• Boe Technology Group Co., Ltd. v. Optronic Sciences LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 26, 2026 · IPR2024-01130 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 5 and 6 are unpatentable over the instituted grounds; claims 7–9 were not shown unpatentable because their scope could not be ascertained.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “After the hearing, with our authorization,1 Patent Owner moved to dismiss this proceeding because, according to Patent Owner, the Petition did not identify all real parties-in-interest as required be 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). 1 IPR2024-01131, Paper 43, 45:1–8. Paper 42. Petitioner opposed the motion. Paper 44. We denied the motion. Paper 46.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “arguments and evidence in support of its proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, we determine that Petitioner’s definition is too broad. Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have “approximately one or more years of professional experience with electronic and optoelectronic system design.” Pet. 3. But Petitioner does not appear to dispute the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Bretschneider, that “the field of optoelectronics” is “broad and expansive and encompasses solar cells, optical fiber, and any application of LEDs, not just the design of LED packages.” Ex. 2020 ¶ 78. Therefore, one having experience with optoelectronic system design would not necessarily have experience designing LED backlights for LCD displays. We have also carefully considered Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence in support of its proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In light of our analysis of the prior art and the AAPA, we determine that Patent Owner’s requirement of “at least one year of practical experience in design of LED packages and one year of practical experience in design of thermal management systems for LEDs” is not sufficiently precise. Patent Owner does not specify that the required experience is in the context of designing LED backlights for LCD displays. One having this experience would necessarily have experience addressing thermal-management concerns associated with such backlights.” slip op. at 18

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Because Dr. Baker does not have the requisite experience designing LED backlights for LCD displays, he is not qualified to offer expert testimony from the vantage point of a person of ordinary skill in the art of designing LED backlights for LCD displays. Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 22 F.4th 1369, 1377–78 (Fed. Cir. 2022).” slip op. at 23

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

    “Neither party asserts that “connecting” is a term of art requiring expert testimony to construe. We agree with Petitioner that “connecting” should be construed consistently with the “fastener” term, because it is the “fastener” (or the second portion thereof) to which the circuit board is “connecting.” Because the parties agree that “fastener” is “[a] feature that attaches or holds something in place, “connecting” means “attaching or holding.”” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 7,168,842 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,168,842
• Giesecke+devrient GmbH / Giesecke+devrient Currecy Technology GmbH et al. v. Lumenco, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00839 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 12–20 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 3, 4, and 7–11 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish random mirror selection.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of a POSITA because Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the types of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, and the sophistication of the technology. For example, the ʼ863 patent provides, as relevant background, a discussion of anti-counterfeiting devices made up of arrays of lenses used to display unique images, placed on currency and labels for retail products. Ex. 1001, 1:31–43. The ʼ863 patent also discusses using lenses to create holograms. Id. at 2:7–20. Similarly, the prior art in this field, such as Fuhse847, relates to the use of lenses and mirrors to create hologram images for security purposes. Ex. 1022, 1–8. These descriptions demonstrate, consistent with Petitioner’s proposed definition, that a POSITA would need an educational background to understand optics, lenses, and mirrors along with professional experience with optical security features to understand the creation holograms and images using lenses and mirrors for the purpose of preventing counterfeiting of currency and other valuable products. Patent Owner’s proposed definition differs from Petitioner’s in that it includes “or a similar field” when describing the education level of a POSITA and it includes “with diffusive light” when describing the experience level of a POSITA. As to the first difference, the addition of “similar field” introduces vagueness and unnecessary uncertainty into the definition. Patent Owner does not explain what aspects of computer science would make it a field similar to the others listed, or what additional engineering coursework would suffice to make a person a POSITA. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 25. Nor does Patent Owner explain, generally, what makes a field “similar” to the ones listed or how to make that determination. As to the second difference, the addition of “with diffusive light”” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner did not move to exclude Dr. Hesselink’s testimony. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.62; Pet. Reply 25 (arguing that Patent Owner waived its ability to challenge Dr. Hesselink’s qualification.). At the hearing, Patent Owner explained that its argument that Dr. Hesselink is not a POSITA “goes to [the] weight” of Dr. Hesselink’s testimony. Tr. 37:8. In any event, Patent Owner’s argument is based on its proposed definition of a POSITA, which we do not adopt. We, therefore, are not persuaded that Dr. Hesselink testimony should be given little or no weight.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner contends that “no claim terms require express construction.” Pet. 11. Patent Owner agrees “that the terms do not require construction for purposes of evaluating the Petition.” PO Resp. 13. We do not need to construe any terms explicitly to reach our decision on institution. 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)); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (approving Board decision not to construe claim language where construction is not material to the dispute).” slip op. at 13

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

    “teaches the preamble and all of the limitations of claim 1. Pet. 12–34. Petitioner contends that it would have been obvious to a POSITA to automate the computations for designing micro mirror arrays in Fuhse847 with Rich’s teaching of a processor running software. Id. at 14–17. Patent Owner does not specifically dispute Petitioner’s contentions regarding the preamble, limitations 1b–1e, and the motivation to combine Fuhse847 and Rich. See generally PO Resp. We have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and supporting evidence and are persuaded that the combination of Fuhse847 and Rich teaches the preamble and undisputed limitations 1b–1e, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Fuhse847 and Rich in the manner set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 11,448,863 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,448,863
• Whitewater West Industries, Ltd. v. American Wave Machines, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 20, 2023 · IPR2022-01033 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 7, 9–11, and 16–18 are unpatentable as obvious over McFarland and Chutter; claims 3–6, 8, and 12–15 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “pools would have “knowledge and familiarity with: (i) design of mechanical structures and (ii) fluid characteristics and the interaction of fluid forces upon mechanical structures,” and that this knowledge “could be obtained by: (i) successfully completing a Master’s degree in Mechanical Engineering or (ii) at least 5 years of experience in a job working with control systems, including designing or implementing such wave generation machines.” Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 36–37). AWM does not contest that assertion. See PO Resp. 2 (“it will be assumed that a PHOSITA has a background and the level of skill described in Petitioner’s definition”). We see no reason to deviate from WhiteWater’s proffered level of skill in the art. Thus, we adopt WhiteWater’s definition of the level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We need not expressly construe the disputed “controller” limitation because, as discussed below, WhiteWater prevails in its challenge of claims 1, 11, and 16, even assuming AWM’s proposed construction is correct. 2. “the delay . . . is a fraction of the chamber period” AWM construes this claim limitation to mean that the delay is “a portion of the whole chamber period,” in other words, a time period “less than the whole chamber period.” PO Resp. 6–7. WhiteWater, in turn, contends that the term “fraction” is not limited to “something ‘less than a whole’” and can be represented simply as a “quotient of two numbers.” Pet. Reply 5. We need not expressly construe term “fraction” as used in this claim limitation because, as discussed below, WhiteWater fails in its challenge of claims 3, 8, and 12, even assuming its proposed construction is correct.” slip op. at 9

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

    “chamber 11 includes “operating device 30” and “flow control devices 17, 19.” Ex. 1005, 3:11-16, 3:43–45. According to Chutter, each chamber 11 “has similar mechanisms and the bank of chambers can be operated in any desired rhythm or sequence by a controller 40 coupled to each of operating devices 30 so that the pool can be provided with recreational waves of any desired pattern.” Id. at 4:3–13 (emphasis added). The pattern of waves “may be varied, as is well known, according to the sequencing at which pressurized air is delivered to the plurality of chambers.” Id. at 2:55–58 (emphasis added). Notably, Chutter teaches that central controller 40 is “arranged to control the rhythm or pattern of the several operating means so that, for example, all operating means” are actuated either “simultaneously” to create an “essentially linear” wave effect, or “sequentially” to create a “curved” or “non-orthogonal” wave effect. Id. at 2:12–39 (emphasis added); see also id. at 2:58–59 (“Adjacent chambers may be air pressurized alternately or simultaneously.”). Consistent with that disclosure, Chutter depicts controller 40 with multiple “connection” arrows to also indicate that a single, common controller controls the valve structure8 in multiple of Chutter’s wave-generating chambers 11. See id. at Fig. 1. Based on Chutter’s disclosures as a whole, we find that Chutter’s central controller 40 exemplifies a well-known and conventional controller 8 During the oral hearing, AWM’s counsel conceded that the term “valve structure,” as used in the claims, means not only “a set of valves,” but also “additional structure,” such as the means “to operate those valves” or “the actuator for the valves.” Hrg. Tr. 33:1–17. As such, we view Chutter’s operating means 30 and flow control devices 17 and 19 as corresponding to the claimed “valve structure.” capable of being connected to the valve structure in each of a series of wavegenerating chambers so as to actuate the valve structures in a sequential and delayed fashion to create a surf-simulating wave in a pool. See Ex. 1009 ¶ 162; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 129–130. With that in mind, we further find that one skilled in the art would have looked to Chutter to reprogram or modify McFarland’s controller to operate in the same manner as Chutter’s controller so that McFarland’s controller was also capable of actuating the wave-generating chambers in a sequential and delayed fashion, as required by independent claims 1, 11, and 16. See Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 163–164; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 131–133. Indeed, both McFarland and Chutter seek to create desirable surf waves and have similar wave-generating structures, such as a bank of chambers at one end of a pool and a controller for actuating a valve structure in each chamber to release water from the chamber into the pool. See Ex. 1009 ¶ 163; Ex. 1016 ¶ 131.” slip op. at 14

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

    “As discussed above, WhiteWater persuasively shows that the combination of McFarland and Chutter teaches or suggests the disputed “controller” limitations of independent claims 1, 11, and 16, in particular, limitations 1.C, 1.D, 1.D.1, 11.C, 11.D, 11.D.1, 16.C, and 16.D.1. AWM does not otherwise dispute WhiteWater’s showing of how the asserted combination teaches the remaining limitations of the independent claims. See PO Resp. 44, 49, 53, 62 (identifying claim elements 1.C, 1.D, 1.D.1, 11.C, 11.D, 11.D.1, 16.C, and 16.D.1 as being absent from the asserted combination). Nor does AWM dispute WhiteWater’s showing that the asserted combination teaches the limitations of dependent claims 2, 7, 9, 10, 17, and 18, contending only that they are “distinguishable over McFarland and Chutter for at least the same reasons previously explained” with respect to claims 1, 11, and 16. Based on our review, we find that the record fully supports WhiteWater’s showing that the asserted combination teaches or suggests all the limitations of claims 1, 11, and 16, as well as the limitations of dependent claims 2, 7, 9, 10, 17, and 18. See Pet. 58–63. In sum, after weighing all relevant factual findings, including the level of ordinary skill in the art, the scope and content of McFarland and Chutter, and any differences between their combined teachings and the claimed invention,9 we conclude that WhiteWater demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 2, 7, 9–11, and 16–18 of the ’966 patent are unpatentable as obvious over McFarland and Chutter. Having determined those claims to be unpatentable, we do not address whether they are also unpatentable under WhiteWater’s alternative theories based on McFarland alone and Chutter alone. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359 (2018) (holding that petitioner “is entitled to a final written decision addressing all of the claims it has challenged”); Boston Sci. Scimed, Inc. v. Cook Grp. Inc., 809 F. App’x 984, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (non-precedential) (recognizing that the “Board need not address issues that are not necessary to the resolution of the proceeding” and, thus, has “discretion to decline to decide additional instituted grounds once the petitioner has prevailed on all its challenged claims”).” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 8,434,966 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,434,966
• Xerox Corp. / Acs Transport Solutions, Inc. et al. v. Bytemark, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 16, 2023 · IPR2022-00621 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 15–21, 23, and 26–28 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 3–8, 11–14, 22, 24, and 25 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “at least a Bachelor of Science Degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, or similar educational background, or equivalent on-the-job training, including approximately three years of experience in developing mobile applications.” Pet. 5. Petitioner notes, however, that the proposed “level of skill is approximate and more experience would compensate for less formal education, and vice versa.” Id. As examples, Petitioner states “an individual having no degree in engineering, but several years of experience developing mobile applications would qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art. A person having no experience developing mobile application but a masters or doctorate degree in the aforementioned fields may also qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. (citing only Ex. 1003, ¶ 14). Dr. Jones’ Declaration testimony repeats Petitioner’s conclusory argument, but prefaces it with the phrase “In my opinion.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 14. We give his conclusory testimony minimal probative weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Jones address the various factors, discussed above, that typically are considered in determining an appropriate level of skill.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “at least a Bachelor of Science Degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, or similar educational background, or equivalent on-the-job training, including approximately three years of experience in developing mobile applications.” Pet. 5. Petitioner notes, however, that the proposed “level of skill is approximate and more experience would compensate for less formal education, and vice versa.” Id. As examples, Petitioner states “an individual having no degree in engineering, but several years of experience developing mobile applications would qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art. A person having no experience developing mobile application but a masters or doctorate degree in the aforementioned fields may also qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. (citing only Ex. 1003, ¶ 14). Dr. Jones’ Declaration testimony repeats Petitioner’s conclusory argument, but prefaces it with the phrase “In my opinion.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 14. We give his conclusory testimony minimal probative weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Jones address the various factors, discussed above, that typically are considered in determining an appropriate level of skill.” slip op. at 13

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

    “As we discuss below, in addition to these two very similar terms, and adding to the challenge of claim construction, the claims also use another slightly different, but similar, term “validating visual object.” See Ex. 1001, 14:61–64 (emphasis added). After analyzing the words of the claims, the remainder of the Specification, the prosecution history, and probative extrinsic evidence to construe these claim terms, we conclude that all three of these terms – “validation display object,” “validating display object,” and “validating visual object” – all mean the same thing, which is “an object that is readily recognizable from human observation that can verify a ticket.” Based on the weight of the evidence and our analysis below, we determine that this construction stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention.” slip op. at 20

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

    “As a general rule, “[u]nless the steps of a method [claim] actually recite an order, the steps are not ordinarily construed to require one.” Mformation Techs., Inc. v. Rsch. in Motion Ltd., 764 F.3d 1392, 1398 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001). However, a claim “requires an ordering of steps when the claim language, as a matter of logic or grammar, requires that the steps be performed in the order written, or the specification directly or implicitly requires” an order of steps. Id. at 1398-99 (quoting TALtech Ltd. v. Esquel Apparel, Inc., 279 Fed. Appx. 974, 978 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also Function Media, LLC v. Google, Inc., 708 F.3d 1310, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (concluding that a claim that recites “processing” an “electronic advertisement” necessarily indicates that “the creation of the ad must happen before the processing begins”). Thus, as disclosed, there is a logical order to the steps performed. For purposes of this Decision, as in Mformation, we agree that the claim language logically requires that the process steps be performed in sequence. See Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 923 F.3d 1023, 1028 (Fed. Cir.), reh'g granted, opinion modified, 776 F. App’x 707 (Fed. Cir. 2019). This also is consistent with the written description in the ’764 patent. A person must first buy a ticket before the ticket can be sent to the buyer. But, by the very nature of modern electronic communications, the ordered steps may occur almost instantaneously.14” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 10,346,764 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,346,764
• Intuitive Surgical, Inc. v. Ethicon LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 13, 2020 · IPR2018-01254 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 are unpatentable under § 103; claims 11 and 24 were not shown unpatentable because the proposed combinations did not adequately establish the articulation limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenOther

    “of proving unpatentability of the challenged claims, and the burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. To prevail, Petitioner must prove 1 Our decision does not rely on any information deemed confidential by the parties. unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d) (2017). This decision is a Final Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) as to the patentability of claims 1–11 and 24 of the ’969 patent. For the reasons discussed below, we hold that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–10 of the ’969 patent are unpatentable under § 103(a). We also hold that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 11 and 24 of the ’969 patent are unpatentable under § 103(a).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not appear to dispute Petitioner’s definition of one of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of one of ordinary skill in the art. In light of the record now before us, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of one of ordinary skill in the art. The level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.’”); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (finding that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not err in concluding that the level of ordinary skill in the art was best determined by the references of record).” slip op. at 12

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

    “(Fed. Cir. 1993). Only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). Here, neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner identifies terms for construction or provides any proposed constructions. Pet. 12; PO Resp. 10; see generally Pet. Reply; Prelim. Resp. 11. Instead, the parties agree that claims of the ’969 patent should be construed according to their broadest reasonable interpretation. Pet. 12; PO Resp. 10. We determine that no claim term needs express interpretation. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803 (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Knodel, “admitted that the tool base shown in Wallace’s figures is not designed to drive an endocutter that clamps and fires.” PO Resp. 36–37 (citing Ex. 2011, 24:20– 23). This admission deserves little weight, however, given that Wallace expressly discloses that “any suitable end effector 66 may be used” in its robotic surgery system depending on the surgical need, including clamps and staplers. Ex. 1008, 7:50–56; see also id. at 2:18–21 (“As used herein, the term ‘end effector’ means the actual working part of the surgical instrument and can include clamps, graspers, scissors, staplers, and needle holders, for example.”); Pet. Reply 18–20; see Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (Obviousness “cannot be avoided simply by a showing of some degree of unpredictability in the art so long as there was a reasonable probability of success.”).” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 8,479,969 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,479,969
• Dexcom, Inc. v. Waveform Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 12, 2018 · IPR2017-01051 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4–12, and 15–19 were held unpatentable as obvious over Hagiwara; claims 2, 3, 13, and 14 were not shown unpatentable. The motion to amend was granted in part.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part

    “j. Conclusion Regarding Obviousness Based on Hagiwara (Proposed Substitute Claims) We conclude that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claims 20, 22, 23, and 26–29 are unpatentable as obvious in view of Hagiwara. We conclude that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claims 21, 24 and 25 are unpatentable as obvious in view of Hagiwara. 2. Remaining Grounds of Unpatentability Asserted by Petitioner (Proposed Substitute Claims) In view of our determination that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claims 20, 22, 23, and 26–29 are unpatentable as obvious in view of Hagiwara, we do not reach Petitioner’s remaining grounds of unpatentability as to these claims. Regarding proposed substitute claims 24 and 25, Petitioner’s contentions regarding the Handbook, Wilson, and Say do not remedy the deficiencies in Petitioner’s contentions regarding Hagiwara, as discussed above. Accordingly, we conclude that a preponderance of the evidence does not show that proposed substitute claims 24 and 25 are unpatentable as obvious based on Hagiwara in view of the Handbook, Wilson, or Say. H.” slip op. at 71

  • ExcludeOther

    “As discussed above, we do not reach the Wilson-Based Grounds with respect to claims 1, 4–12, and 15–19 of the ’574 patent. As for claims 2, 3, 13, and 14, we determine that Petitioner has not shown unpatentability based on the Wilson-Based Grounds, even if Exhibit 1037 and the corresponding portions of Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 37) are not excluded, because Petitioner does not offer Exhibit 1037 to cure the deficiency we noted in Wilson. See Section II.F, supra. For this reason, we dismiss as moot Patent Owner’s motion.” slip op. at 72

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “sensor would not have been a motivation to combine Hagiwara’s embodiments” because Hagiwara’s catheter prevents damage to the sensor during insertion and because a sensor with a side sensor window creates a greater risk of damage and vascular injury and reduces exposure to blood, as compared with a sensor with an end sensor window. PO Resp. 20–25. We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments, but, for the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded that Petitioner has established a motivation to combine, notwithstanding the conflicting expert testimony regarding the disadvantages of a side sensor window versus an end sensor window. Neither of the expert opinions on this topic is supported by objective facts or data. Ex. 1006 ¶ 155;13 Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 54–57, 87–95; Ex. 2009, 92:8–97:12. For this reason, we give little or no weight to either side’s expert testimony 13 Dr. Vachon cites “WO 01/13102, Vadgama” (Ex. 1006 ¶ 155), however, this reference was not submitted as an exhibit in this proceeding. on this topic. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (nothing in the Federal Rules of Evidence or Federal Circuit jurisprudence requires the fact finder to credit unsupported assertions of an expert witness). As discussed above, however, there is no disagreement that a side sensor window was a known alternative to an end sensor window. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 73, 155; Tr. 43:22–44:3. That undisputed fact, together with Petitioner’s other evidence, is sufficient to establish a motivation to combine.” slip op. at 42

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art For purposes of our Institution Decision, we accepted the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) provided by Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Vachon. Dec. 11 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 28). That definition is: a person having a bachelor’s degree or the equivalent training or experience in mechanical engineering, bioengineering, or related field and at least three years of experience relating to biosensor research and development, or a master’s degree or the equivalent training or experience in mechanical engineering, bioengineering, or related field, and at least one year of experience relating to biosensor research and development. Id. Patent (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/guidance_on_motions_ to_amend_11_2017.pdf); Bosch Automotive Service Solutions, LLC v. Matal, 878 F.3d 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Bosch Automotive Service Solutions, LLC v. Iancu, Order on Petition for Panel Rehearing, No. 2015-1928 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 15, 2018). Owner’s declarant accepts and applies this definition of a POSITA for purposes of his opinions. Ex. 2008 ¶ 30. Neither party’s declarant indicates that any proffered opinion would change depending on the level of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, consistent with our Institution Decision, we adopt Dr. Vachon’s definition of a POSITA. Ex. 1006 ¶ 28. We also rely on the cited prior art references as reflecting the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 7,529,574 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,529,574
• Zhongshan Broad-Ocean Motor Co. Ltd. v. Nidec Motor CorporationSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 22, 2016 · IPR2015-00465 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 7, and 18 are unpatentable as anticipated by Mullin and Pant; claim 2 was not shown unpatentable, and the motion to amend was denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “the ‘first sensing circuit’ and the ‘second sensing circuit’ sense power simultaneously,” and further argues “[n]or does Patent Owner present any argument with reference to, e.g., the 459 Patent specification or prosecution history as to why this additional limitation should be read into this claim.” Pet. Reply 23. Petitioner’s reply, however, fails to recognize that Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that Mullin anticipates the claim, including providing sufficient evidence and argument in support of its proposed claim interpretation. The Petition fails to provide a sufficient explanation to support that “when both” should be construed in the manner asserted by Petitioner, particularly when the more natural reading of the claim language conveys that two sensing circuits sense power at the same time. Although Petitioner provided a second declaration from Mr. McAlexander in reply to Patent Owner’s response, neither that declaration nor Mr. McAlexander’s first declaration provides sufficient support for how claim 2 would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill to show that it is anticipated by Mullin. See Exs. 1007 and 1011. Because Petitioner failed to persuasively prove that claim 2 requires only that one of two sensors senses power for the motor controller to determine that power is applied to the second input, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 2 of the ’459 patent is anticipated by Mullin.” slip op. at 14

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “Mot. 15. Patent Owner’s attorney argument, which cites no evidence, does not support the contention that the proposed amended claim would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually when unpatentability is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Even if each prior art reference is “missing at least two of the required limitations,” that has limited bearing on whether a combination of those references renders the claim obvious. Similarly, Patent Owner provides insufficient support for its implicit argument that one would not combine the references because, individually, they provide a “complete solution” to the problem they intend to address. Where “a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Thus, Patent Owner’s suggestion that there “is no reason one of skill would engage in mixing and matching,” fails to adequately address whether the combination would have been obvious. See Mot. 15.” slip op. at 28

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that, for Mullin to anticipate claim 1, Mullin need not disclose power sensed at COM. See Pet. Reply 19–22. The claim language does not require power to be sensed at any specific location, only that one sensing circuit senses “power applied to” the first and second inputs, and the other senses “power applied to” the second and third inputs. Patent Owner does not direct us to any persuasive disclosure in the ’459 patent to support its contention that claim 1 requires that power be sensed at the second input. See PO Resp. 21–26. Similarly, although Dr. Horenstein states that “the Mullin circuit is incapable of providing unique information that power has been connected to COM,” a point not in dispute, Dr. Horenstein provides only conclusory assertions and no persuasive explanation for why claim 1 would be understood to require such “unique information” for the second input. See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 56, 63. Moreover, in Mullin, when a sensor detects power at either P2 or P3, power is necessarily applied to COM (neutral) to complete the circuit, even if the sensor does not directly detect power at COM. As Dr. Horenstein explained, “at least two inputs from the source of AC power – generally line and neutral – would have to be connected in order to complete the circuit and enable the flow of power to the motor.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 53. Mr. McAlexander similarly explained that by the very nature of alternating current, “the flow of electric charge periodically reverses direction.” Ex. 1011 ¶ 12. Thus, when alternating current is applied to Mullin’s input P2 and COM it will “be input from the input P2 and return by way of the COM, and at other times it will be input from the COM and return by way of the input P2.” Id. ¶ 13. The same is true of P3 and COM. See id. As shown by Petitioner, Dr. Horenstein confirmed during cross-examination that, when AC power, as referred to in Mullin, is applied to the power input P2 and common input COM as shown above, the opto-isolator ISO1 senses this power and outputs a corresponding signal, [and] when Mullin’s AC power is applied to the power input P3 and common input COM as shown above, the opto-isolator ISO2 senses this power and outputs a corresponding signal. Pet. Reply 22; see also Ex. 1010, 68:24–69:19. Accordingly, the testimony of Mr. McAlexander and Dr. Horenstein supports our determination that Mullin discloses a first sensing circuits that “senses power applied to the first and second inputs” and a second sensing circuit that “senses power applied to the second and third inputs,” as well as a motor controller that is “operable for determining that power is applied to the first input when the first sensing circuit senses power,” as required by claim 1.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 104–105. Thus, Dr. Horenstein contends there is a lack of a motivation to combine the references because opto-couplers are simpler and require fewer parts than the current based sensor of Nordby. In KSR, the Supreme Court rejected the Federal Circuit’s rigid application of its “teaching, suggestion, motivation” test in favor of an expansive and flexible approach. 550 U.S. at 415. The Supreme Court noted that often, it will be necessary: to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue. Id. at 418. Moreover, the Federal Circuit has explained that: an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the “improvement” is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal – and even common-sensical – we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves. In such situations, the proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses knowledge and skills rendering him capable of combining the prior art references. Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In this case, Patent Owner’s contention that there is no motivation to substitute one sensor for another is not supported by anything beyond conclusory statements. Moreover, contrary to the assertion that voltage and current sensors are “not substitutable,” Nordby expressly states that “[v]oltage (potential) sensing may be used, or alternately, current (flow) sensing may be used. Since the sensing scheme is used only to detect the presence or absence of voltage or current on the sensed line and does not require any significant accuracy, the cost of either type of sense circuitry can be made very low.” Ex. 1004, 4:43–48. In light of the evidence that current and voltage sensors were known to be interchangeable, Patent Owner’s contention that there was “no reason one of skill would have sought to replace those voltage based opto-isolator systems with the bulky current transformer and attendant circuitry of Nordby,” is insufficient to demonstrate the combination of references was not obvious. See Mot. 16.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 8,049,459 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,049,459
• Igb Automotive Ltd. / I.G. Bauerhin GmbH v. Gentherm GmbHSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 21, 2015 · IPR2014-00668 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 6, 14–15, 17, 21, and 23–26 are unpatentable as anticipated by Gendron; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We are mindful of the evidence cited by Gentherm, both intrinsic and extrinsic, as to the meaning of “adjacent.” We do not discern, however, that the evidence imposes a requirement of immediate or direct contact between components, such as layers, that are adjacent. To that end, we observe that other extrinsic sources provide additional context for the ordinary meaning of “adjacent.” For instance, one dictionary sets forth that the meaning of the term “adjacent” may include “nearby” and, in its discussion of synonyms of “adjacent,” explains that the term “may or may not imply contact but always implies absence of anything of the same kind in between.”7 In that respect, the ordinary meaning of “adjacent” in the context of layers would include non-contacting layers that are close to or nearby one another, but are not separated by an intervening layer. We conclude that such ordinary meaning is consistent with the Specification of the ’576 patent, as well as the evidentiary record as a whole that is before us. Accordingly, we construe “adjacent” in connection with layers of the ’576 patent as including non-contacting layers that lie close or nearby one another, but excluding the presence of an intervening layer between those non-contacting layers.” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). There is evidence in the record before us that reflects the knowledge level of a person with ordinary skill in the art. Gentherm’s Declarant, Dr. James G. Rice, attests that a person with ordinary skill in the art would have the following background or experience:  Vocational training in mechanical or electrical engineering or related field plus 3-4 years of experience designing consumer heating, cooling, or ventilation systems; or  a B.S. in mechanical or electrical engineering or related field, plus 1-2 years of experience designing consumer heating, cooling, or ventilation systems Ex. 2002 ¶ 34. 10 The court in Graham further noted “[s]uch secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented.” 383 U.S. at 18. In this proceeding, however, evidence of “secondary considerations” has not been offered for evaluation by the panel. IGB does not dispute Dr. Rice’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art. For purpose of this Final Written Decision, we accept Dr. Rice’s characterization of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 19

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “We are cognizant of Dr. Rice’s testimony in favor of the opposite conclusion. See Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 53–55. For example, Dr. Rice generally opines that “[o]ne of ordinary skill would understand that Gendron’s extension 16 does not need to be an extension of any of the various pad layers.” Id. ¶ 55. We are not persuaded, however, that Dr. Rice provides adequate underlying support for his opinion. To that end, we also are not satisfied that Dr. Rice has taken into account appropriately the express teachings of Gendron concerning the composition of extension 16, including those discussed above. Accordingly, in considering the record before us, we conclude that Gendron discloses the “tongue portion” and “tongue” features required by claims 1–3, 6, 14–17, and 21–27.” slip op. at 13

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

    “At the outset, we observe that IGB’s anticipation ground does not rest on a theory that Gendron’s extension inherently includes the layers. Rather, IGB bases its anticipation theory on the express disclosures of Gendron, itself. Pet. 24–25. To that end, Gendron makes clear that back portion 12, bottom portion 14, middle portion 15 and extension 16 “are formed as an integral member.” Ex. 1005, 2:13–15. Gendron’s Figure 2 is described as showing a front view of a “ventilated seat pad,” and that Figure depicts all of elements 12, 14, 15, and 16. Furthermore, during oral argument, and after inquiry from the panel, counsel for Gentherm agreed that Gendron’s pad includes all of those elements, including extension 16.9 Thus, there is no dispute that pad 10 includes extension 16. Gendron’s Figure 3 is described as “an enlarged sectional view of the ventilated seat pad of FIGS. 1 and 2, illustrating five layers.” Id. at 2:54–55. A reference stands for all of its specific teachings, as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in this art reasonably would have been expected to draw therefrom. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264–65 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, given at least the above-noted disclosures of Gendron, we conclude that a skilled artisan would infer reasonably that because extension 16 is disclosed as a part of pad 10, which includes five layers, and extension 16 is formed as an “integral member” with the other pad components, the extension also is composed of the layers.” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 6,840,576 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,840,576

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.