- Duration Media LLC v. Rich Media Club LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 17, 2024 · IPR2024-00937 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–14 were obvious over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In sum, the Petition fails to demonstrate that the asserted prior art teaches, or renders obvious, the “causing a communication” limitation, let alone it being in response to the “determination” limitation. There is not a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing as to claim 1.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“page is in the visible area of the browser window.” Ex. 1001, 60:4–6. But nothing in the claim suggests that the determination is optional or that it need not ever occur. For example, the “in response to” limitation of claim 1 does not use the conjunction “if,” as was the case in Schulhauser. See 2016 WL 6277792, *3 (interpreting “triggering an alarm state if the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria” such that “triggering an alarm state” only needs to be performed “if the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria.”).7 In fact, the prior step (a) of claim 1 explicitly requires the determination, reciting: “(a) determining whether a predefined portion of the predefined area of the ad content display page is in the visible area of the browser window.” Ex. 1001, 60:1–3. As properly construed, the “in response to” language modifies the recited step of “causing a communication to be sent from the remote computing device to one or more dispatcher servers” such that the step must be “in response to a determination that the predefined portion of the predefined area of the ad content display page is in the visible area of the browser window.” Ex. 1001, 60:4–8. In other words, “causing a communication” is a required step of the method of claim 1.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art also would have had “experience in the internet advertising industry” and urges us to adopt the same formulation as we adopted in the final written decision in IPR2023-00953. Prelim. Resp. 4. We agree with Patent Owner that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have had such experience. Indeed, it is unclear how Petitioner’s proposal accounts for the types of problems encountered in the art or prior art solutions to those problems. See Daiichi Sankyo, 501 F.3d at 1256 (identifying these factors, among others, as “a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art”). The difference between the parties’ proposals as to the person of ordinary skill in the art, however, is immaterial here. Thus, for purposes of deciding the Petition, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“when the content area is visible.” (citing Ex. 1018, 10:16–18)); see also Ex. 1018, 5:11–14 (“In operation S202, the system identifies whether the event occurs. When the event occurs, the system performs operation S203, otherwise, the system waits for the event to occur. In this instance, the event may include a user enter event or a scrolling event.”). Whether a scrolling event occurs, however, does not satisfy the specific language of the claim reciting “a determination that the predefined portion of the predefined area of the ad content display page is in the visible area of the browser window.” Nor does the Petition explain how it might.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,741,482 - New Balance Athletics, Inc. v. Nike, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00778 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim: Clark and Mills each failed to disclose required limitations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition shows that “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”).” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“in a continuous fashion, as shown in Figure 5, and this will include the portion that will be used for the upper (the textile element) and the material that is trimmed away (the surrounding textile structure)” (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 124–125)). Notably absent, however, from the above-identified portions of the Petition and testimony of Dr. Bookstein is any reference to material that is “trimmed away” or why any such material is regarded as surrounding a textile element, or any other component of Clark. In a later portion of the Petition addressing the second clause of limitation 1a, Petitioner makes reference to Clark’s column 4, lines 61 through 66, as disclosing a “trimming process.” Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex, 1003 ¶ 128). That portion of Clark generally expresses that “the exposed edge of the upper may be trimmed in any desired outline . . . and the trimmed edge may be bound or finished as desired.” E. 1004, 4:61–66. We agree with Patent Owner that, to the extent Petitioner and Dr. Brookstein rely on that portion of Clark to account for the first clause of limitation 1a, Petitioner does not meaningfully explain why Clark’s disclosure of “the potential trimming of an ‘exposed edge’ (singular)” of any textile element means that the textile element is regarded as “hav[ing] been knitted with a surrounding textile structure.” See Prelim. Resp. 15–16 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 38). We credit Dr. Pastore’s testimony to that end, over that of Dr. Brookstein (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 128), as we find that Dr. Pastore’s testimony is more consistent with Clark’s actual disclosure and what it would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 19
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner states, “[f]or purposes of this Preliminary Response only, Nike applies New Balance’s proposed level of skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 13. Based on this record, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’749 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our patentability evaluations below.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“in a continuous fashion, as shown in Figure 5, and this will include the portion that will be used for the upper (the textile element) and the material that is trimmed away (the surrounding textile structure)” (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 124–125)). Notably absent, however, from the above-identified portions of the Petition and testimony of Dr. Bookstein is any reference to material that is “trimmed away” or why any such material is regarded as surrounding a textile element, or any other component of Clark. In a later portion of the Petition addressing the second clause of limitation 1a, Petitioner makes reference to Clark’s column 4, lines 61 through 66, as disclosing a “trimming process.” Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex, 1003 ¶ 128). That portion of Clark generally expresses that “the exposed edge of the upper may be trimmed in any desired outline . . . and the trimmed edge may be bound or finished as desired.” E. 1004, 4:61–66. We agree with Patent Owner that, to the extent Petitioner and Dr. Brookstein rely on that portion of Clark to account for the first clause of limitation 1a, Petitioner does not meaningfully explain why Clark’s disclosure of “the potential trimming of an ‘exposed edge’ (singular)” of any textile element means that the textile element is regarded as “hav[ing] been knitted with a surrounding textile structure.” See Prelim. Resp. 15–16 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 38). We credit Dr. Pastore’s testimony to that end, over that of Dr. Brookstein (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 128), as we find that Dr. Pastore’s testimony is more consistent with Clark’s actual disclosure and what it would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,266,749 - Parse Biosciences, Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 17, 2024 · IPR2023-00876 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6 are unpatentable: claims 1–4 and 6 as obvious over Linnarsson and McCloskey, and claim 5 as obvious over those references and ordinary skill.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedGranted in part
“Clearly, the second Hall-Ellis declaration is offered to prove that McCloskey is a prior art printed publication. See, e.g., Ex. 1065 ¶50 (“In view of the foregoing, it is my opinion that [McCloskey] was publicly available no later than [January 3, 2008].”). Thus, the second Hall-Ellis declaration should have been served within ten business days of Patent Owner’s October, 27, 2023, objection to the admissibility of McCloskey. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) (“The party relying on evidence to which an objection is timely served may respond to the objection by serving supplemental evidence within ten business days of service of the objection.”). Because it was not filed until March 29, 2024, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is granted with respect to the second Hall-Ellis declaration. In its Opposition to the Motion to Exclude, Petitioner argues that, under Hulu LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, No. IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential), it was allowed to wait until its Reply to file the second Hall-Ellis declaration. Paper 37, 1–2. The Board in Hulu does state that, “if the patent owner challenges a reference’s status as a printed publication, a petitioner may submit a supporting declaration with its reply to further support its argument that a reference qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu, at 15 (37 C.F.R. § 42.23). However, the Board’s statement was referring to the scope of permissible reply arguments under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). See Hulu at 14 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)’s requirement that “[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, or patent owner response”). The Board in Hulu does not purport to interpret 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 or even discuss supplemental evidence. Petitioner clearly missed the deadline imposed by 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2), which was triggered by Patent Owner’s October 27, 2023, objection to McCloskey. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is granted with respect to the second Hall-Ellis declaration (i.e., Ex. 1065).” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“We find that both references are analogous art to the ’981 patent, as there is ample supporting evidence in the record, including that to which the Reply cites (citations identified in the immediately preceding paragraph). Indeed, Patent Owner does not dispute the merits of either argument. PO Sur-Reply 27–28. Rather, Patent Owner, argues that we “should not now permit Petitioner to rewrite its clearly-deficient Petition.” Id. at 28. Petitioner’s Reply does not re-write its Petition. What Petitioner’s Reply does, in response to Patent Owner’s arguments, is precisely what Sanofi-Aventis contemplates as being proper in a reply brief. Indeed, in ruling against the petitioner in Sanofi-Aventis, the Federal Circuit specifically noted that the petitioner could have used its reply brief “to explain how [the prior art reference] is analogous to the [challenged] patent” but did not do so. 66 F.4th at 1379–1380. Here, in contrast, Petitioner used its Reply brief to explain how Linnarsson and McCloskey are analogous to the ’981 patent. Petitioner’s explanation in its Reply brief was both proper and persuasive.” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedReference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“That McCloskey is what it purports to be (a journal article) and that it was published in 2007 are corroborated by multiple pieces of evidence. McCloskey names four authors, all four of whom are named inventors of US 2007/0020640 A1, published Jan. 25, 2007 (“McCloskey ’640”). Ex. 1004, 1, Ex. 2001, code (76). Patent Owner concedes that McCloskey and McCloskey ’640 involve the same subject matter, having argued that the consideration of McCloskey ’640 supported discretionary denial of the Petition based on McCloskey. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 22 (“Petitioner’s secondary reference, an article by McCloskey, is at best cumulative of the far more detailed McCloskey ’640, which was raised by the Office and substantively discussed as the basis for a potential rejection using its asserted disclosure of a polynucleotide-specific tag—the same purported teaching for which Petitioner relies on McCloskey here.”). Notably, McCloskey ’640 was published on January 25, 2007. Ex. 2001, code (43). That is just days before McCloskey was received by BIOCHEMICAL GENETICS on January 31, 2007. See EX. 1004, 1 (“Received: 31 January 2007 / Accepted: 29 May 2007 / Published online: 23 October 2007”). In other words, it appears that the authors sought to have their research published in a scientific journal promptly after the subject matter of their research had been published by the Office. Further, the existence of McCloskey and its publication year of 2007 is confirmed by other sources in the record. See Ex. 1029, code (56) (United States Patent identifying as a cited reference: “McCloskey, et al. Encoding Pcr products with batch-stamps and barcodes. Biochem Genet. Dec. 2007;45(11-12):761-7. Epub Oct. 23, 2007.”); Ex. 1053, code (56) (same); Ex. 1060 (article’s bibliography citing “McCloskey ML, Stöger R, Hansen RS, Laird CD. Encoding PCR products with batch-stamps and barcodes. Biochem. Genet 2007;45:761–767. [PubMed: 17955361]”). Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is denied with respect to” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“The Petition states that “Petitioner does not believe that any terms require explicit construction in view of the prior art being presented.” Pet. 36. Despite this stated position, Petitioner proposed constructions for “multiplex-identifier (MID)” and “providing a sample.” Id. Patent Owner, in its Preliminary Response, stated that it “agrees that at this time, solely for purposes of an institution decision on the Petition, no terms require explicit construction.” Prelim. Resp. 45. In instituting the IPR, we found no need to provide an express construction of any claim term. Inst. Dec. 6. In the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner repeats that it “does not believe any term needs construction,” but nonetheless “applies the Petition’s definitions for ‘MID’ and ‘sample.’” PO Resp. 19. The Petition defines MID as “‘a tag or combination of tags associated with a polynucleotide whose identity (e.g., the tag DNA sequence) can be used to differentiate polynucleotides in a sample.’” Pet. 36 (quoting Ex. 1001, 6:33–38). The Petition defines sample as “‘a quantity of material from a biological, environmental medical, or patient source in which detection, measurement, or labeling of target nucleic acids is sought.’” Id. (quoting Ex. 1001, 12:7– 10). We apply these same definitions in our analysis.” slip op. at 6
Patent outcomesUS 10,155,981 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,155,981 - Duration Media LLC v. Rich Media Club LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 19, 2024 · IPR2023-00953 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 were not proven unpatentable under either §103 ground because the evidence did not show the claimed viewability determination.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We find Patent Owner’s argument persuasive. Indeed, it is unclear how Petitioner’s proposal accounts for the types of problems encountered in the art or prior art solutions to those problems. See Daiichi Sankyo, 501 F.3d at 1256 (identifying these factors, among others, as “a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art”). Nor does Petitioner, in its Reply, address, let alone rebut, Patent Owner’s arguments that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had some experience and/or knowledge in internet advertising. See generally Pet. Reply. Patent Owner proposes that a “person of ordinary skill in the art would have a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a similar major involving computer programming (or at least four years of practical computer programming experience) and at least two years of experience (in or out of college) in the field of internet advertising.” PO Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 2045 ¶54). We agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have some experience in internet advertising, although we fail to see why one year would not be enough to familiarize sufficiently a computer scientist and/or programmer with the types of problems encountered in the art or prior art solutions to those problems. Based on the competing proposals, arguments, and evidence before us, we adopt and apply the following level of skill in assessing Petitioner’s challenges to the patentability of the claims of the ’329 patent: a person that would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical (or similar) engineering with about three years of experience being in the field of internet advertising.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner’s resurrected argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of § 311(b). Section 311(b) provides: “A petitioner in an inter partes review may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed cancel the claims of the ’329 patent on the basis of Badros, Harkins, and Krassner. Pet. 11. Petitioner did not base its request, in whole or in part, on the Krassner publication. Id. Krassner clearly is a patent. It issued on August 13, 2019, far too late to be § 102(b) prior art. Even if we assume Krassner is also a “printed publication” withing the meaning of § 311(b), the same date would apply: August 13, 2019. Petitioner has not presented any evidence that the document that is Krassner was published prior to when it issued on August 13, 2019. That another document (the Krassner publication), which published much earlier, may contain the same or similar disclosure is not relevant to when Krassner was patented or published. In sum, Krassner is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). b) Whether Krassner is Prior Art Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) Although Krassner is not prior under 35 U.S.C.§ 102(b), we” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner responds that, contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, “Harkins teaches that its invention can be used in web pages.” Pet. Reply 18 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶30). Although Petitioner’s citation is off by one paragraph, Petitioner’s response about what Harkins teaches is correct. See Ex. 1004 ¶29 (“The present invention may be implemented for provision of virtually any type of advertising (e.g., print, radio, television, Internet, billboard, etc.) via any type of advertising medium (e.g., newspaper, magazine, radio broadcast, Web pages, billboards, etc.) without departing from the scope of the present invention.”). We find that Harkins is from the same field based on its express statement that it is applicable to “virtually any type of advertising” and “any type of advertising medium,” including “Web pages.” Ex. 1004 ¶29. Further, even if this were insufficient to place Harkins in the same field as the ’329 patent, we find that Harkins is reasonably pertinent to the particular problems with which the ’329 patent inventors were involved. In sum, we find that Harkins is analogous art to the ’329 patent.” slip op. at 19
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedGranted
“Paper 60 (“PO Mot. To Exclude”), 9–10.6 Patent Owner is correct in this regard and, thus, we grant Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude with respect to the testimony in the second Smedley Declaration and the Madansky Declaration opining that Badros teaches the determination limitation. Paper 60, 9–12. Petitioner, in its Opposition to the Motion to Exclude, argues that Patent Owner’s arguments about the “viewability test” were “surprising.” Paper 62, 8. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument. The “viewability test” is a claim limitation. Petitioner should have anticipated that Patent Owner would argue that limitation. See In re Gardner, 449 F. App’x 914, 916 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“This court has held that when evaluating claims for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, all the limitations of the claims must be considered and given weight.” (citing Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1983)); Univ. of Strathclyde v. 6 Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude seeks to exclude, in part or in whole, Exhibits 1020–1022, 1025–1030, and 1034–1040, which were submitted with Petitioner’s Reply, of which Exhibits 1026 and 1027 are the declaration by Dr. Madansky and the second declaration by Dr. Smedley, respectively. Mot. To Exclude. The Motion to Exclude also seeks to exclude “Exhibits” 1017 and 1018, which are not filed or of record in this case but which are referenced in the Reply. Id. For example, Exhibit 1017 is the Krassner publication, which Petitioner unsuccessfully moved to add to the record as supplemental information. See Paper 21, 3 n.1 (expunging the Krassner publication and stating that it “need not -- and indeed may not -- be re-filed under a new exhibit number”). Apart from the portions of Dr. Smedley’s second declaration and Dr. Madansky’s declaration opining that Badros teaches the “determination” limitation, we dismiss the Motion to Exclude as moot. obviousness determination generally requires a finding that “all claimed limitations are disclosed in the prior art’.” (citing PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Petitioner argues that “[v]iewability tests were well known for well over a decade prior to the ’329 patent’s priority date.” Reply 9. If that were the case, then Petitioner should have made its argument in the Petition. Section 312(a) of Title 35 is titled “Requirements of Petition,” and it specifies that a petition must identify, among other things, “the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim, including . . . (B) affidavits or declarations of supporting evidence and opinions, if the petitioner relies on expert opinions.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)–(5) (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon; and . . . the supporting evidence relied upon to support the challenge.”). Thus, “Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.” Board’s Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 73 (Nov. 21, 2019).7 Dr. Smedley’s testimony in his second declaration, that “Badros discloses Patent Owner’s ‘viewability test’” (Ex. 1027 ¶11), is clearly evidence to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability. The same is true of Dr. Madansky’s testimony that she agrees with Dr. Smedley in this regard. Ex. 1026 ¶4.” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 11,443,329 not shown unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,443,329 - PTAB · Jul 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00276 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution
Instituted review of claims 1–3, 6, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 19 based on a reasonable likelihood of success on the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review requires that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Determining whether to institute has been delegated to the Board. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, and for the reasons explained below, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one claim. Accordingly, we grant the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“contacting mucosal tissue of the upper airway with the treatment delivery portion, without piercing the mucosal tissue,” as recited in claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 8; see Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.”). As will become apparent from Patent Owner’s arguments, central to the dispute between the parties is Petitioner’s mapping of Baker to limitation [b] and, in particular, to the recited “treatment delivery portion” of the device. In Petitioner’s view, Baker’s inflatable chamber 28 constitutes part of the recited “treatment delivery portion.” See Pet. 28 (“An energy delivery member including an inflatable chamber 28 is located at the distal tip of insertion wand 24.” (citing Ex. 1013, 16:19–26, 17:22–32, 20:35–39, Fig. 5; Ex. 1002 ¶75)). Petitioner further points out, with supporting evidence, that the inflatable chamber contacts mucosal tissue without piercing it. Id. at 34 (citing Ex. 1013, 17:22–36, Fig. 5; Ex. 1002 ¶84). slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“underlying the mucosal tissue, and wherein delivering the energy comprises ablating the nerve tissue.” Ex. 1001, 29:64–67. In challenging claim 6 as obvious, Petitioner relies on Chen for teaching targeting of nerve tissue with radiofrequency energy and on Edwards-535 for teaching targeting of underlying tissue (including nerves) without harming the mucosal surface. Pet. 80–81 (citing 1017, 239–240; 1010, 4:60–67, 6:10–37; Ex. 1002 ¶171). Petitioner explains why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Baker, Edards-535, and Chen and had a reasonable expatiation of success in doing so. Id. at 61–68. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s reliance on Edwards-535 and Chen to reach the additional subject matter recited in claim 6. Nor does Patent Owner dispute Petitioner’s reasons for combining Edwards-535 and Chen with Baker or that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in such an endeavor. Prelim. Resp. 15– 535, and Chen fails to satisfy limitation [b] of claim 1, from which claim 6 ultimately depends. Prelim. Resp. 15. However, as discussed above, we have already determined there is a reasonable likelihood that Baker alone discloses limitation [b] of claim 1. There is a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing on Ground 3 as to both claim 1 and claim 6. We decline, at this time, to address the other claims challenged in Ground 3. SAS, 138 S. Ct. at 1356.” slip op. at 17
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,415,194 - PTAB · Jul 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00275 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22–24, 44, and 46 based on a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review requires that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Determining whether to institute has been delegated to the Board. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, and for the reasons explained below, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one claim. Accordingly, we grant the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“argues that we “should exercise . . . discretion to deny institution of Ground 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” Prelim. Resp. 8 (emphasis added). However, we do not institute on a ground-by-ground basis. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”); see also SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359 (2018) (holding that the Director’s prior “partial institution practice” was contrary to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)). Even assuming Patent Owner requests that we exercise discretion to deny the entire Petition, its discretionary denial arguments could not support such a request because those arguments are limited to Ground 1. Patent Owner does not argue or present any basis for exercising our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) as to any of the additional grounds. And, as discussed below, there is a reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in at least one of those additional grounds. For this reason alone, discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) is not warranted.” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“step [b], i.e., “contacting a treatment element of the treatment device with mucosal tissue in the patient’s nasal airway,” as recited in claim 9. Prelim. Resp. 17; see Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.”). As will become apparent from Patent Owner’s arguments, central to the dispute between the parties is Petitioner’s mapping of Gertner to limitation [b] and, in particular, to the recited “treatment element.” In Petitioner’s view, Gertner’s distal end 216 and expandable component 218 together form the recited “treatment element.” As Petitioner explains it, Gertner discloses that “the distal end 216 emits light from ‘within’ the expandable component 218, such that the light emitter and expandable component 218 (which together constitute distal end 216) act as a treatment element.” Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶¶103, 106, 107; Ex. 1002 ¶64). Petitioner further points out, with supporting evidence, that the expandable component contacts mucosal tissue. Id. (citing Ex. 1013 ¶¶37, 103).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Edwards-535. Pet. 61–64. Claim 16 recites: “A method as in claim 9, wherein adjusting the shape comprises forming at least one bend in a shaft of the treatment device.” For this additional subject matter, Petitioner points us to the bend in the structure that is designated with reference numeral 124 in Edwards-535, as illustrated in Figure 3B. Pet. 61–62. Petitioner also argues, with supporting evidence, that, even absent this disclosure, it would have been obvious to form a bend, as it is well known in the art to provide bendable catheters to facilitate insertion of a medical device. Id. at 62–64 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶130–132). Patent Owner’s sole argument is Edwards-535 fails to disclose limitation [b] of claim 9, from which claim 16 depends. Prelim. Resp 31– 32. That argument is not persuasive for reasons already discussed. Although we have already held that the single-claim threshold of § 314(a) has been met with respect to independent claim 9, we nonetheless further determine that there is a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing in showing that dependent claim 16 would have been obvious over Edwards-535.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,072,597 - PTAB · Jul 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00282 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–4 and 7–9 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3 and 7–9 are obvious over Edwards-’535 and Stern.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons provided below, we determine Petitioner has satisfied the threshold requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we institute inter partes review of all challenged claims based on all grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“II. ANALYSIS Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan at the relevant time would have had (1) a Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) or at least a bachelor of science degree in engineering or a related discipline and (2) at least three years of experience in the clinical use, design, development, and/or testing of medical devices, including medical devices that deliver energy to tissue. Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 24–28). Patent Owner does not address the skill level in its Preliminary Response. At this stage, we find Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art sufficiently supported by the record and apply it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“Under that standard, the words of a claim “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,” which is “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Petitioner argues that the preamble of claim 1 “to treat rhinitis” is not limiting. Pet. 18. According to Petitioner, the body of claim 1 recites a structurally complete apparatus, and the preamble only states an intended use for the device without limiting the claimed structure. Id. at 18–19. Patent Owner does not propose any claim construction. On this record, we find Petitioner’s argument persuasive and determine that the preamble of claim 1 “to treat rhinitis” is not limiting. On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we see no need to expressly construe any other claim term.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). We still “must further consider the factual questions of whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine those references, and whether in making that combination, a person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success.” Dome Patent L.P. v. Lee, 799 F.3d 1372, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Based on the current record, and for purposes of this Decision, we find Petitioner has shown sufficiently that “a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” See In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 11,766,286 - PTAB · Jul 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00278 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1, 4–6, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15–17 on all grounds presented in the Petition.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Considering the arguments and evidence of record, we determine that the Petition demonstrates “a reasonable likelihood that [P]etitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had (1) a Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) or at least a bachelor of science degree in engineering or a related discipline and (2) at least three years of experience in the clinical use, design, development, and/or testing of medical devices, including medical devices that deliver energy to tissue. Pet. 19–20 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 24–28). Patent Owner does not respond to Petitioner’s description of a POSITA in its Preliminary Response. At this stage, we find Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art to be sufficiently supported by the record and apply it for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends “the Board need not construe any terms because the Challenged Claims are invalid under any reasonable interpretation.” Pet. 20. At this stage, Patent Owner does not respond to this contention, nor propose any express claim construction of its own. For this decision, and given that neither party seeks any express claim construction, we determine that no express claim construction is necessary. To the extent our consideration of Petitioner’s grounds touches on any implicit issues of claim construction, those are addressed in our analysis below.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“several reasons. First, Petitioner’s reasoning for combining Edwards-535 and Stern is supported by testimony from Dr. Martin who identifies multiple, specific reasons for the combination. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 103–122, 129–148. This testimony is not conclusory and is supported with numerous citations to other evidence of record. Id. Patent Owner does not offer any countervailing testimony with its Preliminary Response, electing instead to rely on attorney argument at this stage. Second, Patent Owner’s assertions that Petitioner’s reasoning is insufficient because Stern describes treating the endometrium and ablating different tissue, i.e., surface versus underlying tissue, are undermined by Edwards-535’s citation to Baker. As Petitioner points out, “Edwards-’535 points a POSITA” to, and incorporates teachings from, Baker. Pet. 47. This is true even though Baker, like Stern, is largely focused on treating the uterus and describes preferred embodiments for delivering RF energy to the endometrium. See, e.g., Ex. 1011, Abstr., 3:5–9, 5:50–65. Moreover, Petitioner offers evidence to show that Baker and Stern depict similar devices, including the figure from Dr. Martin’s declaration reproduced below. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 117–119, 144–147. Dr. Martin’s figure above is a side-by-side comparison of Figure 8 of Baker and Figure 4a of Stern, depicting devices that, at least on their face, appear to share a similar shape and configuration. See id. ¶¶ 119, 146 (testifying that the comparison above shows “Baker and Stern both depict very similar devices”). At this stage, Patent Owner does not dispute that Petitioner’s comparison is apt, nor otherwise address Petitioner’s reliance on Baker as evidence of a motivation to combine Stern. Thus, on the current record, we agree with Petitioner that Edwards-535’s express citation to Baker suggests that a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the similar teachings Petitioner identifies in Stern. Third, Stern also contradicts Patent Owner’s assertion that a POSITA would have considered its teachings to be inapplicable to treating the nasal concha as taught in Edwards-535. While Stern is primarily concerned with endometrial ablation applications, that does not mean its teachings are limited to such. Indeed, Stern explains that its “electrode partitioning structure” may be used to treat “other body organs or tissues either externally or internally” and that its “principles with respect to the delivery of controlled RF energy” can be applied “not only for controlled destruction of tissue but also for controlled heat treatment of tissue.” Id. Such teachings further support the testimony of Dr. Martin that “[a] POSITA would have known that technology from ablation devices for one part of the body would be applicable to devices used in other areas of the body.” Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 117–121; Ex. 1033, 18:27–40). We also disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that “Edwards-535 and Stern are so in conflict with one another that they rise to the level of teaching away.” Prelim. Resp. 21. A teaching away requires that the reference “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed.” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). But Patent Owner has not shown that any of the references cited here discourage the articulated combination of Stern’s electrode configuration, i.e., multiple pairs of bipolar electrodes connected to separate radiofrequency output channels, with Edwards-535’s device. To the contrary, Stern expressly states that its “electrode partitioning structure” can be used for other applications (see Ex. 1033, 18:27–40), which on the current record would seem to include Edwards-535’s device for ablating nasal tissue.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,033,318 - PTAB · Jul 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00277 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR of claims 1–4, 6–12, and 16 on all asserted grounds; the Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the Edwards-535, Kong, and Stern obviousness challenge.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Considering the arguments and evidence of record, we determine that the Petition demonstrates “a reasonable likelihood that [P]etitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had (1) a Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) or at least a bachelor of science degree in engineering or a related discipline and (2) at least three years of experience in the clinical use, design, development, and/or testing of medical devices, including medical devices that deliver energy to tissue. Pet. 20–21 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 27–29; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 24–28). Patent Owner does not respond to Petitioner’s description of a POSITA in its Preliminary Response. At this stage, we find Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art to be sufficiently supported by the record and apply it for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends “the Board need not construe any terms because the Challenged Claims are invalid under any reasonable interpretation.” Pet. 21. At this stage, Patent Owner does not respond to this contention, nor propose any express claim construction of its own. For this decision, and given that neither party seeks any express claim construction, we determine that no express claim construction is necessary. To the extent our consideration of Petitioner’s grounds touches on any implicit issues of claim construction, those are addressed in our analysis below.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“On the current record, Patent Owner’s arguments are unavailing for several reasons. First, Petitioner’s reasoning for combining Edwards-535 and Stern is supported by testimony from its declarants who identify multiple, specific reasons for the combination. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 93–94; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 75–97. This testimony is not conclusory and is supported with numerous citations to other evidence of record. Id. Patent Owner does not offer any countervailing testimony with its Preliminary Response, electing instead to rely on attorney argument at this stage. Second, Patent Owner’s assertions that Petitioner’s reasoning is insufficient because Stern describes treating the endometrium and ablating a different tissue, i.e., surface versus underlying tissue, are undermined by Edwards-535’s citation to Baker. As Petitioner points out, “Edwards-’535 instructs a POSITA to look to Baker for how to dispose electrodes on the surface of a membrane.” Pet. 47. This is true even though Baker, like Stern, is largely focused on treating the uterus and describes preferred embodiments for delivering RF energy to the endometrium. See, e.g., Ex. 1011, Abstr., 3:5–9, 5:50–65. Moreover, Petitioner offers evidence, including the figure reproduced below, to show that “Baker and Stern depict similar devices for ablating tissue.” Pet. 46. Petitioner’s figure above is a side-by-side comparison of Figure 8 of Baker and Figure 4a of Stern, depicting devices that, at least on their face, appear to share a similar shape and configuration. Petitioner offers a similar figure showing that both Baker and Stern teach the arrangement of “electrodes in rows.” See id. at 47 (showing side-by-side comparison of Figure 8 of Baker to Figure 19 of Stern). At this stage, Patent Owner does not dispute that Petitioner’s comparisons are apt, nor otherwise address Petitioner’s reliance on Baker as evidence of a motivation to combine Stern. Thus, on the current record, we agree with Petitioner that Edwards-535’s express citation to Baker suggests that a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the similar teachings Petitioner identifies in Stern.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,241,271 - PTAB · Apr 24, 2024 · IPR2024-00028 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–19 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Flusberg, Flusberg ’338, and PacBio-BAM.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“In assessing whether to exercise the Board’s authority to deny institution under § 325(d), the Board considers a two-part analysis. Advanced Bionics at 8–9. First, the Board considers whether “the same or substantially the same” art or arguments were previously presented to the Office. Id. at 8. If so, the Board then considers whether the petition demonstrates that the Office “erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims.” Id. In applying the two-part framework, the Board considers several nonexclusive factors set forth in Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, No. IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to § III.C.5, first paragraph).” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“G. Conclusion Regarding Claim 1 Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to claim 1 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 due to obviousness over Flusberg, Flusberg ’338, and PacBio-BAM. H. Remaining Claims of Ground 1 and Grounds 2–4 Patent Owner does not present any arguments specific to any claim beyond claim 1. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 1 (“Because all other asserted Grounds rely upon prevailing on Ground 1 for claim 1, all other grounds fail for the same reasons.”). In any event, the threshold for institution is a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing as to any single claim. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). “Once that single claim threshold is satisfied, it doesn’t matter whether the [P]etitioner is likely to prevail on any additional claims.” SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (2018). Thus, because we have decided to grant review of claim 1, we do the same for all claims challenged and all grounds raised. Id.; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”). III. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in establishing that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that the Petition is granted and inter partes review is hereby instituted as to claims 1–19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,091,794 B2 on the grounds presented; and” slip op. at 35
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Other
“Petitioner argues that an input data structure having the recited combination of properties would have been obvious, in part, because all such properties were identified and could be measured in the prior art. For example, according to Petitioner, “[i]n addition to encoding the identity and relative locations of each nucleotide, PacBio-BAM encodes the PW and IPD of each nucleotide as integer arrays.” Pet. 43 (citing Ex. 1011, 8). This argument is supported by the cited evidence. Under a section titled “Encoding of kinetics pulse features,” PacBio-BAM states: “Interpulse duration (IPD) and pulsewidth are measured in frames [and] . . . may be encoded in BAM read tags” and further states such information relates to “base modification detection.” Ex. 1011, 8. Petitioner also notes that Flusberg and Flusberg ’338 teach that PW and IPD are affected by nucleotide modifications. Pet. 43–44 (citing Ex. 1007, 66:46–67:4, 9:41–46; 22:49–54; Figs. 12, 13, and 15–19; Ex. 1006, 462, Fig. 3). For example, Flusberg ’338 teaches: In certain aspects, the invention provides a general-purpose approach to discriminating between Me+ and Me- using features in a real-time sequencing-by-synthesis trace comprising signals emitted during the incorporation of optically detectable nucleotides into a nascent strand by a polymerase enzyme. . . . A first stage of this approach includes the development of a classifier for distinguishing methylated from unmethylated cytosines in a nucleic acid template. A set of features is measured for every pulse (discrete event or signal) in the trace. For example, a set of measurable features might be {pulse width, pulse duration, pulse height, pulse amplitude variability}. Ex. 1007, 64:46–59 (emphasis added). Similarly, Flusberg states: Fluorescence pulses in SMRT sequencing are characterized not only by their emission spectra but also by their duration and by the interval between successive pulses. These metrics, defined here as pulse width and interpulse duration (IPD), add valuable information about DNA polymerase kinetics. Pulse width is a function of all kinetic steps after nucleotide binding and up to fluorophore release, and IPD is determined by the kinetics of nucleotide binding and polymerase translocation. We have previously demonstrated that SMRT sequencing polymerase synthesis rates are sensitive to DNA primary and secondary structure. Therefore, we hypothesized that methylated bases in a DNA template might be detected directly on the principle that their presence affects polymerase kinetics during SMRT sequencing. Ex. 1006, 462 (emphasis added; end notes omitted). Petitioner argues that “PacBio-BAM teaches creating an input data” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“4. Reason To Combine Petitioner points out that (1) each of Flusberg and Flusberg ’338 teach methods of detecting nucleotide modifications using SMRT sequencing, and (2) PacBio-BAM teaches a BAM file containing values for all claimed properties generated in the course of SMRT sequencing. Pet. 29. Petitioner argues with supporting evidence, that it would have been obvious “to use PacBio’s BAM file containing the recited properties as an input data structure, as expressly suggested in PacBio-BAM.” Id. at 29–30; see also Ex. 1002 ¶82 (Dr. Dessimoz providing his opinion in support of the combination); Pet. 30–33 (providing additional arguments and evidence to support the combination). Patent Owner argues that “Petitioner fails to provide motivation to combine Flusberg with the other two references of Ground 1 to arrive at the claimed invention.” Prelim. Resp. 45. According to Patent Owner, “Petitioner makes no argument for why Flusberg and the ’338 patent would be combined, let alone why a POSITA would selectively combine various aspects of each reference and include features not used in either reference to arrive.” Id. Patent Owner premises its argument on a purported failure by Flusberg ’338 to incorporate by reference the entire Flusberg reference as opposed to limited aspects of its. Id. at 45–46. Flusberg ’338 patent twice states that Flusberg is “incorporated herein by reference in its entirety for all purposes.” Ex. 1007, 77:30–24, 78:58–66. Patent Owner argues that what is incorporated by reference is only the specific content of Flusberg that is mentioned by Flusberg ’338. Prelim. Resp. 46. Patent Owner cites Nautilus, Inc. v. Icon Health & Fitness Inc., No. IPR2017-01407, 2018 WL 6321395, at *18–19 (PTAB Dec. 3, 2018) in support. Id. Patent Owner additionally points out that, if either incorporation by reference successfully incorporated the entire Flusberg disclosure, then the other incorporation by reference would be superfluous. Prelim. Resp. 46–47. This last point is logical, but the totality of the facts, as discussed below, better support Petitioner’s position. In Nautilus, the Board interpreted the following incorporation by reference language: “The ’088 Application provides ‘One example of customizing a work-out that may be utilized in conjunction with the exercise apparatus described herein is set forth in U.S. Patent Application No. 13/754,361, filed on Jan. 30, 2013, the disclosure of which is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety.’” Nautilus, 2018 WL 6321395, at *19. The Board found that the word “disclosure” could refer to either the example being discussed or the entire disclosure of the ’088 Application, and the Board ultimately held that what was incorporated by reference was the example of customizing a work-out only and not the entirety of the ’088 Application. Id. Nautilus is not precedential. Moreover, its facts are different. Here, we have statements that Flusberg is incorporated by reference both “in its entirety” and “for all purposes.” Ex. 1007, 77:30–24, 78:58–66. Further, the Board’s holding in Nautilus explicitly hinged on its understanding of the word “disclosure” in the following phrase: “the disclosure of which is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety.” Nautilus, 2018 WL 6321395, at *19. The Board held that, “as a matter of grammar, the antecedent of the ‘disclosure’ being incorporated could be either the application or ‘one example’ that is described in the application.” Id. Here, the rules of grammar contradict Patent Owner’s position, rather than support it. For example, the first incorporation by reference states: “Further details on the detection of N6-MeA, as well as other modifications within a template nucleic acid, are provided in Flusberg, et al. (2010) Nature Methods 7(6):461–465, incorporated herein by reference in its entirety for all purposes.” Ex. 1007, 77:30–24 (emphasis added). The word “its” can refer to only one thing, Flusberg itself, as the alternative would be plural nouns, namely “details” and “other modifications,” and thus inconsistent with the singular “its.” In sum, we find that, on the current record, Petitioner has sufficiently shown a motivation to combine Flusberg and Flusberg ’338 with PacBio- BAM.” slip op. at 25
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 11,091,794
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.