- Scientific Design Company, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, IncAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 3, 2023 · IPR2022-00433 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–29 are unpatentable: claims 1–10, 16–18, and 23–29 as obvious over Lockemeyer and Liu; claims 11–15 and 19–22 as obvious over those references plus Lockemeyer-II and Kowaleski.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“art “would have held a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree in chemical engineering or a related discipline with five or more years of experience in the catalyst field.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 12–14). In response, Patent Owner argues that the ’062 patent relates to catalyst carriers and a process for preparing catalyst carriers, and argues that “[a]lthough it is possible that a person ‘with five or more years of experience in the catalyst field’ may have experience with catalyst carriers, nothing in Petitioner’s definition requires it.” PO Resp. 15–16. Accordingly, Patent Owner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have held a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree in chemical engineering or a related discipline with five or more years of experience in the catalyst carrier field.” PO Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶ 90). In its Reply, Petitioner states that “[t]he claims of the ’062 patent would be unpatentable under either Petitioner or [Patent Owner’s] definition, and to the extent [Patent Owner’s] definition requires more expertise with carriers, Petitioner accepts that definition.” Reply 2–3. In light of the record before us, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art because it is acceptable to both parties, and is consistent with the disclosures of the applied prior art references and the ’062 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We apply the claim construction standard articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2021). Under Phillips, claim terms are afforded “their ordinary and customary meaning.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. The “ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Id. at 1313. Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then 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). Neither party proposes an express construction for any claim terms. Pet. 10; see generally PO Resp. On this record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“shows persuasively that the teachings of Lockemeyer and Liu disclose or suggest a carrier that meets the range-within-a-range limitation of claim 1. Lockemeyer discloses carriers having more than 90% of the total pore volume within the range 0.2–10 µm, which is close to the recited range of 0.3–10 µm. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 26, 110, Table I (Carriers A and C). Liu discloses pore size distributions in which a pore size of 0.5–1.0 µm corresponds to 9.5%, 4.5%, or 5% of the total pore volume, and a pore size of 1.0–10 µm corresponds to 81%, 90.5%, or 88% of the total pore volume. Ex. 1002, 18:32–55, 19:17–38, 20:15–34 (data tables for Carriers S, T, and V, respectively). Both of these ranges fall within the recited range of 0.3–10 µm. Although neither Lockemeyer nor Liu expressly refers to one pore size distribution range “nested” within another range, linguistic differences between the prior art and challenged patent are not fatal to a determination that the prior art discloses the subject matter recited in the claim. Dow Chem. Co. v. Astro-Valcour, Inc., 267 F.3d 1334, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see also Teva Pharm. Indus. Ltd. v. AstraZeneca Pharms. LP, 661 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that a prior art inventor need not “conceive of its invention using the same words as the patentee would later use to claim it”). We are persuaded by the analysis of Petitioner and Dr. Haller, who direct us to data in the “Pore Size Distribution, % Total Pore Volume” tables for Carriers S, T, and V in Liu, and use the information contained in these tables to demonstrate that for Carriers S, T, and V, at least 90% of the total pore volume is contained in pores with diameters from 0.5–10 μm. Ex. 1001, 18:27–30; Pet. 18–19, 45, 51–52; Ex. 1002, 18:33–55, 19:17–40, 20:15–34; Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 85–88, 182–183, 223. For Liu’s Carrier S, for example, Dr. Haller calculates that 93.5% of the pore volume has a pore diameter between 0.1 and 10 µm, and 90.5% of the pore volume has a pore diameter between 0.5 and 10 µm. Ex. 1014 ¶ 85. Dr. Haller then uses the ratio of these numbers to determine the percent pore volume contained in 0.1–10 µm diameter pores that is contained in 0.5–10 µm diameter pores (i.e., 90.5/93.5 = 96.79%). Ex. 1014 ¶ 87. Based on calculations for Liu’s Carriers S, T, and V, Dr. Haller concludes that since 1) at least 96% of the pore volume contained in the pores with diameters in the range of from 0.1 to 10 μm is contained in pores with diameters in the range of from 0.5 to 10 μm, and 2) 0.5 to 10 μm is within the range of 0.3 to 10 μm, it follows that at least 96% of the pore volume contained in the pores with diameters in the range of from 0.1 to 10 μm is contained in pores with diameters in the range of from 0.3 to 10 μm. This is just an issue of simple mathematics that a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have readily understood in reading Liu. Ex. 1014 ¶ 88. Patent Owner does not challenge these calculations. See PO Resp. 25–27; Sur-reply 5–19; Tr. 24:19–20 (“For Liu, I would agree that it does disclose mathematically the range within the range.”). In view of this, Petitioner has demonstrated persuasively that Liu discloses carriers wherein “at least 80% of the pore volume contained in the pores with diameters in the range of from 0.1 to 10 µm is contained in pores with diameters in the range of from 0.3 to 10 µm,” as claim 1 requires. After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We find Petitioner’s arguments to be persuasive. Lockemeyer states: The present invention teaches that the picture with respect to carrier surface area is significantly more complicated than was at first appreciated since the nature of the porosity of the carrier, in particular the pore size distribution and the pore volume provided by the pores which have a pore size within a defined range, has now been found to play a significant role. On this basis it was possible to prepare olefin epoxidation catalysts with excellent activity, selectivity and unusually prolonged retention of the activity and stability level. Ex. 1003 ¶ 5 (emphasis added). This language demonstrates a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the importance of carrier pore size distribution in achieving catalysts with excellent properties. See Pet. 45–46; Ex. 1014 ¶ 186. Thus, based on Lockemeyer’s own teaching regarding the role of PSDs in preparing catalysts with excellent activity, selectivity, and prolonged retention of activity and stability level, we agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to optimize the PSDs of Lockemeyer’s carriers. See Pet. 43; Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 173–174. Furthermore, Liu’s teachings (1) that the “nature of the carrier” is a factor that impacts “optimum performance” of the catalyst, (2) that Liu’s Sample Carriers S, T, and V have PSDs falling within the ranges taught by Lockemeyer, and (3) that Carriers S, T, and V provide catalysts with good selectivity, activity, and stability, support Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to look to Liu to optimize the PSD within the ranges Lockemeyer teaches. Ex. 1002, 6:1–2, 9:7–14, 18:33–55, 19:17–40, 20:15–34, 21:10–22:16; Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 85–88, 182–183, 187–190, 223; Pet. 44–46. Although Petitioner frames its argument in terms of motivation to “modify” the PSD of Lockemeyer’s carriers to optimize their performance (Pet. 43), the record shows Liu’s Carriers S, T, and V not only meet the range-within-a-range limitation, but also fall within the PSD range disclosed in Lockemeyer. Tr. 10:10–15, 24:14–20; Pet. 45, 51–52; Reply 18; Ex. 1002, 18:45–55, 19:27–38, 20:24–34; Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 85–88; Ex. 1038 ¶¶ 117–118. In other words, the PSD of Liu’s Carriers S, T, and V are examples of a PSD that falls within the broader range disclosed by Lockemeyer. Petitioner shows persuasively that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to choose the narrower PSD range disclosed in Liu in order to optimize the performance of the catalyst consistent with the teachings of both Lockemeyer and Liu. Pet. 43–46; Reply 19–24; Ex. 1002, 6:1–2, 9:7–14, 18:33–55, 19:17–40, 20:15–34, 21:10–22:16; Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 85–88, 173–174, 182–183, 186–190, 223.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 7,825,062 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,825,062 - PTAB · Jul 13, 2023 · IPR2023-00374 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1, 2, and 7–10 on all asserted obviousness grounds based on Nixon, Nixon and Assadi, Badihi, and Badihi and Assadi.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). The standard for instituting an inter partes review 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, we determine the information presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review. Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6. We are also guided by the Director’s Memorandum, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation, issued June 21, 2022 (“Guidance Memo”),5 which provides several clarifications concerning the application of the Fintiv factors. One such clarification instructs that “the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Guidance Memo 3 (emphasis omitted); see also id. at 7–8. Thus, we will not exercise our discretion to deny institution if a petitioner makes the stipulation provided in Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 at 18–19 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Decided for patent owner
“To define specific terms used to describe an invention, an inventor must do so “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision” and must “‘set out his uncommon definition in some manner within the patent disclosure’ so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change” in meaning. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (quoting Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1387–88 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). As Patent Owner notes, the ’965 patent states that “[t]he term ‘effectively exposed’ is used herein to indicate that the pixel of each light-sensitive pixel region generates electron flow in response to light (photons) passing through [the] second surface.” Ex. 1001, 6:48–51; Prelim. Resp. 9– 10. This language suggests that some electron flow in response to light is necessary for a region to be “effectively exposed.” But, as Petitioner notes, Pet. 31 n.5, the ’965 patent also says that” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“Given the ambiguity in the present record, we do not agree with Patent Owner that the ’965 patent defines “effectively exposed” sufficiently clearly and precisely that we can conclude that it means “the pixel of each light-sensitive pixel region generates electron flow in response to light (photons) passing through [the] second surface.” Instead, on the present record, we synthesize the different uses of the term within the Specification to arrive at a preliminary conclusion that the term means “having a semiconductor substrate that is thin enough to be transparent to visible light, thereby rendering the pixels of the light sensitive pixel regions capable of generating electron flow in response to light (photons) passing through the substrate.” For purposes of this decision, we adopt this construction of the term “effectively exposed,” but we encourage both parties to address the construction of this term during trial. After considering the arguments and information presented in the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that we do not need to expressly construe any additional terms for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,168,965 - PTAB · Jul 13, 2023 · IPR2023-00372 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review on all asserted § 103 grounds challenging claims 1–6, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“to deny institution where a petitioner “stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.” Interim Procedure at 7. Here, Petitioner’s stipulation uses this language but is further limited “to the patent claim subject to the instituted IPR.” Pet. 87. We agree with Patent Owner that this stipulation is “narrower” than the stipulation “that was considered by the Board in Sotera,” because it adds further limiting language to the model Sotera stipulation. Prelim. Resp. 13. Accordingly, we do not find that this stipulation implicates the Interim Procedure’s prohibition against discretionary denial where a Sotera-type stipulation is presented. We do not agree with Patent Owner that the stipulation must be filed in district court. All the Interim Procedure requires is that Petitioner “stipulate[]” or “present[] a stipulation,” not that the stipulation be filed in district court. Interim Procedure at 3, 7. Accordingly, we do not discount Petitioner’s stipulation because Petitioner failed to file it in district court. Thus, although Petitioner’s stipulation does not track the language of the model Sotera stipulation, it does minimize the possibility of overlapping issues between the parallel proceeding and this proceeding, in which all claims of the ’319 patent are challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, the fourth factor weighs against discretionary denial.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons discussed below, after considering the parties’ submissions and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim of the ’319 patent, and we institute inter partes review on all challenges raised in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108 (2022).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“‘set out his uncommon definition in some manner within the patent disclosure’ so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change” in meaning. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (quoting Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1387–1388 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). As Patent Owner notes, the ’319 patent states that the “term ‘effectively exposed’ is used herein to indicate that the pixel of each light-sensitive pixel region generates electron flow in response to light (photons) passing through [the] second surface.” Ex. 1001, 6:52–55; Prelim. Resp. 10–11. This language suggests that some electron flow in response to light is necessary for a region to be “effectively exposed.” But, as Petitioner notes (Pet. 32 n.3), the ’319 patent also says that [t]he exposed backside surface of the semiconductor substrate is then subjected to the material erosion process . . . to thin the semiconductor substrate until the semiconductor substrate is transparent to visible light, thereby effectively exposing the light-sensitive pixel diffusion regions of the image sensor circuit through the backside surface. Ex. 1001, 4:63–5:4. This suggests that merely the transparency of the overlying structure to visible light is sufficient for the underlying structure to be “effectively exposed.” Given the ambiguity in the present record, we do not agree with Patent Owner that the ’319 patent defines “effectively exposed” sufficiently clearly and precisely that we can conclude that it means “the pixel of each light-sensitive pixel region generates electron flow in response to light (photons) passing through [the] second surface.” Instead, on the present record, we synthesize the different uses of the term within the specification to arrive at a preliminary conclusion that the term means “having a semiconductor substrate that is thin enough to be transparent to visible light, thereby rendering the pixels of the light sensitive pixel regions capable of generating electron flow in response to light (photons) passing through the substrate.” For purposes of this decision, we adopt this construction of the term “effectively exposed,” but we encourage both parties to address the construction of this term during trial. slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“We determine we need not expressly construe any other claim term at this stage of the proceeding. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,169,319 - PTAB · Jul 12, 2023 · IPR2023-00369 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that TSMC would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“to deny institution where a petitioner “stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.” Interim Procedure at 7. Here, Petitioner’s stipulation uses this language but is further limited “to the patent claim subject to the instituted IPR.” Pet. 84. We agree with Patent Owner that this stipulation is “narrower” than the stipulation “that was considered by the Board in Sotera,” because it adds further limiting language to the model Sotera stipulation. Prelim. Resp. 10. Accordingly, we do not find that this stipulation implicates the Interim Procedure’s prohibition against discretionary denial where a Sotera-type stipulation is presented. We do not agree with Patent Owner that the stipulation must be filed in district court. All the Interim Procedure requires is that Petitioner “stipulate[]” or “present[] a stipulation,” not that the stipulation be filed in district court. Interim Procedure at 3, 7. Accordingly, we do not discount Petitioner’s stipulation because Petitioner failed to file it in district court. Thus, although Petitioner’s stipulation does not track the language of the model Sotera stipulation, it does minimize the possibility of overlapping issues between the parallel proceeding and this proceeding, in which all claims of the ’169 patent are challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, the fourth factor weighs against discretionary denial.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“To institute inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons discussed below, after considering the parties’ submissions and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim of the ’169 patent, and we institute inter partes review on all challenges raised in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108 (2022).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have been a person having a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, material science, physics, or other related disciplines with at least three years of industry experience in integrated circuit design, layout, packaging or fabrication” and that a “greater level of experience may compensate for less education and vice versa.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 66–68). Patent Owner “reserves the right to dispute Petitioner’s definition of a POSA if an IPR is instituted.” Prelim. Resp. 7. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. The level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner “does not believe the claim terms need to be construed to resolve the prior art issues presented in [the] Petition.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 70). Patent Owner “reserves the right to advance its own construction for any claim term should an IPR be instituted.” Prelim. Resp. 7. We determine we need not expressly construe any claim term at this stage of the proceeding. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,356,169 - PTAB · Jul 12, 2023 · IPR2023-00373 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and grounds, including claims 15–18 despite finding no reasonable likelihood of prevailing on those grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). The standard for instituting an inter partes review 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, we determine the information presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“argument. The Guidance Memo provides that “the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding [the relevant grounds].” Guidance Memo 3. This is because, “[w]hen a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding [the relevant grounds], it mitigates concerns of potentially conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts between the district court and the PTAB.” Id. at 7. All the Guidance Memo requires, therefore, is that Petitioner “stipulate[]” or “present[] a stipulation,” not that the stipulation be filed in district court. Id. at 3, 7. Accordingly, we do not discount Petitioner’s stipulation because Petitioner failed to file it in district court.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We are not persuaded that Petitioner sufficiently shows a reason to combine the teachings of Lee with those of Nagai. Petitioner directs us to the testimony of Dr. Giapis to support the argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have seen a benefit in constructing Lee’s image sensor using Nagai’s hydrogen diffusion control techniques. Pet. 69–70 (citing Ex. 1020 ¶ 151). Specifically, Dr. Giapis testifies that Lee’s image “sensors must store accumulated charge until it is read [and] hydrogen diffusion from the back-end processes will have an adverse effect on the front end, in particular on the sensor’s ability to retain charges.” Ex. 1020 ¶ 151. This testimony cites no sources or technical reasoning in support, and it replicates the Petition essentially word-for-word. Compare id. with Pet. 69–70. Thus, it is entitled to little or no weight. Xerox Corp. v. ByteMark, Inc., IPR2022- 00624, Paper 9 at 15 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential); 37 C.F.R. 42.65(a). Petitioner does not show sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Lee with those of Nagai. Accordingly, Petitioner does not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its argument that claim 15 would have been obvious in light of Nagai and Lee.” slip op. at 35
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“combine the teachings of Lee with those of Nagai. Petitioner directs us to the testimony of Dr. Giapis to support the argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have seen a benefit in constructing Lee’s image sensor using Nagai’s hydrogen diffusion control techniques. Pet. 69–70 (citing Ex. 1020 ¶ 151). Specifically, Dr. Giapis testifies that Lee’s image “sensors must store accumulated charge until it is read [and] hydrogen diffusion from the back-end processes will have an adverse effect on the front end, in particular on the sensor’s ability to retain charges.” Ex. 1020 ¶ 151. This testimony cites no sources or technical reasoning in support, and it replicates the Petition essentially word-for-word. Compare id. with Pet. 69–70. Thus, it is entitled to little or no weight. Xerox Corp. v. ByteMark, Inc., IPR2022- 00624, Paper 9 at 15 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential); 37 C.F.R. 42.65(a). Petitioner does not show sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Lee with those of Nagai. Accordingly, Petitioner does not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its argument that claim 15 would have been obvious in light of Nagai and Lee.” slip op. at 35
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,431,455 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 26, 2023 · IPR2022-00149 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 7–13 and 15–17 are unpatentable: the Board found them obvious over the listed Nerone-based and Zhang-based combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “had, at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, physics, or the equivalent, and two or more years of experience with LED devices and related LED circuit design. Lack of work experience could have been remedied by additional education and vice versa.” PO Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 38–42). Patent Owner contends this is a similar definition as “provided by Petitioner” but Petitioner’s definition is “overbroad in several respects, as explained by Dr. Ducharme,” including allowing an individual with no experience in LEDs or LED devices to be a person of ordinary skill in the art. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 20–21; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 40–41). Petitioner contends that “[t]here is no meaningful dispute over a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Pet. Reply 1. We apply Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it requires specific experience with LED circuit design, and, thus, more closely aligns with the level of skill reflected in the ’400 patent and the prior art of record. However, if we were to apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, our Decision would not be affected.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner contends that “no special constructions are necessary.” Pet. 8; Pet. Reply 2. “Patent Owner has applied the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim terms.” PO Resp. 8. Upon review of the record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). D. Patent Owner’s Contention that Martin is not Available as Prior Art” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. The statute governing the formerly available CBM proceeding explicitly limits challenges based on “prior art that is described by section 102(a).” AIA § 18(a)(1)(C). In contrast, § 311(b) permits challenges “on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” The language in § 311(b) implies that, unlike CBMs, IPRs are not limited to prior art challenges solely under § 102(a). Patent Owner relies, inter alia, on Infobridge, but that case deals with public accessibility under § 102(b). Infobridge, 929 F. 3d at 1368–69. The parties do not cite to any Federal Circuit decisions that squarely address this issue. However, the Federal Circuit applied § 102(e) patent application publication prior art in an appeal from an IPR. See, e.g., Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Iancu, 767 Fed. App’x 918, 920–21, 926 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (nonprecedential) (determining that a § 102(e) patent application publication, “Joshi”, was available as prior art in an IPR).” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“provide a specific numerical analysis of the number of LEDs necessary to match a value of the DC output voltage in Nerone. PO Resp. 31–32. Based on Dr. Baker’s testimony, Petitioner provides several factors that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered when designing Nerone’s circuitry to satisfy the “matching” requirement of limitation 7(f). Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 120). Dr. Baker supports his testimony concerning the knowledge of these factors by one of ordinary skill with reference to disclosures in Cross and Martin. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 121–123. Neither Patent Owner nor Dr. Ducharme dispute that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known to consider these factors when designing Nerone’s circuit. See PO Resp. 30–43; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 89–106. Petitioner then explains how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have used these factors to apply the teachings of Martin to configure Nerone’s circuitry so that “the forward voltage of the series-connected LEDs [] approximately match[es] the rectified AC voltage output of the above-described LED driver circuit.” Pet. 21; id. at 20–21; see also Ex. 1107 ¶ 29 (“a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood and would have been capable of determining the appropriate number of LEDs based on the application and design of Nerone’s system such that the forward voltage drop of the LEDs . . . matches the rectified AC voltage output . . . to mitigate against overdriving or underdriving the LEDs.” (citing Ex. 1074 ¶¶ 30–31, Fig. 2)). For these reasons, we find that it was not necessary for Petitioner to provide a specific numerical calculation of the number of LEDs in its proposed modification of Nerone. We also agree with Petitioner that “matching the input voltage to the forward voltage of the LEDs had become a matter of routine optimization.” Pet. 19. Patent Owner contends that this statement is “vague and conclusory.” Sur-reply 12–13. Petitioner, however, supports this statement with the testimony of Dr. Baker. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 120–123. Dr. Baker’s testimony, which we credit, is corroborated by both Cross and Martin. See id. (citing Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 2, 21, 22 Fig. 5; Ex. 1074 ¶ 30). In particular, Cross specifically discloses that “[t]he number of LEDs employed will vary with the intended lighting application and the value of the rectified DC voltage, wherein optimization of such is well within the skill of those in the art.” Ex. 1074 ¶ 30. Patent Owner does not dispute Cross’s statement that optimizing the number of LEDs is within the skill of an ordinarily skilled artisan. See PO Resp. 40. Martin chooses the number of LEDs “such that the maximum voltage across each individual LED . . . is low enough so as to not damage the LEDs.” Ex. 1015 ¶ 22. It also specifically discloses that “[t]he voltage across each of the individual LEDs in the array is the line voltage divided by the number of LEDs in series.” Id. (emphasis added). Consequently, Martin uses “voltage matching” to determine the number of LEDs so as not to damage the individual LEDs. See also Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 120–124 (Dr. Baker explaining that a skilled artisan “configuring Nerone’s circuit 400 would have recognized that the forward voltage of the series-connected LEDs should approximately match the rectified AC voltage output of the above-described LED driver circuit.” Id. ¶ 124.). Martin’s disclosure, thus, aligns with the reason for “matching” described in the ’400 patent. Ex. 1001, 2:24–35.” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 10,687,400 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,687,400 - Motif Foodworks, Inc. v. Impossible Foods, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 16, 2023 · IPR2023-00209 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim obvious over the asserted combinations.
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 instituting an inter partes review 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, we determine the information presented in the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“have had “(i) a Bachelor of Science degree in food sciences, biology, chemistry, microbiology, or a related discipline, and (ii) a Master’s degree or Ph.D. in food science or at least three years of experience working as a food scientist.” Pet. 5. Petitioner also asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art could be “part of a team of food scientists, including flavor chemists.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 34–36; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 82–83; Ex. 1007 ¶ 39). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s definition or offer its own. In light of the record before us, and for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. determine that the definition offered by Petitioner comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’306 patent and the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner argues that the preamble of the challenged claims should not be found limiting, that the term “thereby imparting a beef-like aroma to the meat replica matrix” should not be limiting, and that the term “matrix” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 9–11. Petitioner also states that “[i]n parallel litigation, [Patent Owner] asserts that ‘no animal products’ covers bovine myoglobin, which is native to an animal (Bos taurus (cow)), even when produced in engineered yeast.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1116 if the Board adopts Patent Owner’s infringement interpretation advanced in the parallel litigation. Pet. 11. Patent Owner disagrees that the preamble of the challenged claims and the term “thereby imparting a beef-like aroma to the meat replica matrix” are not limiting. PO Resp. 5–7. After considering the arguments and information presented in the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that we do not need to expressly construe any terms for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“record, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have added Mottram’s precursors (e.g., cysteine/ribose) to Conrad’s grain/wheat meat in order to improve the “meaty flavor” and enhance the “meat-like” qualities of Conrad’s products. Conrad already addresses concerns regarding taste improvement of its grain/wheat meat by adding animal blood/hemoglobin to its product. Ex. 1013, 4:14–16. In addition, Conrad’s grain/wheat meat is intended to be mixed with actual meat, which, as Petitioner acknowledges, already contains cysteine and ribose. Ex. 1013, code (57), 1:32–40, 4:45–49, 5:23–41; Pet. 21. It is undisputed that these components present in actual meat enhance the meat-like aroma of products. Pet. 21; Prelim. Resp. 14. These facts undermine Petitioner’s assertion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to a different reference (i.e., Mottram) to add these same precursors to Conrad’s products. Furthermore, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s motivation to combine Mottram and Conrad is driven by hindsight. As Petitioner acknowledges, Conrad teaches that a suspended aqueous phase containing soluble proteins, salts, and sugars, is separated from its grain/wheat meat during manufacturing. Pet. 22–23; Ex. 1013, 2:1–46. Conrad explains that “[t]he suspended aqueous phase of starch granules can be used directly in the production of glue or in the production of sugars by hydrolysis in a way known per se.” Ex. 1013, 2:21–24. Conrad does not disclose adding the suspended aqueous phase, or any of its components, back into the grain/wheat meat. Nevertheless, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have added materials similar to those that were just removed from Conrad’s product back into it. This approach is the fact that the materials Petitioner suggests adding back into Conrad’s products correspond to the specific compounds recited in the claim further demonstrates that hindsight is driving Petitioner’s arguments. For all of these reasons, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Conrad and Mottram to arrive at the invention recited in independent claims 1, 14, and 27. Accordingly, we determine Petitioner has failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge that claims 1, 14, and 27 are unpatentable as obvious in view of Conrad and Mottram, further in view of Crane or Proulx.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,039,306 - Motif Food Works, Inc. v. Impossible Foods, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 16, 2023 · IPR2023-00208 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Conrad and Mottram to arrive at the invention recited in independent claims 1 and 13. Accordingly, we determine Petitioner has failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge that claims 1 and 13 are unpatentable as obvious in view of Conrad and Mottram, and further in view of Crane or Proulx. b) Dependent Claims 3–12 and 15–23 Claims 3–12 depend from independent claim 1, and claims 15–23 depend from independent claim 13. For its challenges of these claims, Petitioner relies on the arguments presented for independent claims 1 and 13. See, e.g., Pet. 30 (reciting “As explained above (claim 1)” in its analysis of claims 3 and 15), 44. Nothing in Petitioner’s analysis of the additional references relied upon for its challenges of the dependent claims cures the deficiencies discussed above regarding the proposed combination of Conrad and Mottram. Therefore, for the same reasons discussed above for independent claims 1 and 13, we determine Petitioner has failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge that claims 3–12 and 15–23 are unpatentable as obvious in view of Conrad and Mottram, further in view of Crane, Proulx, and Boye.” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“had “(i) a Bachelor of Science degree in food sciences, biology, chemistry, microbiology, or a related discipline, and (ii) a Master’s degree or Ph.D. in food science or at least three years of experience working as a food scientist.” Pet. 5. Petitioner also asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the could be “part of a team of food scientists, including flavor chemists.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 34–36; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 82–83; Ex. 1007 ¶ 39). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s definition or offer its own. Prelim. Resp. 1–61. In light of the record before us, and for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on our review of the ’250 patent and the prior art of record, we determine that the definition offered by Petitioner comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’250 patent and the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“After considering the arguments and information presented in the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that we do not need to expressly construe any terms for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“record, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have added Mottram’s precursors (e.g., cysteine/ribose) to Conrad’s grain/wheat meat in order to improve the “meaty flavor” and enhance the “meat-like” qualities of Conrad’s products. Conrad already addresses concerns regarding taste improvement of its grain/wheat meat by adding animal blood/hemoglobin to its product. Ex. 1013, 4:14–16. In addition, Conrad’s grain/wheat meat is intended to be mixed with actual meat, which, as Petitioner acknowledges, already contains cysteine and ribose. Ex. 1013, code (57), 1:32–40, 4:45–49, 5:23–41; Pet. 19. It is undisputed that these components present in actual meat enhance the meat-like aroma of products. Id.; Prelim. Resp. 14. These facts undermine Petitioner’s assertion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to a different reference (i.e., Mottram) to add these same precursors to Conrad’s products. Furthermore, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s motivation to combine Mottram and Conrad is driven by hindsight. As Petitioner acknowledges, Conrad teaches that a suspended aqueous phase containing soluble proteins, salts, and sugars, is separated from its grain/wheat meat during manufacturing. Pet. 20; Ex. 1013, 2:1–46. Conrad explains the “[t]he suspended aqueous phase of starch granules can be used directly in the production of glue or in the production of sugars by hydrolysis in a way known per se.” Ex. 1013, 2:21–24. Conrad does not disclose adding the suspended aqueous phase, or any of its components, back into the grain/wheat meat. Nevertheless, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have added the materials that were just removed from Conrad’s product back into it. This approach is counterintuitive and indicative of reasoning based on hindsight. Moreover, the fact that the materials Petitioner suggests adding back into Conrad’s products correspond to the specific compounds recited in the claim further demonstrates that hindsight is driving Petitioner’s arguments. For all of these reasons, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Conrad and Mottram to arrive at the invention recited in independent claims 1 and 13. Accordingly, we determine Petitioner has failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge that claims 1 and 13 are unpatentable as obvious in view of Conrad and Mottram, and further in view of Crane or Proulx.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,013,250 - Motif Food Works, Inc. v. Impossible Foods, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 16, 2023 · IPR2023-00207 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.
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 instituting an inter partes review 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, we determine the information presented in the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“had “(i) a B.S. degree in food sciences, biology, chemistry, microbiology, or a related discipline, and (ii) a Master’s degree or Ph.D. in food science or at least three years of experience working as a food scientist.” Pet. 12. Petitioner also asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the could be “part of a team of food scientists, including flavor chemists.” Id. at 12–13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 37; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 82–83; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 24–25). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s definition or offer its own. Prelim. Resp. 1–52. In light of the record before us, and for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on our review of the ’241 patent and the prior art of record, we determine that the definition offered by Petitioner comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’241 patent and the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“After considering the arguments and information presented in the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that we do not need to expressly construe any terms for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“begin with, Petitioner’s argument that “Brown invites a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to modify its composition to add ‘amino acids’ which result in ‘[c]haracteristic flavor and fragrance components . . . similar[] to meat’” is incorrect. Id. at 30. Brown does teach that “[c]haracteristic flavor and fragrance components are mostly produced during the cooking process by chemical reactions [between] molecules including amino acids.” Ex. 1012 ¶ 295. But Brown does not teach adding amino acids to its composition. Instead, it teaches that amino acids and other molecules are present in its composition, allowing its composition to produce “flavor and fragrance components . . . during the cooking process” in a way that is “similar[] to meat.” Id.; see id. ¶ 362 (“in some embodiments, the characteristic flavor and fragrance components are produced during the cooking process by chemical reactions involving amino acids”).” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,224,241 - PTAB · Jun 16, 2023 · IPR2023-00206 · APJ Donna M Praiss · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–12 and 14–24 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on anticipation by Brown and obviousness over Giacino and Brown.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“To institute inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons discussed below, after considering the parties’ submissions and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim of the ’096 patent, and we institute inter partes review of all claims and all grounds asserted in the Petition.1” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“In assessing whether to exercise the Board’s authority to deny institution under § 325(d), the Board considers a two-part analysis. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8–9 (Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). First, the Board considers whether “the same or substantially the same” art or arguments were previously presented to the Office. Id. at 8. If either is met, the Board then considers whether the petition demonstrates that the Office “erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims.” Id. In applying the two-part framework, the Board considers several nonexclusive factors set forth in Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to § III.C.5, first paragraph).12” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have (i) a Bachelor of Science degree in food science, biology, chemistry, microbiology, or a related discipline, and (ii) a Master of Science degree or Ph.D. in food science or at least three years of experience working as a food scientist” and “could also be part of a team of food scientists, including flavor chemists.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 42–47). Patent Owner does not offer an alternative definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Patent Owner states “[t]he terms of the challenged claims do not require express construction in order to reach a decision denying institution.” Prelim. Resp. 4. Nevertheless, Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner relies on an erroneous construction of “food flavor additive composition” to mean “each and every food item of every kind simply because it will have some flavor” and “any component of a food product . . . [that] has flavor and is added to the food product.” Id. at 4–5, 6. Patent Owner asserts “a food flavor additive composition is an additive that varies or adjusts the flavor and/or aroma profile present in a consumable food product.” Id. at 7. Patent Owner contends “the ’096 patent describes food flavor additives that are added to replica products to change the product’s flavor and aroma profile ‘before, during, or after cooking of the consumable food product.’” Id. (quoting Ex. 1001, 3:54–56). On the present record, it is not clear to us what distinction Patent Owner seeks to make between an “additive that varies or adjusts the flavor . . . in a consumable food product” and a “component of a food product . . . [that] has flavor and is added to the food product.” We determine we need not explicitly construe any claim term at this stage of the proceeding. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375. We invite the parties to address the construction of “food flavor additive composition,” as necessary, during the course of this proceeding.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,943,096
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.