- PTAB · May 24, 2024 · IPR2023-00861 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Remand
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable under any asserted ground.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“Accordingly, the Director instructed us to “determine whether Petitioner has demonstrated that Figure 1 of Godefroy ‘is clear on its face’ or would have reasonably suggested the placement of Godefroy’s sacrificial anode ‘within 10 inches’ of the hot liquid inlet.” Id. at 9. “In making this determination,” the Director instructed us to “consider whether the expert testimony provides sufficient ‘technical detail, explanation, or statements supporting why the expert determines that the feature in question was required or would have been obvious based on the prior art disclosure.’” Id. In addition, although the Director’s decision “is limited to [our] application of Hockerson to the grounds in the Petition involving Godefroy,” the Director instructed us also to “consider what effect, if any, this decision has on the other asserted grounds.” Id. Finally, the Director instructed us to “set forth [our] interpretation” of “the limitation ‘within 10 inches of a hot liquid inlet to the radiator.’” Id. at 8 n.4.” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“original decision, the Director’s decision, and the evidence currently of record, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any challenged claim based on any ground asserted in the Petition. IV. ORDER For the reasons given, it is: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, the Petition is denied, and no inter partes review is instituted.” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“evidence. The challenged claims require that a sacrificial anode be placed within a certain distance—10 inches—of the hot liquid inlet, and, because the inlet has some non-zero size, it might be possible for an anode to be within that distance from some parts, but not from all parts, of the inlet. Accordingly, specifying the center axis of the inlet as the point from which to measure the distance to the anode improves on the plain words of the claim in terms of achieving the claim’s objective of placing the anode within a specified distance of the inlet. Moreover, when discussing the distance from the inlet to the anode, the specification of the ’494 patent uses the language “within 10 inches in any direction of the center axis of the inlet connection.” Ex. 1001, 7:61–64. Thus, the intrinsic evidence supports adopting Petitioner’s claim construction. Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Medlin, relies on Petitioner’s proposed construction. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 20 (noting that the construction “within 10 inches of the center axis of [a] hot liquid inlet” “ha[s] been adopted by Petitioner”), 96 (“the sacrificial anodes contained in each of the turbulators 2 would be placed within 10 inches of a center axis of a hot liquid inlet to the radiator of Tomosada”), 144 (“A POSITA would understand from Figure 1 that the sacrificial anode 14 is within 10 inches of a center axis of a hot liquid inlet”), 267 (“These teachings would further motivate a POSITA to located the sacrificial anode 12 within 10 inches of a center axis of the hot liquid inlet.”). This support for Petitioner’s proposed construction provides further reason for us to adopt it. Because it is supported by the intrinsic evidence of record, because Patent Owner proposes no alternative construction, and because Petitioner’s expert supports it, we adopt the construction of “within 10 inches of a hot liquid inlet to the radiator” that Petitioner proposes. Thus, we construe this term as “within 10 inches of the center axis of a hot liquid inlet to the radiator.” In other words, when discussing the distance between a hot liquid inlet and a sacrificial anode, we interpret “hot liquid inlet” as “center axis of the hot liquid inlet.”” slip op. at 5
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Inherency may be relied upon in arguing either anticipation or obviousness. Schering, 339 F.3d at 1377 (applying inherency in an anticipation context); Par Pharma. Inc. v. TWI Pharma., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1195–96 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (applying inherency in an obviousness context). In both cases, however, “[t]he mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Instead, “the limitation at issue necessarily must be present, or the natural result of the combination of elements expressly disclosed by the prior art.” Par Pharma., 773 F.3d at 1195–96. Here, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that, in Godefroy, the sacrificial anode necessarily is placed within 10 inches of the center axis of the hot liquid inlet. Dr. Medlin testifies that Figure 1 of Godefroy shows that “an entirety . . . or at least a significant portion of the sacrificial anode 14, is within 10 inches of a center axis of the inlet.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 144. But we cannot say that Figure 1 of Godefroy is clear on its face, or reasonably suggests, that this is necessarily the case. There are no dimensions shown on Figure 1, so it is unclear from the figure what the diameter of pipe 12 is. If that diameter is larger than 20 inches, then it simply is untrue that “sacrificial anode 14 is . . . necessarily placed within 10 inches of a center axis of a hot liquid inlet to the radiator,” as Dr. Medlin testifies. Id. ¶ 361. As noted above, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Medlin relies on the hot liquid inlet of Godefroy having any particular diameter, and Godefroy is silent as to the diameter of its inlet. Pet. 69–70; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 144, 359–361, 381–382, 406–408; Ex. 1008, 1–15. Moreover, as Patent Owner notes, there is a wide range of sizes of radiators, including automobile radiators, available. Prelim. Resp. 3–5; Exs. 2001–2003. In the absence of any testimony or other evidence that tends to show that radiator inlet pipes necessarily have diameters less than 20 inches, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the diameter of Godefroy’s inlet pipe is small enough to ensure that any portion of the anode necessarily is within 10 inches of the center axis of the inlet.” slip op. at 11
Claim constructioncites Phillips - PTAB · Nov 14, 2016 · IPR2015-01243 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Final written decision
Petitioner failed to prove claims 1–8, 10, and 11 of the ’290 patent, claims 1–8 and 10–13 of the ’173 patent, and claims 1–6 and 8–19 of the ’510 patent obvious over Fohr, Sato, and …
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We recognize that it may be necessary “to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents . . . in order to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed.” KSR Int’l, 550 U.S. at 418. Petitioner in these proceedings, however, directs us to no persuasive reason why an ordinary artisan would have turned to the heat-retaining battery module of Hallaj when working to implement a plurality of Sato’s cells in a pack to replace the capacitors in Fohr. Pet. 36–38 (nowhere addressing that critical point); Reply 13 (devoting four sentences to rebuttal of Patent Owner’s persuasive evidence that one would not have combined the disclosures of Hallaj, Fohr, and Sato in the manner claimed); see Ex. 1033, 15 (Examiner’s observation, in confirming the patentability of the challenged claims during reexamination, that Sato contains “no information as to how Sato’s cells would be implemented in a pack”). We view Petitioner’s unexplained leap from the single battery cell of Sato to the heat-retaining battery module of Hallaj as a classic example of impermissible hindsight reconstruction driven not by any teaching in the prior art, but by the claim requirement of a “plurality” of cells implemented in a battery pack. Pet. 36–38; Reply 13. Patent Owner, by contrast, comes forward with persuasive evidence, which we credit, showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been led to arrange a plurality of Sato’s cells in the heat-retaining battery module of Hallaj because such a modified battery pack would have been unsuitable for use as a replacement for the capacitors in Fohr. Specifically, we credit the testimony of Dr. Blomgren, who cogently explains why a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been led to the proposed modification. Ex. 2147 ¶¶ 79–85.” slip op. at 17
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“We are not persuaded by Dr. Riley’s testimony that Fohr effectively teaches that both lithium-based battery cells and capacitors can achieve the 20 Amp Limitation, on a theory that “it’s actually the tool that draws the power” and “the right lithium cell” would be “a drop in replacement for this application.” Ex. 2169, 121:12–16 (Dr. Riley’s deposition testimony); Resp. 17. Dr. Riley readily admitted an unfamiliarity with capacitors, and identified no suitable “drop in” ready lithium cells available at the time of the invention. Ex. 2169, 121:11–122:4 (“[I]f I had a cell that could do similar things, I’d certainly swap it in there.”). On that point, we find more credible Dr. Blomgren’s testimony that “there is no guarantee that a given pack of battery cells can provide the current that a tool tries to draw.” Resp. 17 (citing Ex. 2147 ¶ 60).” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We hold that the prior art references asserted in the Petition are representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (absence of specific findings on “level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown’” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). To the extent that a more specific definition is required, we hold that an ordinary artisan would include one holding a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical Engineering with two or three years of experience in battery design. That definition comports with the very similar definitions advanced by the parties. In that regard, Petitioner asserts that an ordinary artisan would encompass a person holding a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical Engineering with three years of experience in battery design. Pet. 8; Ex. 1007 ¶ 9. Patent Owner similarly asserts that an ordinary artisan would include a person holding a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical Engineering with two years of battery design experience. Resp. 8; Ex. 2105 ¶ 24.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“In our Decisions to Institute, we construed the 20 Amp Limitation to require that “the battery cells, when configured together in a battery pack, are capable of producing reasonably close to 20 amps of discharge current or greater over the course of delivering their entire rated capacity.” Dec. 5. Neither party disputes that construction, which we adopt for the purposes of this Final Written Decision. To the extent that any other claim term requires express construction, we discuss the construction in our analysis below. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only claim terms in controversy need be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy). The following facts are supported by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,944,173 - PTAB · Aug 29, 2014 · IPR2013-00178 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
The Board canceled claims 1–20 and denied substitution of claims 21–30 because the proposed claims lacked written-description support and were not shown patentable over prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“2. Written Description Support Patent Owner bears the burden to show written description support in the original disclosure for each proposed substitute claim. 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(b)(1); 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). The test for written description support is “whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010).” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“Dr. Sughrue testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the “different reactor configurations and catalysts” used in Jakkula “could and would lead to differing optimal temperatures from those reported in Craig.” Ex. 1040 ¶ 36 (emphasis added). For example, Dr. Sughrue testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that reduced temperatures, as well as dilution—which was used in Jakkula but was not studied as an operating variable in Craig—could “greatly reduce the rate of dimerization and oligomerization of free fatty acids” and would lead to lower levels of high molecular weight hydrocarbons. Ex. 1040 ¶¶ 42, 60, 90; Ex. 1013, 4:11–13. Dr. Sughrue also provides evidence that in the years after the publication of Craig “the activity of hydroprocessing catalysts increased dramatically,” permitting lower reaction temperatures in the HDO step. Id. ¶¶ 31, 33. In light of these differences, Dr. Sughrue concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art “would not have been dissuaded from considering HDO reaction temperatures at or near the low end of the preferred temperature range taught in [Jakkula], e.g., 300 °C, or even lower temperatures within the more broadly taught range of 200-500 °C.” Ex. 1040 ¶ 37. We find Dr. Sughrue’s testimony persuasive. In particular, in light of Jakkula’s disclosed successful results, we are persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have viewed Craig’s 350 °C minimum temperature for “trouble-free operation” as a line not to be crossed, but would have understood that the optimal and minimum temperatures for the HDO step would vary depending on the particular reactor configuration and operating conditions used. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) (“Discovery of an optimum value of a results effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill in the art.”). Although Dr. Klein presents an opposing view from that of Dr. Sughrue, upon review of both expert declarations and their corresponding depositions, on balance, we find that Dr. Sughrue’s testimony more persuasively considers not only the express teachings of Craig and Jakkula, but also the timing of the two disclosures, the differences in reactor configuration and operating conditions, and the knowledge, skill, and reasoning ability of one of ordinary skill in the art. Syntex (U.S.A.) LLC v. Apotex, Inc., 407 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“What a reference teaches or suggests must be examined in the context of the knowledge, skill, and reasoning ability of a skilled artisan.”)” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Dr. Sughrue testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the “different reactor configurations and catalysts” used in Jakkula “could and would lead to differing optimal temperatures from those reported in Craig.” Ex. 1040 ¶ 36 (emphasis added). For example, Dr. Sughrue testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that reduced temperatures, as well as dilution—which was used in Jakkula but was not studied as an operating variable in Craig—could “greatly reduce the rate of dimerization and oligomerization of free fatty acids” and would lead to lower levels of high molecular weight hydrocarbons. Ex. 1040 ¶¶ 42, 60, 90; Ex. 1013, 4:11–13. Dr. Sughrue also provides evidence that in the years after the publication of Craig “the activity of hydroprocessing catalysts increased dramatically,” permitting lower reaction temperatures in the HDO step. Id. ¶¶ 31, 33. In light of these differences, Dr. Sughrue concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art “would not have been dissuaded from considering HDO reaction temperatures at or near the low end of the preferred temperature range taught in [Jakkula], e.g., 300 °C, or even lower temperatures within the more broadly taught range of 200-500 °C.” Ex. 1040 ¶ 37. We find Dr. Sughrue’s testimony persuasive. In particular, in light of Jakkula’s disclosed successful results, we are persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have viewed Craig’s 350 °C minimum temperature for “trouble-free operation” as a line not to be crossed, but would have understood that the optimal and minimum temperatures for the HDO step would vary depending on the particular reactor configuration and operating conditions used. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) (“Discovery of an optimum value of a results effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill in the art.”). Although Dr. Klein presents an opposing view from that of Dr. Sughrue, upon review of both expert declarations and their corresponding depositions, on balance, we find that Dr. Sughrue’s testimony more persuasively considers not only the express teachings of Craig and Jakkula, but also the timing of the two disclosures, the differences in reactor configuration and operating conditions, and the knowledge, skill, and reasoning ability of one of ordinary skill in the art. Syntex (U.S.A.) LLC v. Apotex, Inc., 407 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“What a reference teaches or suggests must be examined in the context of the knowledge, skill, and reasoning ability of a skilled artisan.”)” slip op. at 14
- 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 in the art, upon reading a reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). “[I]n weighing the suggestive power of each reference, [the Board] must consider the degree to which one reference might accurately discredit another.” In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991). When two references do not use directly comparable techniques or operating conditions, the impact of an allegedly discrediting reference may be significantly reduced. See id. at 592. slip op. at 14
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,212,094
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.