• 3M Company v. Bay Materials, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Jan 18, 2023 · IPR2022-01215 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–4, 7, 11–14, 18, and 31 on all asserted grounds, finding at least one claim sufficiently shown anticipated by Yu.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “The Petition includes detailed arguments that map the limitations of the challenged claims to specific disclosures in Yu (Sample 1). Id. at 50–62. The Petition also maps adequately the limitations of the challenged claims to specific disclosures in Stewart (Example 2). Id. at 62–66. For example, Petitioner shows sufficiently that Yu (Example 1) coextrudes “a multilayered polymeric film,” that is, a “sheet,” arranged in the hard-soft-hard-soft-hard, five-layer configuration required by claim 11. Pet. 50–51; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 124, 126–128; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 63, 78, 92. Petitioner also shows sufficiently that the hard layers in that configuration of Yu (Example 1) are “hard” and the hard layers are “hard” within the meaning of claim 11. Pet. 53; Ex. 1002 ¶ 131; Ex. 1012 ¶ 78. In other words, Petitioner shows sufficiently, on this record, that Yu (Example 1) anticipates claim 11. Based on the information presented, we find that Petitioner shows sufficiently, for purposes of trial institution, that at least one challenged claim of the ’263 patent is anticipated by Yu (Sample 1).” slip op. at 12

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “That prior art disclosure of elastomeric materials for use as the outer layers in an unclaimed and disfavored soft-hard-soft layer configuration does not convey, with reasonable clarity, that the inventors had possession of the claimed subject matter, in which the elastomeric material forms the inner layer of a polymeric sheet in a hard-soft-hard layer configuration. See id. ¶¶ 7, 33–35, 109–110. Even if the hardness limitation of the challenged claims would have been obvious from the relied-upon disclosure of the ’176 application (Ex. 2001 ¶ 109), that circumstance is insufficient to establish written description support. “Entitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed.” PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quotations omitted); see Pet. 21 (quoting that precedent). Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that the invention that Patent Owner seeks to protect in the ’263 patent does not appear to be “part of the invention” described in the ’176 application. Pet. 40; see Ex. 2001 ¶ 109 (describing elastomeric materials, having the specified hardness, only in the context of an unclaimed prior art soft-hard-soft embodiment). On this record, we preliminarily agree with Petitioner that the earliest effective filing date to which the ’263 patent appears to be entitled is December 18, 2019, namely, the filing date of the ’256 application, from which the ’263 patent issued. Ex. 1001, codes (21), (22). Patent Owner may contest this issue in a timely response to the Petition.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelNot reached

    “The parties disagree about whether the ordinarily skilled artisan would have had specific “experience with dental appliances or access to individuals with such experience.” Prelim. Resp. 17; see Pet. 14–15 n.1 (disagreeing with that proposition). Neither party explains why a resolution of that Stat. 284 (September 16, 2011), includes revisions to Section 102(a) that became effective on March 16, 2013. For reasons explained in this Decision, on this record it appears Petitioner is correct that the challenged claims are entitled to an effective filing date no earlier than December 18, 2019 and, therefore, the AIA provisions apply in this proceeding. See Pet. 22, 39–40; Ex. 1001, code (60). 2 WO 20010/043419 A1, published Apr. 22, 2010, with English Translation (Ex. 1015). 3 We take notice that the first and second grounds identified in the Petition assert anticipation based on the same prior art disclosure. 4 US Pub. 2004/0224283 A1, published Nov. 11, 2004 (Ex. 1008). dispute is necessary to this Decision to institute review. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 17 n.2 (“even under Petitioner’s proposed definition, the Petition fails to show a reasonable likelihood that any claim is unpatentable”); Pet. 14–15 & n.1 (arguing about the issue without explaining how a resolution of the dispute would change the outcome of the decision on institution). If either party believes that the difference in level of skill would have a material effect on the analysis of the patentability of the challenged claims, that issue should be specifically addressed in briefing during the trial. We will resolve that dispute only to the extent necessary in any final written decision. Based on the information presented, we find that the asserted prior art itself is sufficient to demonstrate the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 6

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

    “We construe terms in controversy only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). “Petitioner discusses the terms “layer A,” “layer B,” “layer C,” “layer C,” “layer B',” inner layer B,” “inner layer B',” and “inner layer D.” Pet. 15–20. Patent Owner discusses the terms “layer” and “inner.” Prelim. Resp. 19–22. Taking account of the information presented, we determine that no claim term requires express construction for purposes of deciding whether to institute review. Compare Pet. 15–20 (addressing issues of claim construction, without demonstrating that an express construction is necessary to resolve whether to institute review), with Prelim. Resp. 19–22 (same).” slip op. at 7

  Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,870,263
• 3M Company v. Bay Materials, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Jan 18, 2023 · IPR2022-01214 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Institution

  Instituted IPR of claims 1–4, 7–11, and 13 on all asserted obviousness grounds, including grounds without Sun despite concerns about their sufficiency.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “6. Conclusions on the Sufficiency of Petitioner’s Information Petitioner shows sufficiently that the subject matter of at least one challenged claim would have been obvious based on the ground that asserts Sun. See Pet. 6 (Ground 3). We have concerns about the sufficiency of Petitioner’s showing with respect to the grounds that do not assert Sun. See id. (Grounds 1 and 2). We institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims based on all grounds asserted in the Petition. See SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1354, 1359–60 (2018); Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019)8 (“The Board will not institute on fewer than all claims or all challenges in a petition.”).” slip op. at 20

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “The parties disagree about whether the ordinarily skilled artisan would have had specific “experience with dental appliances or access to individuals with such experience.” Prelim. Resp. 9; see Pet. 10–11 n.1 (disagreeing with that proposition). Neither party explains why a resolution of that dispute is necessary to this Decision to institute review. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 9 n.2 (“even under Petitioner’s proposed definition, the Petition fails to show a reasonable likelihood that any claim is unpatentable”); Pet. 14–15 & n.1 (arguing about the issue without explaining how a resolution of the dispute would change the outcome of the decision on institution). If either party believes that the difference in level of skill would have a material effect on 5 US Pub. 2004/0224283 A1, published Nov. 11, 2004 (Ex. 1008). the analysis of the patentability of the challenged claims, that issue should be specifically addressed in briefing during the trial. We will resolve that dispute only to the extent necessary in any final written decision. Based on the information presented, we find that the asserted prior art itself is sufficient to demonstrate the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 7

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

    “We construe terms in controversy only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner discusses certain terms at issue in the District Court action, such as “layer A,” “layer B,” “layer C,” “inner layer B,” and “flexural modulus” ranges, without proposing any express constructions. Pet. 12–15. Patent Owner does not provide arguments directed specifically to proposed claim constructions. See generally Prelim. Resp. Taking account of the information presented, we determine that no claim term requires express construction for purposes of deciding whether to institute review. Compare Pet. 12–15 (addressing issues of claim construction, without demonstrating that an express construction is necessary to resolve whether to institute review), with Prelim. Resp. 12–39 (addressing the merits of Petitioner’s challenges, without asserting an express claim construction).” slip op. at 8

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

    “We preliminarily find that Hinz would have alerted the ordinarily skilled artisan that the choice of “layer thicknesses” in a multilayer dental structure “ensure[s] very good mechanical properties.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 100; Ex. 1015, 4:116–119. Where Sun teaches that the flexural modulus of dental structures would have been recognized as one such mechanical property (id. ¶ 160; Ex. 1018 ¶ 12), we further accept, at this preliminary stage, that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood how variations “in the relative thicknesses of the respective layers” desirably impact the flexural modulus (id. ¶ 105). Furthermore, in view of Sun’s disclosure of advantages associated with dental structures having a preferred flexural modulus, and the fact that those exact same advantages expressly were of interest to Hinz, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument, on this record, that it makes a difference that Sun discusses two-layer structures, whereas Hinz discusses three-layer structures. Pet. 65–66 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 158–160; Ex. 1015, 3:74–76; Ex. 1018 ¶ 4); see Sur-reply 5 (Patent Owner, identifying distinctions without a difference in Sun). In other words, Sun’s teachings appear, on this record, to apply generally to multilayer dental structures, including the multilayer structures of Hinz. For the above reasons, although the issue is a close one, we find that Petitioner shows sufficiently for purposes of trial institution that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reason, and possessed the technical acumen, to select combinations of layer thickness values, from among the ranges disclosed in Hinz, to attain a multilayer dental structure having a desirable flexural modulus, as suggested by Sun. Patent Owner may address that preliminary finding in a timely response to the Petition.” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,946,630
• Beckman Coulter, Inc. v. Sirigen II LimitedInstituted
  PTAB · Jan 6, 2023 · IPR2022-01206 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–10, 12–14, and 17–19, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the asserted grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “unless the information presented in the petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” The following findings of fact and conclusions of law are not final, but are made for the sole purpose of determining whether Petitioner meets the threshold for initiating review. Any final decision shall be based on the full trial record, including any response timely filed by Patent Owner. Any arguments not raised by Patent Owner in a timely-filed response may be deemed waived. For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. We hereby institute an inter partes review as to claims 1–10, 12–14, and 17–19 of the ’648 patent based upon Petitioner’s asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 2

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

    “The express language of claim 1 requires no solubility threshold, and dependent claim 10 of related U.S. Patent No. 10,288,620 B2 demonstrates that, where a solubility threshold was intended by the inventors of these patents, they knew how to expressly set forth that threshold in the claims. Compare Ex. 1004, 222:47–49 (“capable of imparting solubility in water”), with Ex. 1005, 218:12–14 (“The method according to claim 1, wherein each R is a non-ionic side group capable of imparting solubility in water in excess of 10 mg/mL.”). Thus, the claim language does not support applying a particular solubility threshold in claim 1. As noted by Patent Owner, the written description of the ’648 patent explains that “each R is independently a non-ionic side group capable of imparting solubility in water in excess of 10 mg/mL.” Ex. 1004, 2:21–22; Prelim. Resp. 17. This solubility threshold, however, is not in claim 1. Also, the ’648 patent states that this solubility applies only to some embodiments. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, 53:9–12, 55:6–20. We decline to import such a limitation from the written description into claim 1 absent reason for doing so. See SciMed Life Systems, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that “reading a limitation from the written description into the claims” is “one of the cardinal sins of patent law”); see also Thorner v. Sony Comp. Ent’m Am., LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“It is likewise not enough that the only embodiments, or all of the embodiments, contain a particular limitation. We do not read limitations from the specification into claims; we do not redefine words.”). After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence presented, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s proposed definition reads into the claim a numeric threshold for solubility from an embodiment that is nowhere apparent from the claim itself. “[I]nterpreting what is meant by a word in a claim is not to be confused with adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the specification, which is improper.” In re Cruciferous Sprout Litigation, 301 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted; emphasis in original). Although we must read a patent’s claims in light of the specification, see, e.g., Comark Communications, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186 (Fed. Cir. 1998), that obligation does not authorize “reading a limitation from the written description into the claims.” SciMed Life Systems, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Confining the scope of “non-ionic side group capable of imparting solubility in water” to an unexpressed minimum solubility taken from only “some” embodiments encompassed by the ’648 patent crosses that line. See, e.g., E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1432–34 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Claims to a co-polymer improperly interpreted to include two properties). In view of the foregoing, we construe the phrase “a non-ionic side group capable of imparting solubility in water” to not require any particular numeric threshold of solubility. No further construction of the claim is necessary to resolve the dispute between the parties with respect to institution of trial.15” slip op. at 13

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “in situations where a district court trial date is set to occur before the issuance of the Board’s final written decision. The facts and reasoning of Fintiv are, at a minimum, only applicable to cases in which the district court has actually set a trial date in a copending litigation. But here, as will be discussed below, the parties agree that no trial date has been set, and the District Court has stayed the litigation. Prelim. Reply 8; Prelim. Sur-Reply 6 (“There has never been a trial date). Furthermore, that stay will continue until our final determination should we decide to institute trial. Without a trial date, we see no need to engage in a full analysis of the Fintiv factors,17 as there is no basis for Patent Owner’s argument for discretionary denial.” slip op. at 17

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

    “We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. Xue expressly discloses that its glycopolymers utilizing poly(ethylene glycol)-tethered spacers (Polymers B and C) “are highly water-soluble due to their long, flexible, hydrophilic spacers.” Ex. 1010, Abstr., 2289–90. As claim 1 does not require any particular solubility threshold, on this record, Petitioner sufficiently demonstrates that Xue expressly discloses the solubility limitation of independent claim 1.” slip op. at 33

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,302,648
• Beckman Coulter, Inc. v. Sirigen II LimitedInstituted
  PTAB · Jan 6, 2023 · IPR2022-01205 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted review of claims 1–10, 18, and 20 based on the asserted § 102 and § 103 grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther

    “Here, Patent Owner filed a statutory disclaimer of claims 11–17 of the ’417 patent. Prelim. Resp. 1–2; Ex. 2019. Based on our review of Exhibit 2019, we determine that a disclaimer of claims 11–17 of the ’417 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) has been filed with the Office as of October 5, 2022. Based on the information in the public record, we find that the disclaimer complies with the above-listed requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a). Because claims 11–17 have been disclaimed under 35 U.S.C. § 253(a), in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a), we do not reach challenges to claims 11–17. As a result, the remaining challenged claims are claims 1–10, 18, and 20 (“the challenged claims”).” slip op. at 5

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “in situations where a district court trial date is set to occur before the issuance of the Board’s final written decision. The facts and reasoning of Fintiv are, at a minimum, only applicable to cases in which the district court has actually set a trial date in a copending litigation. But here, as will be discussed below, the parties agree that no trial date has been set, and the 14 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ interim_proc_discretionary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_ memo_20220621_.pdf. District Court has stayed the litigation. Prelim. Reply 8; Prelim. Sur-Reply 6 (“There has never been a trial date). Furthermore, that stay will continue until our final determination should we decide to institute trial. Without a trial date, we see no need to engage in a full analysis of the Fintiv factors,15 as there is no basis for Patent Owner’s argument for discretionary denial.” slip op. at 16

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

    “IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons above, we determine that the information presented in the Petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to challenged claims 1–10, 18, and 20 of the ’417 patent. At this juncture in the proceeding, we have not made a final determination with respect to the patentability of the challenged claims, or with respect to claim construction. V. ORDER For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review of claims 1–10, 18, and 20 of the ’417 patent is hereby instituted with respect to the ground of unpatentability set forth in the Petition; and FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial; the trial will commence on the entry date of this Decision.” slip op. at 44

  • Skill levelOther

    “would have at least a Ph.D. degree in chemistry, or a bachelor’s or master’s degree plus experience involving the use and design of fluorescent probes or dyes.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 14–18). Patent Owner agrees that a POSITA may have a Ph.D. degree or master’s degree in chemistry, but asserts that a POSITA would also have “some experience with fluorescence” in addition to a Ph.D. degree in chemistry and that the experience of a POSITA with a master’s degree in chemistry is alternatively “industry experience in the field of biological detection systems.” Prelim. Resp. 5–6 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 7). For purposes of this Decision, we need not resolve these differences between the parties’ definitions, because any differences do not affect our analysis.13 If either party believes that adopting its preferred definition of the level of ordinary skill would have a material effect on the outcome of this proceeding, the party should address this issue during the instituted trial. slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,955,417
• Beckman Coulter, Inc. v. Sirigen II LimitedInstituted
  PTAB · Jan 6, 2023 · IPR2022-01203 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–10, 12–14, and 17–19 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenge.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “unless the information presented in the petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” The following findings of fact and conclusions of law are not final, but are made for the sole purpose of determining whether Petitioner meets the threshold for initiating review. Any final decision shall be based on the full trial record, including any response timely filed by Patent Owner. Any arguments not raised by Patent Owner in a timely-filed response may be deemed waived. For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. Patent Owner has not persuaded us that we should exercise our discretion to deny institution. We hereby institute an inter partes review as to claims 1–10, 12–14, and 17–19 of the ’989 patent based upon Petitioner’s asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “in situations where a district court trial date is set to occur before the issuance of the Board’s final written decision. The facts and reasoning of Fintiv are, at a minimum, only applicable to cases in which the district court has actually set a trial date in a copending litigation. But here, as will be discussed below, the parties agree that no trial date has been set, and the District Court has stayed the litigation. Prelim. Reply 8; Prelim. Sur-Reply 6 (“There has never been a trial date.”). Furthermore, that stay will continue until our final determination should we decide to institute trial. Without a trial date, we see no need to engage in a full analysis of the Fintiv factors,14 as there is no basis for Patent Owner’s argument for discretionary denial.” slip op. at 18

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

    “numerical solubility limit into the claims, noting that the ’989 patent expressly defines “non-ionic side groups capable of imparting solubility in water” as simply “side groups which are not charged and allow the resulting polymer to be soluble in water or aqueous solution with no visible particulates.” Prelim. Reply 1 (citing Ex. 1001, 54:9–13). Petitioner notes that this definition contains no numerical limit, and that it is followed by a statement that in some embodiments, the R group is capable of imparting solubility in excess of 10 mg/mL. Id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 54:13–16). Petitioner contends that reading a limitation from “some embodiments” into the claims would be “one of the cardinal sins of patent law.” Id. (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1320; Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Brent, 48 F.4th 1365, 1375–76 (Fed. Cir. 2022)). Petitioner also directs our attention to related patents that expressly claim a solubility in excess of 10 mg/mL, arguing that when Patent Owner sought to claim such polymers, it knew how to do so. Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 218:11–12; Ex. 1006, 239:43–45, 252:51–52, 254:39–40, 262:56–57, 269:31–35).” slip op. at 15

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

    “proposed claim construction on solubility above, which we declined to do on the present record. For this reason, we find them unpersuasive. In addition, we note that Xue expressly discloses that its glycopolymers utilizing PEG-tethered spacers (Polymers B and C) “are highly water-soluble due to their long, flexible, hydrophilic spacers.” Ex. 1010, Abstract, 2289–90. Petitioner sufficiently sets forth why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the PEG side chains of Xue to impart solubility in water, which is all we have construed the claims to require.” slip op. at 35

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,458,989
• Nanofiber Solutions, LLC v. Acera Surgical, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 13, 2022 · IPR2021-01016 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–7, and 13 are unpatentable: claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 13 as anticipated by Johnson, and claims 6 and 7 as obvious over Johnson and Johnson–Liu, respectively.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “Petitioner contends that: A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of filing the ‘228 Patent would have been a person having a bachelor's degree in science or engineering, for example in the fields of chemistry, chemical engineering, or biomedical engineering, with undergraduate research experience, coupled with at least three years of industry experience, that linked the fabrication of fibrous polymeric materials to performance requirements for scaffolds for the promotion of proliferation of biological cells and the growth and/or reconstruction of biological tissues. Pet. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 112–116). In response, Patent Owner notes that all challenged claims recite electrospun fibers but that Petitioner’s proposed level of skill “requires (1) no coursework, training or experience with electrospinning and (2) improperly focuses on scaffolds for the promotion of proliferation of biological cells and the growth and/or reconstruction of biological tissues.” PO Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 2001, ¶¶ 38–39). But Patent Owner then concedes that this “difference is immaterial to deciding the issues raised by the Petition.” Id. at 8.” slip op. at 9

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

    “construe claims “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Furthermore, we expressly construe the claims only to the extent necessary to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). The parties agree that the terms of the challenged claims should be given their “plain and ordinary meaning” and that no express claim construction is necessary to address Petitioner’s challenges. Pet. 12; PO Resp. 6. We agree that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of resolving the dispute between the parties.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Upon review, we are unpersuaded that Petitioner has improperly mixed and matched disclosures from Johnson to arrive at an anticipatory reference. Patent Owner is correct that Petitioner primarily relies on Example 1 as evidence for the method by which its scaffold is made. But the disclosure found in paragraph 98 is not a “distinct” teaching of the type described in Net MoneyIN; rather, it is a general description of the structures that may be created by Johnson’s method: “A scaffold may comprise any number of layers, including about 1 layer, about 2 layers, about 3 layers, about 4 layers, about 5 layers, and so on.” Ex. 1009 ¶ 98. Patent Owner has not directed us to anything in the disclosure of Johnson that indicates that this is a “distinct” teaching or embodiment, instead of a general description of the types of scaffolds that Johnson encompasses. We see no reason why the general disclosures regarding Johnson’s scaffolds should be limited to specific embodiments, or precluded from applying to the method of Example 1.” slip op. at 14

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We are unconvinced by Petitioner’s arguments and evidence. While we recognize that the range of claim 3 is very broad, and it is possible that scaffolds having fiber diameters as set forth in Johnson could have a mean pore size falling within the range, inherency “may not be established by probabilities or possibilities.” Par Pharm., Inc. v. Twi Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor does Petitioner sufficiently explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the process of Example 1 to necessarily result in the claimed mean pore size. We are also persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Boland 2005’s disclosure of a fiber diameter similar to Johnson’s that nevertheless falls outside the claimed mean pore size range. We note that Petitioner never addresses Boland 2005 in its Reply. 4. Conclusion as to Anticipation For these reasons, we find that Petitioner has met its burden of showing that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 13 are anticipated by Johnson, but has failed to meet its burden as to claim 3.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 10,632,228 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,632,228
• Satco Products, Inc. v. The Regents Of The University Of CaliforniaAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 4, 2022 · IPR2021-00662 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable as obvious over Yamazaki, Schubert, and Tadatomo; the Board did not reach the other asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been knowledgeable regarding conventional designs and fabrication techniques pertaining to LEDs, including LED package designs, and would have had at least 2 years of experience in LED design and fabrication as well as at least a master’s degree in a relevant field (e.g., chemical engineering, materials engineering, or electrical engineering), or alternatively would have an equivalent combination of advanced education and practical experience.” Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1035 ¶¶ 27–29). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. We have reviewed Petitioner’s proposal and find it reasonable and consistent with the prior art, and apply it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 14

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

    “Third, and most significantly, Petitioner points to Shimizu, a patent filed in 1999, as repeatedly referring to phosphor as a garnet-based fluorescent material. Reply 3 (citing Pet. 27; Ex. 1013, 10:16–13:50). We agree that Shimizu appears to use the two terms interchangeably. For example, Shimizu states that “[t]he phosphor is specifically garnet fluorescent material” and “the fluorescent material is preferably yttrium- aluminum-garnet fluorescent material (YAG phosphor) activated with cerium.” Ex. 1013, 10:17–30. Patent Owner does not dispute this reading of Shimizu, but argues instead that it is “impermissible to rely on an entirely different reference” in a Reply. See Sur-Reply 4–5 (citing Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). For the same reasons discussed above, we do not agree that Petitioner’s use of Shimizu is improper, but is instead a proper response to Patent Owner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood Yamazaki to disclose phosphor. Ariosa, relied upon by Patent Owner, confirms that the Board should consider an exhibit “for what it show[s] about the background knowledge that a skilled artisan would have possessed.” Ariosa, 805 F.3d at 1365 (“The Board’s language on its face supports Ariosa’s interpretation of what the Board meant—that the Board was declining to consider Exhibit 1010, even as evidence of the background understanding of skilled artisans as of January 2010, simply because the brochure had not been identified at the petition stage as one of the pieces of prior art defining a combination for obviousness. If that is what the Board meant, the Board erred. Art can legitimately serve to document the knowledge that skilled artisans would bring to bear in reading the prior art identified as producing obviousness.”). The Petition relies on Shimizu to show such background understanding. Pet. 27. Specifically, the Petition states that conventional LEDs “were made using the III-nitride material system, with semiconductor layers formed on sapphire substrates and combined with YAG phosphors to efficiently generate white light output.” Id. (citing Ex. 1013, 10:30–11:35). Thus, Shimizu is properly objective evidence supporting a finding that at least as early as 1999, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have used the terms “phosphor” and “fluorescent material” interchangeably. Moreover, Dr. Schubert’s textbook published in 2018 explicitly references Shimizu. Ex. 1039, 3-4. In this context, we find that Dr. Schubert’s textbook and testimony indicate that a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the relevant time, would have understood the terms to be interchangeable.” slip op. at 20

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

    “Based on the complete record, Petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found the sapphire growth substrate obvious in light of Yamazaki’s disclosure. Petitioner cites Schubert to show an ordinarily skilled artisan’s knowledge about conventional blue LEDs as disclosed in Yamazaki, i.e., that “conventional blue LEDs were III-nitride-based LEDs that commonly included sapphire growth substrates.” See Pet. 71–72, 76–77; Ex. 1007 ¶ 27 (stating the disclosed light-emitting chip “is of a publicly known structure”); Ex. 1008, 166 (discussing “commonly used sapphire and SiC substrates”). We credit Dr. Dupuis’ testimony that is consistent with the prior art of record. Ex. 1035 ¶¶ 238, 248–251 (citing Ex. 1008, 166); Ex. 1007 ¶ 27; Ex. 1009, 1:10–17, 4:61–67; Ex. 1012, 243; Ex. 2013, 10:30–11:35. We are not persuaded otherwise by the deposition testimony of Dr. Dupuis pointed to by Patent Owner. PO Resp. 44 (citing Ex. 2016, 53:7– 12). This testimony confirms that Schubert does not explicitly discuss whether the sapphire growth substrate is included in an LED package. Id. (citing Ex. 2016, 53:7–12). However, Patent Owner does not dispute that sapphire growth substrates were commonly used (as confirmed by Schubert) or that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected a blue LED to include a sapphire growth substrate. See PO Resp. 42–43 (stating only that sapphire is one among several materials that could be used as a growth substrate); Sur-Reply 9–10 (same). Petitioner is not required to show that the proposed combination would have been preferred over other alternatives. Infineum USA L.P. v. Chevron Oronite Co. LLC, No. 2020-1333, 2022 WL 3147683, at *6 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 8, 2022) (“We have rejected the notion that a patent challenger seeking to demonstrate obviousness must prove that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to select one prior art disclosure over another.”); In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[O]ur case law does not require that a particular combination must be the preferred, or the most desirable, combination described in the prior art in order to provide motivation for the current invention.”). Instead, the question is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the disclosure of Yamazaki, in light of the disclosure in Schubert, to teach or suggest the sapphire growth substrate limitation. As discussed above, persuasive evidence in the record establishes that this is true.” slip op. at 38

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

    “offered to show that the ’213 patent solved a long-felt, but unresolved need in the field and the merits of the challenged claims. See PO Resp. 67–68. First, Patent Owner has not shown a presumption of nexus because none of the cited evidence involves any particular product. Second, Patent Owner 22 Exhibit 2111 is a redacted version of Exhibit 2105. has not established that the any long-felt need resulted directly from the unique characteristics of the claimed subject matter. Other than a general statement that the technology addressed by the ’213 patent is a continuation of Dr. Nakamura’s prize-winning work (see Ex. 2112 ¶ 231), we see no evidence in the record that the subject matter recited by claims 1 and 2 of the ’213 patent, itself, solved the need for a more efficient LED without a heat sink or mirrors. See PO Resp. 65–66; Sur-Reply 23–24.” slip op. at 46

  Patent outcomesUS 10,644,213 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,644,213
• Eve Energy Co., Ltd. v. Varta Microbattery GmbHNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 8, 2022 · IPR2021-00474 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 13 was not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not establish a reason to modify Brown; challenges to claims 1–12 and the contingent motion to amend were dismissed as moot.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “In the Decision on Institution, we determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’581 patent is a person holding a bachelor’s degree in engineering (mechanical, electrical or chemical), general science, materials science or the equivalent and 3-4 years of work experience with electrochemical cell packaging systems. DI 8 (adopting Petitioner’s proposed definition). For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we maintain our determination from the Decision on Institution because neither party disputes that determination and because the level of skill is consistent with the record. See PO Resp. 5 (stating that “[t]he claims are patentable regardless of which definition is used.”); see generally Pet. Reply.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner contends that the terms of the challenged claims should be given their ordinary and customary meaning, but does not state with specificity what the ordinary and customary meaning of any term may be. Pet. 17. In our Decision on Institution, we interpreted Petitioner’s position to be that no claim term of the ’581 patent requires express construction, and Petitioner did not disagree with this understanding during trial. Patent Owner agreed that no claim term required construction beyond its plain and ordinary meaning. PO Resp. 6. We agree that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of resolving the dispute between the parties. See Nidec Motor,868 F.3d at 1017; Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803 (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 13

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

    “the output conductor of a battery cell appears “simple” and that the proposed modification to Brown may be one of a small set of possible options. But that does not remove Petitioner’s obligation to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had some reason to make the modification to the prior art that has been proposed. Requiring a petitioner to articulate a reason to modify the prior art guards against hindsight evaluation of a modification which may only appear obvious after the fact. For this reason, the Supreme Court has noted that “there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness,” and that “[t]o facilitate review, this analysis should be made explicit.” See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Here, after evaluating the entirety of the factual record adduced at trial, we cannot conclude that Petitioner has set forth a sufficiently supported reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Brown. First, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s articulated goal of maximizing the volume of active material in the cell is undercut by the modification it proposes. As Petitioner’s expert Mr. Juzkow admitted, relocating Brown’s output conductor to the bottom of the cell would reduce the volume available for active material by approximately one percent. While we do not disregard Mr. Juzkow’s subsequent testimony that other modifications to Brown’s cell (such as removal of the central screw cavity) could compensate for this loss in volume, the fact remains that Petitioner did not propose these additional modifications in the Petition. It is incumbent on Petitioner to set forth all modifications to the prior art it plans to rely on, and justify why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to make them, so that we may fully evaluate whether it would have been obvious to do so. In any event, even if we were to accept Mr. Juzkow’s late assertion of other modifications that could be used to compensate for the loss in volume of active material, the fact remains that it is these other modifications that would be serving the motivation proposed by Petitioner of maximizing the volume of active material; relocating the output conductor would have no positive effect towards this modification. Thus, we conclude that Petitioner’s expressed motivation of maximizing active material volume has no rational relationship to the modification of Brown that is central to its Petition, of relocating the output conductor from the side of the casing to the bottom.” slip op. at 24

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsNot reached

    “propose substitute claims 26–38 in the event that we determined original claims 1–13 to be unpatentable. MTA 4. Original claims 1–12 are no longer at issue in this proceeding, having been canceled and replaced by substitute claims 14–25 via a granted Motion to Amend in IPR2020-01211. And we have found that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of 13 Although not raised in briefing by either party, we have also evaluated whether estoppel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i) would require a finding of unpatentability of claim 13 in light of our prior determination in IPR2020- 01211 that claims 1–12 are unpatentable. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i) (“A patent applicant or owner is precluded from . . . obtaining in any patent: A claim that is not patentably distinct from a finally refused or canceled claim.”). We conclude that it does not. The Board has previously held that defending the patentability of a previously-issued claim in an inter partes review does not qualify as “obtaining in a patent” that claim, and therefore patent owner estoppel does not apply in this situation. See Apple Inc. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc., IPR2015-00458, Paper 9, 8 (PTAB July 15, 2015). the evidence that claim 13 is unpatentable. The contingency on which Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend is based, therefore, has not occurred. We dismiss the Motion to Amend as moot.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 9,496,581 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,496,581
• Fluid Energy Group Ltd. v. Green Products And Technologies, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 5, 2022 · IPR2021-00357 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 were not shown unpatentable: the asserted obviousness combinations failed to establish claim 1’s required removal of cementitious material from a distinct surface, and the precise limitations of claims 5 and 6.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s argument, that “[p]roviding a composition does not require understanding the nuances of each chemical contained therein,” is flawed. Sur-reply 1. To determine whether a claim is unpatentable for obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, we consider “the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2006); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). Here, Patent Owner acknowledges that “[t]he primary difference between known methods and the claimed invention of the ’912 Patent is a novel composition that solved problems associated with the previously used prior art compositions.” Sur-reply 11. Further, the specification informs that “[o]ne of skill in the art will recognize that these compositions are not intended to be limiting, and variations in ingredients and proportions can be made without departing from the spirit of the invention.” Ex. 1001, 3:13–16. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s view that an ordinarily skilled artisan would only need to rely on pre-formulated cleaning compositions and reported safety information, without “their own chemical knowledge,” is inconsistent with the disclosure of the ’912 patent. Sur-reply 2–3. An ordinarily skilled artisan, as required by the ’912 patent, would understand the nuances of the chemicals required by the terms of the claims. Therefore, we find that Petitioner’s definition, on this record, is representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art and consistent with the disclosures of the ’912 patent. See Ex. 1001, 3:13–16.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner

    “of intended purpose or use, “can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the [record] to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim” as drafted, taking care to avoid importing “‘extraneous’ limitations from the specification.” MPEP § 2111.02 (9th ed. rev. 10.2019 June 2020) (quoting Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). Particularly, the MPEP explains that: If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Based on the information presented on this record, we determine that nothing in the body of claim 1 supports a determination that the “cleaning” clause of the preamble represents an additional method step of the claimed invention. Ex. 1001, 3:23–24. To the contrary, the body of the claim fully and completely sets forth all of the required method steps of the invention, as well as the components of the required composition. See id. at 3:25–4:2. Specifically, independent claim 1 comprises three method-step limitations, namely, “providing a composition,” “applying the composition to a surface,” and “removing the composition . . . from the surface.” Id. Those limitations, taken together, indicate that the preamble’s mention of “cleaning” is a non-limiting intended use of the composition specified in the body of the claim.” slip op. at 12

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

    “To be clear, claim 1 requires removing a “released cementitious material” from “a surface.” Id. at 3:28–4:2. Petitioner provides no persuasive reason why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood the term “cementitious material” to include “an efflorescence”—indeed, as just noted, the ’912 patent expressly distinguishes those two materials. Id. at 2:59–61. Claim 1 does not broadly encompass a step of removing a released efflorescence from a cementitious material, but is limited to by its plain terms to removing a “released cementitious material” from “a surface.” Id. at 3:28–4:2; see also id. at 2:61–62 (distinguishing “an efflorescence” from “cementitious materials”). In a nutshell, the claim language does not explicitly or implicitly support a construction that broadly encompasses a method of “applying the composition to a surface” of a cementitious material to “release” an efflorescense (id. at 3:28–29), even though one embodiment seems to allow for such use (id. at 2:38–39, 2:59–61). Taking account of the totality of the information presented, we determine that construing “surface” and “cementitious material” using the examples in the majority of the embodiments provided in the ’912 patent specification is necessary to “tether the claims to what the specification[] indicate[s] the inventor actually invented.” Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 653 F.3d 1296, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In doing so, we adopt “[t]he construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention . . . [which] in the end, [is] the correct construction.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. Accordingly, on this record, we construe claim 1, and each other challenged claim through dependence from claim 1, to require a step of applying a composition to “a surface” structurally separate and distinct from the “cementitious material” that is released and removed “from the surface.” Id. at 3:28–4:2.” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Sargent discloses “that urea hydrochloride is an inexpensive and useful agent for the removal of the build-up of water-insoluble metal salts on surfaces, and the dissolution of water-insoluble metal salt dispersions or suspensions.” Resp. 21–22 (quoting Ex. 1006, 2:3–6). Although the background section of the ’912 patent describes the “removal of water-insoluble cementitious and lime materials” as “a difficult process,” Petitioner directs us to no evidence sufficient to establish that calcium carbonate is “a cementitious material” within the meaning of claim 1. Ex. 1001, 1:13–14, 3:28–29; see Pet. 22; Reply 14 (totality of Petitioner’s information on point). Instead, in conclusory fashion, Petitioner simply assumes that Sargent’s disclosure of “water-insoluble metal salt dispersions or suspensions” and “calcium carbonate” constitute “cementitious material” within the scope of claim 1. Reply 14; see Pet. 22 (relying on Sargent’s disclosure of the removal of “calcium carbonate”); see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 103 (conclusory opinion cited at Pet. 22 and Reply 14). Further, Petitioner assumes that the “applying” and “removing” steps of claim 1 are satisfied by Sargent’s application of a composition “to a surface of a cementitious material to release a portion of the cementitious material therefrom.” Pet. 16 (Petitioner’s emphasis). Specifically, Petitioner argues that Sargent teaches the removal of released cementitious material from the surface because an ordinarily skilled artisan “would understand that a result of Sargent’s rinsing process is to remove the composition by rinsing with water, which will also release at least a portion of any cementitious material, such as calcium carbonate, dissolved from the surface.” Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1006, 6:57–7:2; Ex. 1003 ¶ 103). For reasons explained above in our claim construction analysis, however, we construe claim 1 to require application of the composition to a surface distinct from the cementitious material being removed from the surface. See supra II.C.2. As Patent Owner contends, “It would be absurd to hold that cleaning a surface involves removing the surface from the surface,” because “[t]he background section of the ’912 Patent clearly contemplates that surfaces to be cleaned include surfaces of vehicles and that it is undesirable to ‘damage the target surface.’” Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:46). As explained above, we do not give limiting effect to the preamble of” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 7,938,912 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,938,912
• Applied Materials, Inc. / Intel Corporation et al. v. Demaray LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 29, 2022 · IPR2021-01031 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–21 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not establish that the prior art taught or suggested the claimed narrow band-rejection filter or a sufficient reason to add one.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “In our Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, except that we deleted the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the appropriate amount of relevant experience. Inst. Dec. 10 (noting that the qualifier expands the range without an upper bound, i.e., encompassing an unlimited amount of years of experience, and thus, does not meaningfully indicate the level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 10

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

    “Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner assert that construction of any claim term is required to resolve any issues in dispute. See Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 54); PO Resp. 10–11.” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportNot reached

    “patent. Petitioner, who bears the burden to show Hirose is prior art, asserts that Hirose qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because Hirose’s filing date of July 18, 2001 is before the March 16, 2002 effective filing date of the ’657 patent. See Pet. 5. Patent Owner responds that Hirose does not qualify as prior art to the ’657 patent because the inventors of the ’657 patent conceived and reduced to practice the ’657 invention on or before Hirose’s filing date of July 18, 2001, likely as early as June 13, 2001. PO Resp. 12. To support this position, Patent Owner provides argument and evidence relating to the conception of the subject matter recited in claims 1–8 and 10–21. Id. at 15– 39. An inventor may antedate a § 102(e) reference by showing that the invention was conceived before the effective date of the reference, followed by reasonably continuous diligence until the constructive reduction to practice. Monsanto Co. v. Mycogen Plant Sci., Inc., 261 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Evidence of such conception and reduction to practice must be provided on a claim-by-claim basis.” slip op. at 18

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Dr. Glew’s testimony that Hong, like Barber, does not suggest that a filter is required to protect a DC power source applied to a target from an RF power source applied to substrate. Ex. 2009 ¶ 152. We further agree that, rather than supporting Petitioner’s position, Hong supports Patent Owner’s position that at the time of the invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have thought that RF coupling into a remote pulsed DC power source was a concern or that it would have been desirable to place a filter between the DC power source and the substrate. Id. ¶ 153.” slip op. at 39

  Patent outcomesUS 7,381,657 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,381,657

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.