• Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v. Resmed LimitedSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 23, 2018 · IPR2017-00501 · APJ James J Mayberry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 61–64 are unpatentable under § 103; claims 1–60, 65, and 66 were not shown unpatentable under § 103.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “(Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting inter partes review of claims 1–66 (the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,027,556 B2 (Ex. 1001, the “’556 patent”). Patent Owner, ResMed Ltd. (“ResMed”), filed a Preliminary Patent Owner Response to the Petition. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We instituted trial on claims 61–64 and 66 only. See Paper 8 (“Dec. on Inst.” or “Institution Decision”), 42–43 (instituting trial on claims 61–64 and 66 on four of the twelve asserted grounds); cf. Pet. 9–10 (listing the twelve asserted grounds).” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenOther

    “D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability In inter partes reviews, a petitioner bears the burden of proving unpatentability of the challenged claims, and the burden of persuasion never shifts to the patent owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To prevail in this proceeding, Fisher must support its challenge by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). Accordingly, all of our findings and conclusions are based on a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 27

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Petition, how Barnett teaches using a different material that is more rigid than silicone for neck 46 and ribs 56. The Petition lays out certain factual statements, but draws no conclusion from those statements, leaving us to somehow connect the dots.” slip op. at 33

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

    “patent . . . that claims as innovation the combination of two known devices according to their established functions.” KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 418. Importantly, “obviousness must be determined in light of all the facts, and . . . a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (emphasis added); see also Winner Int’l, 202 F.3d at 1349 n.8 (“The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.”). Accordingly, we weigh Fisher’s and ResMed’s evidence with respect to whether a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Barnett with Ogden’s teaching of a main body of a cushion module using a material that is more” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 9,027,556 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,027,556
• Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v. Resmed LimitedSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 7, 2018 · IPR2017-00059 · APJ James J Mayberry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 73–76, 78–82, and 84–86 are unpatentable under § 103; claims 23–72, 77, and 83 were not shown unpatentable because the proposed modification would change Ogden’s principle of operation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “We find both parties assert very similar definitions of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Both definitions include a degreed engineer with two years of experience. Fisher identifies the fields of experience as “masks, respiratory therapy, patient interfaces or relevant product design experience” and ResMed, through Mr. Sleeper, defines the field of experience as “relevant product design experience.” Mr. Sleeper declares that additional experience may compensate for less education and additional education may compensate for less experience. We find, based on our review of the complete record, that the evidence of record supports a level of ordinary skill in the art consistent with the parties’ definitions—a person having a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering or other similar type of engineering degree combined with two years of experience in the field of masks, respiratory therapy, patient interfaces, or other relevant product design experience. We also find that additional experience may compensate for less education and additional education may compensate for less experience. Further, we note that our patentability analysis presented below would reach the same findings and determinations under either party’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other

    “ResMed takes the position that the plurality of tabs must form the snap-fit structure. See PO Resp. 27 (“Moreover, even if there was a ‘snap-fit,’ there would only be a snap-fit by a single tab (detent 43, illustrated below in Figure 1)—not the required plurality of tabs”); Tr. 35:7–9 (“The plurality of tabs are what need to have the snap-fit. And having one snap-fit for one tab is not enough to meet this claim language.”). As detailed below, we determine that the broadest reasonable construction of the disputed claim limitation encompasses a structure having a plurality of tabs, but the plurality of tabs not necessarily providing the snap-fit structure. That is, under the broadest reasonable construction, a single tab may provide the snap fit structure. First, the plain reading of claim 73 supports our construction. See, e.g., Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[T]he context in which a term is used in the [claim at issue] can be highly instructive.”). As a starting point, the plain meaning of the phrase “plurality of tabs” is two or more tabs and we discern nothing in the record to indicate a contrary meaning. See, e.g., Dayco Prod., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 258 F.3d 1317, 1327–28 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[W]e have held that ‘plurality,’ when used in a claim, refers to two or more items, absent some indication to the contrary.”). The plain language of the claim also requires the two or more tabs be structured to attach removably the headgear connector to the rigid mask frame. The claim language further requires this removable attaching be with a snap-fit. The language of the claim, however, does not require two or more tabs be associated with the snap-fit. That is, nothing in the plain language of the claim element precludes a structure that includes two or more tabs interfacing with the rigid mask, where only one of the tabs is associated with snap-fit aspect of the interfacing.” slip op. at 13

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

    “What a reference teaches and how a proposed modification of a reference would change its principle of operation are underlying factual inquiries in an obviousness analysis. See, e.g., Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (addressing the Board’s factual findings with respect to a reference’s principle of operation). We find that Ogden’s principle of operation is to employ a rigid plate loosely mounted to a rigid shell, such that “in use, the rigid plate is free to move relative to the rigid shell in response to any unequal forces being applied to it by the side straps as the patient, for example, turns his or her head from side-to-side.” Ex. 1102, 1:57–61; see also PO Resp. 52–53, 61 (indicating that Ogden’s principle of operation is its loosely-mounted rigid plate). Ogden’s disclosure as a whole supports our finding as to its principle of operation. As Ogden discloses, the loose-fitted rigid plate “rotate[s] to compensate for any unequally applied forces as the patient moves his or her head.” Ex. 1102, 4:17–20. [W]hen the patient turns his or her head and instead of tending to lift the shell 3 and its seal 5 off the patient’s face and breaking the seal as in FIG. 4, the rigid plate 9 of the present invention in FIG. 5 rotates relative to the rigid shell 3. This movement then compensates or equalizes the forces and keeps the shell 3 securingly in place with the center lines 69 and 71 of the shell 3 and the patient’s face aligned. Id. at 4:31–38; see also 4:61–5:3 (describing how Ogden’s facial mask compensates for any unequal applied forces by the side straps through the operation of loosely-mounted rigid place 9); Fig. 4 (illustrating how the seal at a patient’s face is broken by side-to-side movement with a rigid plate fixedly mounted to a rigid shell); cf. id. at 1:16–20 (“[A] common problem often arises that the mask will tend to unseat and leak as the patient turns his or her head (e.g., from side-to-side) or rolls over in bed and the straps contact and are deflected by a pillow, blanket, or other object.”); PO Resp. 52 (describing the problem addressed by Ogden).” slip op. at 32

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference . . . would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Haruna, 249 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (quoting Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Mich. Inc., 192 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); see, e.g., In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that, to teach away, the prior art must “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed”). We find that Ogden’s disclosure fails to rise to the level of teaching away. Ogden provides a solution to a problem with fixed headgear connectors but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage fixed headgear connectors. Instead, Ogden illustrates that a specific prior art mask with a fixed headgear connector may result in leakage of supplied air to the mask and discloses an improvement to that specific mask. Ogden does not indicate that a fixed headgear connector renders a mask inoperable or otherwise indicates that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not consider a path that led to a mask with a fixed headgear connector. We also do not agree with ResMed’s characterization that Ogden expressly teaches away from the proposed combination. Ogden expressly teaches a solution, but does not expressly teach away from other solutions. We note that, “[w]here the prior art contains ‘apparently conflicting’ slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 8,960,196 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,960,196
• Google LLC v. Makor Issues & Rights Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 12, 2018 · IPR2016-01535 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 12–14 and 18 are unpatentable as obvious over Xu and Peterson; unpatentability was not shown for claims 15, 16, and 19.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We first examine the claim as a whole with a focus on the disputed language. The claim language itself requires “computing real time traffic jam identification.” Ex. 1001, 23:10 (emphasis added). By qualifying the claimed traffic jam as being determined in real time, and by also by using “sample vehicles to measure time delays,” a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that traffic jams are more immediate, e.g., real time, than the regular, statistical, congestion described in the ’783 patent. See Ex. 2002 ¶ 7 (“[C]laim 12 further goes on to recite the computation of ‘traffic jams,’ by using ‘sample vehicles to measure time delays,’ which a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand must therefore be distinct from regular, statistical, congestion.”). The claim also requires “collecting GPS data and computing individual statistical travel time estimates (regular times) for predetermined roads.” Ex. 1001, 23:3–6; Tr. 27:16–29:17 (discussing the relevance of this limitation). Reading the claim as a whole suggests that a “traffic jam” must be a sudden unpredictable change of traffic on a segment as compared to these regular times. See Ex. 2002 ¶ 7.” slip op. at 14

  • 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) (citation omitted). In that regard, Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Braasch, testifies that:” slip op. at 18

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

    “Based on the final record, Petitioner has not provided sufficient arguments or credible evidence establishing how TravTek teaches the traffic jam limitation. Specifically, Petitioner has not persuasively shown how TravTek teaches the use of measured time delays of sample vehicles for computing a real time traffic jam. As explained above, we construed the term “traffic jam” to mean “a sudden unpredictable change of traffic in a segment as compared to regular times, i.e., individual statistical travel time estimates,” and thus the claimed “measuring time delays” must also be in relation to regular times. Claim 12 also requires that traffic jam identification is determined “by utilizing the sample vehicles for measuring time delays.” Petitioner has not directed us to record evidence sufficient to show that TravTek teaches these limitations.” slip op. at 24

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “First, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Xu only uses information from third party, or other external, sources to identify current traffic conditions. Patent Owner’s argument narrowly focuses on one example described in Xu, and fails to consider Xu as a whole, from the perspective of an ordinarily skilled artisan. A prior art reference must be considered for everything it teaches by way of technology and is not limited to the particular example it is describing. EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Furthermore, in an obviousness analysis, we must consider the combination of references, as a whole, in light of the general knowledge of an ordinarily skilled artisan. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). One stated objective of Xu is to create “a method for collecting dynamic traffic data using equipment installed in vehicles” as opposed to just relying on the prior art “methods for collecting traffic data” such as “sensing systems” that “are installed along highways,” using “[v]ideo cameras” or “pulsed laser range image technology.” Ex. 1006, 3:23–48. Given that a purpose of Xu was to use dynamic traffic data obtained from GPS receivers installed in vehicles, Xu, as a whole, provides a basis for using that same dynamic traffic data for determination of real time traffic conditions as testified by Dr. Braasch. Id.; see also id. at 2:63–67, 4:17–22; Ex. 1026 ¶ 36. For example, Xu explains how current traffic conditions may impact traffic forecasts and “the [TSC] receives a plurality of traffic data indicating that the link is experiencing an unusual congestion, by comparing the current traffic status with the normal traffic condition.” Id. at 12:66–13:6 (emphasis added); Ex. 1026 ¶ 36. Based on the final record, Petitioner establishes that the “plurality of traffic data” would include dynamic vehicle position data and that “time delays” are determined by comparing the current traffic status as determined by vehicle position with the normal traffic condition. Ex. 1006, 13:2–5 (“comparing the current traffic status with the normal traffic condition”); see also Pet. 68; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 145–46; Ex. 1026 ¶¶ 32–40. Indeed, as Dr. Braasch testifies, vehicle position data would be a source of real time traffic conditions indicative of unusual congestion. See Ex. 1026 ¶ 36; Ex. 1006, 12:66–13:6; Tr. 33:7–34:8 (citing Ex. 1006, 12:54–65). We are also persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Xu’s “communication system ‘forwards road traffic data reported from all vehicles 20 . . . to the traffic service center’ and that this data is used to provide ‘an optimum travel route based on real-time traffic conditions.’” Pet. Reply 17 (citing Ex. 1006, 7:37–52; 8:26–36; 12:66–13:6). Also persuasive is the cross-examination testimony of Dr. Kurzhanskiy that “one of the plurality of traffic data that could be being [sic] used to detect unusual congestion is vehicle probe position data.” Pet. Reply 17 (quoting Ex. 1024, 82:19–83:7) (also agreeing “that Xu discloses that vehicle position data is a form of traffic data that the system collects”). For these reasons, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Xu fails to disclose the traffic jam limitation.” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 6,480,783 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,480,783
• Pacific Surf Designs, Inc. v. Surf Waves, Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2018 · IPR2016-01454 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 and 7–20 are unpatentable; claim 6 was not shown unpatentable, based on the anticipation and obviousness grounds summarized by the Board.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Although the district court construed “activity section” as Petitioner describes, it also construed “curved sidewall extending substantially upwardly from [an/another] edge of the middle section,” which is part of the activity section, as “upwardly curved wall that the rider may traverse extending from [an/another] edge of the middle section.” Ex. 1013, 12–14. That said, it does not appear that the district court specifically considered whether to include “that the rider may traverse” in its construction. Id. It did, however, identify the issue regarding “activity section” as whether that term should include Petitioner/Defendant’s “additional proposed phrase ‘on 6 At the hearing, Patent Owner argued that the Lochtefeld 530 lacks the claimed sidewall because: the sidewall is “not to be designed [to be traversed]. But more than designed, there’s nothing in this reference that tells you that you should be traversing on it. So it’s more than just designed. There’s nothing in this reference that says you would traverse it.” Tr. 34:15–22. all of which a rider can ride.’” Ex. 1013, 10:1–4. It concluded that such language would be “superfluous and introduce[] ambiguity.” Id. at 10:9–12. We conclude the broadest-reasonable interpretation of “activity section” in light of the Specification does not require that a rider may traverse the entire activity section, including all portions of the sidewalls. Such a construction would be inconsistent with the Specification’s description that sidewalls may curve past vertical, as shown in Figure 12C. Ex. 1002, 4:5–6, Fig. 12C. In this regard, our construction comports with that of the district court. See Ex. 1013, 10:9–12. Beyond that, as discussed below (see infra at 41), whether the claims require that a rider may traverse some portion of the sidewall does not affect our conclusions regarding unpatentability. Thus, we do not further construe the “activity section.”” slip op. at 11

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

    “Regarding the claim phrase “extending substantially upwardly,” Patent Owner’s expert takes the position that curvature must be measured “perpendicular to a tangent along the edge.” See Ex. 1014, 59:3–60:1. Patent Owner relies on its expert to argue that Lochtefeld 589 does not disclose the claimed sidewalls but provides no support for construing “extending substantially upwardly” in such a manner. Patent Owner’s expert does not provide any support for such a construction in his declaration. Instead, he asserts that Lochtefeld 589 discloses sidewalls that extend either downward or horizontally, without explaining how he comes to that conclusion. Ex. 2001 ¶ 23. We will not impose a limiting construction based solely on an expert’s unsupported statements. Without some reason to construe “extending substantially upwardly” as sought by Patent Owner, we consider the ordinary meaning of the phrase within the context of the claims and Specification. The Specification gives a very permissive and general description of the sidewalls. E.g., Ex. 1001, 3:15–22, 3:56–4:6. Thus, the Specification leads us to construe “extending substantially upwardly” as encompassing a sidewall that, at some point, extends above the edge of middle section corresponding to the side wall.” slip op. at 13

  • Prior constructionTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “3. “the first curved side” All claims recite that the “second curved sidewall” is opposite “the first curved side.” Although the claims do not provide antecedent basis for “the first curved side,” Petitioner proposes that the term be construed as “the first curved sidewall.” Pet. 20. Petitioner notes that Patent Owner argued in the related district court proceeding that “[i]t is beyond dispute that the claim term ‘the first curved side’ was intended to be ‘the first curved sidewall,’ both to comport with all of the disclosures of the ’016 Patent and also in accordance with proper antecedent basis.” Id. (citing Ex. 1010, 28:13–18). Patent Owner does not address this issue. A district court may “correct an error in a patent by interpretation of the patent where no certificate of correction has been issued . . . only if (1) the correction is not subject to reasonable debate based on consideration of the claim language and the specification and (2) the prosecution history does not suggest a different interpretation of the claims.” Novo Indus., LP v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2003). We have applied this same standard in our proceedings. E.g., Apple Inc. v. Achates Reference Publ’g, Inc., Case IPR2013-00080, slip op at 10–12 (PTAB June 3, 2013) (Paper 22). Here, we conclude the claims are properly read such that “first curved side” refers to the “first curved sidewall” and that such correction is not subject to reasonable debate. Neither party has identified how the prosecution history suggests a different interpretation. Thus, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction, namely “first curved sidewall.”” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “1. The level of ordinary skill in the art Petitioner asserts that the applicable person of ordinary skill in the art is “a person with skill in designing, manufacturing, or refurbishing surfing simulation water rides.” Pet. 17. Petitioner’s expert declarant applies that definition in his analysis. Ex. 1002 ¶ 17. We adopted that definition in our institution decision and noted that the teachings of the prior art presented in the Petition reflect that level of skill. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Inst. 19. Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, and we also adopt it here.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 8,088,016 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,088,016
• Avx Corporation v. Presidio Components, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 21, 2017 · IPR2016-00636 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 13–16 and 18 are unpatentable under §103; claims 1–12, 17, and 19–21 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations relying on Liebowitz and Devoe lacked sufficient motivation to combine.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Liebowitz discloses a “high inductance drawback” to buried metallizations and vias, and expressly states that its invention is designed to “avoid[] any of these inductance-increasing methods.” Ex. 1004, 1:40–53; see also Ex. 2009, 113 (prosecution history of the ’639 patent, where the applicants distinguished Devoe by arguing that “the present invention recognizes that buried multi-layered structures can be used to make capacitors using vias and edge connections” and “it is this very construction that the present inventor seeks to avoid” (emphases omitted)). Indeed, Dr. Chung in her declaration filed in support of the Petition expressly recognized the high inductance drawback mentioned in Liebowitz. Ex. 1003 ¶ 49. Yet Petitioner’s proposed combination is based on a POSITA looking to Devoe to incorporate the very feature that Liebowitz states should be avoided. Petitioner and Dr. Chung do not account sufficiently for this express disclosure in Liebowitz. Instead, Dr. Chung testifies that a skilled artisan would have understood that the benefits of increased capacitance “may outweigh any negative impacts of an increase in inductance” because “the inductance concerns raised in Liebowitz are not always applicable.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 49 (emphasis added). Dr. Chung concludes that a skilled artisan would have combined the buried metallizations and vias of Devoe with the capacitor of Liebowitz “when increasing capacitance is of greater concern than lowering inductance.” Id. However, Petitioner does not provide sufficient explanation or credible evidence to explain when or under what circumstances increasing capacitance would have been of greater concern than lowering capacitance, or sufficient evidence to show that a skilled artisan would have understood that the benefits of increased capacitance would have outweighed the negative effects of high inductance. In particular, Dr. Chung’s unsupported and equivocal testimony that increased capacitance “may” outweigh increased inductance is insufficient for Petitioner to meet its burden.11 See id.” slip op. at 24

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “We disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that a declarant must actually be a person of ordinary skill in the art in order to present testimony as to what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood at the time of the invention. See, e.g., SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co. Inc., 594 F.3d 1360, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (stating there is no requirement of a 9 Patent Owner further contends Petitioner admitted that it was “required to present the opinions of a person of ordinary skill in the art . . . at the time of the invention of the ’639 patent.” PO Resp. 20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 15). We have reviewed the cited material and find Petitioner did not make any such admission. perfect match between an expert’s experience and the field of the art in question, provided the expert has “sufficient relevant technical experience” to testify). The Federal Circuit has explained that a person of ordinary skill in the art is a “hypothetical person postulated by § 103” that is “presumed to have . . . knowledge of all material prior art.” Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 745 F.2d 1437, 1452–53 (Fed. Cir. 1984); see also id. at 1454 (“It should be clear that that hypothetical person [of ordinary skill in the art] is not the inventor, but an imaginary being possessing ‘ordinary skill in the art’ created by Congress to provide a standard of patentability . . . .”). Thus, the proper question to ask is not whether the testifying witness is in fact such a “hypothetical person,” but rather whether the testifying witness possesses sufficient qualifications to be able to testify as to what the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art postulated by § 103 would have known and understood at the time of the invention. Although Dr. Chung may not have “industry” experience (Ex. 1016 ¶ 65), we find that Dr. Chung possesses sufficient education, training, and experience to provide testimony as to what a POSITA would have understood at the time of the invention, under either party’s proffered definition. See, e.g., Ex. 1011, 1–34; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 2–5; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 63–65 (describing Dr. Chung’s experience). For example, Dr. Chung has both a master’s degree and a doctorate in Materials Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Ex. 1003 ¶ 3. Dr. Chung has been active in capacitor research for at least 16 years, including experience in the design of single-layer capacitors, as evidenced by numerous publications. Ex. 1011; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 64, 65. Additionally, Dr. Chung is the Founding Director of the Composite Materials Research Laboratory at the University of Buffalo, is a professor, and has taught classes in Materials Science, including teaching concepts in the design of single layer capacitors to her students. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 4–5; Ex. 1016 ¶ 64. We further note that Dr. Chung is the author of Yih (Ex. 1012), which is one of the prior art references that is asserted in this proceeding. Certainly, the prior art of record in this proceeding—namely, Liebowitz, Devoe, Veater, SinghDeo, Insetta, and Yih —is indicative of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355; GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579. Moreover, to the extent Dr. Chung is less familiar with aspects” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that a declarant must actually be a person of ordinary skill in the art in order to present testimony as to what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood at the time of the invention. See, e.g., SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co. Inc., 594 F.3d 1360, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (stating there is no requirement of a 9 Patent Owner further contends Petitioner admitted that it was “required to present the opinions of a person of ordinary skill in the art . . . at the time of the invention of the ’639 patent.” PO Resp. 20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 15). We have reviewed the cited material and find Petitioner did not make any such admission. perfect match between an expert’s experience and the field of the art in question, provided the expert has “sufficient relevant technical experience” to testify). The Federal Circuit has explained that a person of ordinary skill in the art is a “hypothetical person postulated by § 103” that is “presumed to have . . . knowledge of all material prior art.” Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 745 F.2d 1437, 1452–53 (Fed. Cir. 1984); see also id. at 1454 (“It should be clear that that hypothetical person [of ordinary skill in the art] is not the inventor, but an imaginary being possessing ‘ordinary skill in the art’ created by Congress to provide a standard of patentability . . . .”). Thus, the proper question to ask is not whether the testifying witness is in fact such a “hypothetical person,” but rather whether the testifying witness possesses sufficient qualifications to be able to testify as to what the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art postulated by § 103 would have known and understood at the time of the invention. Although Dr. Chung may not have “industry” experience (Ex. 1016 ¶ 65), we find that Dr. Chung possesses sufficient education, training, and experience to provide testimony as to what a POSITA would have understood at the time of the invention, under either party’s proffered definition. See, e.g., Ex. 1011, 1–34; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 2–5; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 63–65 (describing Dr. Chung’s experience). For example, Dr. Chung has both a master’s degree and a doctorate in Materials Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Ex. 1003 ¶ 3. Dr. Chung has been active in capacitor research for at least 16 years, including experience in the design of single-layer capacitors, as evidenced by numerous publications. Ex. 1011; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 64, 65. Additionally, Dr. Chung is the Founding Director of the Composite Materials Research Laboratory at the University of Buffalo, is a” slip op. at 11

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “In our Decision on Institution, we construed “essentially monolithic structure” in claims 1 and 8 to mean “an essentially solid structure of materials that are sintered together” and that has “internal metallizations that create a partial boundary or seam within the structure, but because the metallizations do not cover the entire area of the dielectric layer, the ceramic materials sinter together around the edges of the metallization.” Dec. on Inst. 8–12. We disagreed with Petitioner’s argument that “essentially monolithic structure” should be interpreted broadly “to incorporate the elimination of any or all ‘boundaries/joints’ within a structure.” Id. (citing Pet. 6). Rather, we determined that the ’639 patent distinguished between a “monolithic structure,” which lacks any boundary or seam, and an “essentially monolithic structure” that possesses a partial boundary or seam. Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:3–19). The parties do not dispute our interpretation in their Patent Owner Response and Reply. Moreover, in consideration of the arguments and evidence developed during trial, we do not perceive any reason or evidence that compels any deviation from this interpretation. Accordingly, we adopt our previous analysis and claim interpretation of “essentially monolithic structure” for purposes of this Decision. Id. at 8–12. We further determine that for the purposes of this Decision, no other claim terms require construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (stating “only those terms need be construed that in controversy and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”).” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 6,661,639 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,661,639
• Spectrum Brands, Inc. / Unikey Technologies, Inc. v. Assa Abloy ABSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 12, 2017 · IPR2016-00686 · APJ Christopher G Paulraj · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 5, 9–16, 22, 23, 26, 29, and 30 are unpatentable over Nielsen; claims 7 and 21 were not shown unpatentable over Nielsen and Karkas for lack of a sufficient reason to combine.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Id. ¶ 84. Dr. Villasenor, however, does not cite to any underlying technical documents that may have corroborated Mr. Lovelock’s explanation about how the Seos platform operates; nor has Dr. Villasenor mapped Mr. Lovelock’s explanation to specific claim elements. Also, Mr. Lovelock himself has not submitted a declaration in this proceeding. We, thus, give Dr. Villasenor’s opinion that Patent Owner’s Seos platform practices the claims little weight. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”); see also 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.”). Further, we recognize that Dr. Villasenor’s testimony is the only evidence of record on this issue, as Petitioners have not submitted a rebuttal declaration attesting that Patent Owner’s products do not practice the claims.” slip op. at 37

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “between the commercial success of the Seos product and the claims of the ’374 patent.” Mot. to Exclude 8. Patent Owner argues that “the quoted passage is not relevant because it is removed by 10 years from the commercial success events Dr. Villasenor addressed,” and “bears no relationship to, and does not serve to prove, disprove or rebut the nexus between the commercial success of the Seos product in the hospitality or enterprise industries and the claimed credential updating features embodied in the Seos system.” Id. at 9. We disagree. As discussed above, we find that the quoted passage of the Annual Report statement is evidence of Patent Owner’s pre-existing market share, and, thus, relevant to the issue of whether the alleged commercial success has a nexus to the claimed invention. We have taken into account the fact that the 2004 Annual Report is from over 10 years ago, and do not find that it will cause any confusion. To the contrary, the 2004 Annual Report is more probative to the issue of pre-existing market share than more recent reports insofar as the ’374 patent claims an effective filing date based on a provisional application filed in April 2005. Ex. 1001, Title Page. Accordingly, we determine that Exhibit 1008 is admissible evidence under Rules 402 and 403, and we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude as to that exhibit. IV.” slip op. at 44

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “We agree with Dr. Villasenor insofar as the relevant field for the ’374 patent is more accurately defined as “electronic control access systems” rather than merely “security systems” (id. ¶ 41), but otherwise find no meaningful difference between the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by the parties’ experts. We also recognize that the level of skill in the art is reflected in the prior art references themselves, which focus on mobile-phone based electronic access systems, and take that into consideration in our analysis. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). As such, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have least an undergraduate degree in computer science or electrical engineering and one year of experience in electronic control access systems.” slip op. at 15

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

    “We determine, for purpose of this Final Written Decision, that no terms in the challenged claims require express construction. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘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 11

  Patent outcomesUS 8,150,374 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,150,374
• Spectrum Brands, Inc. / Unikey Technologies, Inc. v. Assa Abloy ABSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 12, 2017 · IPR2015-01562 · APJ Christopher G Paulraj · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 5, 9–16, 22, 23, 26, 29, and 30 are unpatentable as obvious over Nielsen; claims 7 and 21 were not shown unpatentable over Nielsen and Karkas.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted

    “separate Petition for inter partes review, challenging claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9–16, 21–23, 26, 29, and 30 of the ’374 patent based on similar grounds to those presented by Spectrum. See IPR2016-00686, Paper 2. We instituted inter partes review based on UniKey’s Petition to the extent that the grounds set forth therein are consistent with the basis for our institution of this proceeding, and joined UniKey as a Petitioner to this proceeding. See Paper 29 (instituting inter partes review based on UniKey’s Petition and joining UniKey as a Petitioner to IPR2015-01562). As a condition of UniKey’s joinder, the parties submitted a joint stipulation setting forth the parameters of UniKey’s participation in this proceeding, including the requirement that “UniKey will not have any right to separate or additional briefing, discovery, or speaking time for the duration of the contest involving [the ’374 patent], through termination of the joined proceedings and through any related appeal.” Paper 27, 1. UniKey also filed a statement “withdraw[ing] all grounds and arguments presented in IPR2016-00686 to the extent that they differ from the Panel’s ground for institution in IPR2015-01562.” Paper 32.2” slip op. at 2

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

    “the Specification of the patent in which they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2146 (2016). Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “Absent claim language carrying a narrow meaning, the PTO should only limit the claim based on the specification . . . when [it] expressly disclaim[s] the broader definition.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed Cir. 2004). “Although an inventor is indeed free to define the specific terms used to describe his or her invention, this must be done with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We determine, for purpose of this Final Written Decision, that no terms in the challenged claims require express construction. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘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 11

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Dr. Villasenor insofar as the relevant field for the ’374 patent is more accurately defined as “electronic control access systems” rather than merely “security systems” (id. ¶ 41), but otherwise find no meaningful difference between the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by the parties’ experts. We also recognize that the level of skill in the art is reflected in the prior art references themselves, which focus on mobile-phone based electronic access systems, and take that into consideration in our analysis. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). As such, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have least an undergraduate degree in computer science or electrical engineering and one year of experience in electronic control access systems.” slip op. at 15

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

    “step 1a. As recognized by Petitioners, the Federal Circuit has observed that “[u]nless the steps of a method actually recite an order, the steps are not ordinarily construed to require one.” Reply 10–11 (quoting Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). In this case, however, the plain language of claim 1 requires “storing . . . a first set of credential data,” “receiving . . . a credential update,” and “in response to receiving the credential update, . . . replacing the first set of credential data with a second set of credential data that is different from the first set of credential data.” Ex. 1001, 12:35–45. Thus, we agree that “[l]ogic compels the conclusion that step 1b follows step 1a, because the controller’s receipt of a ‘credential update’ associated with ‘different’ data would follow the first set of credential data previously stored at the controller.” PO Resp. 21. See Mformation Techs., Inc. v. Research In Motion Ltd., 764 F.3d 1392, 1398–99 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[A] claim requires an ordering of steps when the claim language, as a matter of logic or grammar, requires that the steps be performed in the order written, or the specification directly or implicitly requires an order of steps.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). With reference to Figure 3, Nielsen teaches that “[i]n the initial step 381, the access right owner 352 defines the access rights to be granted, possibly including a list of possible access right grantees,” that “[i]n step 382, the access right owner 352 authorizes the administrator 351 to generate and assign access keys,” that “[b]y means of an access code management system, the administrator in step 383 transforms the access right definition into a set of electronic access codes,” and that “[i]n step 384, the access codes and other related data are stored.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 132. Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that “the relied upon steps of Nielsen teach a process that differs from the steps recited in claim 1” insofar as Figure 3 shows the “receiving” step(s) performed before the “storing” step 384. PO Resp. 25. Specifically, that Figure 3 of Nielsen does not show that the process is iterative. Nonetheless, we find that Nielsen suggests a process wherein access codes (i.e., “credential data”) that are stored in the access code management system are periodically replaced with new and different access codes (i.e., a “credential update”). See Ex. 1002 ¶ 128 (“[T]he access code may be transmitted periodically, in order to replace the access codes on a lock control unit and the corresponding electronic key . . . .”). The same paragraph of Nielsen also indicates that “[t]he access code management system 211 generates and administers the access codes as described in connection with FIGS. 3 and 9a-b.” Id. Thus, we determine that the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to initially store access codes, and thereafter repeat the process described in the flow chart of Figure 3 in order to replace previously stored access codes. As explained by Dr. Green, the purpose of Nielsen periodically replacing previous access codes “is to improve the security of the system,” such as in the situation when codes are invalidated if misused or lost. See Ex. 1004 ¶ 29. Nielsen explicitly references Figure 3 when referencing how the access code management system administers access codes (Ex. 1002 ¶ 128), thereby providing a suggestion and motivation to modify Nielsen’s teachings so as to repeat the process of Figure 3 when replacing previously stored access codes in order to improve security.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 8,150,374 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,150,374
• Westerngeco, L.L.C. v. PGS Geophysical AsSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 8, 2016 · IPR2015-00310 · APJ Justin Busch · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 23, 24, and 30 are unpatentable as anticipated by de Kok; claims 23, 24, 28, and 29 are unpatentable as obvious over Beasley and Edington.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the “indexed” limitation requires more than merely “selecting” times. Petitioner offers no explanation how Dr. Ikelle’s testimony that “indexed” should be construed broadly to mean “selected,” Ex. 2002, 184:8–11, would be consistent with the rest of the limitation that requires enabling separate identification of events originating from different sources. Patent Owner’s proposed construction, however, is unduly narrow to the extent it requires recording. As explained in the passage cited by Patent Owner, recording the signal and indexing are two separate aspects of the process involved in the ’981 patent. Ex. 1001, 5:62–67 (“A recording is made of the signal . . . that is indexed to a known time reference with respect to time of firing of the first source) (emphases added). The ’981 patent demonstrates that the term “indexed” is used in the “indexed” limitation according to one of its ordinary meanings that one thing is arranged in reference to another. Id.; see also id. at 6:66–7:1 (“[A] time of firing of each source with respect to a time index” is shown in Figure 4.), 8:33–40 (“[W]hen time is indexed with respect to the firing time of source A,” source B events are not coherent between firing sequences.).” slip op. at 7

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

    “Owner’s distinctions between what de Kok discloses and what claim 23 recites are inapposite. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments, which Patent Owner does not contest, that de Kok’s firing times for each source are indexed (as we have construed the “indexed” limitation) to the reference time in a way that allows the shot records to be separated into source records. Because de Kok discloses both indexing and enabling separate identification of seismic events originating from each source, de Kok discloses the “indexed” limitation as we have construed it.” slip op. at 13

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

    “unpersuaded. Petitioner’s challenge relies on Edington for its teaching that time-delays can be used to encode and decode signals. Based on the arguments and evidence presented during trial, we are persuaded by Petitioner that a person having ordinary skill would have used time-aligning signals, as taught by Edington, as a type of decoding without needing to take multiple shots from the same source. Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill would have been able to decode a signal for a given encoding scheme, and we find Patent Owner’s assertion that an ordinarily skilled artisan would “lack[] an effective decoding scheme” unpersuasive.” slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “Beasley clearly states that “no time shift” results in “no spatial reflection-point smearing.” Ex. 1004, 7:61–62. Both parties agree that some amount of spatial reflection point smearing would result from using Edington’s time delay encoding with Beasley’s seismic surveying system. See Tr. 28:3–8, 38:14–15 (counsel for Patent Owner stating that “frankly, any time you have a time delay at all, there is spatial reflection point smearing”). However, neither party pointed us to evidence explaining the relationship between the amount of delay and the amount of smearing, or how much smearing would be tolerated in marine seismic surveying. One consequence of the lack of evidence on this point is that it is unclear whether Beasley is stating that simultaneous activation versus sequential activation avoids smearing or if simultaneous activation versus near-simultaneous activation avoids smearing. Beasley’s disclosure regarding the benefit of eliminating smearing immediately follows the discussion that distinguishes between sequential and concurrent source activation. Based on the record before us, we find Beasley indicates that simultaneous (or near-simultaneous) activation of sources avoids the smearing that otherwise results when activating the sources sequentially. Ex. 1004, 7:52–63. Furthermore, Patent Owner has not argued, and we do not find, that claim 23 should be construed to exclude any amount of spatial reflection point smearing.10 The parties have pointed to no evidence or argument explaining sufficiently why the level of smearing resulting from Petitioner’s proposed combination of Beasley and Edington would be unacceptable, but the level of smearing resulting from the time delay encoding recited in the ’981 patent would be acceptable. Therefore, to the extent that incorporating Edington’s time delay encoding into Beasley’s system generates reflection point smearing, the evidence does not support a finding that claim 23 excludes any amount of smearing. Based on the record before us, we are not 10 When asked whether the subject matter of the ’981 patent suffered from spatial reflection point smearing because of its use of time delays, counsel for Patent Owner stated “I do think it suffers it to some degree.” Tr. 41:14– 15. persuaded the smearing allegedly introduced by combining Edington’s time delay encoding with Beasley’s system would have led an ordinarily skilled artisan away from that combination.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 6,906,981 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,906,981
• Westerngeco, L.L.C. v. PGS Geophysical AsSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 8, 2016 · IPR2015-00309 · APJ Justin Busch · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 11, 16, 17, 21, and 22 are unpatentable; claims 3–5 are not shown unpatentable, and challenges to claims 18–20 are dismissed.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenMixed

    “Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 11, 16, 17, 21, and 22 are unpatentable, but has failed to do so for claims 3–5 and 12–15. We dismiss the Petition with respect to the challenges asserted against claims 18–20.” slip op. at 2

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

    “more than merely “selecting” times. Petitioner offers no explanation how Dr. Ikelle’s testimony that “indexed” should be construed broadly to mean “selected,” Ex. 2002, 184:8–11, would be consistent with the rest of the limitation that requires enabling separate identification of events originating from different sources. Patent Owner’s proposed construction, however, is unduly narrow to the extent it requires recording. As explained in the passage cited by Patent Owner, recording the signal and indexing are two separate aspects of the process involved in the ’981 patent. Ex. 1001, 5:62–67 (“A recording is made of the signal . . . that is indexed to a known time reference with respect to time of firing of the first source) (emphases added). The ’981 patent demonstrates that the term “indexed” is used in the “indexed” limitation according to one of its ordinary meanings that one thing is arranged in reference to another. Id.; see also id. at 6:66–7:1 (“[A] time of firing of each source with respect to a time index” is shown in Figure 4.), 8:33–40 (“[W]hen time is indexed with respect to the firing time of source A,” source B events are not coherent between firing sequences.).” slip op. at 9

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

    “Although a prior art reference may anticipate when the claim limitations not expressly found in that reference are inherent in it, inherency requires that “the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the claimed limitations, it anticipates.” In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Here, Petitioner’s arguments and evidence fail to persuade us that de Kok disclosure of suppressing random noise inherently includes determining trace to trace coherence. Merely demonstrating a step may be done is not sufficient to show that step is inherently anticipated. Accordingly, based on the arguments and evidence submitted, we find Petitioner has failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that de Kok anticipates claims 12 and 17. Similarly, because claims 13–15 ultimately depend from claim 12, we find Petitioner has failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that de Kok anticipates claims 13–15.” slip op. at 19

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

    “The relevant passages cited by both parties demonstrate that Beasley distinguishes between alternating and concurrent firings. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, 7:52–63. Although Herkenhoff states that the concurrent disclosure in Beasley means “exactly concurrently,” Patent Owner has not pointed to any clear disclosure in Beasley itself indicating “concurrently” should be understood as excluding any amount of time delay. Petitioner, however, has pointed to multiple references where Beasley explains that sources may be fired “simultaneously or nearly simultaneously.” Pet. Reply 15 (citing Ex. 1004, 8:46–47); Pet. 47 (quoting Ex. 1004, 1:19–25 (“The present invention, in certain aspects, is directed to seismic survey systems and methods in which two or more seismic sources are fired simultaneously, or significantly close together temporally . . . .”)); see also Ex. 1004, 1:47–51, 8:44–47, 9:5–10, 12:26–29. Moreover, claim 1 of the ’655 patent, which Patent Owner asserts claims the “first embodiment” of the ’981 patent, recites a method including the step of “substantially simultaneously launching a first acoustic wavefield,” from the leading source, “the first wavefield being characterized by a first unique code and launching a second acoustic wavefield” from the trailing source, “the second acoustic wavefield being characterized by a second unique code.” Ex. 2009, 6:46–53. Accordingly, Beasley does not exclude time delay encoding from its disclosed “concurrent” activation embodiments.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 6,906,981 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,906,981
• Westerngeco, L.L.C. v. PGS Geophysical AsSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 8, 2016 · IPR2015-00311 · APJ Justin Busch · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 31, 32, and 35–37 are unpatentable as obvious over Beasley and Edington; the Board did not find claims 31–34 and 36–38 anticipated by de Kok or claims 33–34 obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Petitioner initially argued for a specific construction of “wavelet time” as “the duration of the source signature.” Pet. 14–15. For purposes of the Decision on Institution, we preliminarily construed wavelet time consistent with Petitioner’s proposed construction. Dec. on Inst. 14–15. Now, with the full record before us, we determine an explicit construction of “wavelet time” is not necessary to resolve this controversy. Petitioner does not clearly set forth a proposed construction for any other term in its Petition. Patent Owner argues for specific constructions of “quasi-randomly” and “randomly.” PO Resp. 15–19. The constructions of “quasi-randomly” and “randomly” are not in dispute, and an explicit construction is not necessary to resolve the controversy; accordingly, we do not provide an explicit construction of “quasi-randomly” or “randomly.” Therefore, we determine there is no need to construe explicitly any term for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 6

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner that de Kok’s polarity encoding and decoding process does not disclose the “time aligning” step. As Patent Owner argues, de Kok describes a polarity encoding and decoding system that does not align the “recorded signals with respect to a firing time of the second source in each firing sequence.” Specifically, de Kok explains that it uses activation sequences and polarity to generate signals, from which “source records may be derived” “using a combination of shot record summations, inversions and filtering.” Ex. 1003, 2:51–53; see also id. at 4:55–5:4, 5:55–65. To the extent de Kok discusses time delay encoding, any arguable time alignment applies to the firing of the sources, not the recorded signals. Id. at 5:66–6:2, 6:41–52. Accordingly, Petitioner has not pointed to persuasive evidence that de Kok’s polarity encoding and decoding discloses the “time-aligning” step.” slip op. at 8

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

    “The relevant passages cited by both parties demonstrate that Beasley distinguishes between alternating and concurrent firings. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, 7:52–63. Although Herkenhoff states that the concurrent disclosure in Beasley means “exactly concurrently,” Patent Owner has not pointed to any clear disclosure in Beasley itself indicating “concurrently” should be understood as excluding any amount of time delay. Petitioner, however, has pointed to multiple references where Beasley explains that sources may be fired “simultaneously or nearly simultaneously.” Pet. Reply 12 (citing Ex. 1004, 8:46–47); Pet. 38 (quoting Ex. 1004, 1:19–25 (“The present invention, in certain aspects, is directed to seismic survey systems and methods in which two or more seismic sources are fired simultaneously, or significantly close together temporally . . . .”)); see also Ex. 1004, 1:47–51, 8:44–47, 9:5–10, 12:26–29. Moreover, claim 1 of the ’655 patent, which Patent Owner asserts claims the “first embodiment” of the ’981 patent, recites a method including the step of “substantially simultaneously launching a first acoustic wavefield,” from the leading source, “the first wavefield being characterized by a first unique code and launching a second acoustic wavefield” from the trailing source, “the second acoustic wavefield being characterized by a second unique code.” Ex. 2009, 6:46–53. Accordingly, Beasley does not exclude time delay encoding from its disclosed “concurrent” activation embodiments. Patent Owner’s argument that time delay encoding results in a plain wavefield rather than an encoded wavefield and, therefore, using time delay encoding would not fall within Beasley’s “any type of coding,” is similarly unpersuasive. Patent Owner fails to address that Beasley distinguishes between “a signal with no encoded feature, individual identifier, tag, discriminating feature, or separate signature” and “signals that can be discriminated from each other due to some identifying characteristic, parameter, signature or feature.” Ex. 1004, 9:67–10:8 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the evidence supports Petitioner’s contention that time delay encoding generates signals with an identifying parameter or characteristic (the timing) that would allow the signals to “be discriminated from each other.” Pet. Reply 11–12. Furthermore, Dr. Lynn acknowledged that “Edington’s time delay source coding is ‘a type of source signature encoding.’” Id. (quoting Ex. 1022, 148:18–23).” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “nonobviousness. PO Resp. 55–60. The factual inquiries for obviousness include secondary considerations based on evaluation and crediting of objective evidence. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). However, to accord substantial weight to objective evidence requires the finding of a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the claimed invention. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1995). “Nexus” is a legally and factually sufficient connection between the objective evidence and the claimed invention, such that the objective evidence should be considered in determining nonobviousness. Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The burden of showing that a nexus exists lies with the patent owner. Id.; see In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1482 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Patent Owner points to various prior attempts (including Edington, Beasley, and de Kok) to conduct simultaneous shootings in a marine environment and the failings of each of them. Id. at 43–44. Patent Owner also points to various published papers allegedly “investigat[ing] data processing techniques for use with data sets modeled on [the ’981 patent]’s varied time delays” and field trials and studies allegedly using the ’981 patent’s “time-delay acquisition and indexing methods.” Id. at 44–48. Petitioner argues Patent Owner has shown no nexus between Patent Owner’s proffered secondary considerations and the invention of the ’981 patent. Pet. Reply 20–22. Petitioner contends Patent Owner’s focus on the varied time delays of claim 31 is insufficient because time delayed encoding “existed long before the ’981 patent.” Id. We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner has not demonstrated sufficiently a nexus between the secondary considerations and the alleged novelty of claim 31. First, as Petitioner points out, and as borne out by the evidence in this case, time delay encoding for seismic surveying existed prior to the ’981 patent. E.g., Exs. 1006, 1021. Second, the majority of the evidence cited by Patent Owner focuses on the randomness of the time delays, not just the use of time delays generally. Consequently, Patent Owner has not presented persuasive evidence or analysis linking the claims at issue with the alleged “long-felt but unmet need, industry praise, and copying.” See PO Resp. 55.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 6,906,981 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,906,981

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.