• Apple Inc. v. Masa LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 11, 2017 · IPR2016-00748 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 6–14 are unpatentable: Acharya anticipates them, and Sweeney combined with Acharya renders them obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “1. “Selector Option Switch” Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art would construe the claim term “selector option switch” as excluding touch screen input devices, because the Specification of the ’834 patent describes a touch screen selector as a substitute for the selector option switch. Pet. 13–14. Patent Owner does not propose further construction of this term. PO Resp. 16. We agree with Petitioner that the broadest reasonable construction of the “selector option switch,” when read in light of the Specification of the ’834 patent, excludes touch screen input devices, because the Specification describes the touch screen selector as a substitute, not as an alternative, for the selector option switch. Ex. 1001, 4:7–9 (“Alternatively, the selector option switch 56 and confirming option switch 62 may be substituted with touch screen selector and confirming options respectively.”). We construe “selector option switch” to exclude touch screen input devices.” slip op. at 6

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

    “2. “Coupled” Patent Owner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art would construe the claim term “coupled” as “connected, directly or indirectly.” PO Resp. 18. Petitioner agrees. Reply 2. Accordingly, we construe the claim term “coupled” to encompass at least a direct connection or an indirect connection.” slip op. at 7

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

    “until the called party is available does not constitute storing an incoming call or text is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Claim 6 does not limit the first electronic signal to an incoming call or text message. Rather, claim 6 recites a “memory unit further configured to store said first electronic signal.” Column 2 of Acharya discloses that “the portable control device processes the invitation . . . [by] holding the invitation for a specified period of time” (Ex. 1007, 2:48–59), which describes a “memory unit further configured to store said first electronic signal” as recited in claim 6.” slip op. at 15

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

    “Patent Owner contends Petitioner or its expert did not provide any reason why a person of ordinary skill would have sought to combine particular available elements to reach the claimed invention. PO Resp. 52– 54. According to Patent Owner, Acharya does not suggest a need for transmitting date and time information, or for transmitting, inter alia, a current local weather signal or a current stock ticker signal. PO Resp. 54– 55. Petitioner contends that Acharya discusses the feasibility and motivation to personalize a device to receive different kinds of signals and informational content. Reply 23 (citing Pet. 25–27). Specifically, Petitioner contends that Acharya teaches providing personalized information such as weather conditions or updates on stock prices. Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1007, 15:51–57, 17:39–58, 18:65–19:38). Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would include information such as weather conditions or updates on stock prices as taught by Acharya in the electronic signals received and displayed by the portable device to achieve the predictable benefit of allowing users to receive personalized information as taught by Acharya. Pet. 27. Petitioner’s showing is persuasive. Petitioner provides several reasons, as outlined above, for modifying Acharya. For example, providing different types of information obviously would have appealed to different users, and would have allowed users to personalize their device. See Pet. 26–27. Based on the foregoing discussion and the record, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the teachings of Acharya render claims 9 and 13 obvious. For independent claims 10 and 14, Petitioner contends persuasively that adding a strap with a buckle fastener to the portable wrist watch device of Acharya would have been obvious because wrist watches commonly have a strap secured to a wearer’s wrist by a buckle in order to secure the device to the wrist. See Pet. 28–29 (citing Ex. 1007, 4:7–13). Based on the foregoing discussion and the record, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the teachings of Acharya render claims 10 and 14 obvious.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 8,519,834 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,519,834
• Sony Mobile Communications Inc. v. SSH Communications Security OyjRehearing denied
  PTAB · Sep 8, 2017 · IPR2015-01869 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving claims 1, 3–8, 10–12, 14–18, 20–23, 25, and 27–29 unpatentable over Shuen and RFC1234, and claim 19 unpatentable over Bellovin.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. ANALYSIS When considering a request for rehearing, we review the Decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the Decision should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes [we] misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2

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

    “mapping for the network address translation” under the Board’s construction of that phrase, i.e., “a property associated with the mapping in which the mapping expires after it has not been used in the translation of a packet for a period of time associated with the mapping,” the Petition cites the following language from Shuen:” slip op. at 5

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Disclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner

    “from various documents into a host document . . . by citing such material in a manner that makes clear that the material is effectively part of the host document as if it were explicitly contained therein.” Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed.Cir.2000) (citations omitted). “To incorporate material by reference, the host document must identify with detailed particularity what specific material it incorporates and clearly indicate where that material is found in the various documents.” Id. (citations omitted). Whether and to what extent material has been incorporated by reference into a host document is a question of law. Id.” slip op. at 8

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for petitioner

    “Id. at 3 (emphasis omitted). Notably, Patent Owner did not raise this argument (i.e., that Shuen’s “time to live” does not satisfy the recited “time out . . .” under the Board’s construction) in its Patent Owner Response. Patent Owner asserts, however, it “noted this deficiency of Petitioner’s proofs in the January 18, 2017 hearing” and “[t]his deficiency of Shuen was first raised in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response.” Req. Reh’g. 4. However, our rules do not allow Patent Owner to incorporate arguments by reference from its Preliminary Response (see 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference form one document into another document”)), and our Scheduling Order provides that any arguments and evidence not contained in the Patent Owner Response will be “deemed waived” (Paper 9, 3). Petitioner asserted at the oral hearing that the argument was new and, as such, Petitioner did not have a reasonable ability to respond to the argument. Tr. 43:8–14. We determine Patent Owner has waived its argument that Shuen does not disclose the “has not been used” portion of our construction of the phrase “time out of the mapping for the network address translation.”” slip op. at 3

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,544,079
• Avx Corporation v. Samsung Electro-Mechanics Co., Ltd.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Aug 16, 2017 · PGR2017-00010 · APJ Sally C Medley · PGR · Rehearing

  The Board denied AVX’s rehearing request, leaving institution on claims 1–4, 6–11, and 13–19 unchanged because AVX showed no abuse of discretion.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 2

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “with “dielectric grains.” Req. Reh’g 3–4. This is a new argument. We could not have overlooked or misapprehended an argument that was never presented by Petitioner in the first place. A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to submit new arguments. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).1 Petitioner’s rehearing request in this regard is telling, because it never directs us to places in the Petition that we overlooked, but rather takes various disjunctive statements from Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response and Patent Owner’s evidence to contend that we overlooked Patent Owner’s alleged admission of this issue. Req. Reh’g 3–4. The request for rehearing is misplaced because the burden to show the claims are unpatentable is on Petitioner, not Patent Owner. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). Petitioner must put forth its case in its Petition. 1 Petitioner argues that it requested leave to respond to Patent Owner’s arguments made in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response in a sur-reply, but that we denied that request. Req. Reh’g 3; Paper 9. Petitioner’s implicit due process argument is misplaced. It is incumbent upon Petitioner to make its case in its Petition. Petitioner cannot rely on a sur-reply to fix what should have been in the Petition.” slip op. at 3

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “with “dielectric grains.” Req. Reh’g 3–4. This is a new argument. We could not have overlooked or misapprehended an argument that was never presented by Petitioner in the first place. A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to submit new arguments. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).1 Petitioner’s rehearing request in this regard is telling, because it never directs us to places in the Petition that we overlooked, but rather takes various disjunctive statements from Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response and Patent Owner’s evidence to contend that we overlooked Patent Owner’s alleged admission of this issue. Req. Reh’g 3–4. The request for rehearing is misplaced because the burden to show the claims are unpatentable is on Petitioner, not Patent Owner. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). Petitioner must put forth its case in its Petition.” slip op. at 3

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityNot reached

    “capacitors be proven to be prior art. Req. Reh’g 7–9. Rather, Petitioner argues, “it was not necessary to prove that the Group 39 capacitors themselves were prior art, only that they faithfully represent products made, offered for sale, and/or sold before the priority date.” Id. at 7. Petitioner’s argument is misplaced because we considered the Group 39 capacitors and representations made by Petitioner with respect to the Group 39 capacitors. Indeed, it was Petitioner that asserted in its Petition that “the Group 39 capacitors that were in on sale, sold, and in public use before the effective filing date of the ’381 patent.” Pet. 65. Thus, we did not err in addressing Petitioner’s own argument when we explained that Petitioner had failed to show that the Group 39 capacitors, purchased four years after the effective filing date of the ’381 patent, was prior art. Dec. 28–30.” slip op. at 4

  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 9,326,381
• Sony Mobile Communications Inc. v. SSH Communications Security OyjAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 20, 2017 · IPR2015-01869 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–32 are unpatentable: claims 1–3, 5–10, 12–16, 18–20, 22–27, and 29–32 as obvious over Bellovin; claims 1, 3–8, 10–12, 14–18, 20–23, 25, and 27–29 over Shuen and RFC 1234.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in an inter partes review proceeding). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, claim terms generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).” slip op. at 5

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “III. PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE Patent Owner moves to exclude Ex. 1040 cited by Petitioner in its Petitioner’s Reply as hearsay and as irrelevant. Mot. to Exclude 1. Petitioner relies on Ex. 1040 to support its obviousness case by stating “[i]n a co-pending action in the United Kingdom, the Patents Court found similar claims of related EP(UK) 2 254 311 invalid.” Pet. Reply 1 n.1. This issue is moot because this Final Written Decision does not cite to or rely upon Ex. 1040 or the Petitioner’s statement quoted above regarding Ex. 1040. For that reason, we do not address the matter on the merits and dismiss Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude as moot.” slip op. at 48

  • Skill levelOther

    “differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 17

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner

    “specification and prosecution history. Cuozzo, 136 S. Ct. at 2144–46. There are, however, two distinct exceptions. The first is the circumstance in which a patentee sets forth a definition by acting as his own lexicographer. Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed.Cir.2012) (citation omitted). The second is the circumstance in which a patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution. Id.; see also PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 734, 745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing disavowal as an exception to the broadest reasonable interpretation standard). Here, Patent Owner relies on several embodiments in the Specification and the knowledge of its Declarant, but does not cite to sufficient evidence: 1) of the patentee becoming a lexicographer defining a NAT as bidirectional between two “realms,” or 2) of a clear disavowal of a NAT which translates addresses in a single direction or operates in a single “realm.”” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 8,544,079 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,544,079
• Shenzhen Liown Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Disney Enterprises, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 7, 2017 · IPR2015-01657 · APJ William M Fink · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5–8, 19, 26, 27, and 31–36 are unpatentable as obvious over Schnuckle ’455 with Meeker or Physics Lab.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We find these “definitions” to be substantially similar. For example, both require at least a mechanical engineering degree and experience varying between “some,” in Dr. Brown’s opinion, and “one to three years,” in Dr. Delson’s opinion. Given this apparent lack of disagreement, we adopt Dr. Delson’s statement of the level of ordinary skill for purposes of this Decision, but we note that our analysis would be the same under either formulation.” slip op. at 6

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDisclaimer foundDecided for petitioner

    “By teaching that the “present description” solves the problems associated with the prior art candle devices because it is driven by “real but chaotic movements,” the patentee disclaims devices driven by rhythmic or metronomic patterns. Id. at 1354. Thus, the Federal Circuit started the paragraph by stating that the specification disclaimed non-chaotic pivoting, and then, after reviewing the ’166 patent specification evidence, concluded that this meant the patentee disclaims devices driven by rhythmic or metronomic patterns. We discern no suggestion by the Federal Circuit that it believed the disclaimer of chaotic pivoting to require more than not being driven by rhythmic or metronomic patterns such that Patent Owner’s mathematical definition of chaos is required.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Although unsupported, we have considered whether replacing the entire gimbal would destroy the principle of operation, and we find that it would not. As discussed above, replacing the two-axis gimbal in Figure 12 with Meeker’s support wire would eliminate one of the two axes of rotation. Thus, the replacement would involve trade-offs, but, in this case, the trade-offs would be similar to those already contemplated by Schnuckle ’455. See also In re Urbanski, 809 F.3d 1237, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (agreeing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to pursue the desirable qualities taught by one reference at the expense of foregoing the benefit taught by another reference). For example, at a high level, all embodiments of Schnuckle ’455, even the single-axis embodiment of Figure 7, are designed to provide a realistic flame effect. See Ex. 1003, 2:1–3 (“[R]otation of the at least one channel about at least one axis of the mount creates an artificial flickering flame on the flame shaped surface.”). Given these teachings, and Patent Owner’s failure to explain why Meeker’s structure would have undermined or destroyed the principle of operation of Schnuckle ’455, we do not find that the proposed combination would have destroyed Schnuckle ’455’s principle of operation. See In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012). As to the rationale for combining, Schnuckle ’455 and Meeker, based on reducing the number of components and reducing the possibility of the wire support slipping off the ring, Patent Owner’s arguments are again based on keeping parts of the gimbal structure, which is not the proposal. See PO Resp. 24 (“If Schnuckle’s gimbal is kept even partially intact, modification of the gimbal would be even more costly and require the same number of parts. (Ex. 2010, Brown Decl. ¶¶ 99, 129.)”). Dr. Brown makes similar statements in his Declaration. See Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 99, 129. Petitioner’s cost and reliability rationales, based on replacing the entire gimbal, remain unrebutted. We find Petitioner’s reasons for combining Schnuckle ’455 and Meeker to be based on rational underpinnings. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” slip op. at 28

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

    “Although unsupported, we have considered whether replacing the entire gimbal would destroy the principle of operation, and we find that it would not. As discussed above, replacing the two-axis gimbal in Figure 12 with Meeker’s support wire would eliminate one of the two axes of rotation. Thus, the replacement would involve trade-offs, but, in this case, the trade-offs would be similar to those already contemplated by Schnuckle ’455. See also In re Urbanski, 809 F.3d 1237, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (agreeing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to pursue the desirable qualities taught by one reference at the expense of foregoing the benefit taught by another reference). For example, at a high level, all embodiments of Schnuckle ’455, even the single-axis embodiment of Figure 7, are designed to provide a realistic flame effect. See Ex. 1003, 2:1–3 (“[R]otation of the at least one channel about at least one axis of the mount creates an artificial flickering flame on the flame shaped surface.”). Given these teachings, and Patent Owner’s failure to explain why Meeker’s structure would have undermined or destroyed the principle of operation of Schnuckle ’455, we do not find that the proposed combination would have destroyed Schnuckle ’455’s principle of operation. See In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012). As to the rationale for combining, Schnuckle ’455 and Meeker, based on reducing the number of components and reducing the possibility of the wire support slipping off the ring, Patent Owner’s arguments are again based on keeping parts of the gimbal structure, which is not the proposal. See PO Resp. 24 (“If Schnuckle’s gimbal is kept even partially intact, modification of the gimbal would be even more costly and require the same number of parts. (Ex. 2010, Brown Decl. ¶¶ 99, 129.)”). Dr. Brown makes similar statements in his Declaration. See Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 99, 129. Petitioner’s cost and reliability rationales, based on replacing the entire gimbal, remain unrebutted. We find Petitioner’s reasons for combining Schnuckle ’455 and Meeker to be based on rational underpinnings. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 8,534,869 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,534,869
• Shenzhen Liown Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Disney Enterprises, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 7, 2017 · IPR2015-01658 · APJ William M Fink · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 7, 13, 14, 18–20, 22, and 26 are unpatentable on at least one ground; Sandell anticipation of claims 1–3 and Sandell-Hall obviousness of claim 7 were not proven.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We find these “definitions” to be substantially similar. For example, both require at least a mechanical engineering degree and experience varying between “some,” in Dr. Brown’s opinion, and “one to three years,” in Dr. Delson’s opinion. Given this apparent lack of disagreement, we adopt 7 U.S. Patent No. 782,156, issued Feb. 7, 1905 (Ex. 1009) (“Meeker”). 8 U.S. Patent No. 4,551,794, issued Nov. 5, 1985 (Ex. 1010) (“Sandell”). 9 U.S. Patent No. 1,842,167, issued Jan. 19, 1932 (Ex. 1011) (“Hall”). Dr. Delson’s statement of the level of ordinary skill for purposes of this Decision, but we note that our analysis would be the same under either formulation.” slip op. at 6

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

    “1. “flame silhouette element” In the Decision to Institute, we construed the term “flame silhouette element,” recited in at least claims 1 and 26, as “a body of material having a shape that is suitable to generate a flame flickering effect.” Inst. Dec. 9. In their respective Response and Reply, neither party disputes the preliminary construction of this term. Accordingly, we see no reason to change our construction, which we based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the Specification.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer foundPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “We determine that the Federal Circuit’s statement of the disclaimer of “non-chaotic pivoting” and devices “driven by rhythmic and metronomic patterns,” Luminara, 814 F.3d at 1353–54, is sufficiently specific to determine the scope of the term “pivot” in claim 1 and “pivotally supported” in claim 13.13 Accordingly, we apply the Federal Circuit’s construction that the plain and ordinary meaning of “pivot” and “pivotally supported” applies, 13 We have also considered Patent Owner’s Motion for Observations (Paper 37), which are substantially directed at obtaining admissions from Petitioner’s declarant in support of its proposed construction of chaotic pivoting (or that Schnuckle ’455 does not disclose chaotic pivoting based on this construction). See id. at 6–13. Although we have considered Patent Owner’s observations, we do not find them persuasive for the reasons explained herein. except that non-chaotic pivoting and devices driven by rhythmic and metronomic patterns are disclaimed.” slip op. at 17

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

    “consider whether Schnuckle ’455 sufficiently discloses the pivot (or pivotally supported) limitation given the disclaimer of non-chaotic pivoting and devices driven by rhythmic and metronomic patterns. As noted above, the Federal Circuit specifically determined, at least as a preliminary matter, that Schnuckle ’455 seemed to meet this claim requirement with its discussion of a two-axis gimbal articulated by “chaotic forces” that can articulate the flame element to “randomly simulate blowing in the wind. ’455 patent, col. 6, ll. 53–62.” Luminara, 814 F.3d at 1354. We agree with the Federal Circuit’s preliminary determination. Although Patent Owner observes that “‘chaotic’ describes the ‘external or internal force’––i.e., the force entering the system, not the resulting motion” (PO Resp. 20–21), Patent Owner does not address the fact that this driving force is coupled to resulting motion “simulating blowing in the wind” (Ex. 1003, 6:62) and “provid[ing] a realistic flame effect” (id. at 1:54–58). As such, we agree that this excerpt of Schnuckle ’455 satisfies the chaotic pivoting requirement and is not driven by a “rhythmic or metronomic” driving force. Pet. Reply 4 n.1. Petitioner also cites the discussion of “programmable movement patterns” as additional evidence of this fact. Id. (citing Ex. 1003, 5:52–67 (“The desired movement pattern of the flame shaped surface 326 may be encoded and stored in the memory module 408 of the control board 302 in the form of digital data or control signals.”)). We agree that the column 5 description in Schnuckle ’455 of programmable movement patterns, when viewed against column 6’s description relied upon by the Federal Circuit (Ex. 1003, 6:53–62), suggests the programmed pattern is not rhythmic or metronomic but natural and chaotic.14 Accordingly, we find that Schnuckle ’455 discloses chaotic pivoting as required by claims 1 and 13. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we determine Petitioner has satisfied its burden of proving anticipation based on Schnuckle ’455 against claims 1 and 13 by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 8,696,166 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,696,166
• Shenzhen Liown Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Disney Enterprises, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 6, 2017 · IPR2015-01656 · APJ William M Fink · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 5 are anticipated by Schnuckle ’455, and claims 1–5 are unpatentable as obvious over Schnuckle ’455.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner

    “30, 2013) (Paper 26) (precedential as to Section III.A) squarely address Patent Owner’s argument. In LG, the Board determined that a proceeding was time-barred even though the prior case (in which a complaint was served more than one year prior to the Petition) was dismissed with prejudice in part and without prejudice in part. Id. at 6. Because even a partial dismissal with prejudice did not leave the parties in the position that they would have been in had the prior complaint never been brought, the Board found the exception to § 315(b) for prior complaints dismissed without prejudice did not apply. Id. In Oracle, by contrast, the facts are similar to those alleged here. Specifically, a petitioner was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the challenged patent more than one year before the petition the proceeding was filed. Id. at 15. That suit was dismissed without prejudice. Id. at 16–17. Applying the Federal Circuit decisions in Graves and Bonneville, the Board determined that “the dismissal of the infringement suit . . . nullifies the effect of the service of the complaint and, as a consequence, does not bar [Petitioner] or any of the other Petitioners from pursuing an inter partes review.” Id. at 17. As with Oracle, Patent Owner here concedes the 2012 case was dismissed without prejudice and does not allege any circumstances that would tend to show the parties are not in the position they were in had the complaint never been served. Accordingly, we find Oracle is controlling under the circumstances alleged in this proceeding.” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We find these “definitions” to be substantially similar. For example, both require at least a mechanical engineering degree and experience varying between “some,” in Dr. Brown’s opinion, and “one to three years,” in Dr. Delson’s opinion. Given this apparent lack of disagreement, we adopt Dr. Delson’s statement of the level of ordinary skill for purposes of this Decision, but we note that our analysis would be the same under either formulation.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “based interpretation of the disclaimer addressed by the Federal Circuit, we also consider whether Patent Owner’s construction of “pivotally mounted” (i.e., requiring three, independent, non-linear types of motions that must not be controlled or modulated) is appropriate. See PO Resp. 12–13. We conclude it is not. Though preliminary, the Federal Circuit specifically rejected this reading both before and after determining that non-chaotic pivoting is disclaimed. Luminara, 814 F.3d at 1352–53 (rejecting the district court’s construction that “free to pivot” requires “movement that is more than rotation around two axes”; “Pivoting includes rotation around a single axis.”), 1354 (finding that “[t]he [Schnuckle] ’455 patent undisputedly teaches pivoting in two axes” and the “final limitation in claim 1 of the ’166 patent—chaotic movement—seems to be met . . . in the prior art [Schnuckle] ’455 patent.”). We agree with the Federal Circuit’s analysis, because it is consistent with the intrinsic evidence. Conversely, Patent Owner’s proposed construction contradicts the intrinsic evidence in other respects. For example, claim 17 has a limitation directed to both pivoting (i.e. “allowing the pendulum to pivot about the hole on the support wire”) and “chaotic motion at the coupling member in at least two dimensions.” Ex. 1001, 23:28–30 (emphasis added). By requiring chaotic motion in at least two dimensions (as on a single-axis), the claims suggest chaotic motion nominally includes motion in even one dimension, as in up or down or side to side. On the other hand, interpreting the specification disclaimer of “chaotic pivoting” for purposes of claim 1 to require three, independent nonlinear types of motion, as Patent Owner argues, would lead to the incompatible result that claim 17, which requires movement in only two dimensions, would cover devices that are disclaimed by the specification.” slip op. at 17

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

    “consider whether Schnuckle ’455 sufficiently discloses the pivotally mounted limitation given the disclaimer of non-chaotic pivoting and devices driven by rhythmic and metronomic patterns. As noted above, the Federal Circuit specifically determined, at least as a preliminary matter, that Schnuckle ’455 seemed to meet this claim requirement with its discussion of a two-axis gimbal articulated by “chaotic forces” that can articulate the flame element to “randomly simulat[e] blowing in the wind. ’455 patent, col. 6, ll. 53–62.” Luminara, 814 F.3d at 1354. We agree with the Federal Circuit’s preliminary determination. Petitioner, relying on Dr. Delson’s testimony, also states the disclosure of driving with “natural and chaotic forces” “simulating blowing in the wind” is not a “rhythmic or metronomic” driving force in accordance with the disclaimer. Pet. Reply 20 (citing Ex. 1019 ¶¶ 19–27). Petitioner cites the discussion of “programmable movement patterns” as additional evidence of this fact. Id. (citing Ex. 1003, 5:52–67 (“The desired movement pattern of the flame shaped surface 326 may be encoded and stored in the memory module 408 of the control board 302 in the form of digital data or control signals.”); Ex. 1019 ¶¶ 25–26 (explaining that exciting electromagnets according to digital data can produce chaotic motion)). Patent Owner interprets this excerpt differently, arguing that because “the movement pattern of the flame shaped surface 326 may be encoded and stored in the memory module 408 of the control board 302 in the form of digital data or control signals,” Schnuckle ’455 admits the gimbal of Figure 7 does not move naturally. PO Resp. 21 (quoting Ex. 1003, 5:53–56; Ex. 2010 ¶ 141). We disagree. Nothing in the column 5 excerpt of Schnuckle ’455 suggests memory is programmed with rhythmic or metronomic patterns. Rather, column 5 explains how the electromagnets 316 are excited according to the data programmed into the memory module. See Ex. 1003, 5:54–63. This column 5 description is informed by column 6’s explanation that magnetism articulates the light pipe (i.e., pendulum) with a “natural and chaotic external . . . force (such as . . . magnetism)” resulting in “simulating blowing in the wind.” See id. at 6:56–63. From these descriptions, the programmed pattern is not rhythmic or metronomic, but is natural and chaotic. We, therefore, find the column 5 description consistent with the column 6 description relied upon by the Federal Circuit (Ex. 1003, 6:53–62).5 This is consistent with Dr. Delson’s testimony (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 57–58; Ex. 1019 ¶ 26), which we credit. Accordingly, we find Schnuckle ’455 discloses chaotic pivoting.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 8,070,319 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,070,319
• Infobionic, Inc. v. Braemar Manufacturing, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 29, 2016 · IPR2015-01679 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13–15, and 17 are anticipated by Sellers; claims 3, 5, 8, 9, 12, 16, and 20–22 are obvious over Sellers and Stutman; claims 18–19 are obvious over …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “location.” See PO Resp. 21–22; Reply 2. On this record, we determine that the claim term “central monitoring device” is not further limited to a device that performs monitoring “during a monitoring session” such that it is able to “respond to patient status . . . when it detects evidence of certain physiologic conditions as they occur.” See PO Resp. 21–22. The Specification uses the term “central monitoring device” in an open-ended manner, and Patent Owner does not identify any lexicographic definition or disclaimer that would limit the claim term “central monitoring device” in the manner it proposes. See PO Resp. 20–22; Tr. 38:1–17. Though Patent Owner cites one dictionary that defines “monitoring” as “constantly checking on a patient’s condition” (Ex. 2021, 930), this definition is overly narrow because the Specification makes clear that monitoring may be performed on a periodic basis. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:2–31, 8:57–64. Moreover, Patent Owner’s other dictionary definition (Ex. 2020, 752) does not reference a patient, or require detecting “physiologic conditions as they occur.” Dr. Fernald’s testimony regarding this claim term (Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 39– 41) is not persuasive because the portions of the Specification he cites do not limit the claim term “central monitoring device” in the manner Patent Owner proposes (see Ex. 2003 ¶ 39 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:10–16, 6:37–42, 7:13–20, 7:52–59, 8:23–38); Tr. 38:1–17), and because Dr. Fernald does not adequately account for the dictionary evidence indicating that the claim term “monitoring” does not require constantly observing a patient’s status (see Ex. 2020, 752). We find persuasive Dr. Stone’s testimony that one of ordinary skill would have understood the portions of the Specification cited by Patent Owner and Dr. Fernald to be non-limiting examples. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 19–32. For the foregoing reasons, on this record, and under the applicable broadest reasonable interpretation standard, we construe “central monitoring device” as “a device that watches, keeps track of, or checks from a central location.” 2.” slip op. at 9

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

    “On this record, and under the applicable broadest reasonable interpretation standard, we determine that the claim term “in communication with” encompasses indirect communications (e.g., communication by way of an intermediate component). We further determine that a processor need not generate a message, or respond to a message, in order to be “in communication with” a separate component. The ’901 Patent Specification uses the term “in communication with” in a broad, open-ended manner. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:13–23, 2:38–44. In addition, Patent Owner does not cite any persuasive intrinsic or extrinsic evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have read the claim term “in communication with” to exclude embodiments in which a processor merely receives information. See PO Resp. 40–43. Nor does Patent Owner cite any persuasive intrinsic or extrinsic evidence that the claim term “in communication with” excludes communication between a processor and a component when the processor is acting as an intermediary between that component and some other component. See id. In addition, Dr. Fernald fails to sufficiently support his conclusion that the claim term “in communication with” excludes such forms of communication. See Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 99–103. 4.” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “On this record, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation concerning the level of ordinary skill in the art because this formulation more accurately describes the subject matter to which the ’901 Patent pertains. Patent Owner’s formulation is unduly narrow because subject matter of the ’901 Patent is not limited to “ECG telemetry devices” or other “remote monitoring and telemetry devices.” The parties do not dispute that Dr. Stone and Dr. Fernald are both qualified to testify about the perspective of one having ordinary skill in the art, regardless of which formulation we adopt. Tr. 24:22–25:3, 62:6–11. The parties also agree that the issues in this case do not turn on the differences between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposed formulations regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 24:13–19, 62:12–21. On this record, we find that both Dr. Stone and Dr. Fernald are qualified to offer expert opinions in this case. The factual findings and legal conclusions set forth below would not have differed had we adopted Patent Owner’s formulation regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. 3.” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Fernald’s testimony regarding this claim term (Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 39– 41) is not persuasive because the portions of the Specification he cites do not limit the claim term “central monitoring device” in the manner Patent Owner proposes (see Ex. 2003 ¶ 39 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:10–16, 6:37–42, 7:13–20, 7:52–59, 8:23–38); Tr. 38:1–17), and because Dr. Fernald does not adequately account for the dictionary evidence indicating that the claim term “monitoring” does not require constantly observing a patient’s status (see Ex. 2020, 752). We find persuasive Dr. Stone’s testimony that one of ordinary skill would have understood the portions of the Specification cited by Patent Owner and Dr. Fernald to be non-limiting examples. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 19–32.” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 6,225,901 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,225,901
• Infobionic, Inc. v. Braemar Manufacturing, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 29, 2016 · IPR2015-01688 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11–16, and 19–23 are anticipated by Sellers; claims 3, 5, 8, 9, 17, and 18 are obvious over Sellers and Stutman; claim 10 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “On this record, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation concerning the level of ordinary skill in the art because this formulation more accurately describes the subject matter to which the ’403 Patent pertains. Patent Owner’s formulation is unduly narrow because subject matter of the ’403 Patent is not limited to “ECG telemetry devices” or other “remote monitoring and telemetry devices.” The parties do not dispute that Dr. Stone and Dr. Fernald are both qualified to testify about the perspective of one having ordinary skill in the art, regardless of which formulation we adopt. Tr. 24:22–25:3, 62:6–11. The parties also agree that the issues in this case do not turn on the differences between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposed formulations regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 24:13–19, 62:12–21. On this record, we find that both Dr. Stone and Dr. Fernald are qualified to offer expert opinions in this case. The factual findings and legal conclusions set forth below would not have differed had we adopted Patent Owner’s formulation regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 16

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “The parties agree that a central monitoring device/service is a device/service that “watch[es], keep[s] track of, or check[s]” on something “from a central location.” See PO Resp. 21; Reply 2. On this record, we determine that the claim term central monitoring device/service is not further limited to a device/service that performs monitoring “during a monitoring session” such that it is able to “respond to patient status . . . when it detects evidence of certain physiologic conditions as they occur.” See PO Resp. 20– 22. The Specification uses the term “central monitoring device” in an openended manner, and Patent Owner does not identify any lexicographic definition or disclaimer that would limit this claim term in the manner it proposes. See PO Resp. 19–22; Tr. 38:1–17. The term “central monitoring service” does not appear in the Specification. Though Patent Owner cites a dictionary that defines “monitoring” as “constant checking on a patient’s condition” (Ex. 2021, 930), this definition is overly narrow because the Specification makes clear monitoring may be performed on a periodic basis. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:6–35, 8:63–9:2. Moreover, Patent Owner’s other dictionary definition (Ex. 2020, 752) does not reference a patient, or require detecting “physiologic conditions as they occur.” Dr. Fernald’s testimony regarding this claim term (Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 39– 41) is not persuasive because the portions of the Specification he cites do not limit the term central monitoring device/service in the manner Patent Owner proposes (see Ex. 2003 ¶ 39 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:14–20, 6:42–47, 7:17–25, 7:57–64, 8:28–42); Tr. 38:1–17), and because Dr. Fernald does not adequately account for the dictionary evidence indicating that the claim term “monitoring” does not require constantly observing a patient’s status (see Ex. 2020, 752). We find persuasive Dr. Stone’s testimony that one of ordinary skill would have understood the portions of the Specification cited by Patent Owner and Dr. Fernald to be non-limiting examples. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 21–34. For the foregoing reasons, on this record, and under the applicable broadest reasonable interpretation standard, we construe central monitoring device/service as a device or service “that watches, keeps track of, or checks from a central location.” 2.” slip op. at 9

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

    “On this record, and under the applicable broadest reasonable interpretation standard, we determine that the claim term “in communication with” encompasses indirect communications (e.g., communication by way of an intermediate component). We further determine that a processor need not generate a message, or respond to a message, in order to be “in communication with” a separate component. The ’403 Patent Specification uses the term “in communication with” in a broad, open-ended manner. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:17–27, 2:42–48. In addition, Patent Owner does not cite any persuasive intrinsic or extrinsic evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have read the claim term “in communication with” to exclude embodiments in which a processor merely receives information. See PO Resp. 40–44. Nor does Patent Owner cite any persuasive intrinsic or extrinsic evidence that the claim term “in communication with” excludes communication between a processor and a component when the processor is acting as an intermediary between that component and some other component. See id. In addition, Dr. Fernald fails to sufficiently support his conclusion that the claim term “in communication with” excludes such forms of communication. See Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 99–103. 4.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Based on the arguments and evidence presented in the Petition and having considered the arguments and evidence presented by both parties during the trial, we are persuaded that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11–16, and 19–23 are anticipated by Sellers. 4.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 6,940,403 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,940,403
• Inguran, LLC D/B/A Sexing Technologies v. Premium Genetics (UK) Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 20, 2016 · PGR2015-00017 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · PGR · Final written decision

  Claim 1 is unpatentable under § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Durack, Mueth, and Frontin-Rollet.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther

    “On September 16, 2016, Patent Owner filed a disclaimer for claims 2–14 of the ’395 Patent, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a). Ex. 2007. Therefore, only claim 1 (“the remaining challenged claim”) is at issue.” slip op. at 2

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

    “1. “Channel” For purposes of the Institution Decision, the Board construed “channel” as “a long gutter, groove, or furrow.” Dec. Inst. 6–7. Patent Owner relies on testimony by Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Vacca, to assert that “channel” should be construed as “a hollow member for conveying fluids.” PO Resp. 14 (citing Ex. 1002, 153; Ex. 2006, 17:17–18:12). In response, Petitioner contends that Patent Owner provides no support for its contention that a channel must convey and not collect. See Pet. Reply 17. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that a “channel” must convey fluid. At deposition, Dr. Vacca explained, “a hollow member for conveying fluids” “is a definition that I have supplied . . . as one of the definitions of channel that I have . . . provided here.” Ex. 2006, 17:22–18:4. Although Patent Owner provides testimony regarding one definition for “channel,” Patent Owner does not provide evidence sufficient to demonstrate that “a hollow member for conveying fluids” is the broadest reasonable interpretation of “channel.” We maintain the construction of the broadest reasonable interpretation of “channel” as “a long gutter, groove, or furrow,” (see Dec. Inst. 6) which encompasses within its scope “a hollow member for conveying fluids.”” slip op. at 5

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

    “In view of the broadest reasonable interpretation of “said plurality of buffer channels which are disposed on either side of said first input channel” discussed above in Section II.A.2, on this record, we disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments. We are persuaded that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Durack discloses this claim limitation based on radial bores 173 and 183 disposed on one side of conduit 157 (i.e., the exterior circumferential bounding surface of conduit 157). See Ex. 1005, Fig. 5.” slip op. at 20

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

    “In light of Patent Owner’s position that it met its burden of production in the Preliminary Response, we return to the positions advanced by the parties. As discussed briefly above, Petitioner asserted that the at least one channel limitation recited in claim 1 was not disclosed in the manner required by § 112(a) in any of the patent applications filed before March 16, 2013 (i.e., the ’969 Application and the ’957 Application). See Pet. 12–17. Patent Owner, in its Preliminary Response, argued that there was adequate written description support for the at least one channel limitation of claim 1. See Prelim. Resp. 8–13 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 1, 13:21–23; Ex. 1004, 11:66–12:4, 16:22–25). Patent Owner, however, does not address the remaining limitations of claim 1 and whether the prior applications disclose those remaining limitations in the manner required by § 112(a). See PO Resp. 3–6; Prelim. Resp. 7–13. Patent Owner, at oral argument, acknowledged that just one limitation of claim 1 was addressed in the Preliminary Response because it was the only limitation disputed by Petitioner. See Tr. 24:16–25:2. Although Petitioner arguments addressing standing for post-grant review only disputed written description support for the at least one channel limitation of claim 1, we are not aware of any obligation on the part of Petitioner to address whether each and every limitation of claim 1 was disclosed in the manner required by § 112(a). In contrast, in order for Patent Owner to show entitlement to an earlier effective filing date, Patent Owner must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, possession of the invention now claimed by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations. See Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572; VasCath, 935 F.2d at 1563–64. Patent Owner’s arguments addressing only the at least one channel limitation of claim 1 (see PO Resp. 3–6; Prelim. Resp. 7–13) are insufficient to meet Patent Owner’s burden of coming forward with evidence or argument to show possession of the invention, with all its claimed limitations, as of the September 3, 2004 filing date. For all of the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner has not shown sufficiently that the ’395 Patent is entitled to an earlier effective filing date of September 3, 2004. Thus, Mueth and Frontin-Rollet remain prior art to the ’395 Patent.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 8,933,395 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 8,933,395

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.