispute about whether [Dr. Franzon’s proposed level of ordinary skill] was the correct level of skill, although Patent Owner can correct me.”). Having reviewed the prior art asserted in these proceedings (see, e.g., Exs. 1004–07, 1009, 2160), we determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner’s declarant is consistent with the challenged patent and the referenced prior art, and we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“In the context of the Elm 3DS family, we find that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “substantially flexible” is the same as our construction under the Philips standard, which was the standard applied in IPR2016-00386. Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, we presume a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning, which “is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question” at the time of the invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). As discussed in detail in the Final Written Decisions in IPR2016-00386, IPR2016-00387, and IPR2016- 00388, the ordinary and customary meaning of “substantially flexible” is “largely able to bend without breaking.” Also as discussed extensively in” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“same as set forth in IPR2016-00708. Each of the challenged claims in this review require the use of a dielectric having a stress of less than 5 x 108 dynes/cm2 tensile. The evidentiary record in this case with regard to dielectric substitution adds nothing further to the evidentiary record established in IPR2016-00708. For the same reasons set forth in our Final Written Decision in IPR2016-00708, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have made the proposed dielectric substitution.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“As noted in our claim construction section, above and as referenced in our Final Written Decision in IPR2016-00386, a preponderance of the evidence establishes that, in the context of semiconductor substrates, mere thinning is not the same as flexibility—being able to bend without breaking. 20 Although Petitioner presents arguments attempting to demonstrate thinning, there are no arguments that this thinning necessarily results in flexibility. Thus, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden to demonstrate that the required “substantial flexibility.” This reason alone sufficiently supports our conclusion. However, we also conclude, as set forth below that for a second, independent reason, Petitioner has not established that the challenged claims are unpatentable. Petitioner has not sufficiently established that one of ordinary skill would have substituted the dielectric material of Leedy ’695 for the various layers proposed for substitution in Hsu. Therefore we do not credit Leedy ’695 as providing any potential “substantial flexibility” to Hsu.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 8,907,499 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,907,499
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.