- PTAB · Aug 19, 2024 · IPR2024-00611 · APJ Michael G Mcmanus · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–23 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Ungerank and Scholz.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“3. Whether Petitioner has Demonstrated a Reasonable Likelihood of Prevailing “In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). Further, Petitioner bears the “burden to demonstrate both that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention[s], and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” In re Magnum Oil Tools, Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation and internal quotation omitted). Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and evidence of record, we are persuaded that Petitioner demonstrates sufficiently that Ungerank and Scholz teach or suggest each limitation in claim 1. Petitioner also sets forth sufficient reasoning with a rational underpinning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Ungerank and Scholz in the manner recited in claim 1, with a reasonable expectation of success, so as to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). Further, Petitioner bears the “burden to demonstrate both that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention[s], and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” In re Magnum Oil Tools, Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation and internal quotation omitted). Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and evidence of record, we are persuaded that Petitioner demonstrates sufficiently that Ungerank and Scholz teach or suggest each limitation in claim 1. Petitioner also sets forth sufficient reasoning with a rational underpinning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Ungerank and Scholz in the manner recited in claim 1, with a reasonable expectation of success, so as to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“A reference does not teach away if it “does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (cleaned up). The Federal Circuit has explained that “a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit ... should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be” slip op. at 21
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialInstituted
“Petitioner argues that the Board should not exercise its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C §§ 314(a) or 325(d). Pet. 62–69. Patent Owner does not address discretionary denial. In view of the absence of argument from Patent Owner and minimal evidence bearing upon discretionary denial, we determine that there is no basis for discretionary denial.” slip op. at 29
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,471,380 - Google LLC / Ecobee, Inc. v. Ecofactor, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 1, 2024 · IPR2020-01504 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Remand
On remand, the Board held claims 1–20 unpatentable as obvious over Wedekind and Ehlers and denied Petitioner’s motion to exclude Dr. Palmer’s testimony.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“Circuit held that we erred in construing limitation 1m. According to the Federal Circuit, In sum, both the claim language and the specification support a broader construction than the Board accorded the [1m] limitation. The proper construction of the term must allow for any of the five claimed inputs to potentially be used to calculate another claimed input. We agree, then, with Google’s proposed construction, which simply “require[s] that each of the five inputs be used at some point during the determination of the first time prior to said target time.” Appellant Br. 52 (emphasis and quotation marks omitted). Id. at 1059 (alteration in original). The Federal Circuit further ordered that we “apply this construction on remand.” Id. Following the issuance of the mandate, we held a conference call with the parties. See Paper 51, 2 (Order on Conduct of Proceedings on Remand). As noted in the previous paragraph, the Federal Circuit instructed us to apply Petitioner’s construction for limitation 1m on remand. Google, 92 F.4th at 1059. Because the construction was implicitly argued in the Petition, the parties had notice and opportunity to be heard. Paper 51, 5. Therefore, in accordance with PTAB Standard Operating Procedure 3,4 we “determine[d] that additional briefing [was] not warranted in this proceeding.” Id. at 4.5 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written Decision on Remand is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a 4 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ptab_ sop_3-2023-oct.pdf. 5 Neither party requested to submit additional evidence or have an oral hearing on remand. Ex. 3002 (Email from the parties to the Board). unpatentable.” slip op. at 4
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“On the one hand, Patent Owner’s formulation is attorney argument without any supporting evidence. See PO Resp. 5–6. Although not cited in the Response, when Dr. Palmer testifies to the level of skill in the art, he opinion: EcoFactor contends that a person of ordinary skill in the arts at the time of the invention would have had a (a) bachelor's degree in engineering, computer science, or a comparable field of study, and (b) at least 2 years of professional experience in electronic thermostats, HVAC controls, building energy management and controls or other similarly relevant industry experience. Additional relevant industry experience may compensate for lack of formal education or vice versa. Ex. 2002 ¶ 22 (emphasis added). It is well settled that mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are generally entitled to no probative value. See Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“Attorney’s argument is no substitute for evidence.”). On the other hand, Petitioner’s proposal is supported by Mr. Shah’s testimony. See Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 26–27). Because Mr. Shah’s testimony is based on his years of experience, we give it some weight. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 2–10. Accordingly, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s formulation, except for the qualifier “at least,” is correct.9” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“After briefing, we issued an order inviting supplemental briefing regarding the preambles of the challenged claims. Paper 28. In the Order, we proposed that the preamble of each of the challenged claims was not limiting. Id. at 2–3. In supplemental briefing, both Petitioner and Patent Owner agreed with that construction. PO Claim Constr. Br. 1; Pet. Claim Constr. Br. 5. We adopt the parties undisputed construction that the preamble of each of the claims is not limiting. In doing so, we conclude that the preamble is not limiting because it is “only a statement of purpose and intended result” and “[t]he expression does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the claim.” Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Labs., Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1375–76 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“s) Conclusion Regarding Claim 1 For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Wedekind and Ehlers. 4. Analysis of Claims 2–4, 6–20 Petitioner argues that the combination of Wedekind and Ehlers teaches the limitations recited in claims 2–4 and 6–20 and that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings with a reasonable expectation of success. Pet. 61–62, 64–75. Petitioner’s arguments are supported by citations to the prior art and the testimony of Mr. Shah. See id. We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, agree with them, and, therefore, adopt Petitioner’s arguments and evidence as our own.” slip op. at 61
Patent outcomesUS 8,498,753 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,498,753 - Philip Morris Products, S.A. v. Rai Strategic Holdings, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 31, 2024 · PGR2020-00071 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · PGR · Remand
On remand, the Board held claims 10 and 27 unpatentable as obvious over Robinson, Greim, and Adams because skilled artisans would have optimized heater length through routine experimentation.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“Standard Operating Procedure 3 communicating the parties’ positions on submitting additional briefing on remand. Ex. 3001.2 We responded on April 15, 2024, authorizing the parties to file additional briefs limited to the question of “whether the Federal Circuit’s determinations on written description are applicable to an obviousness analysis, and if so, how they should be applied.” Ex. 3001. Petitioner filed its Supplemental Brief on Remand on April 29, 2024 (Paper 41, “Pet. Supp. Br.”), and Patent Owner filed its Supplemental Reply Brief on Remand on May 13, 2024 (Paper 42, “PO Supp. Reply”). B. The Issue on Remand As part of our Final Written Decision, we determined that Petitioner established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 10 and 27 lack adequate written description support. FWD 38–41. In view of this, we declined to address Petitioner’s arguments that claims 10 and 27 are unpatentable as obvious in view of Robinson,3 Greim,4 and Adams.5” slip op. at 4
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, chemistry, or physics, or a related field, and three to four years of industry experience, or a Master’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, chemistry, or physics, or a related field, and one to two years of industry experience. Such a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have been familiar with electrically powered smoking articles and/or the components and underlying technology used therein. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 26–30). Patent Owner states that “[f]or purposes of the trial in this proceeding, [Patent Owner] accepts Petitioner’s proposed education and experience level of the [person of ordinary skill in the art].” PO Resp. 13. In view of the foregoing, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. The prior art of record reflects this level of ordinary skill. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that “[t]he challenged claims are unpatentable under any reasonable construction,” and, “for purposes of this proceeding . . . adopts the plain meaning of the claims and submits that no claim term requires construction.” Pet. 14. Patent Owner contends it was improper for Petitioner to adopt the plain meaning of the claims without explaining what it considers the plain meaning of each claim term to be. PO Resp. 13. Patent Owner does not offer a construction for any claim term. PO Resp. 13. After considering the full record developed during trial, we determine that no claim limitations need an express construction for purposes of resolving the controversy.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Although Patent Owner is correct that Petitioner does not direct us to any disclosure of a heating member having a length that “falls within the claimed range,” such a disclosure in the art is not required for a showing of obviousness. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 136 (Fed. Cir. 1996). In Huang, the claim required a racquet grip comprising a textile layer and a polyurethane layer, and that the ratio of their thicknesses be “larger than approximately 0.18.” Id. at 137. The prior art disclosed a textile layer and polyurethane layer in thickness ratios ranging from 0.111–0.142. Id. at 136. Although the prior art did not disclose a ratio in the claimed range, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s obviousness rejection because the evidence showed that “one of ordinary skill in the art would have experimented with various thicknesses to obtain an optimum range.” Id. at 139; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955) (affirming an obviousness rejection of a claim to a chemical process reciting use of 25– 70% sulfuric acid at 40–80 degrees when the prior art disclosed the same reaction with 10% sulfuric acid at 100 degrees); In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955 (CCPA 1960) (affirming an obviousness rejection of a claim to a chemical process conducted at 150–250 degrees when the prior art disclosed the same reaction at 300 degrees). The Federal Circuit also noted that “Huang does not contend that he has achieved unexpected results by increasing the thickness of the polyurethane layer.” Huang, 100 F.3d at 139–140. Those principles apply with equal force to the facts in this case. Here, the evidence of record demonstrates that heaters having a length that spans some percentage of the length of the disposable aerosol forming substance were known in the art. For example, Robinson discloses one embodiment wherein heating element 72 has an elongated portion that extends into tobacco segment 89. Ex. 1006, 27:35–39, Fig. 3. Greim likewise discloses a heating element having some length, which may be inserted into a plug of an aerosol-forming substrate. Ex. 1007, 13, Fig. 4. Adams discloses similar information. Ex. 1008 ¶ 45 (“The axial length of the projection 72 is selected so that it does not extend all the way through the tobacco plug.”), Fig. 7. Following the reasoning in Huang, these disclosures of a heater having some length, albeit not necessarily a length in the claimed range, are sufficient to demonstrate obviousness if there is evidence demonstrating “one of ordinary skill in the art would have experimented with various [lengths] to obtain an optimum range” and there is no evidence that the claimed range provides unexpected results. Huang, 100 F.3d at 139.” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 10,492,542 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,492,542 - Tesla, Inc. v. Relink US LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jul 16, 2024 · IPR2024-00389 · APJ Jane E Inglese · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all grounds because neither Serban nor Somani sufficiently showed the claimed inverter and controller functionality.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“that Petitioner does not provide a sufficient showing to establish that Serban discloses a current-source inverter and a controller, each configured as required by the challenged independent claims. Our reasoning is two-fold. First, Petitioner does not directly address the claim requirement that the current-source inverter is configured to adjust an output power as a function of a frequency of the alternating current voltage source. Second, Petitioner’s characterization of select disclosures from Serban is inconsistent with Serban’s disclosure as a whole. We address these shortcomings below.” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“(“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), revisions to 35 U.S.C. § 100 et seq., because its earliest effective filing date is July 28, 2015. Ex. 1001, code (22). “[U]nder the AIA, a reference patent document need only meet the ‘ministerial requirements’ of §§ 119 and 120, and the Provisional or other earlier application(s) to which the reference patent document claims a right of priority must ‘describe[] the subject matter’ relied upon in the reference patent document as prior art. 35 U.S.C. § 102(d)(2).” Penumbra, Inc. v. RapidPulse, Inc., IPR2022-00608, Paper 34 at 29–31 (PTAB Mar. 10, 2023) (designated precedential in relevant part (§ II.E.3)).” slip op. at 28
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“held at least a bachelor’s degree and a master’s degree in electrical engineering or a related degree, as well as possessing at least two years of experience with grid-tied power supplies having electric energy sources including photovoltaic and battery systems.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 23). Petitioner further asserts that a “POSA [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have been familiar with the admitted prior-art systems of Figures 1 and 2 [of the ’755 patent] and associated descriptions of those systems.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 1:28–36, 1:66–2:2, 5:42–47).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner states that it “applied plain and ordinary meanings to all claim terms and no express constructions are required here.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 101). Patent Owner does not address claim construction. See generally Prelim. Resp. Taking into consideration the arguments and information Petitioner and Patent Owner present, we determine that none of the claim terms requires express construction for purposes of deciding whether to institute review.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,793,755 - Nespresso USA, Inc. v. K-Fee System GmbHInstitutedPTAB · Jun 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00299 · APJ James J Mayberry · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–8 based on a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Yoakim, Jarisch ’929, Rossi, and Rapparini.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“institute review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023) (permitting the Board to institute trial on behalf of the Director). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least [one] of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the Petition, Preliminary Response, and evidence of record, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in engineering plus five years of experience in design of mechanical beverage systems, or similar products, and experience with sensors for recognizing an identifier.” Pet. 16 (referencing Ex. 1003 ¶ 40; IPR2022-01574, Paper 12, 15). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s characterization of the level of ordinary skill in the art of the ’910 patent. For purposes of this Decision, based on the prior art, the sophistication of the technology at issue, and Mr. Jobin’s Declaration testimony, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the level of ordinary skill. The ’901 patent, as well as the prior art of record, includes systems that use identifiers on a capsule to control the operation of a beverage machine. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:28–34 (“[T]he present invention . . . has an identifier, which allows to individualize the respective portion capsule.”); Ex. 1004 ¶ 25 (discussing the system’s “identification means”); Ex. 1006 ¶ 1 (“The present invention relates in particular to coding supports adapted to store information related to a capsule, capsules associated with/for embedding coding supports, reading and processing arrangements for reading and using such information for preparing a beverage.”); Ex. 1041, code (57) (“The process for controlling the operation of an edible-product making machine [includes] . . . recogni[zing] an” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under this standard, claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“We have frequently stated that the words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.’” (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artOther
“a) Petitioner’s contentions Petitioner contends that Yoakim, Jarisch ’929, Rossi, and Rapparini are “analogous art in the field of portion capsule beverage extraction, each disclosing an invention that may be applied in automatic coffee/expresso machines.” Pet. 37 (referencing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 2, 3; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 1, 2; Ex. 1008 ¶ 1; Ex. 1041, 3; Ex. 1003 ¶ 220); cf. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“References within the statutory terms of 35 U.S.C. § 102 qualify as prior art for an obviousness determination only when analogous to the claimed invention.”). Patent Owner does not dispute this contention at this stage of the proceeding.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,554,910 - Motif Foodworks, Inc. v. Impossible Foods, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 12, 2024 · IPR2023-00206 · APJ Donna M Praiss · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12 and 14–24 are unpatentable as obvious over Giacino, Proulx, and Conrad, with Perret or MacLeod for certain dependent claims; the Board did not reach other grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The District Court’s claim construction for the term “compound” is shown below. Ex. 2016, 8–11. Claim Term District Court Construction The “sulfur compound” limitation must be satisfied by a compound that is present compound10 separately from a protein; “compound” will not be construed as being limited to compounds used as flavor precursors The District Court’s claim construction order cites to U.S. Patent 11,013,250 (the ’250 patent”) as representative of the ’096 patent and other related patents involved in the District Court litigation. See Ex. 2016, 7 (“Claim 1 of the ʼ250 patent claims is generally representative for purposes of the parties’ dispute.”). The District Court determined that plant proteins 10 Ex. 2016, 9, 11 (citing Ex. 1001, 15:26–27).” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“24. Pet. 20–26. Focusing on independent claim 1’s limitation “a compound selected from cysteine, cystine, thiamin, methionine, and mixtures of two or more thereof,” Petitioner asserts Brown’s disclosure of “pea flour” meets this limitation because “pea flour contains cystine, thiamine, and methionine.” Id. at 22–23 (citing Ex. 1012 (Brown) ¶ 364; Ex. 1003 (Tarte) ¶¶ 121–125; Ex. 1050/Ex. 1059 (Jahreis), 39, 41, 86; Ex. 1106, 3, 6–7). Petitioner qualifies that its mapping of “pea flour” to this claim limitation is based on the interpretation of “compound” as “not . . . limited to free compounds.” Id. at 22 n.7. Specifically, Petitioner states that the mapping is based on Brown’s “pea flour, which contains proteins having the claimed sugar and sulfur compounds.” Id. at 12; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 105 (reiterating this statement). Brown states, in pertinent part, “[a] muscle replica comprising pea flour, sunflower oil, and glucose.” Ex. 1012 ¶ 364. Dr. Tarté states in his declaration that a person of ordinary skill “would have understood that pea flour includes cystine, methionine, and thiamine.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 121–125. On cross-examination, Dr. Tarté stated that this mapping to the claim is based on an understanding that Brown’s proteins satisfy the sulfur compound limitation. Ex. 2032, 33:19–34:12; 98:11–99.9 (“[I]n as much as . . . Patent Owner considers proteins to satisfy the sulfur compound claim, then . . . the pea protein flour of Brown also satisfies the [sulfur] compound claim.”), 117:9–118:8. Patent Owner asserts that the Petition’s anticipation ground must fail if the claimed compound limitation does not extend to proteins. PO Resp. 13. Because we adopt the District Court’s construction of the claim term “compound,” Petitioner’s contention that Brown anticipates the ’096 patent necessarily fails. See Verdegaal Bros., 814 F.2d at 631 (“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.”). Petitioner concedes that the viability of this ground depends on construing the term “compound” to include whole proteins, and has failed to present evidence in this proceeding that Brown discloses a sulfur compound that is separate from a protein. Tr. 50:21–52:13 (Petitioner’s counsel conceding that the anticipation ground is not viable under the District Court’s claim construction for “compound”). Thus, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated by Brown.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNon analogous artDecided for patent owner
“The analogous-art test requires a showing that a reference is either in the field of endeavor of the challenged patent or is reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was concerned in order to rely on that reference as a basis for unpatentability. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Patent Owner argues that Petitioner fails to establish Crane as analogous art under this legal framework. PO Resp. 36–40; PO Sur-Reply 1–2. First, Patent Owner asserts Crane is not “from the same field of endeavor” as the ’096 patent. Id. at 37 (citing Ex. 2030 (Qian Decl.) ¶ 86). Based on this record, the ’096 patent is directed to food products while Crane, on the other hand, relates to “methods for producing recombinant functional heme-binding proteins.” Ex. 1001, 1:22–25; Ex. 1014, code (57). As Patent Owner points out, Crane does not even mention food products or any flavor functionality of heme-binding proteins. PO Resp. 37. Petitioner does not address Crane’s field of endeavor in its Petition or Reply. See Pet. 36–50; Pet. Reply 1 (“Petitioner . . . relies on the arguments made in the Petition for Ground 1 and 3A-3D”). We agree with Patent Owner that Crane is not from the same field of endeavor as the ’096 patent. Next, Patent Owner asserts the Petition fails to explain how Crane’s recombinant heme-binding protein is pertinent to the problem addressed by the ’096 patent inventors. According to Patent Owner, the problem solved by the inventors was “to provide meat-like-food products that overcome the limitations of prior-art meat substitutes.” PO Resp. 38. Crane, however, is directed to producing recombinant heme-binding proteins with complete heme incorporation. Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 3–5; Ex. 2030 ¶ 87. Neither Crane nor the Petition addresses how this is relevant to improving meat-associated flavors or aromas in food flavor additives. See generally, Ex. 1014; Pet. 36–50. The Petition asserts that Crane’s recombinant heme-binding protein, if used in place of Conrad’s blood/hemoglobin, which is added to improve taste, “would have produced the proteins with a high degree of purity.” Pet. 47–48. The Petition asserts that the benefit of high purity is greater control over the amount added and consistency in the end product. Id. at 48.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“argument at trial, we do not agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s basis for improving the nutritional content of the food product of Giacino is unsupported by the record. Proulx identifies iron deficiency as “a major nutritional problem, affecting over 2 billion people[.]” Ex. 1019, 1518; Ex. 1003 ¶ 93; see also Pet. Reply 25. Based on the evidence in this record, Giacino’s compositions lack a significant source of iron. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 387, 407. Furthermore, like Proulx, Giacino’s composition is intended to be an additive to food products. Specifically, Giacino’s composition is intended to be added to synthetic meat fibers, that may benefit from a source of iron, by mimicking not only the “meaty flavor” or aroma of meat, but the nutritional profile of conventionally sourced beef as well. Ex. 1003 ¶ 410; Ex. 1015, 7:22–26. This reasoning is supported by Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Tarté. Ex. 1003 ¶ 410. Patent Owner acknowledges the nutritive aspect of the addition is a “bonus” to the flavor impact. PO Sur-Reply 25–26. Proulx explicitly teaches adding leghemoglobin as an additive to food (“food fortificant”), therefore a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Ex. 1019, Abs.; see id. at 1521 (“added with tortillas”). Even if the addition of Proulx’s leghemoglobin were to produce autooxidation and impact Giacino’s meaty flavor, the benefit of Proulx’s leghemoglobin as an additive to a food composition is not disputed and supports the combination. “The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.” Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine”). Moreover, the evidence of record regarding the asserted negative effect on aroma and flavor due to heme proteins is that this negative impact is merely a possibility. Ex. 2030 ¶ 76 (Dr. Qian states that heme proteins have an “unpredictable effect” and refers to statements made in related patent prosecution that “fortification [with] iron has a potential negative effect on organoleptic quality of maize products, in that soluble forms of iron can cause oxidative rancidity,” quoting Ex. 1148, 2715). Based on the evidence of record, the benefit of adding heme protein taught by Proulx outweighs the potential negative effect that it may have on Giacino’s flavoring additive. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence in this record supports Petitioner’s assertion that a POSITA would have been motivated to nutritionally fortify Giacino’s meat flavoring composition by adding Proulx’s soy leghemoglobin.” slip op. at 31
Patent outcomesUS 9,943,096 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,943,096 - The Noco Company, Inc. v. Pilot, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 11, 2024 · IPR2023-00167 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–24 are unpatentable; the Board finds the asserted § 103 grounds proven for each claim and dismisses the collateral-estoppel motion as moot.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“include (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) the type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior-art solutions to those problems; (4) the rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) the sophistication of the technology; and (6) the educational level of workers active in the field. Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696–97 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Not all factors may exist in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case. Id. These factors are not exhaustive, but merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art. Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Moreover, the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, 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 Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). We determine that no claim term requires an explicit construction to decide whether Petitioner satisfies the “preponderance of the evidence” standard for proving unpatentability. slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“A patentee is entitled to a presumption of nexus “when the patentee shows that the asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product and that product ‘embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them.’” Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1373 (quoting Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). “[I]f the marketed product embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them, then a nexus is presumed and the burden shifts to the party asserting obviousness to present evidence to rebut the presumed nexus.” Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Coextensive “mean[s] that the product ‘is the invention disclosed and claimed’. . . . A product is ‘essentially the claimed invention when, for example, the unclaimed features amount to nothing more than additional insignificant features.’” Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc., 10 F.4th 1268, 1276–77 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (emphasis and citation omitted).” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Having considered the evidence and arguments, we determine that the preponderance of the evidence favors Petitioner. Petitioner demonstrates that a person of ordinary skill would have had a reason to modify Richardson’s jump starter with Lai’s overcharge-protection circuit. Pet. 69. In particular, Petitioner shows that in order to protect against dangerous overcharging conditions in Richardson’s jump starter, a person of ordinary skill would have replaced diode 35 in Richardson with a switched overcharge-protection circuit, as taught by Lai, with the predictable result of cutting off recharging of jump starter batteries 22 from vehicle battery 28 in the event an over voltage protection threshold is crossed. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 174. Patent Owner’s argument that Richardson teaches away is not persuasive. Richardson’s teaching of recharging techniques supports the combination with Lai, rather than teaches away, because a system such as Richardson’s that permits recharging would have a need for safety protection and excessive recharging prevention. Further, claim 11 does not require preventing recharging in every situation, but rather only prevents recharging of “a normal voltage of the battery.” Ex. 1001, 6:11–12. In any event, Richardson does not criticize, discredit or discourage investigation into preventing recharging. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (prior art does not teach away from claimed subject matter merely by disclosing a different solution to a similar problem unless the prior art also criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the solution claimed).” slip op. at 35
Patent outcomesUS 11,235,673 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,235,673 - Nespresso USA, Inc. v. K-Fee System GmbHInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00239 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–20 would have been obvious over either asserted combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any of claims 1–20 of the ’094 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“The express language of the claim, however, does not support using the “central axis” as the measuring point for determining if one object is laterally offset from another. For example, the term “central axis” is not used in the relevant claim phrase and the dictionary definitions of “lateral” relied upon by Petitioner and Mr. Jobin to show the ordinary meaning of the claim term do not suggest that the “central axis” is the reference point for determining whether a first object is “laterally offset” from a second object. As such, we determine that the claim language supports Patent Owner’s construction requiring that the “groove” be “off to the side” of the entire mandrel, and not merely the “central axis” of the mandrel. Prelim. Resp. 54. We must also resolve whether the entire groove is required to be laterally offset from the chamfered mandrel, or only a portion of it. On this point, the claims do not use the term “portion,” but rather specify that the “groove” is “laterally offset from the chamfered mandrel.” Ex. 1001, 14:4– 5, 15:19–20. This suggests that the entire “groove” must be offset from the “chamfered mandrel.”” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“That argument, however, does not explain why it would have been obvious to laterally offset the groove of Yoakim from the chamfered mandrel. Rather, as demonstrated by Mr. Jobin’s testimony, this argument relates to the general use of a sealing member in a groove, to the extent it was ultimately determined that such a configuration is not expressly disclosed in Yoakim. Id.; Ex. 1003 ¶ 296 (“It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to position a sealing member in a groove to solidify the between counter-force portion 161 and engaging portion 157 in Figure 35 of Yoakim is more appropriately identified as the claimed “groove.” Prelim. Resp. 60–61. We need not resolve this issue, however, as Petitioner does not persuasively demonstrate that either potential “groove” is “laterally offset” from the chamfered mandrel. placement of the seal and improve its sealing stability and strength. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize a groove and seal configuration in the brewing head . . . .”) (emphasis added). Even if we interpret the recited portion of the Petition as an argument for placing the groove entirely to the side of the mandrel in Yoakim, the Petition does not persuasively explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to do so. In Figure 35 of Yoakim, the seal and groove, as well as an elastic loading means, act as a valve means to control the level of pressure exerted in the capsule and “optimize interaction of water and the ground coffee particles to obtain a good extraction of the coffee and aroma compounds.” Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 370–372, 382, 396–398, 434–436, 445; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 286–290; Pet. 63. These are the same beneficial properties relied upon by Petitioner to support the proposed combination, and Petitioner does not persuasively explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Yoakim in order to achieve results that are already obtained in the identified embodiment. Pet. 63. In view of the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 12 would have been obvious over the combined disclosures of Yoakim, Jarisch 929, and Rossi.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,542,094 - PTAB · May 24, 2024 · IPR2023-00861 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Remand
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable under any asserted ground.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“Accordingly, the Director instructed us to “determine whether Petitioner has demonstrated that Figure 1 of Godefroy ‘is clear on its face’ or would have reasonably suggested the placement of Godefroy’s sacrificial anode ‘within 10 inches’ of the hot liquid inlet.” Id. at 9. “In making this determination,” the Director instructed us to “consider whether the expert testimony provides sufficient ‘technical detail, explanation, or statements supporting why the expert determines that the feature in question was required or would have been obvious based on the prior art disclosure.’” Id. In addition, although the Director’s decision “is limited to [our] application of Hockerson to the grounds in the Petition involving Godefroy,” the Director instructed us also to “consider what effect, if any, this decision has on the other asserted grounds.” Id. Finally, the Director instructed us to “set forth [our] interpretation” of “the limitation ‘within 10 inches of a hot liquid inlet to the radiator.’” Id. at 8 n.4.” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“original decision, the Director’s decision, and the evidence currently of record, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any challenged claim based on any ground asserted in the Petition. IV. ORDER For the reasons given, it is: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, the Petition is denied, and no inter partes review is instituted.” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“evidence. The challenged claims require that a sacrificial anode be placed within a certain distance—10 inches—of the hot liquid inlet, and, because the inlet has some non-zero size, it might be possible for an anode to be within that distance from some parts, but not from all parts, of the inlet. Accordingly, specifying the center axis of the inlet as the point from which to measure the distance to the anode improves on the plain words of the claim in terms of achieving the claim’s objective of placing the anode within a specified distance of the inlet. Moreover, when discussing the distance from the inlet to the anode, the specification of the ’494 patent uses the language “within 10 inches in any direction of the center axis of the inlet connection.” Ex. 1001, 7:61–64. Thus, the intrinsic evidence supports adopting Petitioner’s claim construction. Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Medlin, relies on Petitioner’s proposed construction. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 20 (noting that the construction “within 10 inches of the center axis of [a] hot liquid inlet” “ha[s] been adopted by Petitioner”), 96 (“the sacrificial anodes contained in each of the turbulators 2 would be placed within 10 inches of a center axis of a hot liquid inlet to the radiator of Tomosada”), 144 (“A POSITA would understand from Figure 1 that the sacrificial anode 14 is within 10 inches of a center axis of a hot liquid inlet”), 267 (“These teachings would further motivate a POSITA to located the sacrificial anode 12 within 10 inches of a center axis of the hot liquid inlet.”). This support for Petitioner’s proposed construction provides further reason for us to adopt it. Because it is supported by the intrinsic evidence of record, because Patent Owner proposes no alternative construction, and because Petitioner’s expert supports it, we adopt the construction of “within 10 inches of a hot liquid inlet to the radiator” that Petitioner proposes. Thus, we construe this term as “within 10 inches of the center axis of a hot liquid inlet to the radiator.” In other words, when discussing the distance between a hot liquid inlet and a sacrificial anode, we interpret “hot liquid inlet” as “center axis of the hot liquid inlet.”” slip op. at 5
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Inherency may be relied upon in arguing either anticipation or obviousness. Schering, 339 F.3d at 1377 (applying inherency in an anticipation context); Par Pharma. Inc. v. TWI Pharma., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1195–96 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (applying inherency in an obviousness context). In both cases, however, “[t]he mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Instead, “the limitation at issue necessarily must be present, or the natural result of the combination of elements expressly disclosed by the prior art.” Par Pharma., 773 F.3d at 1195–96. Here, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that, in Godefroy, the sacrificial anode necessarily is placed within 10 inches of the center axis of the hot liquid inlet. Dr. Medlin testifies that Figure 1 of Godefroy shows that “an entirety . . . or at least a significant portion of the sacrificial anode 14, is within 10 inches of a center axis of the inlet.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 144. But we cannot say that Figure 1 of Godefroy is clear on its face, or reasonably suggests, that this is necessarily the case. There are no dimensions shown on Figure 1, so it is unclear from the figure what the diameter of pipe 12 is. If that diameter is larger than 20 inches, then it simply is untrue that “sacrificial anode 14 is . . . necessarily placed within 10 inches of a center axis of a hot liquid inlet to the radiator,” as Dr. Medlin testifies. Id. ¶ 361. As noted above, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Medlin relies on the hot liquid inlet of Godefroy having any particular diameter, and Godefroy is silent as to the diameter of its inlet. Pet. 69–70; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 144, 359–361, 381–382, 406–408; Ex. 1008, 1–15. Moreover, as Patent Owner notes, there is a wide range of sizes of radiators, including automobile radiators, available. Prelim. Resp. 3–5; Exs. 2001–2003. In the absence of any testimony or other evidence that tends to show that radiator inlet pipes necessarily have diameters less than 20 inches, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the diameter of Godefroy’s inlet pipe is small enough to ensure that any portion of the anode necessarily is within 10 inches of the center axis of the inlet.” slip op. at 11
Claim constructioncites Phillips - Canon U.S.A., Inc. / Canon Inc. v. Slingshot Printing LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 20, 2024 · IPR2022-01541 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7, 9, 10, 20–22, and 24 are unpatentable as obvious over Hamafuku, Whitman, and Imanaka, with Cleland added for claim 5.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Upon review of the prior art of record, we determine that no claim terms require construction for purposes of this Final Written Decision. 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)).” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Upon review of the prior art of record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the prior art of record, but note that neither party contends the outcome of this case depends on whether a person of ordinary skill could include an individual with a degree in Materials Science.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“In this case, there was a known desire to increase nozzle pitch in inkjet printheads, Imanaka’s heater and nozzle configuration had been used in the art to achieve this goal, and there is no suggestion that combining the teachings of Hamafuku, Whitman, and Imanaka was beyond the skill of an ordinarily skilled artisan. See Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Thus, we credit the testimony of Mr. Curley that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to use Imanaka’s heater and nozzle pitch in Hamafuku in order to provide a more compact and higher density printhead. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 404–05. A conclusion of obviousness requires a reasonable expectation of success. Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This inquiry asks whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of combining the references to achieve what is claimed in the patent-at-issue. Id. at 1367. The inquiry does not look to whether unclaimed elements or functions would or would not also be achieved, or whether “one would reasonably expect the prior art reference to operate as those references intended once combined.” Id.” slip op. at 42
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“As noted by Patent Owner, the components of Imanaka are made of silicon-based materials, manufactured using thin film technology. PO Resp. 53–54 (citing Ex. 1008, 6:50–61). We are not persuaded, however, that Imanaka’s preference for silicon-based materials would teach away from, or otherwise discourage, one of ordinary skill in the art from combining Hamafuku, Whitman, and Imanaka. Imanaka does not suggest that failure to use silicon-based materials would result in an inoperable device. Rather, Imanaka states that use of silicon-based materials may “improve the mechanical characteristics” and “reliability” of “the liquid discharge head.” Ex. 1008, 6:50–61. Given the considerable increase in printhead nozzle pitch and print resolution provided by Imanaka’s heater and nozzle pitch configuration, we are not persuaded that a failure to capture the same improvement in mechanical characteristics and reliability from the use of silicon-based materials would prevent one of ordinary skill in the art from implementing Imanaka’s nozzle pitch in Hamafuku and Whitman or counsel against this modification.” slip op. at 41
Patent outcomesUS 7,152,951 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,152,951
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.