- CMS Cepcor Ltd. / CMS Cepcor Americas LLC v. Sandvik Intellectual Property ABNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 16, 2026 · IPR2024-01381 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–14 were not shown unpatentable because Polinski and Piepho do not teach the claimed tapered region extending from the shaft’s second end, and Petitioner did not establish adequate motivation to combine.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) relating to the ’090 patent would have had “a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or a related field, and at least 2 years of experience with industrial equipment design and development.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 29). Petitioner further contends that one of ordinary skill “may also have a combination of more formal education and less work experience or a combination of less/different formal education and more work experience.” Id. In the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner states that it “does not object to the defined level of skill in the art.” PO Resp. 12 (citing Pet. 3). appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’090 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“challenge, the crux of the parties’ dispute revolves around the limitation in claim 1 of “an axial region of the shaft body extending from the second end and being tapered relative to a longitudinal axis of the shaft.” We agree with for the tapered axial region and that starting point would be the extremity of the shaft not an undefined point in the “end region.” Because Patent Owner proposes a construction of “end” that would have general application to all claim terms including the first end of the shaft, the second end of the shaft, and the sleeve end, and that construction has no bearing on the issues we address below, we do not reach Patent Owner’s proposed general construction of “end” by itself. We determine that no other claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. 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)).” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“As discussed above in our claim construction analysis, apart from the issue of the general construction of “end,” we determine that this limitation uppermost extremity of the shaft. Because neither Polinski nor Piepho disclose a tapered axial region starting at the uppermost extremity of the shaft, we find that Petitioner has not shown that the combination of Polinksi and Piepho discloses this limitation.” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundDecided for patent owner
“This paragraph discusses “accurate alignment” in connection with joint 21, not tapered end 25. Ex. 1018, 3:23–35. The paragraph subsequently states that both joint 21 and end 25 are tapered but that shaft end 25 may alternatively be cylindrical. Id. We also find nothing in this paragraph supporting Petitioner’s assertion that alignment “is notoriously more difficult with purely cylindrical shafting” (Pet. 16–17). In order to support its position, Petitioner improperly conflates separate statements in this paragraph of Piepho, i.e., joint 21 provides accurate alignment, joint 21 is tapered, and end 25 is tapered. Petitioner makes an unsupported logical leap that the result of these three statements is that tapered end 25 provides accurate alignment. However, Petitioner fails to reconcile this argument with the final sentence in this paragraph that shaft end 25 may also be cylindrical as shown in Figure 4. Figure 4 “is an external view of another embodiment of” Piepho’s shaft. Ex. 1018, 2:49–50. In Figure 4, joint 21 has the same tapered configuration as shown in Figure 3 but end 25 is not tapered. Based on our review of Piepho’s Figures 3 and 4, we find that Piepho’s reference to “accurate alignment” refers to joint 21 and not to tapered end 25 as Petitioner alleges. Because Mr. Smith’s testimony (Ex. 1002, 59) essentially parrots the Petition on this point and is inconsistent with our finding, his testimony is entitled to little, if any, weight. For the foregoing reasons, we find that Petitioner has not established that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to would teach this claim limitation.8 Because Petitioner has not shown that the combination of Polinski and Piepho teaches limitation 1b or an adequate motivation to combine, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is obvious over Polinski, Piepho, and Harless.” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 11,014,090 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,014,090 - PTAB · Mar 25, 2026 · IPR2024-01380 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
The Board cancelled original claims 1–10 and granted substitute claims 11–19 because Petitioner did not prove claim 11 obvious over Torrence and Piepho.
RulingsFinal written decision- 112 supportGranted
“relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (citing Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). “[T]he hallmark of written description is disclosure.” Id. “[T]he test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Based on that inquiry, the specification must describe an invention understandable to that skilled artisan and show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed.” Id. “In order to satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure as originally filed does not have to provide in haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue.” Yingbin-Nature (Guangdong) Wood Ind. Co., Ltd. v/ Int’l Trade Com’n, 535 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “[T]he level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351 (citing Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357–58 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). “This inquiry . . . is a question of fact.” Id. (citing Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Further, inventions in the mechanical and electrical-based arts usually involve predictable factors and can be more predictable than other fields, such as chemistry and biology. See In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839 (CCPA 1970);” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The level of ordinary skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, we may consider certain factors, including: “(1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field.” Best Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007)).” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“D. Claim Construction We determine that no express construction of any claim term is necessary for purposes of this Decision. 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)).” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“[c]ombin[e] the tapered region of Piepho with the shaft of Torrence, the tapered region would extend from an uppermost extremity of the shaft.” RMTA Opp. 9. But, Petitioner concedes that neither reference discloses a tapered region extending from the uppermost extremity. Petitioner argues that Torrence’s shaft is straight (Amended RMTA Sur-reply 9) and that “[t]he tapered region of Piepho does not extend to the extreme end of the shaft.” RMTA Opp. 11 (emphasis added). Because neither Torrence nor Piepho discloses a shaft with a tapered region that “extends from an uppermost extremity of the shaft,” we find that the combination of Torrence and Piepho does not teach limitation 11[a]. We now analyze whether Petitioner provides reasoning with a rational underpinning why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Torrence with Piepho to extend Torrence’s taper from the upper extremity of its shaft. slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,827,568 - DBR Finance, Inc. v. Rugged Cross Hunting Blinds, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · May 29, 2025 · IPR2024-00291 · APJ Cynthia L Murphy · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1–19 not unpatentable because Petitioner did not prove the proposed Whybrew–Strength combinations disclosed the claimed mesh panels with spaced holes.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We question, therefore, whether someone having an education in textile engineering or physics, but no experience in the field of hunting blinds, would be consistent with the level of skill portrayed by the ’535 Patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We note that Petitioner’s expert’s experience, education, and qualifications are rooted in textiles, fibers and physics, and sophisticated subjects related thereto. See Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 14–20. But his deposition revealed that he has little or no experience in the field of hunting blinds. See Ex. 2038, 8–14.5 5 The same might be said of Patent Owner’s expert. See Ex. 2031, ¶¶ 6–7; Ex. 1023, 16. However, our obviousness analysis leaned lightly, if at all, on her declarations and testimony.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“1. Mesh Material In the Petition, Petitioner asks that “the term ‘mesh material’” be interpreted in accordance with “a plain and ordinary usage.” Pet. 25. Per Petitioner, the “plain and ordinary” meaning of the term “mesh material” is “a woven material of open texture with spaced holes therein.” Id. Per Petitioner, “[o]ther typical terms used to describe a mesh-like material” are “a screen material, or a netting material, which are believed to be synonyms.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute that a mesh material would have an open texture with spaced holes therein. See PO Resp. 18. We find that Petitioner’s proposed construction aligns with the ’535 Patent’s specification. See Ex. 1001. The drawings in the ’535 Patent depict the mesh material 26 as having an array of uniformly spaced circular holes forming a net-like structure (see id., Fig. 1A, 1B, 4, 9) or an array of uniformly spaced rectangular openings (see id. Fig. 8) forming a screen-like structure. The embodiments of the mesh material 26 listed in the ’535 Patent (e.g., a mesh banner material, scrims, a network of fibers, etc.) are materials having net-like or screen-like structures. See id. at 6:47–7:28.6” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Our construction aligns with the claim language; Petitioner’s proposed construction does not. See Ex. 1001, 10:4–19. The independent challenged claims set forth “one or more panels of mesh material” and then set forth “said one or more panels comprising: a first side with a camouflage pattern; and a second side with a dark color coating.” Id. at 10:4–11. The recited “said one or more panels” corresponds to the previously recited “one or more panels of mesh material,” not panels comprising a material that was only a “mesh” prior to printing/coating. See id. Also, the independent challenged claims set forth that “the one or more panels of the mesh material define an outer surface of the camouflage structure.” See id. at 10:18–19, 1:23–24 (emphasis added). And the panel(s) defining a hunting blind’s outer surface would include the dark color coating. Our construction aligns with the ’535 Patent’s specification; Petitioner’s proposed construction does not. See Ex. 1001. The ’535 Patent repeatedly describes the relevant panel material in the hunting blind (i.e., post printing/coating) as a mesh material. See id., Abst., 1:19–5:34, 6:47–7:28, 9:16–54, Figs. 1A, 1B, 9. The ’535 Patent expressly describes and depicts the mesh material 26 as including the camouflage pattern and the dark-color coating. See id. at 1:52–56, 3:24–25, 3:31–33, Figs. 1A, 1B. The ’535 Patent says that “panels” of this coated mesh material 26 “are used to form” a hunting blind. Id. at 3:22–26. The ’535 Patent says that “[m]esh material is presented for a hunting blind with a camouflage pattern printed on a first side and a second side with a color coating.” Id. at Abst. The ’535 Patent says that “mesh material of interwoven fabric is provided for a hunting blind including a camouflage pattern printed on a first side and a second side with a dark color coating.” Id. at 1:19–22; see also id. at 1:44–49. Our construction aligns with the ’535 Patent’s prosecution history; Petitioner’s proposed construction does not. See Ex. 1006. As mentioned above, throughout prosecution of the ’535 Patent, the same prior art material was mapped to the claimed panel(s) of mesh material. See Ex. 1006, 64–72, 122–106. The mapped-to prior art mesh material was described during prosecution as an “interwoven fabric” with “a pattern” printed on a first side and “a dark color coating” on a second side. Ex. 1006, 64; see also id. at 122. And the mapped-to prior art mesh material (i.e., which included not only the interwoven fabric but also the printed pattern and the dark color coating) had a “net-like structure” with an array of uniformly spaced “net holes” that are “not closed.” Ex. 2021, 4:1–5, see also id. at 2:58–3:6, 4:34–45, Figs. 1, 2a. Thus, we understand that claimed panel(s) of mesh material must have” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“However, Patent Owner does not bear the burden of proving Strength’s camouflage material 10 does not have holes. Rather, Petitioner bears the burden of proving that Strength’s camouflage material 10 does have holes. And Petitioner’s arguments that undermine Patent Owner’s position that Strength’s camouflage material 10 does not have holes, concurrently undermine Petitioner’s position that Strength’s camouflage material 10 does have holes. Per Petitioner, “Strength is silent on whether visible holes exist in the fabric” (Pet. Reply 8) and “the Strength reference doesn’t discuss anything about holes” (Tr. 14). Petitioner’s expert testified that it was his “understanding that Strength is silent” on “whether or not there are holes.” Ex. 2038, 44. Petitioner contends that Strength’s silence about the presence/ absence of holes hinders Patent Owner from proving that Strength’s camouflage material 10 does not have holes. See Pet. Reply 8. We agree. But this same silence likewise hinders Petitioner from proving that Strength’s camouflage material 10 does have holes.” slip op. at 35
Patent outcomesUS 11,399,535 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,399,535 - Toast, Inc v. Gratuity, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 24, 2025 · IPR2023-01408 · APJ Cynthia L Murphy · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–13 are unpatentable as obvious over Marshall, Marshall and Webb, Phillips and Marshall, or Phillips, Marshall, and Webb.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner’s proposed definition of a POSITA, to the extent that it aligns with the level of skill portrayed by the ’050 Patent. As discussed above, the ’050 Patent does not does not provide one with any technical direction for making and using a multi-restaurant embodiment that avoids or solves calculation/extraction problems due to disparate client (e.g., restaurant) systems. The ’050 Patent also does not provide one with any technical direction for scaling up and/or transitioning to a cloud-based system. We infer from this that a POSITA would have the education and the experience enabling him/her to effectively and economically handle these tasks without technical direction, despite the problems associated therewith. Put another way, the actual application of these technical endeavors would not be beyond his/her skill. Although Petitioner provides a slightly different expression for the level of ordinary skill in the art (see Pet. 9–10), it substantively agrees with Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill and adopting Petitioner’s precise level of ordinary skill would not change our decision.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner presents several pages of argument about claim construction, but offers no proposed construction for any of the claim terms. See PO Resp. 11–18. “Petitioner maintains that no claim construction is necessary.” Pet. Resp. 4. We determine that no express claim construction is necessary for any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, 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))).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“with a restaurant’s timeclock programs, time and attendance systems, and/or payroll processing systems. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 69, 108. Webb discloses that, in a restaurant setting, a POS system can be communicatively coupled to a time and attendance server. See Ex. 1006, Abstract, 24:51–60, Figs. 1A, 1B. Thus, Marshall and Webb describe similar and compatible systems in the same field of art—systems for tracking employee and sales information in the hospitality business. And Petitioner provides evidence that it would have been obvious to a POSITA to combine these teachings in the claimed manner. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 207–212. Patent Owner argues that Webb “does not cure the deficiencies” of Marshall. PO Resp. 41. However, as discussed above, we disagree with Patent Owner regarding Marshall’s deficiencies. Thus, Webb need not cure these alleged deficiencies in Marshall.10 Patent Owner does not otherwise contest Petitioner’s contention with respect to this asserted ground of unpatentability. Consequently, we conclude that, on the record before us, Petitioner has proven that claims 4–7, 9, and 11–13 would have been would have been obvious over Marshall and Webb. 10 Patent Owner also mentions that there is “simply no motivation to combine Marshall and Webb.” PO Sur-Reply 7; see also PO Resp. 42. But Patent Owner does not address the arguments and evidence set forth by Petitioner.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Patent Owner’s client-side-only arguments are overly focussed on the setup disclosed in Marshall’s Figure 3, and, in any event, do not coincide with Petitioner’s citations to Marshall. Petitioner points out in its Reply that Patent Owner (and its expert) fail to address Marshall’s multi-employer 8 The ’050 Patent lists a provisional application filed on September 4, 2012 as a related application. Ex. 1004, code (60). 9 Marshall discloses that “data transfer” can be “data transfer is performed via uploading and downloading via HyperText Transfer Protocol (‘HTTP’), Extensible Markup Language (‘XML’), and/or HTML as is known in the art.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 110. embodiment. See Pet. Reply 6. Petitioner also points out in its Reply that Patent Owner (and its expert) fail to address Marshall’s disclosure that the server executing the GrataSoft software can be separate (i.e., not co-located) with the POS server executing the Aloha software. Id. at 10. In Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply, these topics remained undiscussed. See PO Sur-Reply 1–6. Both aspects of Petitioner’s contentions support that Marshall’s system does disclose a gratuity management system that is separate and distinct from the client POS servers. Patent Owner argues that there would be problems “associated with calculations of gratuities based on client-specific information extracted from disparate, ad hoc client business systems.” PO Resp. 27–28; Ex. 2006 69–73. Patent Owner also argues that there would be “problems associated with scale-up and transitioning to a cloud-based system, and associated cost and security issue. PO Resp. 27; Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 87–91. However, as discussed above, the ’050 Patent portrays that a POSITA would have the education and experience enabling him/her to effectively handle the conversion of a singlerestaurant system to a multi-restaurant system; and to transition to a safe and secure cloud system in a cost/time effective manner. Thus, these problems would not detract from the obviousness of a multi-restaurant and/or cloud-based version of Marshall’s invention. Patent Owner does not otherwise contest Petitioner’s contention with respect to this asserted ground of unpatentability. Consequently, we conclude that, on the record before us, Petitioner has proven that claims 1–3, 8, and 10 would have been would have been obvious over Marshall.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 9,741,050 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,741,050 - PTAB · Mar 18, 2025 · IPR2024-01380 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–10 based on a reasonable likelihood that the Polinski and Piepho combination renders claims 1–8 obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art relating to the ’568 patent would have had “a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or a related field, and at least 2 years of experience with industrial equipment design and development.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 30). Petitioner also contends that one of ordinary skill “may also have a combination of more formal education and less work experience or a combination of less or different formal education and more work experience.” Id. We view Petitioner’s definition as consistent with the problems and solutions disclosed in the ’568 patent and prior art of record, and adopt it as our own for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579 (approving the determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art by appeal to the references of record).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under that standard, we give the words of a claim their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by one skilled in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Id. at 1312–13. Only terms in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner argues that “[n]o terms need construction because the claims read on the prior art identified below under any construction consistent with Phillips.” Pet. 14–15. Based on the record before us, we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the issues presented at this stage of the proceeding.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Based on the current record, Petitioner sufficiently establishes for the purposes of institution that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Piepho and Polinski in the manner Petitioner proposes and further demonstrates that the combination discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. 3. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, Petitioner establishes a reasonable likelihood of proving that the combination of Piepho and Polinski renders claim 1 obvious. We have also reviewed Petitioner’s arguments addressing claims 2–8. See Pet. 31–40. Based on our review of the current record, Petitioner also establishes a reasonable likelihood of proving that claims 2–8 would have been obvious over Piepho and Polinski.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“and Piepho renders claim 1 obvious. For each limitation in claim 1, Petitioner points to specific portions of the references that support its position that the combination discloses the limitations in question. See Pet. 16–31. Petitioner also cites to declarant testimony addressing the limitations. Id. (citing Ex. 1002). In support of its combination of Polinski and Piepho, Petitioner argues that both references disclose “gyratory rock crusher[s],” “Piepho further teaches the interchangeability between a cylindrical joint and a tapered joint,” and one of ordinary skill in the art (a “POSITA”) would have been motivated to combine Piepho’s tapered joint with Polinski. Id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 80–81; Ex. 1015, 1010; Ex. 1016, 3:24–35). According to Petitioner, “Piepho teaches the interchangeability between a cylindrical joint and a tapered joint” and “a POSITA would understand the advantages afforded by the use of a tapered joint as compared with a cylindrical joint,” including the fact that “tapered interference joints, while more expensive to manufacture, provide[] advantages in assembly, alignment, and fit-up.” Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 80–81).” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,827,568 - PTAB · Mar 18, 2025 · IPR2024-01381 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–14 based on a reasonable likelihood that the Polinski, Piepho, and Harless combination renders claim 1 obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314. Under § 314, an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the challenged claims in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Because we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable, we institute an inter partes review of all claims as challenged in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) relating to the ’090 patent would have had “a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or a related field, and at least 2 years of experience with industrial equipment design and development.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 29). Petitioner also contends that one of ordinary skill “may also have a combination of more formal education and less work experience or a combination of less/different formal education and more work experience.” Id. Patent Owner states that, for purposes of its Preliminary Response, it “does not object to Petitioner’s position on the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 27). At this stage, and based on Petitioner’s undisputed contentions, we view Petitioner’s definition as consistent with the problems and solutions disclosed in the ’090 patent and prior art of record, and adopt it as our own for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579 (approving the determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art by appeal to the references of record).” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), we apply the claim construction standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under that standard, we give the words of a claim their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by one skilled in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Id. at 1312–13. Only terms in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner argues that “[n]o terms need construction because the claims read on the prior art identified below under any construction consistent with Phillips.” Pet. 10–11. Patent Owner “submits that the Board need not construe any claim terms as the claims are patentable under any reasonable construction.” Prelim. Resp. 20. Based on the record before us, we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the issues presented at this stage of the proceeding.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s combination of Polinski and Piepho, but instead argues that no motivation to combine exists because Harless “would render both Polinski and Piepho inoperable for their intended purpose of preventing shaft failure.” Prelim. Resp. 22–31 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 48–59). When addressing intended purpose, Patent Owner argues that “Polinski mitigates shaft fatigue failure . . . specifically by omitting threads that are typically cut into gyratory shafts to attach a crusher mantle.” Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1017, 1:61–67). Patent Owner asserts that Polinski instead teaches that shaft stress can be reduced “by cutting threads into a bearing sleeve.” Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1017, 1:1–67). Piepho, according to Patent Owner, seeks a similar goal: “to prevent fretting wear and corresponding fatigue,” by “coating a portion of the shaft fit into a yoke bushing (which Petitioner alleges is a sleeve) with a ceramic coating.” Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1007, 2:15–25; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 42–43). Patent Owner argues that introducing Harless’s groove onto the main shaft would undermine the purposes of Piepho and Polinski because these would “introduce stress concentrations,” “lead to increased fretting wear,” and “increase the likelihood of fatigue failure.” Id. at 24–29. Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner’s approach relies on impermissible hindsight because one of ordinary skill would not seek to rely on Harless’s grooved shaft for use in “mounting of gears and similar components” rather than “for crushing applications, much less in a gyratory crusher, as claimed.” Id. at 30. According to Patent Owner, Harless fails to disclose “that its shaft is subjected to the same substantial stresses generated by the cyclic loading as the shafts disclosed by Polinski and Piepho.” Id. As to Petitioner’s argument that a POSITA would be motivated to make the combination to simplify the equipment and process for interference fits, Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner impermissibly picks and chooses aspects of the three references” and ignores what they teach to a POSITA, namely that “Polinski and Piepho are both directed to mitigating shaft fatigue” and adding Harless’s oil groove introduces several problems, as noted above. Id. at 31 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 48–59). Based on the current record, Petitioner sufficiently establishes for the purposes of institution that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Piepho, Polinski, and Harless in the manner Petitioner proposes. Notably, Patent Owner does not directly contest Petitioner’s stated reasons why a POSITA would be motivated to make the proposed combination, i.e., that the combination would save money and simplify the equipment and process for making and breaking interference fits. See Pet. 19–21; Prelim. Resp. 22–31. Patent Owner instead suggests that Petitioner improperly ignores disadvantages when adding Harless’s groove to Polinski and Piepho, which at best suggests a weighing between the advantages Petitioner contends the addition of Harless’s groove provides and the alleged disadvantages. See Prelim. Resp. 22–31. While Patent Owner’s arguments may ultimately prevail, given the highly factual nature of the competing expert testimony and the weighing necessary to resolve this issue, we view the issues as best resolved after further development during trial and after Petitioner has the opportunity to respond to Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence. On this record and at this stage of the proceeding, Petitioner’s arguments and supportive declarant testimony adequately establishes a motivation to combine the references.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,014,090 - PTAB · Jan 28, 2025 · IPR2024-01084 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 1–4, 8–18, 22–30, and 34–39; Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood that Shiplacoff, alone or combined with Nan, renders at least one challenged claim obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“purposes of institution, we are sufficiently persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that Shiplacoff renders obvious claim 1.” slip op. at 25
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDecided for petitioner
“Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (“Advanced Bionics”). With respect to the first issue, previously presented art includes, among other things, “art provided to the Office by an applicant, such as on an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), in the prosecution history of the challenged patent.” Id. at 7–8. With respect to the second issue, institution generally will be denied if a “petitioner fails to make a showing of material error,” and “[i]f reasonable minds can disagree regarding the purported treatment of the art or arguments, it cannot be said that the Office erred in a manner material to patentability.” Id. at 8–9. “[T]his framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9.” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“2. Reasons to Combine Shiplacoff and Nan Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the touch gestures of Nan in Shiplacoff’s device that includes a touch screen for the benefits of avoiding latency and not displaying on-screen controls. Pet. 43–44. Petitioner contends that using the gestures of Nan, which include factors such as length, speed, hold time, and number of fingers, to execute a change from one of Shiplacoff’s display modes to another, does no more than yield predictable results. Id. at 43, 45. We are sufficiently persuaded that Petitioner has shown a reason to use the edge gestures of Nan to switch from one of Shiplacoff’s display screens to another.” slip op. at 26
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, human-computer interaction, or a comparable field and at least two years of professional experience in the design and development of graphical user interfaces (GUIs), human-computer interfaces, or equivalents thereof. Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 22). Petitioner’s declarant, Loren Terveen, Ph.D., testifies that “[s]uch experience could be obtained through research and study in a graduate program or through comparable exposure through industry employment, and additional years of experience could substitute for the advanced-level degree.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 22. Patent Owner notes that it does not agree with Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, “but does not believe that resolving the level is necessary to resolve the issues raised in this preliminary response.” Prelim. Resp. 7.” slip op. at 5
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,649,578 - PTAB · Jan 28, 2025 · IPR2024-01083 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–3, 7, 9, 10, and 101 on the asserted §103 ground over Ahn, Chaudhri, and Hinckley.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Director may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to claims 1–3, 7, 9, 10, and 101 of the ’413 patent on the ground of unpatentability asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“through industry employment, and additional years of experience could substitute for the advanced-level degree.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 30. Patent Owner notes that it does not agree with Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, “but does not believe that resolving the level is necessary to resolve the issues raised in this preliminary response.” Prelim. Resp. 6. As Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears commensurate with the subject matter before us, we apply Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision. Also, the level of ordinary skill in the art can be evidenced by the references cited, and we find it commensurate with the cited references in this proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We construe only those claim terms that require analysis to determine whether to institute inter partes review. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”). Petitioner and Patent Owner contend that no claims need to be construed in order to resolve a controversy. Pet. 4– 5; Prelim. Resp. 6–7. We agree with the parties that no terms need to be construed expressly for this Decision. We discuss claim interpretation to the extent necessary in the context of analyzing the asserted grounds to determine whether to institute trial. We highlight that for the term “a magnitude of the blurring,” Patent Owner contends that “the amount of surface area that a translucent menu is displayed over a screen is not a magnitude of the blurring,” but provides no further construction of the term, other than a statement that even under Petitioner’s interpretation of “blurring,” the grounds are deficient. Prelim. Resp. 32–33 & n.4. On the present record, Petitioner’s proposed construction appears correct, and for purposes of institution, we apply this proposed construction of “a magnitude of the blurring” as discussed below in our analysis of limitation [1.d.ii]; the construction of this term may be addressed by the parties as this inter partes review proceeds.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“For purposes of this Decision, we find Petitioner cites sufficient evidence to support its contention that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the teachings of Ahn and Chaudhri.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,642,413 - PTAB · Jan 27, 2025 · IPR2024-01085 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–4, 6–10, 17, 19, 22–26, 28–30, 32, 33, 36, 41, 48, 58–62, 64, 65, 67, 69, 70, 73, 77, 82, and 83 on all asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314, which requires demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner indicates it “does not necessarily agree with all aspects of Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, but does not believe that resolving that level is necessary to resolve the issues raised in this preliminary response.” Prelim. Resp. 4. Dr. Davis indicates that his opinions provided in his declaration in support of Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response are “provided from the perspective of the POSITA” proposed by Dr. Cockburn. Ex. 2001 ¶ 24 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 26). We are persuaded, on the present record, that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level reflected by the ’580 patent and the prior art of record. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends “no claim terms need be construed to resolve issues of controversy in the present Petition.” Pet. 2. Similarly, Patent Owner indicates that no formal constructions are necessary at this point in the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 3. We agree with the parties that no terms need to be construed expressly for this Decision. We discuss claim interpretation to the extent necessary in the context of analyzing the asserted grounds to determine whether to institute trial.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner’s alleged motivation for modifying Ramos’ Zlider to be transparent is superficial and conclusory.” Prelim. Resp. 24; see generally Prelim. Resp. 24–26. As noted above, Petitioner relies on evidence from Ording itself and Dr. Cockburn’s testimony that relies on evidence to support its conclusion. Thus, we do not agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s motivation is insufficient for institution. Patent Owner also argues, relying on Dr. Davis’ declaration testimony, that the Vernier on a semitransparent Zlider widget would be “completely illegible” in some circumstances “rendering the very core of Ramos’ work unusable.” Prelim. Resp. 24–25 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 88); see Ex. 2001 ¶ 88 (not adding reasoning or evidence beyond that in the Patent Owner Preliminary Response). On this preliminary record, it would appear that when the Zlider widget and the portion of the image underlying the Zlider widget are the same color, the semitransparent Zlider widget may not work as well as when the Zlider widget and the underlying image are different colors. That does not outweigh, for purposes of determining whether to institute trial, the prior art evidence that Petitioner offers of the from Ording and other prior art references on which Dr. Cockburn’s declaration testimony relies. Ex. 1003 ¶ 66 (citing Ex. 1025 ¶¶ 77, 94, 101; Ex. 1026 ¶¶ 153, 162); see Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 799– 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (determining that a showing of the obviousness in predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions requires only a showing that the combination be a suitable option, rather than a showing that it is the best option). Petitioner also contends, relying on declaration testimony from Dr. Cockburn, that one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references in the manner proposed by Petitioner. Pet. 33–34. Petitioner contends that implementing the Zlider widget “described in the Ramos Paper and Ramos Video in a device, as taught by Ording, would have required only routine knowledge well within the skill of a POSITA” and would involve “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable results” described by Petitioner’s proposed combination of the references. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 67). Petitioner’s support for reasons one of ordinary skill would have made” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,649,580 - PTAB · Jan 22, 2025 · IPR2024-01090 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–3, 21, 29–31, 42–44, 54, and 62–65 based on the §103 combination of Blumenberg, Bhumkar, and Griffin.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“In an inter partes review, the petitioner must show with particularity why each challenged claim is unpatentable. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b). The burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Patent Owner may bear a burden of production, however, to show that the Challenged Claims are entitled to the benefit of an earlier filing date. Id. at 1379–80.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“On this record, we preliminarily agree with Petitioner that the claim limitations amount to a combination of known elements that a POSITA could have combined to achieve predictable results. See Intel, 21 F.4th at 799–800 (determining that a showing of the obviousness in predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions requires only a showing that the combination be a suitable option). Among other reasons, the preliminary record supports Petitioner’s arguments that combining the teachings of Blumenberg, Bhumkar, and Griffin amounts to applying known solutions in the field of computer interfaces with predictable outcomes. See Pet. 12–18. As noted above, we encourage the parties to address the scope and meaning of the “when” limitations as a matter of claim interpretation, but we do not currently understand the plain language of Limitation [1.o] to require that the “portion of the second web page” or “menu” is displayed only after expiration of the “second user-configurable predefined duration,” termed by Patent Owner the “Alternative Modification.” Again, we encourage the parties to fully address this issue as a matter of claim construction. We additionally note that, even if we were to interpret the claims to require that the recited functions of Limitation [1.o] occur only the “prerequisite elements” are satisfied, we are still preliminarily persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that combined teachings of the prior art satisfy the claim elements as a mere combination of known elements combined according to their known functions with predictable results.” slip op. at 27
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“scenarios. Pet. 1 (characterizing three claimed scenarios as (i) an “inadvertent” contact, (ii) a “tap” contact, and (iii) a “hold” contact), 4 (“Independent Claims 1 and 42 outline three scenarios regarding a user’s contact with a touch screen device”); Prelim. Resp. 3 (“With respect to claim 1, these three scenarios include: . . . .”); see Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 28 (“As recited in claim 1, the three different claimed functionalities are executed ‘when’ the prerequisite elements are met (described as three scenarios by Dr. Cockburn.”) (citing Ex. 1001, 102:50–103:55; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 33–35), 29–32 (describing the first, second, and third scenarios). In substance, the parties’ dispute appears to concern whether the plain language of the claims requires that a recited function must be performed only after or in response to expiration of a threshold (and other prerequisites), as opposed to requiring a function that begins before and continues after expiration of a threshold. Notably, dependent claim 3 recites: “The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the electronic device is configured such that the first feedback that is perceptible by touch is output prior to the display of the menu.” Ex. 1001, 104:1–4 (emphasis added). Given that independent claim 1 is necessarily broad enough to include claim 3, it seems on this record that the functions recited in Limitation [1.o] necessarily can happen at different times, as opposed to, for example, only responses that are triggered by the so-called “prerequisite elements.” We encourage the parties to address this issue as a matter of claim interpretation in future briefing. Based on the current record, however, we determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any claim terms at this stage of the proceeding. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368 (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
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,725,581
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.