- PTAB · Jan 13, 2025 · IPR2024-00183 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–6, 10, 11, 13–20, 22, 23, and 26–33 because the asserted combinations of ICMSF, Hughes, and Price showed a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim was obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“314. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Further, a decision to institute may not do so on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the Petition, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’584 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to the challenged claims of the ’584 patent on the grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition. A.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (POSA/POSITA), “would most likely have an advanced degree in microbiology, food science, or animal science and at least two years of work experience but may alternatively have a bachelor’s degree in those areas and at least four years of experience with validation methodologies.” Pet. 11. (citing Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 22–24). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a working knowledge of microbiology,” “would have been involved in developing sampling and testing methodologies for analysis of food products (“validation methodologies”),” and “would have been familiar with relevant scientific literature and industry regulations, directives, and guidelines relating to validation methodologies.” Id.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We agree with Patent Owner that the term “lots” does not require construction because on the current record, there is no controversy over the meaning of the term, and neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner identify any way that claim construction impacts the decision. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘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 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“This definition requires that a “validation” determines that “a particular sample tests negative.” The initial definition sentence makes no mention of “cleared for release” as necessary for “validation.” Rather, the definition only refers to “cleared for release” in the more limited situation where a particular composite sample “tests negative all single-unit production lot samples,” and even then, the “cleared for release” is a separate step that occurs after the samples are “validated.”” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 7,534,584 - Tommy John, Inc. v. Pakage Apparel, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Jan 8, 2025 · IPR2024-01163 · APJ Robert J Silverman · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–13, 15, and 16 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the Petition and the Preliminary Response (including any authorized submissions) “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.”” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“demonstrate any motivation to combine Kitsch and Brocks, other than they are both underwear” (Prelim. Resp. 23), we note that Petitioner articulates various reasons for combining the teachings of Kitsch with Brocks’ technique for shirring and gathering fabric with an elastic material, supported by Ms. Wagner’s testimony. See Pet. 25–27 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1005, ¶¶ 68–72). Patent Owner does not address any of Petitioner’s stated reasons for combining Kitsch and Brocks. Moreover, whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine/modify the identified references’ teachings is “a question of fact.” WBIP, 829 F.3d at 1327. Petitioner’s argument is supported by the unrebutted testimony of Ms. Wagner, whereas Patent Owner’s contrary position amounts to attorney argument, which does not persuade us, in this instance, that there is not at least a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail at trial, based on the record before us. At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner provides no sufficient evidence to rebut Ms. Wagner’s testimony as to what a POSITA would have understood, based upon Kitsch and Brocks, and as to the alleged motivations to combine Kitsch and Brocks, as provided in Ground 1.” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/interim_proc_discretionary_denials_aia_parallel_dis trict_court_litigation_memo_20220621_.pdf (“Interim Procedure”). The Interim Procedure explains that “[c]onsistent with Sotera Wireless, Inc., the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Interim Procedure 3 (internal footnote omitted) (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020- 01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A) (“Sotera”)). The Interim Procedure explains that such a Sotera stipulation “mitigates concerns of potentially conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts between the district court and the PTAB . . . [and] allows the PTAB to review grounds that the parallel district court litigation will not resolve.” Id. at 7–8. In this proceeding, Petitioner “stipulates that if the Board institutes, it will not pursue in the related district court case ‘any ground that [Petitioner] raised or reasonably could have raised’ during this proceeding.” Prelim. Reply. 5 (quoting Sotera 18–19). In view of Petitioner’s stipulation, which quotes Sotera and accords with the Interim Procedure, we decline to deny institution under Fintiv.” slip op. at 23
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“(1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were 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 challenged claims.” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,834,974 - Foursquare Labs, Inc. v. Boardactive CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 27, 2024 · IPR2023-00918 · APJ Robert J Silverman · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–29 are unpatentable: claims 1–27 under the Adharapurapu (Alcatel) and Kerr obviousness ground, and claims 28–29 under the Adharapurapu (Alcatel) anticipation ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Our Institution Decision addressed the matter of the appropriate level of ordinary skill, in view of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, as follows: The parties’ descriptions of the level of ordinary skill at the time of the invention do not appear to differ in any material way that would affect this Decision. However, at this stage of the proceeding, it is unclear whether it would be proper to require Patent Owner’s proposed requirement of “three years of experience working with digital advertising and geofencing.” Prelim. Resp. 10–11. Accordingly, for the purposes of this [Institution] Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s description of the relevant level of skill in the art, because it appears to be consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’620 patent and asserted prior art. Inst. Dec. 16. Patent Owner’s Response endorses the determination presented in the Institution Decision. PO Resp. 2. Petitioner does not address our initial determination in its Reply. See generally Pet. Reply. Accordingly, consistent with our Institution Decision, in this Final Written Decision, we employ Petitioner’s description of the relevant level of skill in the art. C. Claim Interpretation” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“The Specification of the ’620 patent supports the understanding that a “consumer” is “a user or person,” per Patent Owner’s proposal (PO Resp. 11). See Ex. 1001, 8:36–38 (“The AdDrop™ may require the consumer to be one of the first few people to input an answer to a question to win the promotion.”) However, Patent Owner’s further proposed requirement — i.e., that a “consumer” be someone “to whom an advertisement may be sent” — would cloud, rather than clarify, the term’s meaning. PO Resp. 11 (emphasis added). For instance, under Patent Owner’s construction, it is not clear if “consumers” require access to the cellular network or Internet in order to be sent advertisements. Further, Patent Owner’s proposed construction would not assist in resolving any issue in this proceeding, contrary to our ambition to construe claim terms “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803. Moreover, the role of the term “consumer,” in the ’620 patent’s claims, is based upon the relationship of the “consumer” to particular actions and instrumentalities, e.g., associated “media content,” “profile data,” or a “device.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 37:57, 66–67, 38:15. In view of the foregoing, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction that requires a “consumer” to be a person “to whom an advertisement may be sent.” See PO Resp. 11 (emphasis added). D. Prior Art References” slip op. at 15
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for petitioner
“As an initial matter, such a new argument that is introduced in a Sur- reply is improper. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“A sur-reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding reply.”); Consolidated Trial Practice Guide10 74 (Nov. 2019) (“While replies and sur-replies can help crystalize issues for decision, a reply or sur-reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence may not be considered. The Board is not required to attempt to sort proper from improper portions of the reply or surreply.”); Hulu, LLC v. SITO Mobile R&D IP, LLC, IPR2021-00158, Paper 34 at 55 (PTAB Apr. 15, 2022). In addition, Patent Owner’s new “geolocation” argument is founded on attorney argument, without adequate support in record evidence, and is contradicted by the unchallenged testimony of Dr. Goldberg. See Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 29–66 (discussing terrestrial location technologies), 175–195 (discussing the disclosure of “geolocation” features in the Adharapurapu (Alcatel) reference).” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Yet, Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s stated reasons (quoted above) for combining teachings of Adharapurapu (Alcatel) and Kerr, regarding the “registering asset data” features of limitation 1(a) (including its subparts) — reasons that are supported by the unchallenged testimony of Dr. Goldberg. See Pet. 50–51 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 196–197). Still further, Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s other reasons for combining teachings of Adharapurapu (Alcatel) and Kerr, concerning the recited “content interaction layer” and “consumer tracking layer” features of limitation 1(b) (including its subparts): , POSITA would have found it obvious to incorporate Kerr’s user content interaction features into Alcatel to provide user subjective information/feedback for improving the accuracy, reducing noise, and enhancing efficiency in tailored communications. Pet. 43–44. Petitioner’s discussion of these reasons for combining the references’ teachings is supported by additional unrebutted testimony of Dr. Goldberg. Ex. 1002 ¶ 180. Having considered the parties’ arguments and the evidence of record (including the unchallenged testimony of Dr. Goldberg), we determine that Petitioner has sufficiently shown that the combination of Adharapurapu (Alcatel) and Kerr teach or suggest limitation 1(a) (including all subparts).” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 10,621,620 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,621,620 - PTAB · Nov 8, 2024 · IPR2024-00834 · APJ Tawen Chang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability and declining discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“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) (2012) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. See 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). The Board may authorize an inter partes review if we determine that the information presented in the Petition and Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“anticipated by Sonti. Pet. 3. To show anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, each and every claim element, arranged as in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The prior art need not, however, use the same words as the claims to find anticipation. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In evaluating anticipation, it is permissible to take into account not only the literal teachings of the prior art reference, but also the inferences the skilled artisan would draw from it. Eli Lilly and Co. v. Los Angeles Biomedical Res. Inst. At Harbor-UCLA Med. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1073, 1074–75 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that the “dispositive question regarding anticipation is whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer from a prior art reference that every claim element is disclosed in that reference”). As such, “a reference can anticipate a claim even if it does not expressly spell out all the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would at once envisage the claimed arrangement or combination.” Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (internal quotation and alteration marks omitted).” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“b. Reasonable Expectation of Success Petitioner asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to topically administer 1% tapinarof composition once a day to treat mild to severe plaque psoriasis in view of Sonti’s teaching to apply its compositions (including 1% tapinarof compositions) in various application frequencies (including once daily) to treat moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Pet. 29–30 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 182–184, 187–188; Ex. 1005 Abstract, ¶¶ 55, 196, 288, 387).” slip op. at 32
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsInstituted
“d. Objective Indicia of Non-obviousness Patent Owner asserts that, although the “Petition notes the patent’s ‘surprising[] and unexpected[]’ finding that once daily application of 1% tapinarof cream was just effective as twice daily application, . . . the Petition does not analyze, as the law requires, this surprising, unexpected finding in its obviousness arguments.” Prelim. Resp. 52. We are not persuaded by this argument. Immediately after the Petition’s acknowledgement that “[t]he specification [of the ’088 patent] contends that it was ‘surprisingly’ found that once daily application was just as effective as twice daily,” the Petition notes that, “[h]owever, during prosecution the examiner cited a set of prior art by Chen et al. disclosing treating plaque psoriasis by topically applying a composition containing 1% tapinarof once a day.” Pet. 1 (footnote omitted). Indeed, Patent Owner acknowledges that Petitioner counters “Applicant’s surprising and unexpected findings” by referring to the Chen references cited during prosecution, but asserts that “Chen . . . does not undermine Applicant’s surprising and unexpected findings” because “Chen discloses applying a composition containing 1% mixture of cis and trans 3,5-dihydroxy-4-isopropylstilbene, and not one containing 1% tapinarof (3,5-dihydroxy-4-isopropyl-trans-stilbene).” Prelim. Resp. 52–53.16 As 16 Patent Owner refers to its earlier discussion on this issue. Prelim. Resp. 53 (“As already discussed . . .”). That earlier discussion is with respect to the Chen references cited in Sonti (i.e., Exs. 1012 & 1013), not the Chen 40” slip op. at 40
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,590,088 - Fusion Orthopedics, LLC v. Extremity Medical, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 4, 2024 · IPR2023-00894 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 and 12–15 are unpatentable; claim 11 was not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 16–25 and 27–30 are unpatentable over Mazur; claim 26 was not reached.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenMixed
“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)). Here, however, not until its Reply does Petitioner belatedly suggest that Ferrante’s disclosure of bone screws with self-tapping ends equally meets the limitation of claim 10 (with respect to the first member) as with claim 11 (with respect to the second member), and that both claims are obvious in light of “evidence” from Ferrante “that it was well known to equip bone screws with self-tapping ends.” Reply 26–27. We do not discern these arguments in the Petition, and consider them waived. See Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, 84 F.4th 1371,1377 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“While the Board should not take an overly mechanistic view of a petition and decline to address an argument because the petitioner did not present it with ideal vigor and clarity, the Board should also not have to decode a petition to locate additional arguments beyond the ones clearly made.”). In sum, Petitioner’s error in failing to first address limitations of claim 10 in the Petition specific to the Cognet/Ferrante combination indicates a failure to meet the particularity requirements for what must be in the petition and cannot be left to be filled in on reply. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2) (requiring, among other things, “a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence”), 42.104(b)(4)–(5) (requiring that petition “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publication relied upon” and, regarding submitted evidence, state “the relevance of the evidence to the challenge raised, including identifying specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge”). Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403, at *6. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown persuasively that claim 11 would have been obvious in light of Cognet and Ferrante for the reasons set forth in the Petition. slip op. at 41
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We also find persuasive Mr. Dominguez’s explanation that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “bore” as including stepped diameter holes, sometimes described as a bore having a counterbore. See generally Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 4–29; Reply 3–10. Three of Mr. Dominguez’s illustrative examples are reproduced in the annotated figures below. The above figures show Mr. Dominguez’s annotated illustrations from the Jackson (Ex. 1019, Fig. 3), Brånemark (Ex. 1021, Fig. 4), and Ray (Ex. 1025, Fig. 1) references as discussed at paragraphs 10, 12, and 13, respectively, of Mr. Dominguez’s Second Declaration. With reference to the above figures, Mr. Dominguez testifies that “Jackson describes a bone repair set screw in which ‘[t]he bore 27 comprises a first bore section 31, a second bore section 32,’ etc. delineated by shoulders 41, 42, etc. (Ex. 1019, 5:24– 43)” (Ex. 1018 ¶ 10); “Brånemark describes an osseous implantation device having body 1ʺ with first and second holding portions 21ʺ, 31ʺ and ‘an inner through bore with a first portion 4ʺ in the first holding portion and a second portion 5ʺ in the second holding portion.’” Ex. 1021, 4:44–46” (id. ¶ 12); and Ray discloses surgical calipers including “handle 12 having ‘stepped cylindrical bore 14,’” wherein “[c]ollar 20 of a shaft inserted in the bore ‘rests against a step of the bore 14’ (2:14–15)” (id. ¶ 13). Patent Owner responds that Mr. Dominguez’s examples “that allegedly show a single bore encompassing two or more stepped-diameter holes or a counterbore . . . . are specific to these references and divorced from the disclosures of the ’166 patent.” Sur-Reply 7. Insofar as the ’166 patent makes no mention of the term “bore” outside the claims, and Mr. Dominguez’s examples are all taken from the field of orthopedic surgery, we do not find this argument persuasive. Patent Owner further appears to contend that exemplary references to a “cylindrical stepped down bore” or a “stepped cylindrical bore” are too specific to be within the scope of the term “bore.” Sur-Reply 7–8. As these terms merely describe species within a larger genus, and Patent Owner presents no cogent reason to exclude them, we do not find this argument availing. Relatedly, we are also not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that “the prior art treats a ‘bore’ as an element that is distinct from a ‘counterbore.’” Id. at 8. Rather, we credit Mr. Dominguez’s testimony that “[a] counterbore is not a structure unto itself, a counterbore is part of a larger structure” as exemplified by numerous examples including Laps (Ex. 1028 ¶ 33 (sensor assembly wherein “bore 16 includes a counterbore 18”)); Martinez (Ex. 1029, 3:61 (surgical cutting instrument wherein “bore 56 has a counterbore 64”)); Zang (Ex. 1030, 2:49 (bone anchor having a “bore [that] includes a counterbore”)); Ledet (Ex. 1022, 29:3–5 (vertebral fixation plate having “through holes . . . . countersunk, or counterbored to accommodate the head of a bone screw”)); Seo (Ex. 1031, 3:45 (chair leg employing “counterbored bore 23”)); and Exner (Ex. 1032, 2:16 (extrusion press including “counterbored axial bore 6”)). Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 17–23. That a reference may refer to a figure as showing “bore 103” with “counterbore 105 . . . formed on one end” does not indicate that they are distinct structures as Patent Owner contends, but merely that the focus of each term is directed to the entire bore or to a particular aspect of the bore, i.e., its counterbore. See” slip op. at 22
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner subsequently proposed an alternative definition, as a person having “[a] Bachelor’s Degree in biomedical and/or mechanical engineering or similar training and . . . at least three years of experience with implant devices used for internal fixation of bones.” POR 5 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 32–33). According to Patent Owner, “[t]his hypothetical person would be capable of performing various design tasks and would understand the basic mechanical features and operation of orthopaedic implant devices [and] have an appreciation for orthopaedic fusion techniques and the medical issues and concerns faced by a doctor/surgeon charged when performing operations to implant orthopaedic devices.” Id. Despite some differences in wording, Patent Owner asserts (and Petitioner does not contest) that any “distinction between the parties’ proposed definitions of a POSITA does not affect the arguments set forth herein.” Id. (citing Ex. 2012 ¶ 34). Consistent with this view, we find the parties’ constructions equally applicable in light of the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’166 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). We adopt, for convenience, Petitioner’s definition, but our analysis does not change depending on which of the two articulations are applied here. H.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “bore,” as used in the context of claims 1 and 12, encompasses a multi-diameter passage, and in particular, one having stepped longitudinal cross sections such as that shown in Cognet’s Figure 1. See generally DI 11–13. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “bore” as such. Relying on the testimony of Mr. Dominguez, Petitioner initially proposed a construction of “bore” as “a usually cylindrical hole made by or as if by the turning or twisting movement of a tool.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 58). Petitioner’s proposal relied on Mr. Dominguez’s testimony that “[a] bore is a cylindrical hole made by the spinning rotation of a twist drill cutting tool. It is typically made by removing material from a solid or hollow object, similar to a tunnel or orifice.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 58. Pointing to its annotation of Cognet’s Figure 1, above, Patent Owner argued that that the term “bore” excludes a tunnel made by “two adjacent bores.” See Prelim. Resp. 21–25. In view of the then-available evidence, we provisionally construed “bore” as a hole or passage made by or as if by the turning or twisting movement of a tool such that its interior walls have cylindrical lateral cross-sections, and which do not exclude holes or passages having tapered or stepped longitudinal cross-sections. DI 13.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 11,298,166 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,298,166 - Symrise AG / Symrise Inc. v. Inolex Investment CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 1, 2024 · IPR2023-01035 · APJ Tina E Hulse · IPR · Final written decision
The Board granted cancellation of claims 1–6, 8–10, and 22–28, and denied substitute claims 29–44 because Wright ’451 rendered them obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSA” or “POSITA”) would have had “a bachelor’s degree and two or more years of experience or a master’s degree in organic synthesis or chemical engineering, with education substituting for experience and vice versa.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 16). Patent Owner took no position on the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 8. In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s definition. Dec. Inst. 6–7. In its Motion to Amend, Patent Owner states that it accepts the Board’s definition for purposes of this proceeding. MTA 24. We, therefore, see no reason to disturb our definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art as it appears to be consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Although neither party expressly proposes a construction for the term “conversion,” the parties appear to differ in their interpretations of that term. Petitioner interprets “conversion” to mean the percent conversion of the 1- alcohol. See Pet. Opp. RMTA 6–7 (interpreting “conversion” as percentage of remaining 1-alcohol); Ex. 1040, 109:2–11. Patent Owner, on the other hand, interprets “conversion” to mean the total percentage of alkenes that have been produced. Ex. 2010 ¶ 123 (interpreting “conversion” as percentage of total alkenes). During oral argument, counsel for Patent Owner conceded that “conversion can mean either.” Tr. 27:18–28:13. Without the benefit of briefing by the parties, we decline to expressly construe the term “conversion,” as our Decision would be the same under either interpretation, as discussed further below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (finding only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy). Moreover, we do not find it necessary to expressly construe any other claim terms for purposes of this Decision. Id.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“2. Analysis A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said claimed invention pertains. See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). Objective evidence of nonobviousness may include” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia outweighedDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded. “[A]ny superior property must be unexpected to be considered as evidence of non-obviousness.” Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007). We must, therefore, first consider what results were expected to determine what a POSA would have considered to be unexpected. Id. As seen by the table below, Wright ’451’s disclosure fully encompasses the temperature ranges and purported unexpected results recited by substitute claim 29 and shown in Table 2 of the ’048 Patent: Reference Reaction Calcination Conversion Regioselectivity Rate13 Temperature Temperature Wright ’451 about 220 °C about 200 °C greater than about 90% to to about to 600 °C about 95% about 99% 440 °C Substitute 240 °C to about 420 °C at least 95% to about Claim 29” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 10,995,048 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,995,048 - BTL Industries, Inc. v. Inmode Ltd.InstitutedPTAB · Oct 2, 2024 · IPR2024-00703 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–58 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim would have been obvious over Edwards, Ingle, and Mosher.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“§ 314. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Further, a decision to institute may not do so on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’511 patent would have had “a medical degree plus at least two years of experience in a field such as gynecology, urogynecology, or plastic surgery involving female genital anatomy, with clinical experience in the application of radiant energy to female genital tissue.” Ex. 1009, 8–9; Ex. 1010, 8. Petitioner here proposes a similar definition, specifically, “a medical doctor . . . [with] at least three years of experience in the non-surgical treatment of uro-gynecological conditions and/or the non-surgical cosmetic treatment of female genital tissues.” Pet. 6. Absent evidence or argument to the contrary, we apply Petitioner’s proposed definition, as it appears consistent with the prior art and is supported by the presently unopposed testimony of Dr. Berenholz. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355, (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected in the prior art itself); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 28–31, 58–60.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“With respect to the challenged claims, Petitioner asserts that “no claim term requires construction—all terms should receive their ordinary and customary meaning in view of the patent specification.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 61). Accordingly, Petitioner contends that formal constructions are unnecessary. Id. (citing Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. 2017) (explaining that only those terms need be construed “that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)). Petitioner, nevertheless, succinctly reviews the preliminary construction of certain terms of the ’511 patent claims in the ThermiGen IPRs, and the construction by the District Court in Viveve. See Pet. 8–11. We note first that, whereas these two sets of prior constructions may differ in focus or scope, we do not view them as in conflict. And although the preliminary constructions in the ThermiGen IPRs were conducted under the then-applicable broadest-reasonable-interpretation (BRI) standard, we are not presently aware of any reason that those definitions would differ under the Phillips standard, and we provisionally apply them here for clarity. And while we recognize that the Viveve constructions are not binding on this proceeding, the district court’s definitions are instructive and generally complementary to ThermiGen IPR constructions. Accordingly, we also provisionally apply them here for clarity. Although none of these terms are presently in dispute, we find it useful to clarify the meanings we apply at this stage of the proceeding. The parties are, of course, welcome to address the construction of any claim term at trial.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Mosher, and Ingle with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention because 1) “loose vaginal or vulval tissue was a known problem facing women at the time,” 2) “Edwards, Mosher, and Ingle are all directed to methods for the non-invasive treatment of female uro-genital conditions, for therapeutic and/or cosmetic reasons,” and 3) each of the cited references teaches the application of radiant energy, including RF, to heat and denature collagen, thereby tightening and remodeling the affected tissues. See generally, Pet. 22–24; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 84–91. More specifically, Petitioner relies on Edwards as providing general teachings of a non-invasive treatment using RF energy, and looks to Mosher and Ingle for details regarding parameters, techniques, and the physiological mechanism underlying heat-mediated collagen remodeling of female genital tissue. See Pet. 23. According to Petitioner, the asserted “combination is merely applying known techniques (Mosher/Ingle’s treatment methods) to a known method ready for improvement (Edward’s treatment method) to yield the predictable result of tightening via collagen denaturation.” Id.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 8,961,511 - Copeland Comfort Control LP / Ecobee Technologies Ulc v. Ollnova Technologies Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 1, 2024 · IPR2024-00131 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–8, 14, 15, and 18 are unpatentable as obvious over the Kates-711 grounds; the Board did not reach the alternative Kates-505 grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- 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 a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or a related field, along with at least two years of professional experience in sensors, controls, and/or wireless communications.” Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 44–47). Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. We apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’887 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“sensed condition outside a predetermined range.” Patent Owner’s proposed construction of the second wherein clause replaces the word “suspended” with “that would otherwise occur is stopped.” PO Resp. 8–9 (“emphasis omitted”). This phrase is not part of claim 1. Nonetheless, adopting Patent Owner’s proposed construction could potentially render the second wherein clause superfluous because the first wherein clause does not require transmission of the most recent reading to occur when the change is within the predetermined range. Consequently, the language of claim 1 does not require or suggest Patent Owner’s proposed construction.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“recent reading of the indicator stored in the memory during a period of a transmission interval in response to detecting a change in the sensed condition outside a predetermined range.” Ex. 1001, 14:63–67. This limitation also requires that “during the period of the transmission interval” the transmission “is suspended in response to detecting a change in the sensed condition within the predetermined range.” Id. at 14:67–15:4. Petitioner, therefore, must show that Kates-711 discloses a transceiver configured to transmit information or suspend transmission of the information during a “period” within a “transmission interval.” For the recited “transmission interval,” Petitioner contends that Kates’s “periodic intervals of ‘periodic monitoring’ is a [1.e] ‘transmission interval,’ during which there is a [1.e] ‘transmission period’ that includes a ‘report block.’” Pet. Reply 9. We agree with Petitioner for the following reasons. Kates describes the process shown in Figure 7 as follows: FIG. 7 is a flowchart showing one embodiment of operation of the sensor unit 102 wherein periodic monitoring is provided. In FIG. 7, a power up block 701 is followed by an initialization block 702, After initialization, the sensor unit 102 enters a low-power sleep mode. If a fault occurs during the sleep mode (e.g., the tamper sensor is activated), then the process enters a wake-up block 704 followed by a transmit fault block 705. If no fault occurs during the sleep period, then when the specified sleep period has expired, the process enters a block 706 where the sensor unit 102 takes a sensor reading from the sensor(s) 201. The sensor data is subsequently sent to the monitoring computer 13 in a report block 707. After reporting, the sensor unit 102 enters a listen block 708 where the sensor unit 102 listens for a relatively short period of time for instructions from monitoring computer 708. If an instruction is received, then the sensor unit 102 performs the instructions, otherwise, the process returns to the sleep block 703. Ex. 1004, 15:50–65. Based on this description of Figure 7, we find that Kates’s report block 707 corresponds to the recited “a period of the transmission interval” because it is a period of time when “sensor data is . . . sent to the monitoring computer.” Ex. 1004, 15:61. Further, block 707 is within an interval of “periodic monitoring” i.e., the process loop shown in Figure 7 beginning at block 703 and comprising steps 703, 706, 707, 708, 709, 710 and back to block 703. See also Ex. 1052 ¶ 22 (Dr. Neikirk testifying “each of [Kates’s] periodic intervals during which the ‘periodic monitoring’ process occurs is a ‘transmission interval’ . . . and the report block’ that occurs within this process is a transmission period.” (citations omitted)).” slip op. at 27
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“2. Analysis Motivation to Combine and Reasonable Expectation of Success Petitioner contends that “[w]hile Kates-711’s teachings not only render obvious but also disclose the ‘memory’ elements ([1.d]-[1.e], [5]), Hitt provides explicit teachings of a memory storing information as claimed.” Pet. 42. Petitioner further contends that Hitt’s memory 155 “stores instructions for execution by processor 156 and also stores periodically sampled sensor data for retrieval by the processor for processing and/or transmission.” Id. at 43 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 112; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 65, 67– 68). According to Petitioner, an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have been motivated to modify Kates-711’s sensor units with Hitt’s teachings of ‘memory’ to achieve the beneficial and predictable result of utilizing a memory to securely store sensor readings.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 114). Petitioner argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been further motivated to modify Kates-711 “by storing these sensor values in memory as taught by Hitt to improve reliability” in light of Hitt’s teaching that “storage of sensor values in memory . . . ensur[es] that the values are available for calculations and not unintentionally lost or erased, e.g., due to power outages or interruptions.” Id. at 44–45 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 116; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 67–68). Petitioner next contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Kates-711 “discloses that its controller may be a ‘conventional programmable microcontroller’; such microcontrollers were well-understood to commonly use a memory to, e.g., track data variables used for control applications.” Pet. 45 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 117). We have reviewed Petitioner’s evidence and contentions and find that Petitioner establishes that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify Kates-711 with the teachings of Hitt and would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 112–117.” slip op. at 37
Patent outcomesUS 7,746,887 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,746,887 - Copeland Comfort Control LP / Ecobee Technologies Ulc v. Ollnova Technologies Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 1, 2024 · IPR2023-00626 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–8, 14, 15, and 18 are unpatentable as obvious over the Kates-711 grounds; the alternative Kates-505 grounds were not reached.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“For these reasons, in order to resolve the present controversy, we determine that the plain and ordinary meaning of “suspended”, as used in the challenged claims, encompasses both where a transmission that would otherwise occur is suspended by an action such as overriding a flag and where a transmission is not made because there is no change in an indicator or a change does not exceed a limit. Upon review the parties’ respective contentions, we determine that no other express constructions of any other claim term is required for this decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“2. Analysis Motivation to Combine and Reasonable Expectation of Success Petitioner contends that “[w]hile Kates-711’s teachings not only render obvious but also disclose the ‘memory’ elements ([1.d]-[1.e], [5]), Hitt provides explicit teachings of a memory storing information as claimed.” Pet. 42. Petitioner further contends that Hitt’s memory 155 “stores instructions for execution by processor 156 and also stores periodically sampled sensor data for retrieval by the processor for processing and/or transmission.” Id. at 43 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 112; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 65, 67– 68). According to Petitioner, an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have been motivated to modify Kates-711’s sensor units with Hitt’s teachings of ‘memory’ to achieve the beneficial and predictable result of utilizing a memory to securely store sensor readings.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 114). Petitioner argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been further motivated to modify Kates-711 “by storing these sensor values in memory as taught by Hitt to improve reliability” in light of Hitt’s teaching that “storage of sensor values in memory . . . ensur[es] that the values are available for calculations and not unintentionally lost or erased, e.g., due to power outages or interruptions.” Id. at 44–45 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 116; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 67–68). Petitioner next contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Kates-711 “discloses that its controller may be a ‘conventional programmable microcontroller’; such microcontrollers were well-understood to commonly use a memory to, e.g., track data variables used for control applications.” Pet. 45 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 117). We have reviewed Petitioner’s evidence and contentions and find that Petitioner establishes that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify Kates-711 with the teachings of Hitt and would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 112–117.” slip op. at 37
- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“III. CONCLUSION12 Weighing the competing evidence and testimony, we determine that Petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 3–8, 14, 15, and 18 of the ’887 patent are unpatentable.” slip op. at 46
Patent outcomesUS 7,746,887 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,746,887 - Copeland Comfort Control LP v. Ollnova Technologies Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 1, 2024 · IPR2023-00624 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 7–11, 13–16, and 20–21 are unpatentable: claims 1–5, 7–11, and 20–21 over McFarland, and claims 13–16 over McFarland and Kates-089.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Claim 1 recites “a multi-sensor package configured to detect a plurality of variables and generate sensor data for each detected variable.” Ex. 1001, 10:46–48. Both parties agree that a “multi-sensor package” is a single packaged device with multiple sensors, not a group of individual sensors. See PO Resp. 6; Pet. Reply 2. Claim 1 does not recite a multi-sensor package with “multiple operational sensors.” Patent Owner does not explain the difference between operational sensors and sensors “configured” as recited in claim 1 or why claim 1 should be construed as requiring an “operational” limitation that does not appear in the claim. Consequently, a requirement that the sensors comprising the package be “operational” is neither required by claim 1 nor suggested by the language of claim 1.” slip op. at 12
- 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 a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or a related field, along with at least two years of professional experience in sensors, controls, and/or wireless communications.” Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 46–49). Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. We apply Petitioner’s level of skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’282 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“McFarland discloses an exemplary sensor 209 that “is configured as any of a temperature sensor, humidity sensor, fire sensor, pressure sensor, smoke sensor, occupancy sensor, air quality sensor, gas sensor, O2, CO2, or CO sensor, accelerometer, velocity sensor, [or] combinations thereof” and “may be . . . micro-mechanical sensors . . . or larger sensors for sensing any condition or parameter.” Ex. 1027 ¶ 43 (emphasis added). Patent Owner submits that paragraph 43 of McFarland describes “a device . . . that sense[s] conditions, parameters and/or events such as an environmental condition in a building.” PO Resp. 28 (emphasis added). Based on the foregoing, we find that McFarland teaches “a multi-sensor package configured to detect a plurality of variables.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 72 (“sensor 209 may be configured to detect multiple different variables including temperature, humidity, and other variables”); Ex. 1027 ¶ 43. McFarland further discloses “sensor 209 generates information or data related to the sensed or monitored condition” and “output as one or more signals that may be read by the processor 214.” Ex. 1027 ¶ 43. McFarland further discloses that “information may be generated in response to a physical stimulus such as light, sound, pressure, heat, magnetism, motion, and/or acceleration” that “may be detected as a result of sensing or monitoring the conditions or parameters.” Id.; see also id. ¶ 44 (“A signal generated by the sensor 209 may be an indicator of the sensed condition.”). McFarland also discloses that “processor 214 implements a control process for the device 207” that “may be implemented based on a signal that is read from and/or provided by the sensor 209, such as a measured value of a parameter, an indicator of a sensed condition and/or status of an event.” Id. ¶ 39. Thus, we find McFarland teaches that sensor 209 “generate[s] sensor data for each detected variable.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 74 (“For each condition that it monitors, the sensor generates and outputs sensor data for each measured variable in the form of ‘a measured variable’ or ‘indicator.’” (citing Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 39, 45, 47)). For the foregoing reasons and after reviewing Petitioner’s evidence in light of Patent Owner’s contentions, we find that McFarland teaches this limitation.” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Motivation to Combine/Reasonable Expectation of Success Petitioner contends that McFarland discloses that a wireless automation device wakes up and enters a standby or sleep mode in response to a report instruction. Pet. 46. Petitioner acknowledges that McFarland “does not explicitly state that the ‘report instruction’ includes a ‘wake-up command’ or describe how the device is instructed to return to a ‘sleep’ mode between reporting intervals.” Id. (citing Ex. 1027 ¶¶8, 18, 48, 62). Petitioner next contends that Kates-089 “teaches that such a ‘report instruction’ comprises a ‘wake-up command,’ and that a controller issues a ‘standby mode’ instruction (i.e., a ‘power down command’).” Id. (citing Ex. 1029 ¶¶ 78, 82, 86). According to Petitioner, an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have been motivated to modify McFarland with” the teachings of Kates-089 “to advantageously facilitate reporting data both periodically and in response to commands while conserving power via ‘wake-up’ and ‘standby’ (i.e., power-down) commands.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 147; Ex. 1027 ¶ 62; Ex. 1029 ¶¶ 40, 74–75, 82, 86); id. at 47 (arguing that an ordinarily skilled artisan in light of Kates-089 “would have been motivated to modify McFarland’s ‘report’ instruction to include a wake-up command” (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 149)) (emphasis omitted). Petitioner further contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine McFarland and Kates-089 “to save power consumed during, e.g., the 99.9% of the polling interval when the device may otherwise be unnecessarily turned on.” Id. at 48 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 150). Petitioner next contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success “applying Kates-089’s wake-up and power-down command teachings to McFarland’s wireless automation device” because “McFarland already teaches that the wireless automation device wakes up and powers down in response to certain commands[] and such commands were well understood.” Pet. 48 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 151; Ex. 1005 ¶ 32; Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 8, 18, 48, 62; Ex. 1032, 12:48–54; Ex. 1033, 12:16– 22) (emphasis omitted). Patent Owner does not address motivation to combine or reasonable expectation of success for claim 13. See PO Resp. 26–35. We have reviewed Petitioner’s evidence and contentions and find that” slip op. at 45
Patent outcomesUS 8,224,282 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,224,282
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.