- PTAB · Dec 18, 2025 · IPR2025-01071 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–7, 12, 14, and 25 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its § 103 obviousness challenge over Bassompiere.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that 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 claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). On the preliminary record before us, we determine that Petitioner has satisfied this threshold requirement, and therefore we institute inter partes review of claims 1–7, 12, 14, and 25 of the ’687 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not offer any reason why we should deviate from the Board’s determinations in the prior IPRs that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had knowledge of Kalman filters and quaternion mathematics. Nor are we aware of any such reason. On the contrary, the Board’s prior determinations are consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected by prior art of record. 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). Bassompiere, for example, teaches using a data merging algorithm that is, “[a]dvantageously,” extended Kalman filtering. Ex. 1006, 4:17. Bassompiere also teaches using quaternions to determine a device’s pitch and roll about a horizontal reference frame. Id. at 6:3–8, 20:10–21:1. Patent Owner argues that Dr. Sarrafzadeh’s testimony regarding the level of skill in the art in this proceeding contradicts his testimony in the prior IPRs, which did not include knowledge of Kalman filters and quaternion mathematics in his definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 24–26. Patent Owner asserts that this contradiction “undermin[es] his credibility.” Id. at 26. We disagree. The testimony Dr. Sarrafzadeh provided in the earlier IPRs obviously preceded the Board’s determinations in those proceedings that, on the whole record, including the testimony of then-Patent Owner’s declarant, the level of ordinary skill included knowledge of Kalman Filters and quaternions. Dr. Sarrafzadeh’s testimony in this proceeding reasonably aligns with those determinations. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“The parties agree that the claimed “spatial reference frame” is associated with a device, has its origin at the same point in the device, and has axes that are always fixed with respect to the device. The only disagreement is whether that device is a “3D pointing device” or an “electronic device.” The Specification indicates that “electronic device” encompasses 3D pointing devices as well as, e.g., smartphones and navigation equipment, and therefore is the broader term. Ex. 1001, 13:20– 23. At this stage of the proceeding, we determine that the threshold question of institution can be decided under either construction, because Patent Owner does not dispute that the primary asserted reference, Bassompiere, teaches a “spatial reference frame” associated with a 3D pointing device. Pet. 25–27. Therefore, at this stage of the proceeding, we decline to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those [claim] terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (approving Board decision not to construe claim language where the construction is not material to the dispute). 2. “predicted axial accelerations” Petitioner does not propose a construction for “predicted axial accelerations,” but, in the concurrent California Litigation, contends that it should be accorded its “plain and ordinary meaning.” Ex. 2007, 3. In subsequent briefing that will be discussed more fully below, Petitioner asserts that its declarant, Dr. Sarrafzadeh, “applied the ‘plain and ordinary’ meaning for all claim terms, including the ‘predicted axial accelerations’ term,” in this proceeding. Paper 14, 1. Petitioner also submits in that briefing that “the term ‘axial acceleration’ (whether predicted or measured) . . . ordinarily encompasses three types of acceleration,” i.e., “linear, centrifugal, and gravitational.” Id. at 3, 4. Patent Owner contends that “predicted axial accelerations” should be construed as “[g]ravitational acceleration along the electronic device’s axes derived from the current quaternion.” Prelim. Resp. 18. Patent Owner asserts that “[t]he claims and specification consistently define ‘predicted axial accelerations’ as gravitational accelerations along the device’s axes at time T, derived from the current quaternion.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, claim 1, 17:18–30, 17:45–52). Patent Owner further submits that “because ‘predicted axial accelerations’ are computed from the current quaternion they only contain gravitational accelerations along the device’s axes.” Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 2023 ¶ 23). Here too, the threshold question of institution can be decided without” slip op. at 14
- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Patent Owner’s characterization. The teaching to use quaternions instead of Euler angles comes from Bassompiere, not Dr. Sarrafzadeh. See Ex. 1006, 20:10–11 (“A first variant embodiment consists in replacing the angles of torsion θ and ψ by a quaternion formulation of the same torsion.”). Rather than supplying a missing limitation, we understand Dr. Sarrafzadeh to be explaining how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented Bassompiere’s teaching to use quaternions instead of Euler angles given that person’s knowledge of quaternion mathematics. Patent Owner also argues that “switching from Euler angles to quaternions is not a routine substitution but requires the reengineering of the EKF.” Prelim. Resp. 28. Patent Owner similarly contends that Dr. Sarrafzadeh “devotes nearly twenty pages of his declaration to rewriting Bassompiere’s Euler-based equations ‘in quaternion form,’ and explaining how to convert them back to Euler angles,” and notes that “[a]s other researchers in the field have confirmed, ‘[w]hile implementing orientation tracking using quaternions provides advantages like avoiding gimbal lock, it is significantly more complex than the Kalman filer using Euler angles.’” Prelim. Resp. 32 (citing Ex. 1002, 31–51; quoting Ex. 2027, 1). Patent Owner thus contends that replacing Euler angles with quaternions “is not a ‘trivial’ substitution.” Id. at 32. But Petitioner does not appear to be arguing that replacing Euler angles with quaternions would have been “trivial” or simple, only that doing so was taught by Bassompiere and within the knowledge and capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 33–34. We determined above that a skilled artisan had knowledge of extended Kalman filters and quaternion mathematics, and we are required to consider the knowledge and capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in our analysis. Further, at this preliminary stage, Patent Owner’s assertion that the Euler angle/quaternion switch would not have been a routine substitution is supported only with attorney argument, which is entitled to no weight. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc. 849 F.3d 1034, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2017). As such, it does not outweigh Dr. Sarrafzadeh’s contrary testimony. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶ 56.” slip op. at 29
Claim constructioncites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,698,687 - PTAB · Dec 17, 2025 · IPR2025-01023 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all asserted grounds against claims 1, 3, 7, and 9, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“c. Conclusion as to Claim 1 Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, we determine that Petitioner has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to claim 1, and therefore has satisfied the threshold requirement for institution of inter partes review on the basis of Ground 1. 3. Claims 3, 7, and 9 Petitioner contends that Bassompiere teaches the limitations of claim 3, 7, and 9, and supports its contentions with citations to Bassompiere and to Dr. Sharrafzadeh’s declaration. Pet. 57–63. At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not raise any arguments specifically directed to these claims. “When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). We must “either (1) institute as to all claims challenged in the petition and on all grounds in the petition, or (2) institute on no claims and deny institution.” CTPG at 5–6, 64; see also PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1359–60 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (stating a decision to institute is “a simple yes-orno institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”). Thus, because we have decided to grant institution on Ground 1 with respect to claim 1, we must do the same for claims 3, 7, and 9.” slip op. at 38
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not offer any reason why we should deviate from the Board’s determinations in the prior IPRs that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had knowledge of Kalman filters and quaternion mathematics. Nor are we aware of any such reason. On the contrary, the Board’s prior determinations are consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected by prior art of record. 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). Bassompiere, for example, teaches using a data merging algorithm that is, “[a]dvantageously,” extended Kalman filtering. Ex. 1006, 4:17. Bassompiere also teaches using quaternions to determine a device’s pitch and roll about a horizontal reference frame. Id. at 6:3–8, 20:10–21:1. Nasiri teaches that quaternions can be used to represent a device’s “orientation in space.” Ex. 1008, 30:27– 30. Patent Owner argues that Dr. Sarrafzadeh’s testimony regarding the level of skill in the art in this proceeding contradicts his testimony in the prior IPRs, which did not include knowledge of Kalman filters and quaternion mathematics in his definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 24–26. Patent Owner asserts that this contradiction “undermin[es] his credibility.” Id. at 26. We disagree. The testimony Dr. Sarrafzadeh provided in the earlier IPRs obviously preceded the Board’s determinations in those proceedings that, on the whole record, including the testimony of then-Patent Owner’s declarant, the level of ordinary skill included knowledge of Kalman Filters and quaternions. Dr. Sarrafzadeh’s testimony in this proceeding reasonably aligns with those determinations. Accordingly, for the above reasons, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Patent Owner’s characterization. The teaching to use quaternions instead of Euler angles comes from Bassompiere, not Dr. Sarrafzadeh. See Ex. 1006, 20:10–11 (“A first variant embodiment consists in replacing the angles of torsion θ and ψ by a quaternion formulation of the same torsion.”). Rather than supplying a missing limitation, we understand Dr. Sarrafzadeh to be explaining how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented Bassompiere’s teaching to use quaternions instead of Euler angles given that person’s knowledge of quaternion mathematics. Patent Owner also argues that “switching from Euler angles to quaternions is not a routine substitution but requires the reengineering of the EKF.” Prelim. Resp. 28. Patent Owner similarly contends that Dr. Sarrafzadeh “devotes nearly twenty pages of his declaration to rewriting Bassompiere’s Euler-based equations ‘in quaternion form,’ and explaining how to convert them back to Euler angles,” and notes that “[a]s other researchers in the field have confirmed, ‘[w]hile implementing orientation tracking using quaternions provides advantages like avoiding gimbal lock, it is significantly more complex than the Kalman filer using Euler angles.’” Prelim. Resp. 32–33 (citing Ex. 1002, 31–51; quoting Ex. 2027, 1). Patent Owner thus contends that replacing Euler angles with quaternions “is not a ‘trivial’ substitution.” Id. at 33. But Petitioner does not appear to be arguing that replacing Euler angles with quaternions would have been “trivial” or simple, only that doing so was taught by Bassompiere and within the knowledge and capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art. We determined above that a skilled artisan had knowledge of extended Kalman filters and quaternion mathematics such knowledge, and we are required to consider the knowledge and capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in our analysis. Further, at this preliminary stage, Patent Owner’s assertion that the Euler angle/quaternion switch would not have been a routine substitution is supported only with attorney argument, which is entitled to no weight. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc. 849 F.3d 1034, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2017). As such, it does not outweigh Dr. Sarrafzadeh’s contrary testimony. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶ 56.” slip op. at 30
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“The parties agree that the claimed “spatial reference frame” is associated with a device, has its origin at the same point in the device, and has axes that are always fixed with respect to the device. The only disagreement is whether that device is a “3D pointing device” or an “electronic device.” The Specification indicates that “electronic device” encompasses 3D pointing devices as well as, e.g., smartphones and navigation equipment, and therefore is the broader term. Ex. 1001, 8:35–39. At this stage of the proceeding, we determine that the threshold question of institution can be decided under either construction, because Patent Owner does not dispute that the primary asserted reference, Bassompiere, teaches a “spatial reference frame” associated with a 3D pointing device. Pet. 30–31. Therefore, at this stage of the proceeding, we decline to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those [claim] terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (approving Board decision not to construe claim language where the construction is not material to the dispute).” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,852,846 - Google LLC / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Nariste Networks Pty. Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 9, 2025 · IPR2023-01374 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 37–45 are unpatentable as obvious over Watters; the Board also found claims 37, 40, and 43 obvious over Nohara and did not reach the remaining grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableUnpatentable
“First, Watters teaches that the relevant distance moved is relative to “the last GPS update,” with the “last GPS update” referring to the “first fix” acquired in step 1200. See Ex. 1005, 22:57–60; id. at 2:39–49 (“first fix” means initial position determined by GPS). Watters thus teaches that the starting point for the step 1230 inquiry regarding distance moved is based on information acquired in step 1200. Although Watters does not go on to expressly teach determining how far the device has moved away from the step 1200 GPS fix by comparing that GPS fix with the cellular-network-based position acquired in step 1220, it strongly suggests doing so by teaching acquiring the cellular-network position in the very same process that requires both determining how far the device has moved and the starting point (the GPS fix) for that determination. See In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 383 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (a “reference must be considered not only for what it expressly teaches, but also for what it fairly suggests.”). In other words, by teaching acquiring information that can be used to determine distance moved, and then teaching determining distance moved, Watters strongly suggests using the already-acquired information to perform the distance-moved calculation.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“teaching acquiring the cellular-network position in the very same process that requires both determining how far the device has moved and the starting point (the GPS fix) for that determination. See In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 383 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (a “reference must be considered not only for what it expressly teaches, but also for what it fairly suggests.”). In other words, by teaching acquiring information that can be used to determine distance moved, and then teaching determining distance moved, Watters strongly suggests using the already-acquired information to perform the distance-moved calculation.” slip op. at 21
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Pet. 8 (citing Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Petitioner asserts that the recited function is “determining when said embedded GPS module should be powered on, said embedded GPS module then being powered on dependent on at least one of a current radio position and a position error of said mobile device determined from the wireless communications network, said wireless communications network being different from said GPS.” Id. at 10–11. Petitioner further asserts that the structure disclosed in the ’206 patent corresponding to this function is a “CPU or other processing unit programmed with a thresholding algorithm to determine when to power on said embedded GPS module based on comparing at least one of a position and position error to one or more thresholds, and equivalents.” Id. Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioners’ identified recited function and corresponding structure for this term.” PO Resp. 15. We adopt the parties’ agreed-upon construction for the above term.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“Superguide did not, however, establish a per se rule that a limitation containing the phrase “at least one of” followed by “and” should be read conjunctively.9 For example, courts and the Board “have found SuperGuide 8 Although Petitioner asserts that we need not resolve this question, we note that Petitioner’s proposed ground of unpatentability based on Nohara is premised only on the disjunctive interpretation. See Pet. 46 (“Nohara teaches the claims under the ‘disjunctive’ interpretation.”). 9 See L.A. Biomed. Res. Inst. at Harbor-UCLA Med. Ctr. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 849 F.3d 1049, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that the plain meaning of “an inapplicable when the listed items following ‘at least one of’ are not categories containing many possible values.” Apple, Inc. v. Evolved Wireless LLC, 2017 WL 6543970, at *4 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2017) (listing district court and Board decisions). We agree with this understanding of SuperGuide; for example, it would not make sense to say “at least one of ‘A’” if there was only one possible ‘A.’ Here, of course, there can be only one possible value for “current radio position.” The mobile device cannot be in two places at the same time. Further, we find nothing in the Specification of the ’206 patent to support the possibility of multiple values for “position error” associated with a single current radio position. Therefore, we interpret the claim term disjunctively; e.g., determining when the embedded GPS module should be turned on is dependent on current radio position or position error (or both).” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS RE48,206 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham - PTAB · Nov 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00839 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR for claims 1–20 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’863 patent. At this stage of the proceeding, however, we have not made a final determination with respect to the patentability of the challenged claims. IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review is instituted for claims 1–20 of the ’863 patent on the unpatentability grounds asserted in the Petition; and” slip op. at 27
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner proposes that “a person of ordinary skill in the art (‘POSITA’) would have had a minimum of an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, or physics and at least 2 years of experience in micro-optic based security features.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 88–94). Patent Owner proposes that a POSITA “would have had an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, physics, or a similar field and at least 2 years of experience in micro-optic based security features.” Prelim. Resp. 7–8. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art with the exception of the phrase “at least,” which we determine to create a vague, open-ended upper bound for the level of ordinary skill in the art. Unlike Patent Owner’s proposal, Petitioner’s proposal has evidentiary support. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 88–94). Further, Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the ’863 patent and the asserted prior art. 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
“Petitioner contends that “no claim terms require express construction to resolve the challenges here.” Pet. 11. “Patent Owner agrees that the terms do not require construction for purposes of evaluating the Petition.” Prelim. Resp. 8. We do not need to construe any terms explicitly to reach our decision on institution. See Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (approving Board decision not to construe claim language where construction is not material to the dispute).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Likewise, Fuhse925 does not explicitly disclose a random selection of micro mirrors within the base of a cone. See generally Ex. 1008. At most, Fuhse925 teaches that the normal vector of the reflective facets can have a parallel component N∥, which can vary randomly. Ex. 1008, 3:3–6 (“The second inclination component of the planar facets advantageously varies irregularly in the spreading range, especially according to a random distribution.”), 9:1–31, 11:14–27. Petitioner contends that a POSITA would look to Fuhse925 for explicit detail as to how to implement Fuhse847’s desired normal vector to direct the light to a focal point for the assigned light spot. Pet. 54–56. This, however, does not sufficiently explain why a POSITA would have combined Fuhse847’s teaching of assigning a group of micro mirrors within a sphere of influence to every light spot in an image, with Fuhse925’s teaching of a normal vector of the reflective micro mirrors having a randomly varying parallel component N∥, to arrive at a random selection of a set of micro mirrors from a plurality of the micro mirrors located in a base of a cone. On the record before us at this stage of the proceeding, we are not persuaded that the combination of Fuhse847, Rich, and Fuhse925 teaches the additional limitation of claim 3. Our determination whether claim 3 would have been obvious over these references is best left for trial after full development of the record.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,448,863 - Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. v. Downing Wellhead Equipment, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00583 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all grounds because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“II. ANALYSIS A. Legal Standards Used in the Merits Analysis “In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)); Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review).” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that, for the ’779 patent, one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had an engineering degree and two or more years’ wellrelated operations experience, or equivalent education/experience.” Pet. 8. Patent Owner does not offer an alternative definition, but its Declarant, Mr. Hughett, submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a degree in petroleum or mining engineering, mechanical engineering, or a comparable discipline, and at least two years of experience in oil and gas extraction, or an equivalent combination of education and experience.” Ex. 2006 ¶ 17. On the record, we do not discern a meaningful difference between Petitioner’s and Mr. Hughett’s proposed definitions, and therefore adopt Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision. We also presume that the cited prior-art references reflect the level of ordinary skill at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining the level of ordinary skill in the art may be evidenced by the cited references themselves).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“The Specification does not suggest a particular definition of threshold, and neither party suggests that it is a term of art in the relevant field. Therefore, we consult a general dictionary for guidance. See Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (If “the specification does not assign or suggest a particular definition [of a claim term], in determining the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim term as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the art, it is appropriate to consult a general dictionary definition of the word for guidance.”). Because Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary, Merriam-Webster.com, provides several definitions for threshold, we refer to the intrinsic record “to identify which of the different possible dictionary meanings is most consistent with the use of the words by the inventor.” Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Based on the context in which threshold is used in claims 1 and 8, we consider the most relevant definition to be “a level, point, or value above which something is true or will take place and below which it is not or will not.” Merriam- Webster.com/dictionary/threshold (accessed July 30, 2024). The claim context also indicates that threshold encompasses the opposite situation, i.e., the threshold may be a value below which something is true or will take place and above with it is not true or will not take place. Thus, a flow-rate value and time value are “thresholds” when there is an action that will or will not take place (or something is or is not true) depending on whether those values are met. The Specification identifies one particular action that occurs when these thresholds are met: performance of a CP swap from hydraulically fracturing the n1 well (i.e., a first well) to hydraulically fracturing the n1+1 well (i.e., a second well). Ex. 1001, 13:28–52, Figs. 1B, 12. To perform a CP swap, according to the Specification, zipper valves for the n1+1 well are opened while fluid is being pumped to the n1 well, allowing hydraulic fracturing fluid to flow to both wells, after which zipper valves for the n1 well are closed. Id. at 14:14–38, Figs. 15, 16A, 16B, 16C. This procedure is precisely what claims 1 and 8 recite. In addition to requiring “determining that the flow rate is below a flow-rate threshold . . . for a threshold amount of time,” claims 1 and 8 recite, e.g., “(c) during pumping of the fluid into the first well via the first valve, opening a second valve associated with a second well,” and “(e) during pumping of the fluid into the second well via the second valve, closing the first valve associated with the first well.” Ex. 1001, claims 1, 8. Thus, in the context of these claims, a flow-rate threshold and threshold amount of time would be flow-rate and time values that determine whether or not a second valve associated with a second well is opened during pumping of fluid into the first well via the first valve.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We are not persuaded that Ciezobka teaches or suggests limitation [1.3]. First, we agree with Patent Owner that this limitation necessarily requires comparing the measured flow rate to a threshold. Petitioner also appears to agree that such a comparison is necessary to perform limitation [1.3]. See Pet. 15 (“Ciezobka discloses determining the flowrate of the fluid and comparing the determined flowrate to certain thresholds . . . , and therefore discloses determining that the flow rate of the fluid being pumped into the first well is below a flowrate threshold.”) (emphasis added). Ciezobka does not, however, teach such a comparison. Assuming that the initial flow rate can be considered a “threshold,” Ciezobka’s teaching of the existence of an initial flow rate followed by the existence of a lower pulse flow rate does not constitute a teaching of a comparison of the two flow rates. Second, Petitioner has not established that the “initial flow rate” is a “threshold.” As discussed above, we construe “flow rate threshold” in the context of claim 1 to mean a flow rate value that an actual flow rate must drop below for a threshold amount of time in order for a second valve associated with a second well to be opened. See Section II.C. Ciezobka does not teach that a measured flow rate must drop below the initial flow rate or any other specific flowrate before one of valves 218 or 219 is opened. Instead, the valve is opened after a specific period of time and without comparing the actual flow rate to the initial flow rate. See Ex. 1037, 12:8– 12 (teaching that a pressure pulse is created by closing valve 219 “for a short period of time” ranging from 1 minute to 1 second, preferably 10 seconds). Indeed, opening valve 218/219 causes flow rate drop to one of the wells; it does not occur as a result of the flow-rate drop.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,401,779 - Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. v. Downing Wellhead Equipment, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 5, 2024 · IPR2024-00256 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing: Krupa was not established as prior art, and the other grounds failed to show key claim limitations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that 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 claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon considering the Petition, we determine that Petitioner has not satisfied this threshold requirement, and therefore we do not institute inter partes review of claims 1–3, 6, 8–10, 13, 15–18, 25–28, 31, and 36 of the ’779 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artDecided for patent owner
“Here, however, Krupa’s actual filing date is after the ’779 patent’s filing date. Compare Ex. 1003, code (22) (Krupa filed Feb. 18, 2022) with Ex. 1001, code (22) (’779 patent filed Jul. 29, 2021). Petitioner therefore must seek the benefit of the earlier February 25, 2021 filing date of the Krupa Provisional. 35 U.S.C. § 102(d)(2). Pet. 6. Under subsection 102(d)(2), to qualify as prior art, a reference patent or published patent application is considered effectively filed as of the filing date of its provisional application only to the extent that the provisional “describes the subject matter” relied on in the reference patent document. We cannot presume that the Krupa Provisional describes the subject matter in Krupa that the Petition relies on, however. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1380 (“[B]ecause the PTO does not examine priority claims unless necessary, the Board has no basis to presume that a reference patent is necessarily entitled to the filing date of its provisional application.”). The burden to make this showing thus falls squarely on Petitioner. But Petitioner does not explain how the Krupa Provisional supports the relevant subject matter relied on in Krupa. In fact, Petitioner did not introduce the Krupa Provisional into the record, so it would not be possible to do so.7 Accordingly, Petitioner has not adequately shown that Krupa is prior art, and therefore Petitioner does not have a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any of the claims challenged in Grounds 1, 2, and 4, which grounds rely on Krupa in whole or substantial part.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We are not persuaded that Kajaria teaches limitation [1.5] or limitation [8.7]. First, Kajaria does not expressly teach these limitations, and, indeed, Petitioner does not appear to contend as much. Instead, Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood paragraph 35 of Kajaria as “includ[ing]” this step. But paragraph 35 teaches that “it may be desirable to provide pressurized fluid to a particular well at a particular time or place in the frac cycle, while simultaneously stopping the flow of fluid into another well that is in a different place in the frac cycle.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 35 (emphasis added). Providing pressurized fluid to one well which simultaneously stopping flow to another well suggests that fluid flow is not being provided to both wells at the same time. Second, “direct[ing] flow between wells continuously” is not the same as pumping flow to wells continuously, as Petitioner’s argument suggests. Paragraph 35 of Kajaria states that it is possible to direct flow between wells continuously “simply by opening or closing the valves 66 associated with individual wells,” and is silent regarding whether the frac pumps are on. This suggests that “direct[ing] flow between wells continuously” only refers to the valve lineup—i.e., at least one valve 66 is open “continuously’’—and does not mean providing fluid flow continuously. Interpreting the “continuously” statement in paragraph 35 in this manner is consistent with our interpretation of the “simultaneously stopping” sentence in the same paragraph, discussed above.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“At this stage of the proceeding, we do not perceive the need to expressly construe any claim terms, as the threshold question of institution can be decided without doing so. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (approving Board decision not to construe claim language where construction is not material to the dispute). See Pet. 14; see also Prelim. Resp. 40.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,401,779 - Hyundai Motor Company v. Mel Navip LLCInstitutedPTAB · May 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00172 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–3 and 5 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that 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 claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon considering the Petition, Preliminary Response, and the present record, we determine that Petitioner has satisfied this threshold requirement, and therefore we institute inter partes review of claims 1–3 and 5 of the ’465 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or an equivalent degree, as well as at least three years of experience in the design and implementation of navigation systems.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 6). Patent Owner, on the other hand, contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art: would have (a) a Bachelor’s of Science degree in a technical field and at least four years of experience in the field of geospatial information sciences; (b) a Master's of Science degree in a technical field and at least two years of experience in the field of geospatial information sciences; or (c) a PhD in a technical field relating to the geospatial information sciences. Prelim. Resp. 5–6. Patent Owner also asserts that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education” and that the ordinary artisan “is presumed to have knowledge of all relevant prior art, and therefore would have been familiar with each of the references cited in this declaration and the full range of teachings they contain.” Id. at 6 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 29–31). At this stage of the proceeding, we adopt Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision. We note, however, that our decision would be the same if we applied Patent Owner’s definition. We also look to the cited prior art references as evidence of the level of ordinary skill at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining the level of ordinary skill in the art may be evidenced by the cited references themselves).” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Neither Patent Owner nor its declarant, Dr. Qui, points to any portion of McDonough that supports the notion that McDonough’s system, and particularly its smooth-scrolling feature and use of first and second buffers, is “incompatible” with displaying an entire guide route. It is also unclear what Patent Owner means by McDonough not “need[ing] or want[ing]” to display the entire guide route. To the extent Patent Owner is arguing that McDonough’s smooth scrolling would render superfluous the ability to zoom out to see an entire guide route, Patent Owner has not explained why this would be the case. Patent Owner’s only supporting evidence is the testimony of its declarant, Dr. Qui, which merely repeats verbatim the assertion which it is supposed to support, without any additional evidence or reasoning. Ex. 2001 ¶ 76. We give such testimony little weight where, as here, we find the language in the filing that the declaration intends to support unpersuasive on its own. See Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022- 00624, Paper 9 at 15 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential) (according little weight to declarant testimony that is “conclusory and unsupported,” and “that merely repeats, verbatim, the conclusory assertion for which it is offered to support”). Conversely, Petitioner has provided evidence that the ability to zoom out to see an entire proposed route was a known functionality in navigation systems at the time of the invention, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that doing so was advantageous for drivers. Pet. 57 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 196). Patent Owner does not dispute this evidence at this preliminary stage of the proceeding, or explain why the ability to smooth-scroll would render such functionality undesirable.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“teaching that roads that are part of a guide route are given the highest display priority so that they would be displayed regardless of the map scale. Id. at 55–56 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 28–31, 54–56, 58–59, 72, 77, Figs. 2A–C, 3A–C, 7, 8; Ex. 1003 ¶ 193). Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified McDonough’s map display system in accordance with this teaching to avoid discontinuities in the displayed guide route, which discontinuities “would undesirably confuse the driver who is expecting to see a continuous route.” Id. at 56–57 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 195). According to Petitioner, Tanizaki’s teachings beneficially increase driver safety in the use of the navigation system by avoiding distraction where the driver, due to route discontinuities, is uncertain regarding his or her current whereabouts, where he or she is relative to the guide route, and/or where he or she is relative to the destination. Id. at 57. Petitioner also asserts that before the invention, “it was common for navigation system users to ‘zoom out’ before starting a journey to see the entire guide route,” which “allowed the driver to visualize the entire route and plan potential stops along the way,” or to instruct the system to calculate a new route if the original proposed route was not acceptable. Pet. 57 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 196). Petitioner submits that “a POSITA would have recognized that, by preventing discontinuities in the displayed guide route even when the driver zooms out to see the entire guide route, the proposed modification would have made it easier for drivers to plan their trip and decide whether to request a new route.” Id.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 8,244,465 - PTAB · Mar 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00008 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–5, 7–14, and 16 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that 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 claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon considering the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has satisfied this threshold requirement, and therefore we institute inter partes review of claims 1–5, 7–14, and 16 of the ’121 patent.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“On balance, we determine that Fintiv factors 1–5 do not favor discretionary denial of institution. As a result, we need not decide whether Petitioner presents a compelling unpatentability challenge. See CommScope Techs. LLC v. Dali Wireless, Inc., IPR2022-01242, Paper 23 at 4–5 (PTAB Feb. 27, 2023) (decision on Director review) (precedential) (“[I]n circumstances where the Board determines that the other Fintiv factors 1–5 do not favor discretionary denial, the Board shall decline to discretionarily deny under Fintiv without reaching the compelling merits analysis.”). 7. Conclusion Based on our review of the Fintiv factors, we decline to exercise our discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution.” slip op. at 19
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“Section 325(d) requires us to “take into account whether, and reject the petition . . . because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d); see Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, slip op. at 17–18 (Paper 8) (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to § III.C.5, first paragraph) (setting forth six factors the Board may weigh in evaluating whether to exercise discretion under § 325(d)). The Board applies the following two-part framework in evaluating a request for discretionary denial under this section: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL” slip op. at 20
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that, for the ’121 patent: [A] POSA as of November 12, 2010, would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical or agricultural engineering and 2–4 years experience in the design or manufacture of agriculture equipment. A POSA would have been familiar with the design and operation of known seed distribution meters and with the use of bearings and other plate-like technologies to receive and distribute axial loads by providing bearing surfaces for the transfer of forces. Pet. 21 (citations omitted). Patent Owner “defers its position on this issue until such time as the Board decides to institute a trial.” Prelim. Resp. 28–29. At this stage of the proceeding, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition for purposes of this Decision. We also presume that the cited prior art references reflect the level of ordinary skill at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining the level of ordinary skill in the art may be evidenced by the cited references themselves).” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 8,770,121 - Sharkninja Operating LLC / Sharkninja Management LLC et al. v. Bissell Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 11, 2024 · IPR2022-01177 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as anticipated by Beskow; the Board did not reach the additional obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“SharkNinja submits that one skilled in the art would have had “a Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering (or an equivalent discipline) or equivalent work experience, and at least one year’s worth of experience in research, design and/or development related to vacuum cleaners (or other comparable industrial design).” Pet. 14. Bissell does not dispute SharkNinja’s proposed definition of the level of skill in the art, and we see no reason to question it. See PO Resp. 1–9. Accordingly, we adopt the level of skill in the art as defined by SharkNinja.” slip op. at 4
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Despite that exchange, Bissell still presents no evidence as to the meaning of “selectively provided,” aside from asserting the term is “ambiguous” while at the same time arguing that the term requires more than simply showing that Beskow’s agitator “can” or “cannot” be mounted on the base. Notably, however, Bissell never elaborates on why Beskow must disclose “when” the agitator can be removed, as opposed to simply disclosing it can be removed. In contrast, SharkNinja presents Beskow’s Figures 1A and 7A to show that agitator 110 is removable. Thus, without more from Bissell, we fail to see why we should construe “selectively provided” any more narrowly than simply requiring that the agitator “can” or “cannot” be mounted on the base, as SharkNinja proposes. To that end, we find that Beskow’s agitator, as depicted in Figures 1A and 7A, clearly falls within the meaning of “selectively provided on the base,” as properly construed.” slip op. at 9
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“We disagree that SharkNinja’s proposed construction of “selectively” in its reply is untimely or not supported by the evidence. At the outset, we note that Bissell did not provide any meaningful construction of the term in the Patent Owner Response. See PO Resp. 2–5. By opening the door in its Response to the meaning of “selectively” and by disputing that Beskow teaches this limitation, Bissell cannot reasonably fault SharkNinja for proposing its own construction of the term in its Reply. This is especially true given Bissell’s refusal to construe the term itself, despite recognizing some ambiguity in the claim’s use of that term. See Hrg. Tr. 46 (Bissell’s counsel explaining that “the word selectively is ambiguous” and that “[i]n the Patent Owner’s response we pointed out the ambiguities.”); see also id. at 49 (“[PTAB JUDGE]: Okay. So it’s your position that it’s an ambiguous term then? [BISSELL’S COUNSEL]: Yes, Your Honor.”). Thus, in the absence of any construction of “selectively” from Bissell in contending that Beskow lacks this claim limitation, SharkNinja was fully within its right to propose its own construction in its Reply to support of its assertion that Beskow teaches this limitation. As such, we reject the notion that SharkNinja’s proposed construction was untimely or otherwise not properly within the scope of its Reply.” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
Patent outcomesUS 11,096,542 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 11,096,542 - Sharkninja Operating LLC / Sharkninja Management LLC et al. v. Bissell Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 11, 2024 · IPR2022-01176 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as anticipated by Beskow; the Board did not reach the additional obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“SharkNinja submits that one skilled in the art would have had “a Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering (or an equivalent discipline) or equivalent work experience, and at least one year’s worth of experience in research, design and/or development related to vacuum cleaners (or other comparable industrial design).” Pet. 14. Bissell does not dispute SharkNinja’s proposed definition of the level of skill in the art, and we see no reason to question it. Accordingly, we adopt the level of skill in the art as defined by SharkNinja. B. Claim Construction” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Bissell that, as claimed, the suction nozzle assembly must be a separate and distinct component from the base. Although we agree that “provided on the base” may be construed to mean that the suction nozzle assembly is a separate and distinct component positioned on, or attached to, the base, we also conclude that “provided on the base” may be construed more broadly to mean that the suction nozzle assembly is part of the base or included in the base. That broader meaning comports with the specification of the ’541 patent and the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “provided on.”” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We find unpersuasive Bissell’s assertion that Beskow’s suction nozzle assembly is not “provided on the base,” as claimed. See PO Resp. 7–10, 17– 21. That is because Bissell’s assertion that the suction nozzle assembly, as claimed, must be a physically separate component from the base relies on an improper claim construction. As discussed above, we construe “a suction nozzle assembly provided on the base” to encompass not only a suction nozzle assembly that is “positioned on” the base, as Bissell asserts, but also one that it is “part of” the base or “included in” the base.” To that end, Beskow discloses that “debris and fluid inlets 724, 726 may be formed entirely or partially as a removable inlet tray 730” and “may be separately removable from the cleaning head 102, integral to or not removable from the cleaning head 102.” Ex. 1004, 20:6–7, 29–32. That the debris and fluid inlet portions of Beskow’s suction nozzle assembly are removably attached to Beskow’s cleaning head 102 (i.e., the claimed “base”) necessarily means they are “positioned on” and “included in” the base under the proper construction of “provided on the base.” Indeed, Beskow’s disclosure is no different than the preferred embodiment of the ’541 patent, where suction nozzle assembly 580 “is configured to be received in the upper cover 542,” which indisputably is part of “base 14.” Ex. 1001, 10:52–54, Fig. 8 (emphasis added); see also id. at 8:12–13 (“Upper cover 542 can be configured to releasably receive the suction nozzle assembly 580.”). Thus, we find that Beskow satisfies the claim limitation of “a suction nozzle assembly provided on the base.”” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached
“SharkNinja also challenges claims 1–20 as being rendered obvious by either Beskow alone or the combined teachings of Beskow and Li. See Pet. 25–26. Bissell responds that SharkNinja’s showing for these challenges fails “for the same reasons discussed with respect to Ground 1.” PO Resp. 33. Because we determine that claims 1–20 are unpatentable as anticipated by Beskow, we need not address whether those same claims are unpatentable under SharkNinja’s additional grounds. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359 (2018) (holding that petitioner “is entitled to a final written decision addressing all of the claims it has challenged”); Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cook Grp. Inc., 809 F. Appx 984, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (nonprecedential) (recognizing that the “Board need not address issues that are not necessary to the resolution of the proceeding” and, thus, has “discretion to decline to decide additional instituted grounds once the petitioner has prevailed on all its challenged claims”).” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 11,096,541 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,096,541
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.