- Andersen CorporationOtherPTAB · Mar 20, 2019 · DER2017-00007 · APJ Justin T Arbes · DER · Final written decision
Andersen did not prove derivation of any invention in claims 1–22 because it did not show that Oquendo communicated the claimed stop spaced away from the corners.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“2. Burden of Proof To prevail in an instituted derivation proceeding, the petitioner must demonstrate that “an inventor named in the earlier application derived the claimed invention from an inventor named in the petitioner’s application and, without authorization, the earlier application claiming such invention was filed.” 35 U.S.C. § 135(b). Unlike the statutory provisions governing inter partes review and post-grant review, which specify that a petitioner must prove unpatentability of a claim by a “preponderance of the evidence,” the statutory provision for derivation proceedings does not set forth an evidentiary standard for proving derivation. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 135, 316(e), 326(e). Our rules, however, provide that “[a] derivation proceeding is a trial subject to the procedures set forth in subpart A of this part [i.e., 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1–42.80],” 37 C.F.R. § 42.400(a), and “[t]he default evidentiary standard [for trial proceedings] is a preponderance of the evidence,” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d).5 We apply that standard for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“construed. Andersen argues in its Petition that the term “stop” in all of the claims should be interpreted to mean “[a] physical abutment that prohibits movement of the adjoining structure beyond a predetermined location.” Pet. 9. In the Decision on Institution, based on the record at the time, we preliminarily agreed with and adopted that interpretation, and concluded that no other terms required interpretation. Dec. on Inst. 17–18.” slip op. at 20
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
- Adverse judgmentOther
“all of the evidence of alleged communication. Taking into account the parties’ arguments and the full record in this proceeding, we conclude that Andersen has not demonstrated that Mr. Oquendo communicated to a named inventor of the ’953 patent a conception of the complete invention recited in claim 1. Specifically, Andersen has not shown that Mr. Oquendo communicated, as part of his spacer frame design, a stop spaced away from the corners. Mr. Oquendo’s testimony regarding such an alleged communication is not corroborated by evidence in the record for all of the reasons explained above. Andersen has not proven derivation of the invention recited in claim 1 by a preponderance of the evidence. E. Alleged Derivation of the Inventions Recited in Claims 2–22 Andersen asserts that Mr. Oquendo conceived of the subject matter of” slip op. at 64
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 9,428,953 - PTAB · Jun 28, 2018 · IPR2017-00414 · APJ James T Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over either Cohen and Martin or Holmes and Martin because the combinations did not establish the claimed separate shaping before mixing.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“As used herein, the term “hearing aid profile” refers to a collection of acoustic configuration settings for hearing aid 102, which are used by a processor 110 to shape electrical signals related to sounds to compensate for the user's hearing loss. Ex. 1001, 3:11–15. Petitioner states that Patent Owner defined this term in the ’538 patent as “a collection of acoustic configuration settings for hearing aid 102, which are used by processor 110 to shape electrical signals related to sounds to compensate for the user’s hearing loss.” Pet. 15. According to Petitioner, this construction is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term, relying upon the testimony of its witness Dr. Les Atlas. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 38).10 Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed construction. Resp. 10–11. 10 Dr. Les Atlas is the Petitioner’s witness in this matter. We find him qualified to testify as to the subject matter of this proceeding, by virtue of his education and experience. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 4, and Appendix A thereto. We are cognizant of Patent Owner’s suggestion that we give his testimony “little, if any, weight” because of the similarity of the testimony with Petitioner’s arguments and discrepancies between it and his deposition testimony. Resp. 31–34. We give Dr. Atlas’ testimony appropriate contextual weight herein based upon the content of the testimony itself, and any contrary testimony in Exhibit 2005. We decline to assign generally no weight to his testimony, however. supports, and is consistent with, Petitioner’s proposal. Ex. 1001, 3:12–16. Accordingly, we determine that the broadest reasonable construction, in light of the specification of the ’538 patent, of the term “hearing aid profile” is a “collection of acoustic configuration settings for hearing aid, which are used by a processor to shape electrical signals related to sounds to compensate for a user’s hearing loss.”” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“For the purposes of our decision, we determine that no other claim terms need explicit construction. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (citation omitted).” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“11 Petitioner defines the level of ordinary skill in the art as someone with a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and at least two years of experience in the field of audio engineering. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 25). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s definition. Resp. passim. The references in the record support a finding that this is the appropriate level. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of skill in the art). 12 The record contains no allegations or evidence of secondary considerations.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed
“We find the testimony of Dr. Atlas on the key point of obviousness of pre-mixing processing to be less persuasive than that of Mr. Brown. We also find Dr. Atlas’ testimony falls short of adequately explaining how the combination of Cohen and Martin teaches a nexus (i.e., the “based on both the first [shaped] output signal and the second [shaped] output signal” (emphasis added) (hereinafter, “based on both limitation”) limitation recited in claim 1) between the claim 1 requirements of: (1) a condition precedent of shaping both a first output signal and a second output signal; and (2) a subsequent result of using both the first shaped output signal and the second shaped output signal if the hearing aid is in a third mode. Dr. Atlas assumes that one of ordinary skill in the art would process separately each signal and then mix them. Ex. 1003 ¶ 66. We find Dr. Atlas’ assumption is flawed. Specifically, in making this assumption, Dr. Atlas does not address adequately how the combination of Cohen and Martin opines “it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art” (emphasis added), his later sentences appears to base his opinion principally on the reason one of ordinary skill in the art could do it. Id. In particular, he testifies: Because Cohen’s hearing aid applies different hearing aid profiles to different input sources, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art to add the functionality of the combination mode as taught by Martin to Cohen’s hearing aid such that the speaker would produce an audible sound based on the output signals of the processor. Combining two signals such that both signals are sent to a speaker to an audible combination of sounds, that is where each signal is sufficiently perceived, was well within the technical ability of a person of ordinary skill in the art. To accomplish this would require that each one of the two signals is passed through an appropriate hearing aid profile. For example, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that a different hearing aid profiles could be used for an audio coil inputs and that of a neighboring conversation and environmental sounds through a microphone. Namely, it is commonly known that the different frequency sensitivity of an audio telecoil versus a microphone can be beneficially compensated for. (Rodriquez, Ex. 1011, Abstract)” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,649,538 - PTAB · Jan 10, 2018 · IPR2016-01404 · APJ Kamran Jivani · IPR · Final written decision
The Board found claims 1, 2, 13, 14, 33, 34, 39, 46, and 48 not shown unpatentable: Bensimon did not disclose the claimed restricted-access mode, and Takahashi did not cure that deficiency.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner states––and Patent Owner does not dispute––that “a person having ordinary skill in the art of secure computer data storage devices (i.e. in the art for the ’459 patent) would have had (i) a B.S. degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and (ii) approximately two years of experience in the design or research of secure computer data storage devices.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 32). We agree with Petitioner’s statement of the level skill of an ordinary artisan at the time and adopt it as our own. Although Patent Owner does not directly address an ordinary artisan’s level of skill, Petitioner’s description of the level of skill accords with that of Patent Owner’s witness Dr. Goldschlag. Compare id., with Ex. 2004 ¶ 21 (opining that “one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, or equivalent training, as well as two to three years of technical experience in the field of computer security and storage devices.”). We further find the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau,” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“within an electronic circuit embedded within the storage device.” Ex. 1001, 9:58–59, 10:34–35. Although these claims are not at issue in this case, they evince the patentee’s desire to employ each of the terms “unique” and “specific” where each is intended. It is well established that ordinarily different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings. Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 448 F.3d 1324, 1333 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]he use of two terms in a claim requires that they connote different meanings. . . .”); CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH, 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of these different terms in the claims connotes different meanings.”). Further, the Specification describes that, depending on the selected security level, a cryptographic key can be generated using in part “device-specific security information derived from the unique format information of the removable storage device.” Ex. 1001, 3:66–4:1. The Specification thus describes the format information of the removable storage device as “unique” but describes the security information of the device merely as “specific,” not “unique.” Finally, the Specification discloses “for exemplary purposes only” an embodiment wherein “a unique, device-specific security information can be generated from the unique characteristics of the underlying storage medium.” Id. at 7:43–47 (emphasis added). The Specification thus describes device-specific security information as unique in a particular, non-limiting example and explicitly indicates that the device-specific security information derived in that example is “unique.” See id. In light of the foregoing description, we disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments that “specific” in the context of the claim term “device-specific security information” means unique. Construing “specific” to mean “unique” as Patent Owner urges would render meaningless the subsequent use of “unique” in claims 9 and 17, without a clear indication in the Specification of such an intent. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480. Instead, we accord the word “specific” its ordinary and customary meaning and construe “device-specific security information” as meaning “information particular to, but not necessarily unique to, a storage device and used to secure access to the storage device.” Although we construe the disputed term “device-specific security information,” our determination that Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the Instituted Claims are unpatentable is not dependent upon our construction, as detailed below.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner has not identified in Bensimon explicit or inherent disclosure of the claimed restricted-access mode. Claim 1 requires operating in restrictedaccess mode “when the storage device does not have the device-specific security information.” Ex. 1001, 9:24–26. Petitioner identifies Bensimon’s read/write password, either alone or in combination with the password-enabling flag, as meeting the claimed device-specific security information. Reply 13; Pet. 22. Thus, in order to meet the requirements of claim 1, Petitioner is required to show that Bensimon discloses operating in restricted-access mode when the storage device does not have the read/write password, or alternatively does not have the combination of the read/write password and password-enabling flag. See, e.g., In re Bond, 910 F.2d at 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (holding that in order to show anticipation, claimed elements must be arranged as required by the claim). Petitioner does not make the required showing. As Petitioner argues: “these claims recite operating in one mode if ‘the device-specific security information’ (i.e., that instance of device-specific security information) is present, and operating in another mode if ‘the device-specific security information’ (i.e., that instance of device-specific security information) is not present.” Reply 16. Petitioner identifies Bensimon’s read/write password, alone or in combination with the password-enabling flag, as the device-specific security information, yet Petitioner does not identify in Bensimon an explicit disclosure that Bensimon’s storage device operates in the claimed restricted-access mode when the read/write password is absent from the device. See id. at 16–22. Rather, Bensimon describes two different possible modes of operation when the read/write password is absent from the storage device, namely either no protection or write protection. Ex. 1004, 5:33–39, 6:3–4, 6:13–29. Contrary to the claim language, operation in Bensimon’s write protection mode depends upon the presence of the write protection password, not upon the absence of the read/write password and password-enabling flag (i.e. the claimed device-specific security information). Ex. 1004, 6:13–23; see also Reply 16 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 18) (asserting the claimed restricted-access mode is met “when Bensimon’s storage device 100 only has the write-protection (read-only) password”). This disclosure is insufficient to establish anticipation because claim 1 requires operating in restricted access mode when the storage device does not have the device-specific storage information, which Petitioner asserts is the read/write password and password-enabling flag. “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claims is found.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil. Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). We similarly are not persuaded that Bensimon inherently anticipates claim 1. “Under the principles of inherency, if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the claimed limitations, it anticipates.” In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the cited disclosure identifies two possible modes of operation when the read/write password and password-enabling flag are absent from Bensimon’s storage device, neither of which necessarily must occur.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“E. Obviousness of Claims 2 and 34 based on Bensimon in combination with Takahashi Petitioner asserts dependent claims 2 and 34 would have been obvious in light of Bensimon and Takahashi. Pet. 36–40 (analysis of claim 2) and 42–43 (analysis of claim 34). Petitioner’s analysis of these claims does not repair the deficiencies described above with regard to the claimed restrictedaccess mode. See id.; see also Reply 25. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above in the context of claim 1 and based on the full trial record, we determine that Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 2 and 34 would have been obvious in light of Bensimon and Takahashi. See supra Section III.D.2.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,968,459 - PTAB · Dec 19, 2017 · IPR2016-01107 · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 21 was not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Neilson, Kelly, and Miller because the references did not teach the nozzle limitations without hindsight, and secondary considerations weighed against obviousness.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownNo construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Based on the record before us, we determine that the phrase, “a nozzle oriented towards the splash shield,” means “a nozzle pre-positioned such that it points at the splash shield,” and the phrase, “directing rinsing fluid onto the splash shield using the nozzle,” means “spraying rinsing fluid onto the splash shield from the pre-positioned nozzle.” Our claim constructions are supported by the claim language for at least two reasons: First, the phrase, “a nozzle oriented towards the splash shield,” describes a component of a mixing machine. Claim 21 recites: “providing a mixing machine having . . . a nozzle oriented towards the splash shield.” Ex. 1001, 7:1–5. This limitation describes the structure of a mixing machine that is used to perform the claimed method. As Petitioner explains, “[c]laim 21 is a method claim that separately recites attributes of the provided mixing machine and a step of directing rinsing fluid.” Pet. Reply 4. “Oriented” describes the position of the nozzle in the machine. The nozzle is oriented before it is used to direct rinsing fluid onto the splash shield. In other words, the nozzle is pre-positioned. Second, the claim drafter used the term, “positionable,” rather than” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“3. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We accept Dr. Slocum’s definition of a person having ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”) as an engineer with at least an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or related discipline and at least three years of professional or research experience in the design of consumer or medical products that utilize fluid systems. Ex. 1010 ¶ 20. Dr. Maynes states that he does not necessarily agree with Dr. Slocum’s definition, but does not provide and alternative definition or no persuasive reasoning as to why Dr, Slocum’s definition is incorrect. Ex. 2023 ¶ 6. We also rely on Petitioner’s references as reflecting the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“limited to automatic rinsing, Miller discloses an electronically controlled nozzle 129. Pet. Reply 12. Petitioner argues that it would have been a simple substitution to modify Kelly’s spray device 56 with Miller’s electronically controlled nozzle 129 and that the teachings of Kelly and Miller would have led a skilled artisan to orient Miller’s electronically controlled nozzle 129 toward Neilson’s lid 16 and direct rinsing fluid thereon. Id. at 12–13 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 69, 82–85; Ex. 2027, 169–72). We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument for two reasons. First, Petitioner’s reply argument relies on impermissible hindsight. The combination of Neilson, Kelly, and Miller does not teach or suggest the nozzle limitations of claim 21 without relying on the claim as a roadmap for selecting and modifying the teachings. Miller teaches nozzle 129 for spraying cleaning fluid onto a blender spindle after each use. Ex. 1004 ¶ 55, Figs. 17, 18. Miller also discloses a splash shield in the form of a tubular sleeve inserted into a mixing container during blending. Id. ¶ 42; Ex. 1005, 4:1–4, 4:33–36. Like Neilson’s lid 16, Miller’s splash shield is manually removed for cleaning. Ex. 1003, 5:65–66; Ex. 1004 ¶ 45; Ex. 1005, 5:4–10. Although Miller’s nozzle 129 is pre-positioned, it is not pointed at a splash shield. See Ex. 1004 ¶ 55, Fig. 18 (showing nozzle 129 for dispensing cleaning fluid onto spindle 114). To meet the nozzle limitations of claim 21, Kelly’s nozzle would need to be modified from a manually positionable nozzle to one that is pre-positioned such that it points at a splash shield. Such a modification is not suggested by Miller, which does not teach or suggest a nozzle pointed at a splash shield and instead teaches that the splash shield is manually removed for cleaning. Ex. 1004 ¶ 45; Ex. 1005, 5:4–10. Thus, even if combined, Neilson, Kelly, and Miller do not, absent hindsight, teach or suggest a method of rinsing a splash shield in which a nozzle is pre-positioned such that it points at the splash shield and rinsing fluid is sprayed onto the splash shield from the pre-positioned nozzle.” slip op. at 20
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Dr. Slocum that is not supported by Miller, and we, thus, decline to afford it substantial weight. Pet. Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 69, 84, 85); see also Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 77).8 In paragraph 69, Dr. Slocum testifies that, “in the case of Miller,” the angle of the nozzle is adjusted “to clean . . . the splash shield.” Ex. 1010 ¶ 69. In paragraph 85, Dr. Slocum testifies that Miller teaches “the rinsing fluid [is] used for the splash shield.” Id. ¶ 85. In paragraph 77, Dr. Slocum testifies that Miller discloses using a nozzle oriented towards a splash shield for directing rinsing fluid onto the splash shield. Id. ¶ 77. Dr. Slocum’s testimony is inconsistent with Miller, which teaches that the splash shield is manually removed for cleaning. Ex. 1004 ¶ 45; Ex. 1005, 5:4–10. In fact, on cross-examination, Dr. Slocum conceded that Miller does not disclose automatic cleaning of the sleeve (splash shield) 8 See supra note 7. and that Miller’s nozzle is not pointed at the sleeve. Ex. 2027, 189:8– 190:11. Petitioner also relies on Dr. Slocum’s testimony that a PHOSITA reading Kelly would have substituted an electronic valve for Kelly’s manual valve and would have “put a bunch of them in at a bunch of different angles,” so when the valves are actuated, the whole thing is cleaned. Ex. 2027, 169:5–172:9; see Pet. Reply 13. In our view, the cited testimony is not credibly based on the teachings of the prior art references, as opposed to the teachings of the ’662 patent. Whereas Dr. Slocum opines that it would have been obvious to clean a splash shield using electronically operated nozzles (id.), Neilson, Kelly, and Miller all teach manual cleaning of a splash shield. Ex. 1002, 4:13–20; Ex. 1003, 5:65–66; Ex. 1004 ¶ 45; Ex. 1005, 5:4–10. In view of the inconsistencies between Dr. Slocum’s testimony and the teachings of Miller, we do not give substantial weight to his opinion that the method of claim 21 would have been obvious to a PHOSITA in view of Neilson, Kelly, and Miller.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,520,662 - PTAB · Sep 25, 2017 · IPR2016-00788 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held that claims 15, 18, and 20 were not shown unpatentable over Johnson or Hitt because neither reference disclosed containment walls standing on the floor.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“broadest reasonable interpretation of the disputed claim language requires that the containment walls stand “on” the floor. In the recitation “containment walls standing upwardly from said floor,” the word “from” indicates that the containment walls are disposed “on” the floor. Consistent with this, all of the various embodiments of the invention disclosed by the ’611 patent consistently show sidewalls of a rail car that stand or rest on underlying floor of the car, as Patent Owner notes. See, e.g., PO Resp. 7–12; Ex. 1001, Figs. 1–10. Patent Owner also relies on the testimony of Mr. Long, in discussing the meaning of “standing upwardly from.” See, e.g., PO Resp. 17–21 (citing Ex. 2118 ¶¶ 101–102, 144–161). Specifically, Mr. Long testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that in the ’611 patent, the term “standing” is used in “its positional sense,” citing, for instance, to a dictionary definition of “standing” as “to rest or remain upright on a base or lower end.” Ex. 2118 ¶ 145 (citing Ex. 2112, 7). Mr. Long’s testimony and the underlying support for that testimony shed favorable light on the meaning of “standing upwardly from” that is urged by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“containment walls standing upwardly from said floor.” Pet. 24–28. The Petition notes that Johnson discloses floor 26 and side sheet 16. Id. at 24– 25. The Petition contends that “[b]ased on the vertical direction of the ‘side frame assembly,’ . . . , a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood Johnson to teach that the containment walls stand ‘upwardly from said floor.’” Id. at 25. Showing the uncorrected versions of Figures 1 and 2 of Johnson, the Petition elaborates that “[t]his is further shown, e.g., in Fig. 2, where wall 16 is generally perpendicular with respect to the floor 26.” Id. at 25–26 (citing Ex. 1106, Fig. 2; Ex. 1103 ¶ 132). These statements do not indicate, much less prove, that Johnson discloses a containment wall that stands on a floor. Observing the vertical direction of side frame 12 and the perpendicular orientation of side sheet 16 to floor 26 does not establish that side frame 12 or side sheet 16 is disposed on floor 26. The cited testimony of Mr. Miller notes that Figure 2 shows “side sheet 16 is shown as standing normal to the floor.” Ex. 1103 ¶ 132. This too facially does not indicate, much less prove, that side sheet 16 is disposed on floor 26. slip op. at 13
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDenied
“Petitioner’s citation of Johnson’s Figure 5 in the Reply is unavailing. When addressing the claim limitations “containment walls standing upwardly from said floor,” the Petition does not cite Figure 5 of Johnson. See Pet. 24–28. This section of the Petition cites paragraphs 54–56, 130– 132, 134, and 135 of Mr. Miller’s testimony (id.), and none of this testimony cites to or addresses Figure 5 of Johnson, either (see Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 54–56, 130–132, 134–135). Furthermore, it is not apparent that Figure 5 of Johnson shows the same embodiment as Figure 2; Johnson identifies Figure 5 as a cross-section of Figure 4, which Johnson introduces as “a partial side elevation view of a gondola railcar having a bolster.” Ex. 1106, 3:7–8. We determine that Petitioner’s citation of Johnson’s Figure 5 in the Reply is unavailing because it constitutes an improper new argument. In that respect, we do not regard Petitioner’s new reliance on Johnson’s Figure 5 in an attempt to address a deficiency raised by Patent Owner in its Patent Owner Response as constituting a proper response envisioned by our rules. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Furthermore, even if Petitioner’s citation of Figure 5 were a proper response, it would not demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Johnson discloses the claimed relationship. We are persuaded that, without any other supporting evidence, Figure 5 of Johnson does not show the relationship between containment walls and a floor clearly enough to support, by a preponderance of the evidence, Petitioner’s contention that Johnson discloses containment walls that stand on a floor.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not persuaded us that Johnson discloses containment walls that stand on the floor, as required by independent claim 15. Additionally, Petitioner has not asserted that it would have been obvious to modify Johnson’s railcar to have such a configuration, much less provided evidence and reasoning persuading us that it would have been obvious to do so. See, e.g., Pet. 24–28. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 15, 18, and 20 are unpatentable over Johnson.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,757,611 - PTAB · Nov 14, 2016 · IPR2015-01243 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Final written decision
Petitioner failed to prove claims 1–8, 10, and 11 of the ’290 patent, claims 1–8 and 10–13 of the ’173 patent, and claims 1–6 and 8–19 of the ’510 patent obvious over Fohr, Sato, and …
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We recognize that it may be necessary “to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents . . . in order to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed.” KSR Int’l, 550 U.S. at 418. Petitioner in these proceedings, however, directs us to no persuasive reason why an ordinary artisan would have turned to the heat-retaining battery module of Hallaj when working to implement a plurality of Sato’s cells in a pack to replace the capacitors in Fohr. Pet. 36–38 (nowhere addressing that critical point); Reply 13 (devoting four sentences to rebuttal of Patent Owner’s persuasive evidence that one would not have combined the disclosures of Hallaj, Fohr, and Sato in the manner claimed); see Ex. 1033, 15 (Examiner’s observation, in confirming the patentability of the challenged claims during reexamination, that Sato contains “no information as to how Sato’s cells would be implemented in a pack”). We view Petitioner’s unexplained leap from the single battery cell of Sato to the heat-retaining battery module of Hallaj as a classic example of impermissible hindsight reconstruction driven not by any teaching in the prior art, but by the claim requirement of a “plurality” of cells implemented in a battery pack. Pet. 36–38; Reply 13. Patent Owner, by contrast, comes forward with persuasive evidence, which we credit, showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been led to arrange a plurality of Sato’s cells in the heat-retaining battery module of Hallaj because such a modified battery pack would have been unsuitable for use as a replacement for the capacitors in Fohr. Specifically, we credit the testimony of Dr. Blomgren, who cogently explains why a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been led to the proposed modification. Ex. 2147 ¶¶ 79–85.” slip op. at 17
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“We are not persuaded by Dr. Riley’s testimony that Fohr effectively teaches that both lithium-based battery cells and capacitors can achieve the 20 Amp Limitation, on a theory that “it’s actually the tool that draws the power” and “the right lithium cell” would be “a drop in replacement for this application.” Ex. 2169, 121:12–16 (Dr. Riley’s deposition testimony); Resp. 17. Dr. Riley readily admitted an unfamiliarity with capacitors, and identified no suitable “drop in” ready lithium cells available at the time of the invention. Ex. 2169, 121:11–122:4 (“[I]f I had a cell that could do similar things, I’d certainly swap it in there.”). On that point, we find more credible Dr. Blomgren’s testimony that “there is no guarantee that a given pack of battery cells can provide the current that a tool tries to draw.” Resp. 17 (citing Ex. 2147 ¶ 60).” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We hold that the prior art references asserted in the Petition are representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (absence of specific findings on “level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown’” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). To the extent that a more specific definition is required, we hold that an ordinary artisan would include one holding a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical Engineering with two or three years of experience in battery design. That definition comports with the very similar definitions advanced by the parties. In that regard, Petitioner asserts that an ordinary artisan would encompass a person holding a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical Engineering with three years of experience in battery design. Pet. 8; Ex. 1007 ¶ 9. Patent Owner similarly asserts that an ordinary artisan would include a person holding a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical Engineering with two years of battery design experience. Resp. 8; Ex. 2105 ¶ 24.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“In our Decisions to Institute, we construed the 20 Amp Limitation to require that “the battery cells, when configured together in a battery pack, are capable of producing reasonably close to 20 amps of discharge current or greater over the course of delivering their entire rated capacity.” Dec. 5. Neither party disputes that construction, which we adopt for the purposes of this Final Written Decision. To the extent that any other claim term requires express construction, we discuss the construction in our analysis below. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only claim terms in controversy need be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy). The following facts are supported by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,944,173 - PTAB · May 3, 2016 · IPR2015-00556 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision
The Board canceled claims 6–8, 12–14, and 18–20 at Patent Owner’s request and denied entry of substitute claims 23–28 for lack of written-description support and failure to show nonobviousness.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“only upon Patent Owner’s having demonstrated the patentability of the substitute claims. As the moving party, Patent Owner bears the burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to the relief requested. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). The amendment must respond to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial and must not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims or introduce new subject matter. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2). As we have stated, “[f]or a patent owner’s motion to amend, 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c) places the burden on the patent owner to show a patentable distinction of each proposed substitute claim over the prior art.” Idle Free Sys., Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., Case IPR2012-00027, slip op. at 7 (PTAB June 11, 2013) (Paper 26). Such prior art may include: a. any material art in the prosecution history of the patent; b. any material art of record in the current proceeding, including art asserted in grounds on which the Board did not institute review; and c. any material art of record in any other proceeding before the Office involving the patent.” slip op. at 4
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for patent owner
“Additional motions to amend may be permitted upon the joint request of the petitioner and the patent owner to materially advance the settlement of a proceeding under section 317, or as permitted by regulations prescribed by the Director.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(2). To that end, 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(c) provides: In addition to the requirements set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, any additional motion to amend may not be filed without Board authorization. An additional motion to amend may be authorized when there is a good cause showing or a joint request of the petitioner and the patent owner to materially advance a settlement. In determining whether to authorize such an additional motion to amend, the Board will consider whether slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“had a BS degree in engineering, knowledge of cellular telephone technology, and two to four years of experience designing, optimizing, and/or testing portable, battery-operated products. Pet. 18. Petitioner supports its argument with Mr. Wojcik’s testimony (Ex. 1124 ¶¶ 57–60), which does not itself cite evidence. In its Motion, Patent Owner argues that a skilled artisan would have had at least two to five years of experience working in the field of sobriety monitoring, developing sobriety monitoring and treatment programs. Mot. 4. Patent Owner also argues that a skilled artisan would have had a practical understanding of methodologies used to monitor sobriety and an understanding of human behavioral patterns as they relate to alcohol addiction. Id. at 4–5. Patent Owner cites to Dr. Jaffe (Ex. 2000 ¶ 13), whose testimony is as conclusory and devoid of evidence as Mr. Wojcik’s. In IPR-577, we found that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected in the prior art itself, reflects solutions to engineering problems, and does not require a physician’s knowledge of the behavior of alcoholics. IPR-577 FWD, 17–19. On the record of the current proceeding, considering similar testimony and substantially the same prior art, we maintain the finding that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 27
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We read the Specification’s use of “discrete” rather than “discreet” to be an obvious typographical error. We note that the Specification includes other instances in which it erroneously uses “discrete” where context calls for “discreet.” For example, in describing concerns with remote monitoring of blood alcohol levels using ankle bracelets, the Specification explains that “users are often stigmatized by their indiscrete presence and therefore find healthy societal interaction while wearing such bracelets difficult.” Ex. 1102, 2:14–17 (emphasis added); see also id. at 1:66–2:5 (“Thus, the discrete remote monitoring of a person under such a program by the court, or other authority, without requiring the monitored person to excuse themselves from society for more than a brief period of time would be useful in reintegrating the monitored person into society without the awkward and embarrassing effects of traditional monitoring procedures.”). Thus, the use of “discreet” in the proposed substitute claims is not new matter. Petitioner further contends that this claim phrase “wherein the case is a size that can be discreetly concealed” is indefinite. Specifically, Petitioner argues that the Specification provides “no reasonable certainty as to how big a manufacturer needs to make the breath testing device case such that the skilled artisan would consider the case to not be discreetly concealable.” Opp. 9. We are not persuaded that this limitation is indefinite. Rather, the Specification provides a standard for measuring whether a device can be discreetly concealed, namely “it is readily able to be carried by hand, or inserted in to a handbag, purse, pocket or the like.” Ex. 1102, 5:47–50. This is consistent with the dictionary provided by Petitioner, defining “discreet” to mean “unobtrusive, unnoticeable.” Ex. 1162. Thus, “wherein the case is a size that can be discreetly concealed” means that the size is unobtrusive such that it can be carried by hand, or concealed in a handbag, purse, pocket, or the like. Nevertheless, a device of “a size that can be discreetly concealed” is not distinguishable from “[a] portable, cordless, hand-held” device, as recited in original claims 1 and 15. That language is supported by the same description in the Specification. Tellingly, Patent Owner also provides constructions for “hand-held” and “portable,” namely “designed to be operated while being held in the hand” and “easy to carry or move around,” respectively. Reply 4. At the oral argument, Patent Owner was unable to provide a meaningful distinction between a device that can be discreetly concealed and one that is portable and handheld. Tr. 11:19–13:4. We see no evidence that sufficiently supports a distinction between these two phrases.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,381,573 - PTAB · Mar 8, 2016 · IPR2014-01441 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Final written decision
The Board canceled claims 48, 50–53, and 60–69, but denied entry of substitute claims 70–84 for inadequate written-description support.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“(1) cancellation of challenged claims 48, 50–53, and 60–69 of the ’681 patent and (2) entry of substitute claims 70–84. Mot. 1, 25; see supra Section I.D. As the moving party, Patent Owner bears the burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to the relief requested. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). Entry of proposed amendments is not automatic, but occurs only upon the patent owner having met the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.121 and demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, the patentability of the proposed substitute claims. Nike, 2016 WL 537609, at *3–*5 (“[T]he Board did not err by placing the burden on [Patent Owner] to establish patentability over the prior art of [Patent Owner]’s proposed substitute claims.”); see Idle Free, Case IPR2012-00027, slip op. at 7–8 (Paper 26).” slip op. at 31
- ScopeDecided for patent owner
“A patent owner may not seek to broaden a challenged claim in any respect, in the name of responding to an alleged ground of unpatentability. A proper substitute claim under 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(i) must only narrow the scope of the challenged claim it replaces. Similarly, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(ii), a substitute claim may not enlarge the scope of the challenged claim it replaces by eliminating any feature. Idle Free, Case IPR2012-00027, slip op. at 5 (Paper 26). As noted above, in its Motion to Amend, Patent Owner proposes independent claim 70 as a substitute for independent claim 48, independent claim 75 as a substitute for independent claim 60, and independent claim 80 as a substitute for claim 65. Mot. 2–7. Each substitute claim includes all of the limitations of the corresponding challenged claim, for which it is a substitute, and only adds additional limitations. No limitations are removed. In its Opposition, Petitioner does not dispute Patent Owner’s assertion that the proposed substitute claims do not enlarge the scope of the cancelled, challenged claims of the ’681 patent. Opp. 1, 11. The substitute dependent claims are similarly narrowed by the limitations added to the independent claims, from which they depend. Consequently, the proposed substitute claims do not enlarge the scope of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 33
- 112 supportDenied
“partes review must set forth “[t]he support in the original disclosure of the patent for each claim that is added or amended,” and “[t]he support in an earlier-filed disclosure for each claim for which benefit of the filing date of the earlier filed disclosure is sought.” In Nichia, “[t]he Board also explained that merely indicating where each claim limitation individually described in the original disclosure may be insufficient to demonstrate support for the claimed subject matter as a whole.” Case IPR2012-00005, slip op. at 4 (Paper 27) (emphasis in original). Moreover, the Board recognized that the proposed substitute claims need not be described “in haec verba” in the original disclosure in order to satisfy the written description requirement. However, should the claim language does not appear in ipsis verbis in the original disclosure, a mere citation to the original disclosure without any explanation as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter as a whole may be similarly inadequate. Id. (emphasis in original). Whether a patent claim is supported by an adequate written description is a question of fact. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).” slip op. at 34
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“strongest evidence for construing the term “optical gain” comes from the Specification itself, which clearly defines the term. [The claims] are part of a fully integrated written instrument, consisting principally of a specification that concludes with the claims. For that reason, claims must be read in view of the specification . . . . [T]he specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis added); In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (any broadest reasonable construction must be consistent with the specification, and claim language should be read in light of the specification). Given the plain language of the claims, in particular the emphasis on “optical”; the testimony of the parties’ declarants, and the clear definition of the Specification, we are not persuaded here by Patent Owner’s argument that all disclosed embodiments should be embraced by our construction. “It is not necessary that each claim read on every embodiment.” Baran v. Med. Device Techs., Inc., 616 F.3d 1309, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Broadcom Corp.” slip op. at 27
Claim constructioncites Phillips - PTAB · Mar 4, 2016 · IPR2014-01368 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 10 of the ’469 patent were held unpatentable; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable because the cited art did not disclose the required current connection status.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“In Straight Path, the Federal Circuit held that the claim language “is connected to the computer network” has a facially clear meaning, that “the query transmitted to the server seeks to determine whether the second unit is connected at that time, i.e., connected at the time that the query is sent.” Straight Path, 806 F.3d at 1360.11 The Federal Circuit held that the query asks “whether the device ‘is’ connected, not whether it was connected or whether it is still registered as being connected even if that registration information is no longer accurate.” Id. The Federal Circuit further explained that “[i]t is not a reasonable interpretation of the claim language . . . to say that it is satisfied by a query that asks only for registration information, regardless of its current accuracy.” Id. The Federal Circuit explained, “[w]hen claim language has as plain a meaning on an issue as the language does here, leaving no genuine uncertainties on interpretive questions relevant to the case, it is particularly difficult to conclude that the specification reasonably supports a different meaning. The specification plays a more limited role than in the common situation where claim terms are uncertain in meaning in relevant respects.” Id. at 1361. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit construed the limitation “is connected to the computer network” as “is connected to the computer network at the time the query is transmitted to the server.” Id. at 1363.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“and NetBIOS fail to determine whether a computer or process is connected to the computer network. PO Resp. 35, 49–51. In view of our construction of this claim limitation, we agree with Patent Owner. Microsoft Manual discloses that once a computer is registered with the WINS server (which is a NetBIOS Name Server (NBNS)) as active and on-line, the WINS server maintains a database of names and addresses as active and on-line by (1) releasing names once a computer is shut down properly and (2) requiring a renewal time period in which a computer must reregister. Ex. 1012, 62– 63, 68–69. Microsoft Manual discloses that in response to User Datagram Protocol (UDP) name queries, “a mapping in the database does not ensure that the related device is currently running.” Id. at 68. Microsoft Manual further explains that a “local WINS database should periodically be cleared of released entries and old entries that were registered at another WINS server but did not get removed from this WINS database for some reason.” Id. at 150. In other words, Microsoft Manual discloses that the WINS database may include entries of computers that are not currently connected to the WINS network. Accordingly, a query to as to whether a second process “is connected to the computer network” in Microsoft Manual will not determine whether the second process is connected to the WINS network at the time that the query is transmitted to the server. As discussed above in our claim construction analysis above (see Section I.E.1), a query as to whether a process “is connected to a computer network” or has an “on-line” status asks “whether the device ‘is’ connected, not whether it was connected or whether it is still registered as being connected even if that registration information is no longer accurate. It is not a reasonable interpretation of the claim language . . . to say that it is satisfied by a query that asks only for registration information, regardless of its current accuracy.” Straight Path, 806 F.3d at 1360. Microsoft Manual discloses that the WINS server has information that a process “was” connected to the computer network, and that information may no longer be accurate. See Ex. 1012, 68, 150. As such, we determine that Microsoft Manual does not disclose the claimed “is connected to the computer network,” “on-line status,” or “is accessible,” as construed herein. Similarly, NetBIOS discloses a registration process for resources or nodes to receive a unique name by registering a name. Ex. 1014, 379. During a name query (discovery), a datagram is sent requesting the name and address of another resource. Id. at 396. The NBNS maintains a database of resource names through explicit name deletion, where the node specifies a deletion function and implicit name deletion, which occurs when a node ceases operation. Id. at 379. NetBIOS explains that implicit name deletion “is a frequent occurrence.” Id. Implicit name deletion is managed by assigning nodes a specified lifetime for registered names, where a name is silently released if a node fails to refresh the registered name before the lifetime expires. Id. NetBIOS further discloses a mechanism where the NBNS may correct the information stored after an incorrect response is provided to a requesting node. See id. at 409. However, similar to Microsoft Manual, NetBIOS discloses that the information stored by the NBNS may be incorrect, and, therefore, will not determine whether a second process is connected to the computer network at the time that the query is transmitted to the server. Therefore, NetBIOS also does not disclose the claimed “is connected to the computer network,” “on-line status,” or “is accessible.” Given that the combination of Microsoft Manual and NetBIOS fails to teach or suggest the claims as construed, we need not reach the remaining arguments presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that “WINS is an implementation of NetBIOS” and, therefore, Petitioner contends that “one having skill in the art would have known about and been motivated to combine Microsoft Manual with NetBIOS.” Id. at 34 (citing 67 Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 88–89). We are persuaded by Petitioner that the combination is reasonable because Microsoft Manual demonstrates that Microsoft TCP/IP has combined the elements of NetBIOS and Microsoft Manual in the same manner in which Petitioner proposes to combine NetBIOS and Microsoft Manual. See 67 Ex. 1012, 3, 11. Microsoft Manual discloses that Microsoft TCP/IP for Windows NT provides support for application interfaces, including NetBIOS for establishing logical names and sessions on the network. Id. at 11. Microsoft Manual describes that “[w]hen WINS servers are in place on the network, NetBIOS over TCP/IP resolves names on a client computer by communication with the WINS server.” 67 Pet. 34 (quoting 67 Ex. 1012, 62). We are persuaded that Microsoft TCP/IP for Windows NT utilizes NetBIOS features for name resolution, as disclosed by Microsoft Manual, and a person with ordinary skill in the art would have readily combined the disclosures of Microsoft Manual and Microsoft Manual.” slip op. at 25
- BurdenFwd mixedUnpatentable
“8. Conclusion We have reviewed the Petition and supporting evidence and find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 2, and 5 of the ʼ469 patent are obvious over Microsoft Manual and NetBIOS, and claim 10 is unpatentable because it depends from a cancelled claim. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 2, 5, and 10 of the ʼ469 patent are unpatentable.” slip op. at 29
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 6,131,121 - PTAB · Oct 1, 2015 · IPR2014-00714 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision
The Board canceled claims 11, 74, and 81 and denied substitute claims 154–156 because they broadened claim scope, lacked written-description support, and were not shown patentable over Mostov.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“A petition for inter partes review must identify “all real parties in interest.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). The Office Patent Trial Practice Guide provides guidance regarding factors to consider in determining whether a party is a real party in interest. 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759–60 (Aug. 14, 2012). Considerations may include whether a non-party “funds and directs and controls” an IPR petition or proceeding. Id. at 48,760. Additional relevant factors include: the non-party’s relationship with the petitioner; the non-party’s relationship to the petition itself, including the nature or degree of involvement in the filing; and the nature of the entity filing the petition. Id. Generally, a party does not become a “real party-in-interest” merely through association with another party in an unrelated endeavor. Id. A party also is not considered a real party in interest in an inter partes review solely because it is a joint defendant with a petitioner in a patent infringement suit or is part of a joint defense group with a petitioner in the suit. Id. Whether a party who is not a named participant in a given proceeding is a “real party-in-interest” to that proceeding “is a highly fact-dependent question.” Id. at 48,759. There is no “bright line test.” Id. Courts invoke the term “real party-in-interest” to describe relationships and considerations sufficient to justify applying conventional principles of estoppel and preclusion. Id. Here, even assuming this contention is timely, Patent Owner has failed to provide any evidence, besides the mere fact that the other parties are co-defendants in a lawsuit or alleged infringers, to support the contention that Petitioner has failed to name all of the real parties in interest. That one fact, without any further proof of control or involvement by these parties in this proceeding, is insufficient to establish that Petitioner has failed to name” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“ii. Petitioner’s Expert Patent Owner asks that we “dismiss [Petitioner’s] Expert Declaration and disqualify [Petitioner’s Declarant] for making and using a false writing.” PO Resp. 9. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s Declarant falsely claimed that certain patent applications were patents by listing them under the heading “Patents” in his Resume. Id. at 8–9. A Patent Owner Response is not the proper vehicle to seek to exclude testimony. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c). Moreover, even if it were the proper vehicle, we are not persuaded that the alleged “falsehood” that Patent Owner identified—listing patent applications, which are clearly identified as such, under a heading titled “Patents”—is, in any way, misleading. Thus, we decline Patent Owner’s request that we dismiss Dr. Vishwanath’s testimony.3 C. Motion to Amend As discussed above, in the Motion to Amend, Patent Owner requests” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“i. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Neither party puts forward a succinct definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner’s declarant, however, has put forward a detailed discussion of various references dated before April 20064 (the date Patent Owner now alleges is the priority date) related to subject matter of the ’990 patent. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 20–74, 94–99. We have reviewed that discussion and the references cited in those paragraphs. We have found it accurately reflects the teachings of the references. Moreover, we agree with Petitioner’s declarant that the references are analogous to the claimed invention, and, as such, represent the level of skill in the relevant art at the time of the invention. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (finding that the Board did not err in concluding that the level of ordinary skill was best determined by the references of record); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91(CCPA 1978) (“[T]he PTO usually must evaluate . . . the level of ordinary skill solely on the cold words of the literature.”); see 4 We accept this date as the priority date only for the sake of argument. also Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.”’).” slip op. at 13
- ScopeMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“We agree with Petitioner and find, based on the Patent Owner’s own arguments, that these terms improperly broaden the scope of the claims. As Patent Owner explains, the added language is broad enough to include the removed items, and is intended to reflect the entire genus of “monitoring equipment” and “communications devices” that “are capable of communication and capable of receiving signals.” Mot. to Amend 4, 5. Thus, the claim has been broadened to not only include the listed species that have been removed, but anything falling within the claimed genus. Accordingly, we find that this amendment impermissibly broadens the claim. As for the second change in the claim language, we find that Patent Owner has failed to show why removal of the entire passage “wherein, the communication device receives a signal via any of one or more products listed in any of the plurality of product grouping categories,” would not impermissibly broaden the scope of claim 154. The deletion of this limitation necessarily broadens the claim in that limitation’s aspect. See In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“For example, a reissue claim that deletes a limitation or element from the patent claims is broader in that limitation’s aspect.”). Given that Patent Owner has entirely deleted this limitation and Patent Owner bears the burden of showing entitlement to the amendment, it was incumbent on Patent Owner to explain why removing this entire passage from claim 154 would not broaden the scope of the claim. See In re Bennett, 766 F.2d 524, 526 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (“[A] claim is broadened if it is broader in any respect than the original claim, even though it may be narrowed in other respects.”).” slip op. at 17
§ 102 anticipation
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.