• Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 28, 2018 · IPR2017-01648 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–25 were not shown unpatentable over Timmins and Cheng because Petitioner did not establish that the combination would have targeted the claimed mean Tmax range.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “In the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner acknowledged the Board’s characterization of the knowledge of an ordinarily skilled artisan as consistent with the proposals of both parties (PO Resp. 12–13), and neither party further addressed the proper level of ordinary skill in the art or disagreed with our characterization from the Institution Decision. See PO Resp., Reply. Our determination regarding the patentability of the challenged claims does not turn on the differences between the parties’ definitions. We adopt Petitioner’s assessment, but note that our conclusions would be the same under Patent Owner’s assessment. C. Testimony of Dr. Akhlaghi” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner that Dr. Akhlaghi’s qualifications and deposition testimony, when read in context, indicate that Dr. Akhlaghi is sufficiently experienced to opine on the knowledge of one of skill in the art at the time of the ’866 patent. As noted in the August 13, 2018 update to our Trial Practice Guide: An expert witness must be qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education to testify in the form of an opinion. Fed. R. Evid. 702. There is, however, no requirement of a perfect match between the expert’s experience and the relevant field. SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594 F.3d 1360, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A person may not need to be a person of ordinary skill in the art in order to testify as an expert under Rule 702, but rather must be “qualified in the pertinent art.” Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1363–64 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See Notice of Update to Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 83 Fed. Reg. 156, (Aug. 13, 2018) (text of update available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2018_Revised_Trial_Pr actice_Guide.pdf). In addition, we are well able to consider the value of an expert opinion and afford it appropriate weight. Perreira v. Secretary of the Dept. of HHS, 33 F.3d 1375, 1377 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“An expert opinion is no better than the soundness of the reasons supporting it.”) D. Claim Interpretation” slip op. at 9

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

    “Tmax” In our Institution Decision, we noted that the term “Tmax” appears in each of the challenged claims, and that both parties agreed that Tmax should be construed as stated in the Specification: “the time period which elapses after administration of the dosage form at which the plasma concentration of the drug attains the highest plasma concentration of drug attained within the dosing interval (i.e., about 24 hours).” Inst. Dec. 7 (citing Pet. 24; Prelim Resp. 18; Ex. 1001, col. 7, ll. 49–53). We concluded that the proposed definition was consistent with the Specification and defined the claim term with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision, and we adopted the parties’ construction. Neither party addressed the issue of construction of Tmax in further briefing, but the parties disagree about how Dr. Akhlaghi applied the definition in her testimony. See, eg., Pet. Reply 9–10. For purposes of analyzing the patentability of the challenged claims, we continue to interpret the term as “the time period which elapses after administration of the dosage form at which the plasma concentration of the drug attains the highest plasma concentration of drug attained within the dosing interval (i.e., about 24 hours),” because that definition is consistent with the Specification, and because the parties themselves agreed to the definition of Tmax. Inst. Dec. 7. E. Overview of the Prior Art slip op. at 11

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Based on our review of the record, we determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that combining the teachings of Timmins and Cheng as Petitioner contends would have resulted in a dosage form that provides a mean Tmax of metformin from 5.5 to 7.5 hours after administration.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 6,866,866 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,866,866
• Cook Group Incorporated / Cook Medical LLC v. Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 28, 2018 · IPR2017-00440 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–7, 10–16, 18, and 20 are unpatentable; claims 5 and 8 are not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 21, 30, and 38 are unpatentable as obvious over Sackier and Kirsch.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “3. Dr. Nicosia’s Declaration in support of its Opposition to Patent” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the” slip op. at 16

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

    “B. “clip” The Parties now agree that “clip,” as the term is generally understood,” slip op. at 14

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

    “as recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). We conclude that Petitioner has not met its burden of showing this element to be present in Sackier because Petitioner combines features from distinct embodiments in Sackier without establishing persuasively that those embodiments are so directly related to each other such that one of ordinary skill in the art, looking at the reference as a whole, would recognize a disclosure of the invention as claimed. Accordingly, although a very close call, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate anticipation of claims 1, 12, and 20 by Sackier for this reason.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 9,271,731 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,271,731
• Cook Group Incorporated / Cook Medical LLC v. Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 28, 2018 · IPR2017-00435 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–18, and 20 were not shown unpatentable over Malecki; the contingent motion to amend was denied as moot.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “construction more persuasive because it is grounded in, and most consistent with, the specification of the ’731 patent. Contrastingly, Petitioner does not offer a specific interpretation of “inner walls” and its arguments are generally based on extrinsic evidence, including claim charts from the related district court litigation (Pet. 15), arguments from related proceedings (Pet. Reply 3), and the prior art reference (Malecki) relied on to challenge the claims (id. at 3–4). Petitioner criticizes the Patent Owner’s position but provides no express interpretation of “inner walls of the first and second clip arms;” instead, Petitioner argues why Patent Owner’s proposed construction is wrong. Pet. Reply 4–5. Dr. Nicosia does not expressly define or otherwise persuasively explain the definition of “inner walls” in his declarations either. See generally Exs. 1037, 1095, and 1109.” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the time of the filing of the application that became the ’731 patent would have possessed the knowledge and skill of an engineer or similar professional 5 The parties have not introduced evidence of secondary considerations in this proceeding. with at least an undergraduate degree in engineering, or a physician having experience with designing medical devices. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1037 ¶ 11). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal, and we adopt it based on the final record before us. It is also consistent with the level of skill evidenced by the references.” slip op. at 15

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Based on the final trial record, including our interpretation of “inner walls of the first and second clip arms” to mean “the exterior surfaces of the first and second clip arms that are inward-facing relative to the longitudinal axis of the clip,” Petitioner has not persuasively established that Malecki Embodiment #1 discloses this limitation. We find persuasive the testimony of Dr. Vaitekunas, that “[t]he jaws of Malecki Embodiment #1 have four walls,” and a person of ordinary skill in the art “would understand Figure 28A to illustrate links 404, 406 connecting to the side walls of jaws 308C, 310C on the side or lateral wall opposite (or underneath) the one shown in Figure 28A.” Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 66, 68. We agree with Dr. Vaitekunas that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider side or lateral walls as “inner walls” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of that term. Thus, the portion of the jaw identified by Petitioner as shaded in green (Pet. 26) is a portion of the side/lateral wall, not an inward-facing wall. See Ex. 2010 ¶ 68. Petitioner has also not persuasively established that linkages 404, 406 contact any outside portion of the inner wall. As noted by Patent Owner above, Petitioner’s expert admits that Malecki does not disclose links 404, 406 contacting the radially inward-facing walls. See Ex. 2012 at 274:12–23. We also do not find persuasive Petitioner’s pin engagement theory. First, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Nicosia persuasively establish that a slot and pin channel (Pet. 15) is used in Malecki Embodiment #1. See Ex. 1095 ¶ 27. As pointed out by Dr. Vaitekunas, Petitioner’s theory that an engagement between a pin and a pin hole satisfies the “engaging the inner walls of the first and second clip arms” limitation is based on structure that is simply not disclosed in Malecki. Ex. 2010 ¶ 69. Further, we agree with Dr. Vaitekunas that “[e]ven if contact does occur between a pin and a pinhole, the contact occurs in the pin hole, not the exterior surface of a radially inward-facing wall.” Id.” slip op. at 25

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

    “Based on the final trial record, including our interpretation of “inner walls of the first and second clip arms” to mean “the exterior surfaces of the first and second clip arms that are inward-facing relative to the longitudinal axis of the clip,” Petitioner has not persuasively established that Malecki Embodiment #1 discloses this limitation. We find persuasive the testimony of Dr. Vaitekunas, that “[t]he jaws of Malecki Embodiment #1 have four walls,” and a person of ordinary skill in the art “would understand Figure 28A to illustrate links 404, 406 connecting to the side walls of jaws 308C, 310C on the side or lateral wall opposite (or underneath) the one shown in Figure 28A.” Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 66, 68. We agree with Dr. Vaitekunas that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider side or lateral walls as “inner walls” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of that term. Thus, the portion of the jaw identified by Petitioner as shaded in green (Pet. 26) is a portion of the side/lateral wall, not an inward-facing wall. See Ex. 2010 ¶ 68. Petitioner has also not persuasively established that linkages 404, 406 contact any outside portion of the inner wall. As noted by Patent Owner above, Petitioner’s expert admits that Malecki does not disclose links 404, 406 contacting the radially inward-facing walls. See Ex. 2012 at 274:12–23. We also do not find persuasive Petitioner’s pin engagement theory. First, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Nicosia persuasively establish that a slot and pin channel (Pet. 15) is used in Malecki Embodiment #1. See Ex. 1095 ¶ 27. As pointed out by Dr. Vaitekunas, Petitioner’s theory that an engagement between a pin and a pin hole satisfies the “engaging the inner walls of the first and second clip arms” limitation is based on structure that is simply not disclosed in Malecki. Ex. 2010 ¶ 69. Further, we agree with Dr. Vaitekunas that “[e]ven if contact does occur between a pin and a pinhole, the contact occurs in the pin hole, not the exterior surface of a radially inward-facing wall.” Id. Finally, Petitioner seems to recognize that a modification would be” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 9,271,731 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,271,731
• Apple Inc. v. California Institute Of TechnologyNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 27, 2018 · IPR2017-00219 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8, 11–17, 19–22, and 24–33 were not shown unpatentable because the obviousness combinations lacked a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “one” as recited in claims 1 and 3 is “within 50% of one.” Pet. 24–25. Petitioner argues that this is consistent with the ’710 patent specification, which states that the inner code 210 of Figure 1, “can have a rate that is close to one, e.g., within 50%, more preferably 10% and perhaps even more preferably within 1% of 1.” Pet. 24–25 (quoting Ex. 1201, 2:62–64 and citing Ex. 1206 ¶¶ 102–103) (emphasis omitted). Patent Owner does not provide an express claim construction in this proceeding. In related proceeding IPR2017-00210, Patent Owner argues that the term “close to one” does not require construction and that the ’710 patent explains that the rate of a coder is the number of input bits divided by the number of output bits. IPR2017-00210, Paper 35, 18. We determine that “close to one” as recited in the challenged claims is construed as “within 50% of one.”” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We determine that Petitioner’s proposed definition comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’710 patent and the prior art of record. Accordingly, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11

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

    “As part of our obviousness analysis, we consider “the scope and content of the prior art.” See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). In this regard, we credit Patent Owner’s testimony and evidence that an important aspect of the art in this case is the relative unpredictability of developing error-correction codes. See PO Resp. 5–6, 45–46 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 116–117; Ex. 2033, 256:21–257:12) (“The field of error correction coding has historically been characterized by significant experimentation and unpredictable results . . . . Even when well-performing codes are identified, the reasons for the improved performance are often not understood.”)); Ex. 2004 ¶ 47. We do not agree with Petitioner that the need to run experiments in an unpredictable field, such as error-correction coding, indicates anything about whether such experiments ultimately would have been successful at the time of the invention. Importantly, “[u]npredictability of results equates more with nonobviousness rather than obviousness, whereas that which is predictable is more likely to be obvious.” Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Mexichem Amanco Holding S.A., 865 F.3d 1348, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2017). In the absence of any evidence rooted in the Petition that substantiates a reasonable expectation of success, Petitioner’s reliance on a known need for experimentation is not sufficient to support its obviousness rationale.9 See Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prod. Inc., 876 F.3d 1350, 1360–61 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]here a party argues a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine references, it must show the artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success from doing so.” (internal quotation omitted)).” slip op. at 18

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedOther

    “with Patent Owner that “[i]t is completely irrelevant what Dr. Frey claims he could do in the year 2018 when armed with Caltech’s patent disclosures and publications, [the inventor’s] original coding work, contemporary resources, (e.g., Dr. Frey (¶51) used Matlab, a software program that received over 35 version updates since May 2000), and 18 years of post-filing date knowledge” PO Sur-Reply 7. Because this evidence is not tied to the state of the art at the time of the invention, it is not probative of anticipated success. See Millennium Pharm., Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 862 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 1985)) (“Those charged with determining compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 103 are required to place themselves in the minds of those of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time the invention was made, to determine whether that which is now plainly at hand would have been obvious at such earlier time.” (emphasis added)). As part of our obviousness analysis, we consider “the scope and content of the prior art.” See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). In this regard, we credit Patent Owner’s testimony and evidence that an important aspect of the art in this case is the relative unpredictability of developing error-correction codes. See PO Resp. 5–6, 45–46 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 116–117; Ex. 2033, 256:21–257:12) (“The field of error correction coding has historically been characterized by significant experimentation and unpredictable results . . . . Even when well-performing codes are identified, the reasons for the improved performance are often not understood.”)); Ex. 2004 ¶ 47.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 7,116,710 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,116,710
• Becton, Dickinson And Company v. B. Braun Melsungen AGNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 12, 2018 · IPR2017-01588 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board found claims 12, 13, 20–23, and 29 not shown unpatentable under any of four § 103 combinations; the contingent motion to amend was dismissed as moot.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for patent owner

    “Because the term “means” is not used, there is a presumption that the limitation is not subject to § 112 ¶ 6, and Petitioner has not overcome this presumption. See Williamson, LLC, 792 F.3d at 1349 (explaining that the presumption is overcome “if the challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to ‘recite sufficiently definite structure’ or else recites ‘function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function’”) (internal citation omitted). The claims do not simply recite a “needle protective device,” without more, but explicitly require that the “needle protective device [be] positioned proximally of the valve and at least in part around the needle and distal of a proximal end of the second hub in a ready position and configured to prevent unintended needle sticks in a protective position.” Ex. 1001, 13:58– 61 (emphasis added to structural limitations of claim 12); see also id. at 14:51–55 (reciting similar structure in independent claim 23). Petitioner fails to address these structural limitations in its proposed claim construction, instead focusing only on the three words “needle protective device.” See Pet. 11–15. Moreover, Petitioner’s proposed construction would seemingly render superfluous several of these other claimed structural features. As argued by Patent Owner, we determine that the needle protective device limitation recites sufficient structure. Mr. Meyst explains how a person of ordinary skill in the art “would recognize that the claimed ‘needle protective device’ refers to the class of structures included in safety IV catheters that prevent unintended needle-sticks by covering (i.e., protecting or guarding) the needle tip.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 56 (citing Ex. 2014, which is cited in the ’735 patent). We find Mr. Meyst’s testimony persuasive.” slip op. at 13

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

    “of the claimed limitation. Here, the claims require the “arm” to extend distally of the third hub. Ex. 1001, 13:34–14:59. “[I]n determining the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim term as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the art, it is appropriate to consult a general dictionary definition of the word for guidance.” See Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). In consulting general dictionary definitions, including that submitted by Petitioner (Ex. 1008), we find “arm” to be defined as: “any armlike part or attachment, as the tone arm of a phonograph” (www.dictionary.com (last visited Nov. 13, 2017) (emphasis added)); “[a] part attached to or projecting from something” (Ex. 1008); “a long thin piece that is connected to the main part of a machine, structure, etc., and that looks or moves like a human arm” (www.learnersdictionary.com (last visited Nov. 13, 2017) (emphases added)). We also consult the prosecution history of record. In an amendment dated February 7, 2013, the applicant asserted that “[t]he scope of independent claims [1 and 23] can be found in FIGs. 13 and 14 of the instant application and corresponding written description.” Ex. 1010, 10. We now review the Specification, namely, Figures 13 and 14 and their accompanying description. We find that these figures depict an “arm” extending distally of a “third hub,” and to illustrate this structure, we reproduce Figure 13 of the ’247 patent, below: The ’247 patent describes: The third housing 204 incorporates a pair of arms 210 each comprising a hook 212. The two hooks 212 are configured to engage the two bumps 36 to retain the third housing 204 to the catheter hub 14 in a ready to use position. The two arms 210 are preferably flexible to provide a gripping force against the two bumps 36, which is higher than the frictional force to withdraw the needle through the tip protector 202, hemostatic valve 46, and catheter 12. Alternatively the two arms 210 can be biased radially outward to increase the gripping force. Further, the two arms can be biased inwardly against the needle shaft to decrease the gripping force after the needle is withdrawn proximal of the arms 210. Ex. 1001, 11:33–45 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 18

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Neither Patent Owner nor Petitioner disputes our initial determination of a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”), and we see no reason to revisit it here. See, generally, PO Resp.; see also, generally, Pet. Reply. Accordingly, and as explained in our Decision to Institute, we determine that a POSITA would be either a medical practitioner (e.g., a nurse or doctor) having at least some experience with vascular catheter devices, or a person with a technical degree (e.g., associate’s degree in engineering or physics) and having at least some experience with vascular catheter devices. Paper 8, 17–18.” slip op. at 22

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Having considered Callaway in its entirety, and after weighing the competing testimony of Mr. Griffis and Mr. Meyst, we agree with Patent Owner and credit its expert that Callaway’s “third hub” 21 would do “nothing more than hold the spring clip in place until the needle is withdrawn,” and that the “only embodiment in which the inner catheter hub (21) potentially adds any needle protection is in the Critikon version” (PO Resp. 35), which does not integrate Woehr-630’s safety clip (Ex. 1004 ¶ 62), and which Petitioner does not rely on (see Pet. 26–27). Accordingly, because Petitioner fails to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Callaway teaches Woehr-630’s spring clip retained in hub 21 after the needle is withdrawn, Petitioner has not shown that claims 12, 13, 20–23, and 29 are unpatentable over Woehr, Callaway, and Sutton.” slip op. at 50

  Patent outcomesUS 8,460,247 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,460,247
• Toyota Motor Corp. / Aisin Seiki Co., Ltd. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 12, 2018 · IPR2017-01495 · APJ Amanda F Wieker · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 24–27 are unpatentable as obvious over Zimmerman, Stephan, and Neal, and independently over Gould and Neal.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Based upon our review of the ’348 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’348 patent and applied prior art, we determine that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, chemical engineering, or an equivalent degree, and two years of experience in the design of electric motors and electromagnetic devices, including familiarity with the design, operation, materials, and fabrication of such devices, including their thermal and fluid characteristics.4 Although Patent Owner disputes whether an electrical engineering degree is sufficient educational experience for a POSITA, the cited testimony does not present any persuasive or specific basis upon which to determine that an electrical engineering degree, coupled with the cited experience, would be insufficient, as compared to a mechanical or chemical engineering degree. See Ex. 1132 ¶¶ 30–31 (Dr. Trumper opining that a POSITA may possess an electrical engineering degree); Ex. 2009 ¶ 23 (Dr. Garris disputing only whether Dr. Trumper considered that the claims concern “electrically controlled fluid control devices,” but not discussing whether an electrical engineering degree would be sufficient); Ex. 1136 ¶¶ 26–27 (Dr. Toliyat opining that a POSITA of the ’348 patent may have “a degree in electrical engineering”); Ex. 1138, 22:12– 17, 23:14–21, 24:18–22 (opining that a POSITA could have an electrical engineering degree).” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “We have considered Dr. Garris’s competing testimony that “[h]aving a flush connection to the cooling coil 80 is not superior to Zimmerman’s design, and Dr. Trumper identifies no such advantages.” Ex. 2009 ¶ 120; see also PO Resp. 45. However, Dr. Garris does not explain the basis for his opinion. For example, Dr. Garris neither explains why Zimmerman’s existing design is preferable to a flush connection, nor weighs the numerous advantages offered by Dr. Trumper: “easier assembly,” “simpler construction,” “fewer parts,” or “easier manufacturing and assembly.” As such, weighing the competing testimony of both declarants, we find Dr. Trumper to be more persuasive, given the lack of supporting basis for Dr. Garris’s opinion. We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that the proposed modification would not have been obvious to a POSITA because it would require modifying Zimmerman’s casting mold to include a more complex shape with a conduit-shaped inlet and outlet. PO Resp. 45 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 119). This argument ignores the fact that, under Petitioner’s proposed modification, Zimmerman’s resin sheath would be formed of injection-molded thermoplastic—casting molds would not be used. See supra Section II.D.4.iii. As such, this argument is not responsive to the proposed ground of unpatentability. Moreover, the evidence of record suggests that injection molding is well-suited to the formation of complex shapes. Ex. 2005, 34 (explaining that “injection molding makes discrete parts that can have [a] complex and variable cross section”). Finally, we disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that this would not be a simple substitution. PO Resp. 45 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 121–122). In paragraph 121 of his declaration, Dr. Garris states that “[s]imply because an engineering design or process is known, that does not mean that the design or process is a satisfactory ‘substitute’ for another design or another process. Whether two elements may qualify as substitutes depends on their suitability to address the specific design problem being addressed.” Ex. 2009 ¶ 121. Although this statement may be true, Dr. Garris does not address the facts of Petitioner’s proposed modification. For example, Dr. Garris does not dispute that connecting Zimmerman’s coil 80 to tube fittings 78, 81 with the resin sheath, rather than through Zimmerman’s existing structure, would suitably solve the design problem. Nor does Dr. Garris explain why these would not be simple substitutes. By contrast, Dr. Trumper identifies a similarly formed line connection in the prior art (Ex. 1132 ¶ 85), and explains why such an arrangement would be a desirable and obvious substitute if employed in Zimmerman’s sheath (id.).7 As such, on the record before us, we determine Dr. Garris’s testimony in this regard is conclusory and entitled to little weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 38

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

    “In this case, both parties agree that “substantially encapsulating” includes “entirely surrounding or surrounding almost all except for minor areas that might be exposed.” This understanding is consistent with the lexicographic definition and the cited example provided in the ’348 patent. Ex. 1001, 6:7–13, 6:53–58. However, the lexicographic definition also defines this phrase as including the concept of “rigidly fixing together, and behav[ing] as a single component with respect to harmonic oscillation vibration.” Id. at 6:7–13. The cited example similarly reflects this concept. Id. at 6:53–58. Patent Owner argues that this portion of the definition is “not relevant” to the disputed issues in this proceeding. PO Resp. 29 n.1. However, that the parties do not dispute this aspect of the phrase’s meaning does not alter the proper construction of the phrase. Additionally, Patent Owner provides no persuasive reasoning or evidence to support this bare attorney argument. Thus, we construe “substantially encapsulating” in accordance with its lexicographic definition and cited example in the ’348 patent specification as “either entirely surrounding or surrounding almost all except for minor areas that might be exposed, such that the elements are rigidly fixed together and behave as a single component with respect to harmonic oscillation vibration.”” slip op. at 10

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

    “Stephan and Neal, however, explicitly teach that their housing and monolithic body, respectively, may be made from either a thermoset or an injection-molded thermoplastic material. See Ex. 1109 ¶ 41 (utilizing “any injection-molded thermoplastic,” or a “thermosetting synthetic material in a molding process”); Ex. 1104, 5:27–49 (“There are two types of phase change materials that will be most useful in practicing the invention: temperature activated and chemically activated. . . . The most preferred temperature activated phase change materials are thermoplastics. The preferred thermoplastic will become molten at a temperature at which it is injection-moldable. . . . An example of a phase change material that changes phases due to a chemical reaction, and which could be used to form the body 14, is an epoxy. Other suitable phase change materials may be classified as thermosetting materials.”). Thus, the cited prior art explicitly teaches that injection-molded thermoplastic materials are known alternatives to the chemically-activated epoxy resin disclosed by Zimmerman. Additionally, Neal explains that using injection-molded thermoplastic as an encapsulating material allows for appropriate thermal conductivity, as well as hermetic sealing. Ex. 1104, 6:26–46 (examples of thermally conductive thermoplastic resins), 9:5–20 (facilitating heat dissipation), 18:4– 10 (hermetically sealed). These are the same properties sought to be realized by Zimmerman’s epoxy resin sheath. Ex. 1103, 4:33–38 (explaining that the resin sheath “covers the non-insulated parts preventing moisture and liquid from contacting vital metal and moving parts . . . [and] is a liquid protector and heat transfer agent or heat conductive medium combined”); see also Ex. 1132 ¶ 78 (Dr. Trumper opining that a POSITA would have been motivated to use injection molded thermoplastic to form Zimmerman’s body to achieve the goals articulated by Zimmerman).” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 7,928,348 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,928,348
• Aisin Seiki Co., Ltd. / Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 12, 2018 · IPR2017-01538 · APJ Amanda F Wieker · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 24–27 are unpatentable as obvious over Konishi and over Umeda, Raible, and Neal; Petitioner did not show them unpatentable over Umeda and Stephan or Bramm and Watterson.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Based upon our review of the ’348 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’348 patent and applied prior art, we determine that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, chemical engineering, or an equivalent degree, and two years of experience in the design of electric motors and electromagnetic devices, including familiarity with the design, operation, materials, and fabrication of such devices, including their thermal and fluid characteristics.9 Although Patent Owner disputes whether an electrical engineering degree is sufficient educational experience for a POSITA, the cited testimony does not present any persuasive or specific basis upon which to determine that an electrical engineering degree, coupled with the cited experience, would be insufficient, as compared to a mechanical or chemical engineering degree. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 30–32 9 Although the parties present different characterizations of the areas of subject matter familiarity of a POSITA, we determine their content to be substantially the same. Compare Pet. 23, with PO Resp. 31–32. (Dr. Trumper opining that a POSITA may possess an electrical engineering degree); Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 23, 25 (Dr. Garris disputing only whether Dr. Trumper considered that the claims concern “electrically controlled fluid control devices,” but not discussing whether an electrical engineering degree would be sufficient); Ex. 1017 ¶¶ 26–27 (Dr. Toliyat opining that a POSITA of the ’348 patent may have “a degree in electrical engineering”); Ex. 1016, 22:12– 17, 23:14–21, 24:18–22 (Dr. Garris opining that a POSITA could have an electrical engineering degree).” slip op. at 17

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

    “In this case, both parties agree that “substantially encapsulating” includes “entirely surrounding or surrounding almost all except for minor areas that might be exposed.” This understanding is consistent with the lexicographic definition and the cited example provided in the ’348 patent. Ex. 1001, 6:7–13, 6:53–58. However, the lexicographic definition also clearly defines this phrase as including the concept of “rigidly fix[ing] together, and behav[ing] as a single component with respect to harmonic oscillation vibration.” Id. at 6:7–13. The cited example similarly reflects this concept. Id. at 6:53–58. Patent Owner argues that this portion of the definition is “not relevant” to the disputed issues in this proceeding. PO Resp. 29 n.1. However, that the parties do not dispute this aspect of the phrase’s meaning does not alter the proper construction of the phrase. Additionally, Patent Owner provides no persuasive reasoning or evidence to support this bare attorney argument. Thus, we construe “substantially encapsulating” in accordance with its lexicographic definition and cited example in the ’348 patent specification as “either entirely surrounding or surrounding almost all except for minor areas that might be exposed, such that the elements are rigidly fixed together and behave as a single component with respect to harmonic oscillation vibration.”” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “We have considered Patent Owner’s argument that stator can 51 and stator molded portion 5 may only be formed from the same material “if that common material is capable of handling the high temperature environment experienced by the stator can.” PO Resp. 36–37; Ex. 2010 ¶ 106. We disagree with this argument, and give little weight to Dr. Garris’s testimony upon which the argument depends, because it conflicts with Konishi’s disclosure. As discussed above, Konishi explains that the stator molded portion 5 and stator can 51 are “formed as a single unit.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 16, 38. Konishi does not place any restrictions upon this disclosure, and does not suggest that these components may only be formed as a single unit, if made with a certain material. Additionally, Konishi explains that the heat experienced by stator can 51 is mitigated by the working fluid that flows through heat transfer pipes 1 and flow paths 52, not by the particular material selected for a single unit stator molded portion and stator can. Id. ¶¶ 21–22. Dr. Garris does not identify any supporting basis for his testimony and, as such, we afford it little weight.” slip op. at 24

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

    “obvious to utilize injection-molded thermoplastic to form Konishi’s monolithic body, i.e., stator molded portion 5 and stator can 51. As discussed above, Konishi explicitly states that the stator molded portion and stator core are formed as a “single unit.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 16, 38. Moreover, Konishi discloses various types of thermoplastics that may be “used to seal the stator core, etc.” Id. ¶¶ 30–31. Konishi also discloses that injection molding is an exemplary method of sealing the stator core. Id. ¶ 37. Thus, we determine that a POSITA, aware of Konishi’s teachings that injection-molding and thermoplastic materials may be used to seal the stator core, would have found such use obvious. For example, we are persuaded by Dr. Trumper’s testimony that such materials were suitable, as taught by Konishi, and provided well-known benefits, e.g., high heat conductivity. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 86–87; see also Reply 4 (discussing Dr. Garris’s deposition testimony, admitting that Konishi discloses that injection-molded thermoplastic may be used). We have considered Patent Owner’s argument, and Dr. Garris’s testimony, that “a POSITA would not use a thermoplastic for the stator can 51 because the material would soften or even melt if the temperatures in the vicinity of the windings 33 become too high.” PO Resp. 37 (citing Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 105–106). This argument, however, does not account for Konishi’s express teachings that thermoplastics may be utilized, as discussed above. Moreover, Konishi recognizes that heat is produced by windings 33, and explains that this heat is “removed to the outside by the working fluid that passes through the inside of heat transfer pipes 1.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 21; see also id. ¶ 22 (explaining that heat produced by coil 33 is removed by working fluid passing through flow paths 52). Thus, Konishi’s teachings are inconsistent with Dr. Garris’s testimony that “stator can 51 receives heat from windings 33, which are in close proximity, and it is so far away from the heat transfer pipes 1 and flow paths 52 that it receives little cooling from them compared to the stator molded portion 5.” Ex. 2010 ¶ 111. The record before us lacks sufficient evidence that problems associated with high heat are likely to occur in Konishi, given the heat reduction techniques employed to avoid this very problem. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 21–22; see also Ex. 1002 ¶ 87 (Dr. Trumper testifying that thermoplastics exhibit high heat conductivity). Accordingly, we disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments. Instead, for the reasons given, we agree with Petitioner that Konishi renders obvious the “injection molded thermoplastic” recitation of this limitation of claim 24.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 7,928,348 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,928,348
• Delphi Technologies, LLC v. Microchip Technology Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Dec 11, 2018 · IPR2017-00864 · APJ Daniel N Fishman · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving claims 1, 3–5, 7–9, 11–15, and 18–21 unpatentable because their scope did not require the buffer to store the specified information.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “party challenging the decision,” and, “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed” in the record. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). III. DISCUSSION Patent Owner’s Request does not identify any arguments that we “misapprehended or overlooked” let alone “specifically identify” all such matters. Thus, Patent Owner’s Request fails to comply with our rules. Despite this failure of Patent Owner’s Request, we address the substance of Patent Owner’s argument as follows.” slip op. at 2

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

    “misapprehended any argument. Furthermore, we are unpersuaded that our Decision was in error regarding independent claims 1, 3, 7, 18, and 23 because these claims have a different scope than claims 17, 22, and 24. As Patent Owner correctly noted, our construction of “dedicated USB connection” is “a USB connection that may include some shared physical communication path and includes a buffer for maintaining dedicated address, configuration and response information for the connection.” Dec. 33. Thus, a dedicated USB connection must include a buffer that is capable of storing/maintaining “dedicated address, configuration and response information” regardless of whether such data is actually stored/maintained therein.” slip op. at 3

  Claim construction
  Patents in suitUS 7,523,243
• Donghee America, Inc. / Donghee Alabama, LLC v. Plastic Omnium Advanced Innovation And ResearchAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 11, 2018 · IPR2017-01605 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 7, 11, 12, and 14 are unpatentable: claims 1–3, 12, and 14 are anticipated by Linden, and claims 7 and 11 are obvious over Linden and Hata.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “article whose surface has at least one empty or concave part.” Id. at 11 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:66–67; Ex. 1007 ¶ 15). Patent Owner agrees. PO Resp. 15. The ’253 patent states that “[t]he term ‘hollow body’ is understood to mean any article whose surface has at least one empty or concave part.” Ex. 1001, 1:66–67. Where an inventor defines specific terms used to describe an invention, we will give effect to those definitions, as long as they are set out “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision,” “so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change” in meaning. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Here, the phrase “is understood to mean,” as used in the ’253 patent, signals that the inventor presents a clear, deliberate, and precise definition. Accordingly, we interpret “hollow body” as having the definition given it in the ’253 patent, “any article whose surface has at least one empty or concave part.”” slip op. at 6

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

    “supporting its proposed construction of “incorporate” as “insert.” First, Petitioner argues that the language of the ’253 patent requires a construction of “incorporating” as encompassing “inserting” rather than as limited to “attaching.” Reply 2–4. Both parties argue that the “incorporating” recited in the challenged claims must occur before the mold closes to form the hollow body. PO Resp. 16; Reply 2–3. We agree. Ex. 1001, 6:2–14 (“. . . after said step of incorporating, closing said mould . . .”). Thus, it is important to note the processes that the ’253 patent describes as occurring before, during, and after mold closure. Because “incorporating” must occur before mold closure, the process of “incorporating” may not be limited to any process that the patent describes as occurring during or after mold closure. Petitioner is correct that the ’253 patent describes a process in which a preassembled structure for supporting an accessory “may . . . be fastened by welding to the wall of the hollow body, upon closing the mould,” i.e., during, not before, mold closure. Ex. 1001, 4:23–30. Thus, the language of the ’253 patent does not support construing the term “incorporating” as limited to “attaching.” Petitioner also argues that both parties agreed in the related infringement suit in District Court that the proper construction of “incorporating” under the Phillips standard, used in that forum, was “inserting.” Reply 7–8 (citing Ex. 1010, at Ex. A, 4). Specifically, in that litigation, Patent Owner agreed that the correct construction of “incorporating at least one of an accessory or a duct within the hollow body” was “inserting an accessory or duct into the hollow body.” Ex. 1010, at Ex. A, 4. Here, we apply the broadest-reasonable-interpretation standard. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2016). “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim term may be the same as or broader than the construction of a term under the Phillips standard. But it cannot be narrower.” Facebook, Inc. v. Pragmatus AV, LLC, 582 F. App’x 864, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (non-precedential). Here, for the term “incorporating,” Patent Owner’s proposed broadest reasonable interpretation (“attaching”) is narrower than the Phillips construction Patent Owner has advanced (“inserting”). Thus, “attaching” cannot be the broadest reasonable interpretation of “incorporating.” Other than Patent Owner’s proposed “attaching” construction, the only construction the parties have proposed either in this case or in the related District Court case is Petitioner’s proposed “inserting” construction. PO Resp. 15–20 (discussing only “inserting” and “attaching” constructions); Reply 2–9 (Petitioner arguing in favor of “inserting”); Ex. 1010, at Ex. A, 4 (both parties proposing “inserting”). The ’253 patent supports such a construction, because it describes at least some of its embodiments as involving only insertion of an object between the sheets that will form the hollow body before mold closure. Ex. 1001, 4:23–30. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of “incorporating” as “inserting.”” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Finally, Patent Owner directs us to the testimony of Professor Tim Osswald as support for its view that “incorporate” should mean “attach.” PO Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 40–42). In relevant part, this testimony states that, “[a]fter reading the specification of the ’253 patent, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand and interpret the word ‘incorporating’ to mean ‘fastening’ or ‘attaching’ so that the accessory or duct becomes part of the hollow body.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 42. Professor Osswald does not cite any evidence in support of his testimony. “[C]onclusory, unsupported assertions by experts as to the definition of a claim term are not useful.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Accordingly, we give little weight to Professor Osswald’s statement regarding the proper construction of “incorporate.” See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he [PTAB] is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations . . . .” (citations omitted)).” slip op. at 9

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

    “preform which has at least one opening for that purpose, to be applied to the inside surface of the wall of the expanded hollow body.” Id. at 3:62–4:3. Patent Owner argues that this teaching is insufficient to disclose attaching the surge cup to the wall of the hollow body before the mold closes. PO Resp. 23–24. We agree that Linden does not teach attaching its accessory to the inside wall of the fuel tank before the mold closes around the preform. Instead, in Linden, the mold halves are closed around the preform and the mandrel, and “a suitable blowing agent . . . is introduced under pressure” through the mandrel, causing the preform to expand to press “against the inside wall defining the mold cavity,” and only then is the holding means for the accessory displaced to be brought into contact with the inner wall of the expanded preform, welding the holding means to the wall. Ex. 1003, 7:27–55, 8:11–29, Figs. 1–3. But, as discussed above, we disagree with Patent Owner about the proper construction of “incorporating” in the challenged claims. Claim 1 requires only that an accessory or a duct be “incorporat[ed] . . . within the hollow body” before mold closure occurs, and we construe “incorporating” to mean “inserting,” without requiring “attaching.” Thus, it is unimportant that Linden fails to teach attaching the surge cup to the wall before mold closure. All that is required is that Linden disclose inserting the surge cup into the preform before mold closure, and Linden does disclose this. Id. at 3:62–4:3, 7:27–49, Figs. 1–3. The next question is whether Linden discloses “after said step of incorporating, closing [the mold] in a way which eliminates any interface between said at least one of said accessory or said duct and an external atmosphere outside of the hollow body.” As discussed above, Linden discloses closing the mold halves after placing the additional body within the preform. But Linden discloses that “[a]t its lower end the preform 28 is pressed around the mandrel 14 by virtue of closure of the mold halves 10a and 10b.” Id. at 7:40–42, Fig. 2. Because mandrel 14 is hollow, id. at 6:35–39; 6:46–54, it is not completely clear that closure of Linden’s hollow body around mandrel 14 necessarily eliminates any interface between the additional body inside Linden’s hollow body and the atmosphere outside the hollow body. On the other hand, the closure of the mold described in the ’253 patent occurs with blowing nozzle 6 “positioned between the two parts of the [mold],” and “blowing air is injected under pressure via the nozzle,” which is quite similar to the use of hollow mandrel 14 in Linden. Ex. 1001, 5:50–57. Given the similarity between Linden’s method and the method described in the ’253 patent, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Linden discloses the limitation of claim 1 requiring the step of, “after said step of incorporating, closing [the mold] in a way which eliminates any interface between said at least one of said accessory or said duct and an external atmosphere outside of the hollow body.” The final question with respect to claim 1 is whether Linden discloses that the additional body incorporated within the hollow body “is supported by a preassembled structure which comprises at least one device configured to anchor said preassembled structure to an internal wall of the hollow body.” Petitioner argues that Linden’s “[h]olding means 24 is a preassembled structure” in which “leg members 44, 45” have “enlarged foot portion[s] 36.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003, 9:23–34). We agree. “[H]olding means 24 . . . substantially comprises first and second support or leg members 44, 45,” and “support or leg members 44, 45 are each provided with an enlarged foot portion 36 of substantially plate-like configuration.” Ex. 1003, 9:23–34. Even if Linden’s holding means 24 were not in the aggregate the recited “preassembled structure,” each leg member 44, 45, taken together with its respective foot portion 36 is. Ex. 1001, 4:26–28 (describing a “preassembled structure” as “for example, an arm provided with a tab for fastening to the wall of the hollow body”). Linden’s “foot portions 36 are pressed against the inside surface, which is still hot and thus plastic, . . . of the hollow body . . . thereby to produce a welded joint between the foot portions 36 and the inside surface.” Id. at 9:34–42. Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Linden discloses the limitation of claim 1 requiring that the accessory or duct be “supported by a preassembled structure which comprises at least one device configured to anchor said preassembled structure to an internal wall of the hollow body.”” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 7,166,253 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 7,166,253
• Mobile Tech, Inc. v. Invue Security Products Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Dec 4, 2018 · PGR2018-00004 · APJ Stacey G White · PGR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing and left in place its denial of institution because Petitioner did not show an abuse of discretion in finding claims 1–45 supported and enabled.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “III. STANDARD OF REVIEW “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When requesting rehearing of a decision, the challenging party must identify specifically all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in the record. Id. When considering a request for rehearing of a decision on whether to institute trial, the Board reviews its decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of the law, on factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence, or represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors.” Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). We address Petitioner’s arguments with these principles in mind.” slip op. at 3

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

    “’472 patent is eligible for post-grant review. Dec. 16. Here, eligibility for post-grant review depends on the effective filing date of the challenged claims. When determining the effective filing date, a claim is entitled to the benefit of an earlier filing date when an earlier application discloses the claimed invention “in the manner provided by § 112(a) (other than the requirement to disclose the best mode).” See id. at 6 (citing US Endodontics, LLC v. Gold Standard Instruments, LLC, Case PGR2015- 00019, slip. op. at 7 (PTAB Dec. 28, 2016) (Paper 54)). The ’472 patent was the latest in a chain of continuation applications that dates back to U.S. Patent Application No. 13/169,9685 (“968 Application”), which was filed on June 27, 2011. Ex. 1001, at [63]. We previously determined that the 968 5 There are other applications in this chain, but none of those applications are relevant to the issues presented here and thus, we do not address those applications. Application and the ’472 patent have substantially identical specifications and figures. See Dec. 7 (finding that the 968 Application and the patent application from which the ’472 patent issued are substantially identical). We thus determined that we were able to “analyze the ’472 patent’s eligibility for post grant review through a discussion of Petitioner’s arguments as to written description support in the ’472 patent.” Id. at 8. We then found that Petitioner failed to establish that the challenged claims lack written description support or are not enabled. See id. at 12, 15–16.” slip op. at 4

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “The ’472 patent expressly recites: Actuation of activation switch 85 causes logic control circuit 18 of programming station 3 to randomly generate a unique security code (i.e. SDC) that is transmitted via communication circuit 20 to communication circuit 79 of programmable key 5, which in turn stores the randomly generated SDC in security code (SDC) memory 81 of the key . . . . [T]he SDC initially provided by the programming station 3 is randomly generated and is unique to that programming station and always remains with that programming station for subsequent use. Thus, the SDC initially generated always stays with the programming station 3 and is subsequently programmed into one or more programmable keys 5. Ex. 1001, 9:23–43 (emphases added); see also id. at 10:6–12 (“[T]he particular programming station 3 of the retail store [is] used to program the key with the SDC.”). The ’472 patent also discloses that the programming station “reprogram[s] or refresh[es] the SDC into the key” after the programmable key times out, which occurs after a predetermined period elapses from the time that the programmable key was last programmed or refreshed. See e.g., id. at 12:63–13:8. Specifically, the programming station performs a “handshake” with the key “to determine whether the key has not previously been programmed with a SDC (i.e. a ‘new’ key), or is an authorized key that is being presented to the programming station a subsequent time to refresh the SDC,” and once a proper “handshake” is completed, the programming station “permits the SDC generated by the logic control circuit and/or stored in the memory to be transmitted . . . [to] the programmable electronic key.” Id. at 16:4–19. Thus, the programming station is responsible for generating the SDC and transmitting it to the programmable key. More to the point, the ’472 patent discloses that “the programming station will deactivate a SDC stored in the SDC memory of a key if an incorrect SDC is encountered when the programming station is attempting to reprogram or refresh the key.” Id. at 13:13–17 (emphases added). This contradicts Petitioner’s proposition that a key programmed with one SDC from a first programming station can then program that same SDC into a second programming station. The ’472 patent expressly teaches how to deal with a situation in which a second programming station encounters an incorrect SDC in the memory of a key: it deactivates the SDC stored in the key.” slip op. at 7

  § 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 9,659,472

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.