- PTAB · Sep 6, 2024 · IPR2024-00430 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–24 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in a petition and the preliminary response “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.” Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, and accompanying exhibits and evidence, we determine Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim in the inter partes review. Therefore, we grant institution of an inter partes review as to all of the challenged claims of the ’690 patent on all challenges in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A POSITA6 would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a similar discipline, and three to four years of experience working in signal processing and/or communication systems/networks. Additional education may substitute for experience, and significant work experience may substitute for formal education. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 115–120). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art, which is consistent with the prior art references asserted by Petitioner. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (stating that the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). For this stage of the proceeding, we agree with and will use Petitioner’s proposed level for this Decision.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Since the parties apply what they contend is the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim terms in their briefs, and have stipulated in the Cox case that the plain and ordinary meaning applies, and Patent Owner argues that the district court’s construction in the Charter case is the plain and ordinary meaning, there is no controversy concerning claim terms that we need to resolve in this Decision. Pet. 6; Prelim. Resp. 10; Ex. 1005, 104–105; Ex. 2001, 2. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). At this stage of the proceeding, therefore, we apply the plain and ordinary meaning to the claim terms consistent with their ordinary and customary meaning under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). We note, however, that Patent Owner seems to consider the court’s construction in the Charter case to require that the claimed “probe” must be of a type that can be compared with a reference signal. Prelim. Resp. 10. We question whether all of the different types of probes mentioned and claimed in the ’690 patent would require comparison with a reference signal. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:7–19. However, this is a matter best resolved, if necessary, on a full record at trial.” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableUnpatentableMixed
“Prelim. Resp. 23 (citing Ex. 1013, 37) (annotated in red by Patent Owner). IEEE-802.16’s Table 5 shows that the CID is a field of a generic MAC header. Petitioner does not show sufficiently that the CID, located in the header, specifies content payload of a MAC message, as required by limitation 1A. Petitioner alternatively relies on IEEE-802.16’s ranging code index that it contends is another example of data that is in a ranging request parameter and is used for the ranging response payload. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1013, 49–51, 204–213, 576–579, 665–66; Ex. 1002 ¶ 149). Patent Owner asserts that the portions of IEEE-802.16 that Petitioner cites do not disclose that the ranging code index is sent as part of a ranging request message. Prelim. Resp. 25. Although the parts of IEEE-802.16 that Petitioner cites disclose that the ranging code index is sent from the SS to the BS and is included in a ranging response (Ex. 1013, 49–51, 204–213, 576–579, 665–66), the cited parts do not disclose that the SS sends the ranging code index to the BS in a ranging request. Consequently, Petitioner has not established that IEEE- 802.16 anticipates a ranging code index that is a parameter of a ranging request specifying the content payload of the ranging response corresponding to limitation 1A. For the foregoing reasons, on this record, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood to prevail in showing that claim 1 is anticipated by IEEE 802.16.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,284,690 - Hunter’S Manufacturing Company, Inc. D/B/A Tenpoint Crossbow Technologies v. Ravin Crossbows, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 9, 2024 · IPR2023-00407 · APJ Robert J Silverman · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated by Stanziale ’771; the Board did not reach the alternative grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“As an initial matter, the recited expression “mounted to” is broad. The Federal Circuit has explained that words in a claim “will ordinarily be given their full meaning,” without imposing narrowing modifications on the claim language. Johnson Worldwide, 175 F.3d at 989, see also Virginia Panel, 133 F.3d at 865–66. As to whether the “mounted to” connection may be an indirect connection, the parties agree that an indirect connection is permitted — a view that is amply supported by the intrinsic record, as discussed above. With regard to the types of movement that may occur between a “string guide” and a corresponding “limb,” the intrinsic record shows that that various types of movements (including no movement at all) are characterized as “mounted to.” Slight variations of “mounted to,” occurring in the intrinsic record, are helpful in understanding the claim language — particularly because the ’015 patent itself uses such a variant (“mounted . . . on”) to describe the very connection (between a “string guide” and a “limb”) that is elsewhere, and in claim 1, is described as “mounted to.” See Ex. 1001, 5:23–26.” slip op. at 22
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Patent Owner’ sole argument — i.e., that Stanziale ’771 fails to teach the “mounted to” limitation — is based upon its construction of the “mounted to” limitation, which permits the “string guide” to be rotatable relative the corresponding “limb,” but permits no other type of relative motion. See PO Resp. 4, 13–14. As discussed above, we do not accept Patent Owner’s construction of the “mounted to” limitation. In Stanziale ’771, first and second pulleys 145, 146, and interconnecting pivot 147 (all three of which Petitioner maps to claim 1’s “string guide[s]”) are pivotally connected to a number of intermediate members (e.g., lever arms or pushing arms 32, connecting elements 27, and constraining member 29) which are, in turn, pivotally connected to elastic members 10 (which Petitioner maps to claim 1’s “limb[s]”). See Pet. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1012 7:9–17, 8:26–8:13, 11:8–9, 14:18–15:22, 16:24–25, 16:29, 17:2, 17:15–17, 17:24–27, 19:12–30, 20:32–21:16, Figs. 1–7; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 177–179); see also Ex. 1012 11:3–7, 11:34–12:4, 12:10–17, 16:29–18:3, 18:22–19:30, Figs. 8, 9, 10a, 10b. Therefore, Stanziale ’771, in Petitioner’s mapping, teaches the “string guide[s]” connected indirectly to the “limb[s].” Per the construction of the “mounted to” limitation employed herein (“connected to, either directly or indirectly”), Petitioner establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Stanziale ’771 teaches the “string guide[s]” “mounted to” the “limb[s],” as recited in claim 1 of the ’015 patent. Contrary to Patent Owner’s concerns (see Paper 47, 1), the indirect connection between Stanziale ’771’s “string guide[s]” and “limb[s]” is not “unbounded.” Rather, the connection disclosed by Stanziale ’771 is the type of indirect connection supported by the intrinsic record. See supra § II.B. Patent Owner’s contention that “a POSA would be disinclined to rely on [Stanziale ’771] as a reference for the improved crossbow design disclosed in Claim 1” is not persuasive. See PO Resp. 38 (citing Ex. 2029 ¶ 46). The test for anticipation is whether a prior art reference discloses each and every element recited in the claim, not whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have been inclined to rely on the reference. See Net MoneyIN, Inc., 545 F.3d at 1369.” slip op. at 32
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“Motions to exclude evidence are authorized under 35 C.F.R. § 42.64. Rule 42.64(b)(1) states: “Once a trial has been instituted, any objection [to evidence] must be filed within five business days of service of evidence to which the objection is directed.” Further, “[t]he objection must identify the grounds for the objection with sufficient particularity to allow correction in the form of supplemental evidence.” 35 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1). “A motion to exclude evidence must be filed to preserve any objection.” 35 C.F.R. § 42.64(c).” slip op. at 40
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“In the present proceeding, Petitioner proposed — and Patent Owner does not dispute (see PO Resp. 3) — the following definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art: A hypothetical POSA to which the ’015 Patent pertains would be a technical person who has at least some experience working in the field of archery, reviewing crossbows or engineering related to bows and/or crossbows, and is generally familiar with prior art crossbows. (Ex. 1016 ¶17.) Such a person would likely have at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or, alternatively, would have several years of experience in the field of archery or engineering related to bows and/or crossbows. (Id.) Pet. 28. As discussed above, we adopt Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill for the purposes of this Decision. See supra § II.A. Petitioner alleges various deficiencies in Mr. Teater’s background, education, and knowledge. Paper 39, 4–8. Nevertheless, Mr. Teater satisfies the definition, of a person of ordinary skill in the art, that Petitioner advanced. Specifically, Mr. Teater has reviewed crossbows for 14 years, encompassing the relevant priority date for the ’015 patent, during which time he wrote evaluations of various bows and crossbows, developed and published testing standards for crossbows, and served on the Archery Trade Association’s technical committee for standards and guidelines. Paper 41, 4 (citing Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 3, 4, 7). Accordingly, Mr. Teater satisfies Petitioner’s definition of “a technical person who has at least some experience working in the field of archery, reviewing crossbows or engineering related to bows and/or crossbows, and is generally familiar with prior art crossbows.” Pet. 28. Petitioner emphasizes that Mr. Teater “does not have a degree in mechanical engineering.” Paper 39, 4 (citing Ex. 2034, 1; Ex. 1034, 43:20–44:5). However, no degree of any kind is mandatory for satisfying Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Indeed, Petitioner’s definition states that “[s]uch a person would likely have at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or, alternatively, would have several years of experience in the field of archery or engineering related to bows and/or crossbows.” Pet. 28 (emphasis added). There is no dispute that Mr. Teater meets this standard. Petitioner raises various other issues that form no part of the definition that Petitioner advanced — for example, whether Mr. Teater has taught courses related to crossbows, whether he is named as an inventor on a” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 9,354,015 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipationcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,354,015 - Apple Inc. v. Logantree, LPAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 30, 2023 · IPR2022-00040 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 8–11, 20, 25, 30–32, 36, 39–42, 45–51, 61–65, 144, and 147 are unpatentable, principally as obvious over the grounds decided.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In the Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, stating it was “consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art.” Dec. Inst. 8. In proposing a different level of ordinary skill in the art, Patent Owner does not explain why its proposed skill level is more appropriate.13 PO Resp. 18. In addition, the parties’ proposed definitions are substantially similar. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition, although our conclusions with respect to obviousness would be the same if we were to apply Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“We determine that we need not expressly construe “movement sensor” to resolve the parties’ disputes because doing so would have no effect on the analysis below. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs, 200 F.3d at 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). To the extent the parties raise claim construction issues in addressing the asserted grounds, we address such issues below.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“any weight. Reply 29–30. First, Petitioner contends that the Patent Owner Response does not provide a single citation to Dr. Madisetti’s declaration, Exhibit 2005. Id. at 29. However, Patent Owner explains that the Patent Owner Response mistakenly cites to Exhibit 2001 instead of Exhibit 2005 due to a filing error and confirms that Dr. Madisetti’s declaration is persuasive. Petitioner also argues that Dr. Madisetti’s testimony in Exhibit 2005 is not based on underlying facts because, in the 60-paragraph declaration, only paragraphs 32–35 and 59 have any citations. Reply 29. Petitioner also asserts that Dr. Madisetti refused to answer questions and provide clarification during his deposition. Id. at 30 (citing Ex. 1040, 30:3–20, 52:2–14, 78:16–84:4). Patent Owner states that it served a supplemental declaration in response to Petitioner’s Objection to Evidence months before the deposition of Dr. Madisetti.14 Sur-reply 20. On this record, we decline to discount Dr. Madisetti’s testimony in its entirety as suggested by Petitioner. Instead, we consider Dr. Madisetti’s testimony, as we do all expert testimony, in accordance with governing law and Board rules. E. Ground 1: Asserted Obviousness Based on Allum, Raymond, and Conlan” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. Allum’s and Conlan’s design schemes, although different, are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, in addition to the pushbuttons, Conlan’s monitor includes a movement senor for detecting a full range of a subject’s movement and a memory in which data obtained by the monitor can be stored and later retrieved for evaluation. Ex. 1010, 2:60–63, 3:56–58, 4:47–49. As such, Conlan combines the pushbuttons for a user to tell the device about the user’s condition with a movement senor and a memory that enables the device to tell the user (or another person) about the user’s conditions (i.e., the user’s movements). Furthermore, even if Conlan did not disclose using two design schemes together, the differences in the design schemes identified by Patent Owner would not prevent one of ordinary skill in the art from considering combining the references. Rather, as Petitioner asserts, adding Conlan’s pushbuttons would allow the resulting device to gather additional data relating to a particular event, such as a feeling of dizziness, that pertains to the subject’s balance or movement. See Pet. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1010, 6:38–46; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 78–79); see also id. at 34 (arguing that “switches 22, ‘dizziness,’ and, when depressed, the switches 22, 23 ‘cause that occurrence to be recorded in the internal memory of the monitor’”). We are persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize such additional data to be beneficial to Allum’s diagnostic and rehabilitative tool for people prone to abnormal falling and wishing to improve movement control.” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 6,059,576 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,059,576 - Apple Inc. / LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 5, 2022 · IPR2022-00092 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5–10, and 12–17 are unpatentable as obvious over Numazaki and Nonaka; claims 4, 11, and 18 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or equivalent with at least one year of experience in the field of human computer interaction,” and “[a]dditional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–31). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition for the purposes of its Response. PO Resp. 5. Based on our review of the record before us, we determine that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition. slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“district-court-type standard, as described in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313–14. Although extrinsic evidence, when available, may also be useful when construing claim terms under this standard, extrinsic evidence should be considered in the context of the intrinsic evidence. See id. at 1317–19. capture command causes the digital camera to store an image to memory” in claim 1, “capturing an image to the digital camera in response to . . . the image capture command” in claim 8, and “correlate the gesture detected . . . with an image capture function and subsequently capture an image using the digital camera” in claim 13. Pet. 8. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that these phrases “should be construed broadly enough to encompass capturing/storing video or still images,” and provides reasons supporting its assertion. Id. at 8–10. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed claim constructions. PO Resp. 5. We agree with Petitioner’s supporting reasoning and accordingly adopt Petitioner’s proposed claim constructions.” slip op. at 8
- BurdenMixed
“We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition does not establish sufficiently that Numazaki’s unit 102 and camera 351 are fixed relative to one another. Without more, the mere fact that unit 102 and camera 351 are arranged in parallel and have overlapping fields of view does not establish that the structures are fixed. At the oral hearing, counsel for Petitioner indicated that Petitioner’s position was not an inherency argument but relied on Dr. Bederson’s analysis and interpretation of Numazaki’s fifth embodiment. Tr. 17:7–15. The Petition, however, does not reference any such analysis in connection with the subject matter of claims 4, 11, and 18. 27–28 of the Petition, which pertain to limitation 1[(a)]) discuss the overlapping fields of view but not assert that overlapping fields of view require the structures to be fixed with respect to one another. For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Numazaki and Nonaka renders obvious claims 4, 11, or 18.” slip op. at 34
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We find that Petitioner’s Reply argument is not beyond the proper scope of a reply because it directly responds to Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner does not explain how elements from both the third and fifth embodiments would accessed by the reflected light extraction unit and whether these elements would operate simultaneously or at different times. Moreover, Petitioner’s Reply argument elaborates on the contentions in the Petition that the gesture recognition would be implemented as a means of allowing the user to initiate the fifth videoconferencing functionality. Pet. 31; see Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. One World Techs., Inc., 944 F. 3d, 919, 925 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Parties are not barred from elaborating on their arguments on issues previously raised.”). Accordingly, we find that the Petition adequately explains how the reflected light extraction unit would be accessed by both the third embodiment’s shape interpretation unit 333 and the fifth embodiment’s extraction unit 353. We particularly credit Dr. Bederson’s uncontroverted testimony that “it would be well within the capabilities of a [person having ordinary skill in the art] to utilize the same output by two separate processing blocks to implement the proposed combination,” and one of ordinary skill in the art “would understand there are no technical barriers to arranging multiple distinct processing units that separately process the same output of a single unit.” See Ex. 1018 ¶ 9.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 8,878,949 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,878,949 - Apple Inc. / LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 5, 2022 · IPR2021-00921 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5–10, and 12–17 are unpatentable as obvious over Numazaki and Nonaka; claims 4, 11, and 18 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We find that Petitioner’s Reply argument is not beyond the proper scope of a reply because it directly responds to Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner does not explain how elements from both the third and fifth embodiments would accessed by the reflected light extraction unit and whether these elements would operate simultaneously or at different times. Moreover, Petitioner’s Reply argument elaborates on the contentions in the Petition that the gesture recognition would be implemented as a means of allowing the user to initiate the fifth videoconferencing functionality. Pet. 31; see Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. One World Techs., Inc., 944 F. 3d, 919, 925 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Parties are not barred from elaborating on their arguments on issues previously raised.”). Accordingly, we find that the Petition adequately explains how the reflected light extraction unit would be accessed by both the third embodiment’s shape interpretation unit 333 and the fifth embodiment’s extraction unit 353. We particularly credit Dr. Bederson’s uncontroverted testimony that “it would be well within the capabilities of a [person having ordinary skill in the art] to utilize the same output by two separate processing blocks to implement the proposed combination,” and one of ordinary skill in the art “would understand there are no technical barriers to arranging multiple distinct processing units that separately process the same output of a single unit.” See Ex. 1018 ¶ 9.” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition does not establish sufficiently that Numazaki’s unit 102 and camera 351 are fixed relative to one another. Without more, the mere fact that unit 102 and camera 351 are arranged in parallel and have overlapping fields of view does not establish that the structures are fixed. At the oral hearing, counsel for Petitioner indicated that Petitioner’s position was not an inherency argument but relied on Dr. Bederson’s analysis and interpretation of Numazaki’s fifth embodiment. Tr. 17:7–15. The Petition, however, does not reference any such analysis in connection with the subject matter of claims 4, 11, and 18. 27–28 of the Petition, which pertain to limitation 1[(a)]) discuss the overlapping fields of view but not assert that overlapping fields of view require the structures to be fixed with respect to one another. For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Numazaki and Nonaka renders obvious claims 4, 11, or 18. 6. Dependent Claims 2, 3, 5–7, 9, 10, 12, and 14–17 Petitioner provides reasonable and detailed explanations, supported by the testimony of Dr. Bederson, indicating where in the references the limitations of claims 2, 3, 5–7, 9, 10, 12, and 14–17 are disclosed. Pet. 33– 43, 44, 47, 49. Further, Patent Owner offers no arguments particularly directed to these dependent claims. PO Resp. 22, 25, 28. We have considered the evidence and arguments of record and determine that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Numazaki and Nonaka renders obvious claims 2, 3, 5–7, 9, 10, 12, and 14–17 for the reasons discussed in the Petition and as supported by the testimony of Dr. Bederson.” slip op. at 34
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“After institution, LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. filed a petition and a motion for joinder to this proceeding. IPR2022-00092, Papers 1, 3. We granted the motion for joinder, and IPR2022-00092 was joined with this proceeding and dismissed. Paper 12, 11–12. In addition, Google LLC filed a petition and a motion for joinder to this proceeding. IPR2022-00362, Papers 2, 3. We granted the additional motion for joinder, and IPR2022-00362 was joined with this proceeding and dismissed. Paper 16, 5–6. Consequently, Apple Inc., LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and Google LLC are joined in this proceeding.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or equivalent with at least one year of experience in the field of human computer interaction,” and “[a]dditional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–31). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition for the purposes of its Response. PO Resp. 5. Based on our review of the record before us, we determine that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition. slip op. at 8
Patent outcomesUS 8,878,949 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,878,949 - Shenzhen Buxiang Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. Sun Pleasure Co. LimitedNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 11, 2022 · IPR2021-00080 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–9 were not shown unpatentable because Metzger lacked the claimed fluid passage, and Wu was not prior art based on the claims’ earlier reduction to practice.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Relying on the testimony of Mr. Kuchel, Petitioner submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have either (i) a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, or an equivalent field, or (ii) would have an associate degree in mechanical engineering, or an equivalent field, and two years of practical experience in inflatable product design.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 26). In the Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, stating it was “consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art.” Dec. Inst. 9. In its Response, Patent Owner makes arguments that rely on Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, but does not dispute Petitioner’s definition. See PO Resp. 35, 39–53 (citing Ex. 2014 ¶ 66). Based on our review of the complete record, we continue to apply the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted in the Decision on Institution.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner proposes claim constructions for the terms “substantially below” and “substantially inwardly” recited in claims 1 and 6. Pet. 40–41. In the Decision on Institution, we determined that it was not necessary to construe the terms at that stage of the proceeding. Dec. Inst. 9–10 (citing Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Patent Owner contends “the claim terms ‘substantially below’ and ‘substantially inwardly’ are sufficiently clear on their face to preclude any need for claim construction,” but proposes claim constructions that differ somewhat from Petitioner’s proposed constructions in the event the Board determines that these terms require claim construction. PO Resp. 13, 15–16. Patent Owner also proposes a claim construction for the term “upper tubular periphery” recited in claims 1 and 6 that Petitioner opposes. Id. at 17–19; Pet. Reply 7–10. Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017. Because the outcome of our decision does not depend on either parties’ construction of the terms “substantially below,” “substantially inwardly,” or “upper tubular periphery,” we need not construe these terms to resolve the issues in dispute in this proceeding.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that Metzger’s gaps define fluid passages located between adjacent side support beams 25 (i.e., “internal walls”) and are not formed in any of the side support beams. We are not directed to any written description in Metzger indicating that the gaps are formed in a side support beam.7 Instead, Figures 5 and 6 of Metzger depict the gaps as being defined between four distinct side support beams 25. Furthermore, as Patent Owner points out, Mr. Kuchel appears to agree that there are no passages formed through the side support beams 25 of Figures 5 and 6. Ex. 2003, 107:12–108:9, 108:17–108:21. For these reasons, we determine that Metzger’s gaps are not formed through an internal wall, as required by claim 1. In the Reply, Petitioner asserts that, even if Metzger discloses four discrete, spaced-apart beams or walls, “the gaps or slices between walls are apertures in a structure through which air can pass.” Pet. Reply 15 (emphasis added). This argument is not persuasive because claim 1 recites that the fluid passage is formed through the internal wall (which Petitioner asserts is met by Metzger’s side support beam 25), not just any structure. Petitioner’s general assertion that air passes through “a structure” fails to establish that the gaps are formed in a side support beam.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Specifically, Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from Metzger “that an air passage would be necessary to bypass the side support beam 25 and inflate the upper tubular periphery for the air mattress to function as intended.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 200). According to Petitioner, because Metzger discloses only a single air inlet valve, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that providing openings, or fluid passages, through the side support beam 25, in lieu of or in addition to the gaps between the side support beam 25, would have been a simple solution to adequately inflate the peripheral frame of the mattress defined by the side support beam(s) 25. Id. at 74–75 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 200). Petitioner thus presents two alternate theories for modifying Metzger: (1) providing fluid passages in at least one side support beam 25 in addition to the gaps, and (2) providing fluid passages in lieu of the gaps. In support of the first theory, Petitioner only argues that providing fluid passages in the side support beams, in addition to the gaps between the ends of the side support beams, would have allowed the peripheral frame to inflate more freely. Id. at 75 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 201). In its Response, Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner is just wrong.” PO Resp. 45 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 146–149). Dr. Letton testifies that pumps used to inflate air mattresses are low flow and low pressure and generally inflate an air mattress to a maximum pressure of around 1 psi. Ex. 2001 ¶ 147. Dr. Letton further testifies that, with Metzger’s design, the” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 7,353,555 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,353,555 - PTAB · Feb 8, 2022 · PGR2021-00102 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–28 on all asserted grounds, finding a sufficient likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” After considering the Petition and Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, as well as all supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner has satisfied the burden under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) to show that it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“These arguments are not persuasive, however, because Patent Owner does not explain adequately how the disclosures of Oehring and Shampine are cumulative of the disclosure of Mu. In this case, the mere fact that 8 We note that Exhibit 2007 does not have ¶ 95 cited by Patent Owner. not mean necessarily that the references are cumulative of Mu. For instance, Petitioner relies on Mu for allegedly disclosing several claim limitations including “receiving a demand hydraulic horse power (HHP) signal,” “the first output power being in a selected range of a maximum continuous power (MCP) level,” and “the second output power . . . being in a selected range of the MCP level to a maximum intermittent power (MIP) level.” Pet. 19–41. Patent Owner does not direct us to any disclosure in Oehring or Shampine that are cumulative of these alleged teachings in Mu. Accordingly, we do not agree with Patent Owner that either of Oehring or Shampine is cumulative of Mu. As such, we determine that Petitioner’s reliance on Mu does not involve the same or substantially the same art or arguments previously presented to the Office, and the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework is not satisfied with respect to Mu. And although Crowe is cited in the ’459 patent (see Ex. 1001, code (56)), Petitioner’s reliance on Crowe is minimal. The ground based on Mu and Crowe, thus, does not implicate § 325(d).” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelOther
“This dispute presents a factual issue best decided on a complete record. Accordingly, for purposes of the Decision, we determine that no express finding is necessary, and 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). We note, however, that our obviousness analysis in this Decision would not differ if we adopted either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionTerm construed board ownOther
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not explained sufficiently what a “maximum power output value” means in the context of the ’459 patent. Nor has Petitioner explained sufficiently why “maximum intermittent power” should be tied to the “maximum power output value.” In contrast, Patent Owner’s proposed construction is supported by the Specification, although we do not agree with the last clause of the construction because the references to “typical” values do not assist in understanding the claim language. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we preliminarily construe “maximum intermittent power” to mean “an elevated operating output level that the pump unit may operate intermittently throughout its operating life without excessive damage to the pump unit.”” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,907,459 - Intel Corporation v. Qualcomm, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 20, 2020 · IPR2018-01240 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 11 is unpatentable as obvious over Chu, Choi 2010, Hanington, and Myers; claim 10 was not shown unpatentable over Chu, Choi 2010, and Hanington.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“The ’558 specification and the context of claims 6, 8, and 13 and the related language of claim 10 support that the “source” must be able to receive both the boosted supply voltage and the first supply voltage (a selective boost). PO Resp. 35–38; Ex. 1201, 1:42–50, 5:31–49, 8:55–62, 8:62–9:17, 9:21–36, 10:19–29, Figs. 3 and 5. Accordingly, we do not agree with Petitioner that the use of a conditional “or” in claim 10 indicates that only one voltage is necessary to meet the claims. Pet. Reply 3–9. We credit Patent Owner’s evidence and arguments that the language of claims 10 and 11 and the ’558 patent specification support that claim 10, like dependent claim 11, require a selective boost. See PO Resp. 26–29. Petitioner’s arguments assert both that Patent Owner improperly limits the construction to one disclosed embodiment and that the Patent Owner’s construction improperly excludes a disclosed embodiment. Pet Reply 6–8. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Patent Owner’s construction should be rejected because it excludes an embodiment. Pet. Reply 6 (citing EPOS Techs. Ltd. v. Pegasus Techs. Ltd., 766 F.3d 1338, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Anchor Wall Sys., Inc. v. Rockwood Retaining Walls, Inc., 340 F.3d 1298, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Dow Chem. Co. v. Sumitomo Chem. Co., 257 F.3d 1364, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). The cases Petitioner cites refer to constructions that read out preferred embodiments. See EPOS Techs., 766 F.3d at 1347; Dow Chem. Co., 257 F.3d, at 1378; Anchor Wall Sys., 340 F.3d at 1308. Petitioner provides no persuasive evidence that the embodiment they identify as being excluded is the preferred embodiment of the ’558 patent. Further, Petitioner cites no support that claims 10 or 11 must be construed to cover all embodiments. See Baran v. Med. Device Techs., Inc., 616 F.3d 1309, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The Federal Circuit has stated that the broadest reasonable construction is not required to cover the most embodiments in a patent specification, but “must be reasonable in light of the claims and specification. The fact that one construction may cover more embodiments than another does not categorically render that construction reasonable.” PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 747, 755 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that exclusion of a single embodiment renders Patent Owner’s claim construction improper.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“persuasive. We credit Petitioner’s argument and evidence regarding the Chu and Choi 2010 concerns with power degradation and efficiency, which Patent Owner’s declarant testified were common concerns known before the ’558 patent. Pet. Reply 11–12 (citing Ex. 1330, 13:12–20, 13:21–14:2, 259:7–18); Ex. 1027 ¶ 18. We find that Petitioner presents persuasive evidence and argument that the issues of power degradation and efficiency were known in the art and within the knowledge and skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See id.; see also PO Resp. 32–33 (noting that “Patent Owner does not contest that efficiency and output distortion/robustness problems were generally known in the art.”). We also find that Petitioner identifies persuasive motivations to combine from the references themselves, identifying specific teachings in Choi 2010 in reference to boost converter systems like those in Chu. Pet. 57–58 (citing Ex. 1306, 1074, 1077). Indeed, Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Kelley, agreed that Choi 2010 teaches the use of boost converters to address battery degradation. Ex. 1030, 105:20–106:4, 156:3–6. Finally, Petitioner provides evidence that degrading battery performance affecting operation further motivates the combination of Chu and Choi 2010. Ex. 1030, 165:17–22; Pet. 57–61. We are also persuaded by Petitioner’s citation to secondary references of examples that use a boost converter to prevent distortion provides further support that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Chu with Choi 2010 and Hanington. See Pet. 58–60 (citing Ex. 1318, code (57); Ex. 1315, 8); Ex. 1303 ¶¶ 109–111. Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the secondary references attempts to bodily incorporate the teachings from these references into Chu and Choi 2010. Patent Owner also fails to address persuasively the support for the teachings these secondary references provide for modifying Chu’s supply modulator to incorporate a boost converter as disclosed in Choi 2010 and Hanington. Pet. 58–60 (citing Ex. 1318, code (57); Ex. 1315, 8); Ex. 1303 ¶¶ 109–111. Indeed, Patent Owner’s declarant agrees extending battery life, which is discussed in Exhibit 1315 and cited by Petitioner as a motivation to combine Chu and Choi 2010 (Pet. 58–60), would be achieved by the combination of Chu and Choi 2010 and was within the ordinary skill of an artisan. Ex. 1330, 281:6–282:2, 284:6–12. We also disagree with Patent Owner that the Petition fails to show how to combine the references to solve the conflicting problems that Petitioner alleges as motivation—efficiency and degradation. PO Resp. 33– 35. First, we credit Dr. Kelley’s testimony that the result of the combination was within the knowledge and skill of an artisan. Ex. 1330, 105:20–106:4, 156:3–6, 281:6–282:2, 284:6–12. Second, we find that the evidence and argument in the Petition explain sufficiently how Chu would have been modified to incorporate the boost supply voltage of Choi 2010 and Hanington and that such modifications involve typical and well known components widely used in boost converters. See Pet. 68–70; Ex. 1303 ¶¶ 112–113, 126–127; Ex. 1329 ¶ 24.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“Owner argues “Choi 2010’s boost is a constant boost applied to the linear amplifier, and thus teaches away from a selective boost.” PO Resp. 39. Patent Owner further argues combining Myers’ selective boost with Choi 2010’s constant boost would destroy the purpose and benefits of Choi 2010’s design. Id. at 43. We do not find that Choi 2010’s use of a constant boost teaches away from selective boost in Myers. Patent Owner’s evidence and argument do not persuade us that Choi 2010’s teachings of boost exclude or discourage the use of selective boost. The portion of Choi 2010 Patent Owner cites does not criticize or discourage the use of selective boost, but applies boost generally to achieve its goals. See Ex. 1306, 1333–1334. We do not find that the teachings in Choi 2010 discourage a person of ordinary skill in the art from working with boosted voltage to achieve battery efficiencies. See Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Choi 2010 does not discredit or criticize selective boost to improve efficiency.” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightDecided for petitioner
“the ITC investigation (see Ex. 2001, 36–37), Petitioner does not assert the direct incorporation of Myers technology into the combination of Chu and Choi 2010/Hanington. Instead, Petitioner asserts that Myers teaches a method of choosing a power source to improve operation efficiency. Pet. Reply 22–23; Pet. 72–76; Ex. 1312, 9:18–21, 1:19–23. Furthermore, Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Kelley, acknowledges this teaching. Ex. 1330, 270:13–271:5. Petitioner’s arguments and evidence differ materially from those cited in the ITC investigation. See Ex. 2001, 36–37. In the case before us, Petitioner does not directly incorporate Myers hardware into Chu or Choi 2010 and Hanington, but asserts that Myers— particularly Figure 7 that discloses the technique of switching between two different power sources—teaches a technique that would have been within the level of skill of an artisan at the time of patenting. Pet. Reply 23; see Pet. 72–76; Ex. 1330, 283:16–284:1; see also Ex. 1330, 152:21–153:4 (agreeing that a person of ordinary skill would have known how to select between two power sources). Contrary to the combination of the envelope elimination and restoration (EER) circuits of Myers into the linear amplifiers of Chu and Choi 2010 argued at the ITC, Petitioner has provided testimony and citations to the record that Myers’s selection functionality is applicable to the combination of Chu and Choi 2010. We credit Petitioner’s argument and evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Chu, Choi 2010, and Hanington with the technique from Myers and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Pet. 79–81 (providing supporting argument and testimony regarding battery and boosted voltage efficiency as taught by Myers). We find that Petitioner’s argument and evidence provide sufficient rationales with articulated reasoning to support the application of the Myers selection technique with the amplifiers of Chu and Choi 2010 to achieve battery efficiency during described operating modes. Pet. 57–61 77–82. Indeed, Dr. Kelley’s testimony supports the applicability of the techniques in Myers. See Ex. 1330, 270:13–271:5, 281:6–282:2, 284:6–12; Ex. 1312, 9:18–21 (discussing Myers’ teaching of choosing power source for operation efficiency). Based on our review of the full record, Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence an articulated rationale with articulated reasons to combine Chu, Choi 2010, Hanington, and Myers. In addition, Petitioner demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Chu, Choi 2010, Hanington, and Myers teach the limitations of dependent claim 11.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 8,698,558 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,698,558 - St. Jude Medical, LLC v. Snyders Heart Valve LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 2, 2019 · IPR2018-00107 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 8, 9, 22, 23, 31–35, 37–39, and 45 are unpatentable, including as obvious over Bessler and Johnson; anticipation by Bessler succeeds only for claims 38, 39, and 45.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Factual indicators of the level of ordinary skill in the art include “the various prior art approaches employed, the types of problems encountered in the art, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology involved, and the educational background of those actively working in the field.” Jacobson Bros., Inc. v. U.S., 512 F.2d 1065, 1071 (Ct. Cl. 1975); see also Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. U.S., 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting with approval Jacobson Bros.). We find, based on our review of the record before us, that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it is consistent with the record, including the asserted prior art and, for the purposes of this Final Written Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“direct attachment” of the flexible valve element to the frame. Id. at 8. However, the portion of the Specification on which Patent Owner relies also describes indirectly attaching the flexible valve element to a frame by securing it to a band that is directly attached to the frame. Ex. 1001, 7:55–66. This type of indirect attachment is illustrated in Figure 3, reproduced below right. The Specification describes Figure 3 as follows: As illustrated in FIG. 3, the flexible valve element 22 is attached to the central portion 36 of the frame 20 at a position substantially centered between the anchors 34. Although the valve element 22 may be attached to the frame 20 by other means without departing from the scope of the present invention, the valve element of the preferred embodiment is attached to the frame by adhesive bonding. Further, the flexible valve element 22 is attached to the frame 20, and more particularly to the band 40, at several attachment points 56 around the frame. Id. at 7:57–66 (emphasis added). This passage indicates that the flexible valve element is attached to the frame in two ways: (1) directly by being bonded to the central portion 36 of frame 20 and (2) indirectly by being attached to band 40 at attachment points 56. The Specification later expresses a preference for bonding valve element 22 to band 40 with adhesive. Id. at 8:11–14. Interpreting “attached to” to mean “directly attached to” as suggested by Patent Owner would be inconsistent with the Specification’s broader description of how valve element 22 is attached to frame 20. We interpret claim language “in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2018). Doing so requires us to interpret claim language in a manner that “corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the specification.” In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The inventor describes both direct and indirect methods of attaching the flexible valve element to the frame. Accordingly, we interpret “attached to” as encompassing both direct and indirect ways of attaching the flexible valve element to the frame.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“Petitioner’s argument that Bessler’s valve is attached to the central part of the frame of claims 1 and 31 fails. Bessler’s valve is undeniably attached to its frame because the cuff portion of the valve is sutured to its stent. Claims 1 and 31 require the valve element to be attached to a portion of the frame located along the radial centerline. Ex. 1001, 19:19–20 (claim 1), 22:67–23:2 (claim 31). Bessler’s valves fail to meet this requirement. Bessler’s stent 32 is a hollow cylinder devoid of structure located along its centerline,3 and the “central portion of the frame” identified by Petitioner, straight sections 33, is part of walls 31 located on the radial periphery of stent 32. Id. at 5:28–43, Figure 4. Regardless of how Bessler’s valve is attached to the wall of its stent, the valve is not attached to structure “located along a centerline” as recited in claims 1 and 31. Therefore, we determine that Petitioner fails to establish by a preponderance of evidence that Bessler anticipates claims 1 and 31 or their respective dependent claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 32–35, and 37.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“For all these reasons, Dr. Chronos’s assertion that incorporating Johnson’s strut-based frame and membrane into Bessler’s stent would render the combined structure too large is not supported by the objective evidence of record. Patent Owner’s argument rests upon Dr. Chronos’s testimony. Accordingly, we find Patent Owner’s argument unpersuasive. Instead, we determine that Petitioner has proven that an ordinarily skilled artisan would 5 Ex. 1009, 1:12–13. have been motivated to combine the teachings of Bessler and Johnson as alleged.” slip op. at 38
Patent outcomesUS 6,821,297 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 6,821,297 - On Semiconductor Corporation / Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC (D/B/A On Semiconductor) v. Power Integrations, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 22, 2017 · IPR2016-00809 · APJ Daniel N Fishman · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 31, 32, 34, 38, 39, and 42 are unpatentable as obvious over Oda and Nakamura because the combination teaches the claimed features, including varying pulse frequency and on-time in the second feedback range.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner
“Panels of the Board have interpreted 315(b) (and our associated rule 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b)) to mean that “it is only privity relationships up until the time a petition is filed that matter.” Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics 5 Patent Owner entered the Merger Agreement into the record as Exhibit 2018. Corp., Case IPR2012-00042, slip op. at 12 (PTAB Feb. 19, 2014) (Paper 60); see also ARRIS Group, Inc. v. TQ Delta LLC, Case IPR2016-00430, slip op. at 6 (PTAB July 1, 2016) (Paper 9). Although not the exclusive factor for establishing privity, control of the requested review procedure is an important factor to establish privity in this context. Our Office Patent Trial Practice Guide explains that “[w]hether a party who is not a named participant in a given proceeding nonetheless constitutes a . . . ‘privy’ to that proceeding is a highly fact-dependent question.” 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759 (Aug. 14, 2012). “There are multiple factors relevant to the question of whether a non-party may be recognized as a . . . ‘privy.’” Id. “A common consideration is whether the non-party exercised or could have exercised control over a party’s participation in a proceeding.” Id. However, it is recognized that there is no definitive test regarding the degree of participation required to establish such control and, hence, to establish a privity relationship. Id.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“Similarly, Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the Confidentiality Agreement (Ex. 2026) are insufficient to demonstrate that Fairchild exercised, or could have exercised, any control over this proceeding. PO Resp. 65. The mere exchange of unidentified confidential information and recitations of the Confidentiality Agreement that the parties could be joint defendants in the future, without more, do not provide sufficient evidence that Fairchild has exercised, or could have exercised, any control over this proceeding. Thus, the record lacks sufficient evidence to demonstrate even the opportunity to control this review and, thus, to establish privity between Petitioner and Fairchild.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“In our Decision on Institution, we agreed with Petitioner that nothing in the claims or the specification of the ’079 patent limits the term “energy transfer element” to only transformers in a flyback architecture converter and, more specifically, nothing in the claims defines a particular direction of current flow through the terminals of the power switch. Dec. 15–16. Thus, we determined that, in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation, “energy transfer element” should not be construed so narrowly as to include only a transformer (flyback topology converter) and to exclude an inductor (buck topology converter). Id. at 16. Instead, we determined “energy transfer element” is at least as broad as to encompass either a transformer or an inductor as utilized in flyback and buck architecture power converters, respectively. Id. After considering all evidence and assertions anew, we discern no persuasive reason to alter our preliminary interpretation and conclude, for the reasons given in our Decision on Institution and this Decision, that “energy transfer element” is at least as broad as to encompass either a transformer or an inductor as utilized in flyback and buck architecture power converters, respectively. See id. at 14–16.” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“Thus, although we discern no need to expressly construe the phrase “corresponds to” as used in the claims, we determine “corresponds to” as used in the claims is at least as broad as to encompass non-overlapping first 9 Patent Owner’s narrow interpretation demands a one-to-one relationship between the feedback values and the pulse on-time values, i.e., a reversible function in mathematical terms. The ’079 patent Specification does not support such a narrow interpretation. and second ranges of feedback values corresponding to first and second ranges of on-time values regardless of overlap of feedback values in the first and second ranges of feedback values.” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 6,212,079 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,212,079
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.