• Intel Corporation v. Besang Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 11, 2024 · IPR2023-00991 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1 and 13–17 not unpatentable, finding the asserted obviousness grounds deficient in claim limitations or motivation to combine.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The parties proposed definitions differ in that Petitioner would permit a degree in “materials science” and require three years, as opposed to two years, of relevant experience. Compare Pet. 9 with PO Resp. 14. On this record, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed definition, as it is more consistent with the prior art of record and the disclosures of the ’702 patent. We note, however, that neither party contends that the outcome of this case depends on the slight differences in the proposed definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “1996) (“It is well-settled that, in interpreting an asserted claim, the court should look first to the intrinsic evidence of record, i.e., the patent itself, including the claims, the specification and, if in evidence, the prosecution history.”). Upon review of the parties’ arguments and the intrinsic record, we agree with Petitioner that the ’702 patent does not support a construction of “stackable add-on layer” that encompasses memory cells formed by sequential deposition on a substrate without being formed and then added to a separately formed substrate. Pet. 11–12. First, the plain language of the claim does not require merely a “layer” having a plurality of vertically oriented semiconductor memory cells, but rather “a stackable add-on layer” having a plurality of vertically oriented semiconductor memory cells; that plurality is bonded to the dielectric layer. Ex. 1001, 12:29–32. A construction that gives meaning to all words of the claim is preferred. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“A claim construction that gives meaning to all the terms of the claim is preferred over one that does not do so.”).” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “As discussed above, we do not understand a “stackable add-on layer” to include memory cells that are formed by sequential deposition on or above a substrate without being added to a separately formed substrate. It is undisputed, and indeed it is Petitioner’s assertion, that Lee’s memory devices are formed by sequential deposition. Pet. 16, 29 n.11, 51 (“In Lee, each level 3104 is deposited on the underlying level of array 3101.”). Therefore, Petitioner has not shown that Lee discloses every limitation of independent claim 13 under our claim construction. Thus, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 13 would have been obvious in view of Lee. 3. Analysis: Claims 14–17 Claims 14–17 each depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 13. Petitioner’s arguments with respect to these claims do not remedy the deficiencies noted above with respect to claim 13. Pet. 31–41. Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 14–17 would have been obvious over Lee.” slip op. at 19

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not demonstrated that Aspar would improve Lee, would solve a problem in Lee, and that Petitioner is proposing to use Aspar in a way that is not disclosed in the reference. PO Resp. 49–50 (citing Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 153–162); Tr. 57:24–58:12; Pet. 61; KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (asking whether a technique “would improve similar devices in the same way”), 420 (asking whether there was a known problem in the art), 421 (asking whether one of ordinary skill in the art had reason to “pursue the known options”); Intel, 61 F.4th at 1381 (explaining that obviousness may be demonstrated by showing that there was a known problem in the art (“cache coherency in multiprocessor systems”) and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that that the prior art solution to this problem (“global segmented secondary cache”) would improve the system of another prior art reference). Petitioner does not persuasively show that there was any known problem in the art with respect to Lee or its monolithic method of constructing memory arrays. Nor does Petitioner provide persuasive argument or evidence that Aspar’s wafer bonding would improve Lee’s memory device.10 For example, Petitioner states in a conclusory fashion that Aspar would address the known problem of “fabricating 3D structures,” but does not explain what those problems were or why Lee fails to solve them. Pet. 61. Dr. Sechen’s testimony merely parrots the Petition, providing no further analysis or explanation of what problem might exist in Lee when fabricating its 3D structures. Ex. 1003 ¶ 212. The Petition notes that Aspar transfers “thin layers of very good thickness homogeneity and with a high crystalline quality,” but the Petition never asserts that Lee’s direct deposition method fails to provide these same or similar qualities. Pet. 60–61.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 7,378,702 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,378,702
• Giesecke+devrient GmbH / Giesecke+devrient Currecy Technology GmbH et al. v. Lumenco, LLCInstituted
  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 · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,448,863
• Giesecke+devrient GmbH / Giesecke+devrient Currecy Technology GmbH et al. v. Lumenco, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Nov 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00838 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–12 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would be unpatentable over Fuhse262.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition “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.” After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’191 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “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 creates 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. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 82–87 (testimony of Dr. Hesselink)). Further, Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the ’191 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We note, however, that Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposals are very similar and that our analysis, at this stage of the proceeding, would be the same regardless of which proposal we adopt.” 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.” Pet. 15. “Patent Owner agrees that the terms do not require construction for purposes of evaluating the Petition.” Prelim. Resp. 6. 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. 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 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “term voxel. See generally Ex. 1006; Ex. 1003 ¶ 176. However, on the record before us at this stage of the proceeding, we are persuaded by the Petition’s analysis and evidence (in particular, Dr. Hesselink’s testimony), that Fushe262 teaches a voxel created by intersecting two or more beams of the reflected ambient light. Dr. Hesselink’s testimony sufficiently explains that light beams reflecting from the entire surface of Fuhse262’s micromirrors would create a voxel when the light beams intersect, as shown by Annotated Figure 10. On this record, Patent Owner’s arguments as to the teachings of Fuhse262 are not sufficiently supported by evidence and amount to mere attorney argument. Mere attorney argument has little evidentiary value and does not outweigh the testimonial evidence of Dr. Hesselink, which presently stands unrebutted. See Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Attorney argument is not evidence or explanation in support of a conclusion.”); Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Lab., Inc., 429 F.3d 1052, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Unsubstantiated attorney argument regarding the meaning of technical evidence is no substitute for competent, substantiated expert testimony.”); In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 315 (CCPA 1979) (citing In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508 (CCPA 1972)) (“Arguments of counsel unsupported by competent factual evidence of record are entitled to little weight.”).” slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,901,191
• Giesecke+devrient GmbH v. Lumenco, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00837 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 3–7, and 9–13 were obvious over any asserted ground.

  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, 3–7, and 9–13 of the ’691 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner’s reading of limitation [1d]. This limitation requires that each set of micro mirrors has a differing cone angle offset. A claim requiring “each” of an item to have a particular structure requires all instances of the item to have that structure. See In re Skvorecz, 580 F.3d 1262, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (claim reciting that “each wire leg” have an offset is not satisfied by prior-art device in which not all of its wire legs have an offset); cf. Micron Tech., Inc. v. U.S., 243 F.3d 1301, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“The use of the words ‘each’ and ‘any’ to modify ‘employee . . . leaves no doubt as to the Congressional intention to include all employees within the scope of the [Fair Labor Standards] Act unless specifically excluded.”) (quoting U.S. v. Rosenwasser, 323 U.S. 360, 362–63 (1945)); ResQNet.com v. Lansa, Inc., 346 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (excerpt in specification using words “each field” and “fields” refers to all, not just some, fields). Thus, for each set of micro mirrors providing the pixels for each image to have a “differing cone angle offset,” the cone angle offsets of all the sets of micro mirrors must differ from each other. Consequently, as Patent Owner states (Prelim. Resp. 12), a set of micromirrors producing a pixel for a first image must have a cone angle offset that is different from the other sets of micromirrors producing pixels for that image, and also different from the sets of micromirrors producing pixels for any other image. Petitioner has not made us aware of anything in the Specification that suggests otherwise. We are not persuaded that Fuhse262 teaches limitation [1d] under this interpretation. Petitioner has not identified, and we are unable to find, any teaching in Fuhse262 that each set of micro mirrors providing the pixels for each of the differing ones of the images has a differing cone angle offset from those of the other sets of micro mirrors. Petitioner asserts instead that “a POSITA would understand that there is a differing cone angle offset for each image because the surface normal of each image, which dictate the cone of reflected rays and cone axis, are required to be different.” Pet. 41. But this assertion suggests, at most, that the sets of micro mirrors that create pixels for a first image have different cone angle offsets than the sets of micro mirrors that create pixels for a second image; Petitioner does not appear to be asserting that, e.g., all the sets of micro mirrors creating pixels for the first image are also different from each other, as limitation [1d] requires. Because we are not persuaded that Fuhse262 teaches limitation [1d], we are not persuaded that Petitioner has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claim 1 would have been obvious over Fuhse262 and Fuhse925.” slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “the art “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. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 12–13). Patent Owner responds that one of ordinary skill in the art “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. 10. We do not discern a meaningful difference between the parties’ positions, and do not believe that our decision would differ under either definition. Nonetheless, at this stage of the proceeding, we adopt Petitioner’s definition. 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 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “The parties agree that no terms require construction. Pet. 15; Prelim. Resp. 10. We also do not see the need to expressly construe any claim term, 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).” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,317,691
• Micron Technology, Inc. / Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. et al. v. Besang Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00900 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 13–17 were not shown unpatentable: Lee-based grounds fail on the stackable add-on layer limitation, and Watanabe-based grounds fail on nonvolatile memory, enablement, or motivation to combine.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “meaning in the art. See Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (stating that, absent an accepted meaning in the art, “we construe a claim term only as broadly as provided for by the patent itself”). Thus, we must attempt to discern the meaning of this term from the claim language itself and from the remainder of the intrinsic record. See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“It is well-settled that, in interpreting an asserted claim, the court should look first to the intrinsic evidence of record, i.e., the patent itself, including the claims, the specification and, if in evidence, the prosecution history.”). Upon review of the parties’ arguments and the intrinsic record, we agree with Petitioner that the ’702 patent does not support a construction of “stackable add-on layer” that encompasses memory cells formed by sequential deposition on a substrate without being formed and then added to a separately formed substrate.” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “As discussed above, we construe “stackable add-on layer” to not include memory cells that are formed by sequential deposition on or above a substrate without being added to a separately formed substrate. It is undisputed, and indeed it is Petitioner’s assertion, that Lee’s memory devices are formed by sequential deposition. See Pet. 52 (asserting that in Lee “the layers of the array are directly deposited on the layers of each underlying level, and the array is deposited on the interlayer insulating layer formed over a substrate”); see also id. at 70 (“Lee discloses forming vertical memory devices through layer-by-layer sequential deposition on the substrate . . . .”). Therefore, Petitioner does not show that Lee discloses every limitation of independent claim 13 under our claim construction. Thus, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 13 would have been obvious in view of Lee. 3. Claims 14 and 15 Claims 14 and 15 depend from claim 13. Ex. 1001, 12:35–42. Petitioner’s arguments for these claims do not remedy the deficiencies noted above with respect to independent claim 13. Pet. 54–59. Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 14 and 15 would have been obvious in view of Lee alone. E. Claims 16 and 17 over Lee and Endoh Petitioner contends the subject matter of claims 16 and 17 would have been obvious over the combined disclosures of Lee and Endoh. Pet. 59–69. Petitioner’s arguments with respect to these claims, however, do not remedy the deficiencies noted above with respect to Lee and its monolithic, sequentially deposited memory array. Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 16 and 17 would have been obvious over Lee and Endoh.” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “combined Lee and Watanabe to achieve improved integration density. Pet. 71. Petitioner concedes, however, that the benefits of Lee’s design related to 3-D integration and improved integration density would be obtained if Lee’s memory structures are formed using either Lee’s monolithic construction method or Watanabe’s alternative stacking method. Pet. Reply 13–14 (citing Ex. 1041 ¶ 34). Thus, we are not persuaded that improved integration density provides a sufficient rationale for Petitioner’s combination of Lee’s memory device and Watanabe’s stacking method. Petitioner argues that Watanabe’s stacking method “improves the accuracy of the wiring” because the wiring is made “for each planar member.” Pet. 72 (citing Ex. 1005, 6:1–3). Watanabe also states that its disclosed methods provide “a low interconnection wire resistance.” Ex. 1005, 6:20–23. Petitioner does not, however, explain sufficiently how Watanabe’s stacking method would improve Lee’s device. For example, Petitioner does not address whether the alleged wiring benefit already existed in Lee’s monolithic array or explain how this benefit would also apply to Lee’s particular memory array, which differs in construction and elements from Watanabe’s device. This diminishes Petitioner’s benefits-based motivation to combine arguments. In general, a petitioner need not demonstrate that a particular alternate method would improve a prior art device in order to show a motivation to combine. Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2023); see Pet. Reply 20 (citing Intel). But here, Petitioner affirmatively invokes improvement of Lee’s device as a reason for the combination, and we must evaluate Petitioner’s contention. Moreover, any relative lack of improvement or benefits must be weighed against any problems the alternative method would introduce. See Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 795–96 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (noting that simultaneous advantages and disadvantages to a proposed combination must be analyzed to determine whether the disadvantages “outweighed any reason to combine”). Here, as discussed above in more detail with respect to the ground based on Watanabe, the evidence shows that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected Watanabe’s bonding temperature of 900– 1000° C to damage the electronic devices in an underlying substrate. Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 75–76; Ex. 2028, 123:13–124:7; Ex. 2027, 715. The expected damage to Lee’s device, when balanced against the limited evidence of a benefit to the combination,7 outweighs the reason to combine Lee and Watanabe set forth in the Petition. Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 13 would have been obvious over Lee and Watanabe. 2. Analysis – Claims 14 and 15 Claims 14 and 15 both depend directly from independent claim 13. Ex. 1001, 12:35–42. Petitioner’s arguments with respect to claims 14 and 15 do not remedy the deficiencies noted above with respect to independent claim 13. Pet. 73. Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that these claims would have been obvious over Lee and Watanabe.” slip op. at 40

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedOther

    “We credit the testimony of Dr. Przybylski that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Watanabe’s stacked structure would be severely impacted if bonded at a temperature above 900° C, as disclosed in Watanabe. Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 76–77. Dr. Przybylski’s opinion is supported by Dr. Lee’s testimony (Ex. 2028, 123:13–124:7, 125:6–126:7), as well as Watanabe (Ex. 1005, 6:6–14) and Batude (Ex. 2027, 715). As further discussed below, we find that Petitioner has not rebutted Patent Owner’s showing of nonenablement, and Patent Owner has carried its burden to demonstrate that Watanabe was not enabled for bonding temperatures of 900–1000° C, as of the 2004 filing date of the ’702 patent.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 7,378,702 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,378,702
• Fervo Energy Co. v. Ormat Technologies Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 18, 2024 · IPR2024-00665 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Institution

  Institution denied because Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable under the proposed obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Principles of Law A petition must show how the construed claims are unpatentable under the statutory grounds it identifies. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim for a petition to be granted. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of skill in the art, we consider the type of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus. Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. U.S., 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Petitioner contends the following assessment in connection with a person of ordinary skill in the art: The Challenged Claims pertain to a method of recovering geothermal heat. However, “[m]any of the techniques are derived from oil and gas industry.” EX1001 at 4:23-24. Accordingly, here, a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) is a person with a Bachelor’s degree, Master’s degree, and/or Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering, Petroleum Engineering, Energy Resource Engineering, or the like, or at least five years of experience engineering, drilling, and constructing wells. Furthermore, a person with less formal education but more experience, or more formal education but less experience, could also have met the relevant standard for a POSITA. Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 34–36). Patent Owner does not offer its own assessment of a POSITA. For purpose of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesOther

    “own for any claim term. Patent Owner does, however, note that “claim element 9c[13] includes the terms ‘means for,’ which are presumed to invoke 13 The referenced “claim element 9c” reads in-part “Means for producing a water density difference and a pressure difference between said first means-plus-function treatment under Section 112.” Prelim. Resp. 17 (citing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Power2B Inc., IPR2022-01378, Paper 12 at 11 (PTAB Mar. 15, 2023) (citing Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in relevant part))). Patent Owner further submits that “[u]nder Rule 104(b)(3),[14] Petitioner had an obligation to provide a construction of claim element 9c that includes both the claimed function and the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function.” Id. We agree with Patent Owner that the term “means for” when appearing in a claim triggers a rebuttable presumption that treatment under § 112 applies. On the record before us, however, Petitioner has not explained why the noted presumption has been rebutted or does not apply, and has not provided a construction of the pertinent “means for” term in the Petition in contradiction to the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 104(b)(3).” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “While it is certainly the case that “a prior art reference is relevant for all that it teaches to those of ordinary skill in the art,” see In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992), it is incumbent on a petitioner, in advancing a permissible theory of obviousness, to explain why a skilled artisan would recognize to pick and choose certain aspects of a reference and combine them with other aspects of the reference, particularly so where the reference itself does not suggest such combination. See In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“It is impermissible within the framework of section 103 to pick and choose from any one reference only so much of it as will support a given position, to the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference fairly suggests” ) (citation and inner quotes omitted). Here, Petitioner’s oscillation between different embodiments of Rinaldi in an attempt to reach the requirements of claim 1 is not adequately explained, and more closely resembles impermissible hindsight. See Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co., 848 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017). (“[W]e cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention.”). In sum, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its assertion that claim 1 is unpatentable as a part of Petitioner’s proposed Ground 1.” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,320,221
• Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. v. Downing Wellhead Equipment, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · 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 · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,401,779
• Nespresso USA, Inc. v. K-Fee System GmbHAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 10, 2024 · IPR2023-00502 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–16 are unpatentable as obvious over the combined disclosures of Yoakim, Jarisch, and Rapparini.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner

    “To obtain the benefit of the filing date of an earlier application, Patent Owner bears the burden of producing evidence to establish where each limitation of the challenged claims is disclosed in a single priority application. Studiengesellschaft Kohle, 112 F.3d at 1564; NTP, 654 F.3d at 1276. Petitioner identifies limitations of the challenged claims that are missing from each individual German priority application. Pet. 39–42. Patent Owner responds with no evidence or arguments suggesting that the identified limitations are disclosed in a single application. Resp. 10–12. On this record, no challenged claim is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of any of the three German priority applications; therefore, Jarisch qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).” slip op. at 19

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “In other words, even if we accept that Dr. Howle has some experience designing medical devices and components, and that those experiences represent work designing products similar to mechanical beverage systems, Patent Owner fails to direct the Board to evidence sufficient to establish that this experience, in the aggregate, amounts to “at least five years” or involved “experience with sensors for recognizing identifiers.” Dec. 8 (adopting Patent Owner’s own proposed definition of ordinary skill in the art); see Sur-reply 3 (citing Ex. 1066, 34:16–35:9; Ex. 1067, 101:3–12, 102:30– 104:9; Ex. 2017 ¶¶ 3, 4) (failing to establish adequately, if at all, how Dr. Howle’s qualifications include the requisite minimum five-year period of relevant design experience). Accordingly, we determine that Dr. Howle is not qualified to offer expert testimony from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art in this proceeding.12 Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 22 F.4th 1369, 1376–78 (Fed. Cir. 2022). The Federal Circuit has made plain that, “[t]o offer expert testimony from the perspective of a skilled artisan in a patent case,” including the issue of patent “validity,” the “witness must at least have ordinary skill in the art.” 12 To be clear, we are not saying that a witness supplying expert opinions must have satisfied the requirements of the level of ordinary skill in the art on or before the priority date of the challenged patent, which Patent Owner seems to understand. See Sur-reply 4–5. Instead, we evaluate whether Dr. Howle had at least the requisite qualifications of a person having ordinary skill in the art by the time he rendered his opinions. Osseo Imaging, LLC v. Planmeca USA, Inc., Appeal No. 2023-1627, slip op. at 7 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 4, 2024) (“[A]n expert can acquire the necessary skill later and develop an understanding of what a person of ordinary skill knew at the time of the invention,” however, where “the expert was not a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention may well be used during cross-examination to undermine the credibility of the expert.”); see id., slip op. at 5–6 (affirmatively quoting Kyocera). Id. (Board’s emphasis). “Without that skill, the witness’[s] opinions are neither relevant nor reliable.” Id. at 1377. “‘Admitting testimony from a person . . . with no skill in the pertinent art serves only to cause mischief and confuse the factfinder.’” That testimony would ‘amount[ ] to nothing more than advocacy from the witness stand.’” Id. (quoting Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1362, 1364–65 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Alternatively, even if we accept that Dr. Howle possesses “at least five years” of relevant design experience, on this record, we agree with Petitioner that his opinions are entitled to less weight than those of Petitioner’s witness, Mr. Jobin. Reply 27. Unlike Dr. Howle, Mr. Jobin is a designer by profession, with more than 30 years of industry experience. Reply 27 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 5–30). For example, Mr. Jobin designed a home-based beer dispensing system utilizing cartridge identification technologies. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 24). Mr. Jobin also “has substantial experience with sensors for recognizing identifiers.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 19; Ex. 1072, 3712–19, 67:22–70:19). Dr. Howle, by contrast, “has never designed a beverage machine.” Reply 22; see generally Sur-reply (declining to contest that assertion).13” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “In Petitioner’s contrary view, Jarisch teaches how to move a code in a centrifugal brewing system to the bottom of the flange and how to configure a light-conductive material so that the detector’s light source will reach the bottom of the flange. Pet. 45–46; Reply 21–22 (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 194–195; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 82–84, Fig. 5). Although Figure 61 of Yoakim discloses a flare in its brewing chamber, bodily incorporation is not required, and we are directed to no persuasive argument or evidence that Yoakim could not be configured with a straight chamber, as depicted in Figure 5 of Jarisch. We credit the testimony of Mr. Jobin that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to place the code at the bottom of the flange and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in so doing. Ex. 1003 ¶ 184. For reasons explained above, we assign little or no weight to Dr. Howle’s conflicting testimony because he has little or no experience designing a mechanical beverage system or similar product. See supra 10– 16. Petitioner lays out persuasive reasons why Dr. Howle’s testimony, on this particular point, is “conclusory” and rests on “bodily incorporation” of the references. Reply 24; see id. at 22–24 (pointing out with particularity fundamental flaws in Dr. Howle’s opinions); In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.”); In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”). In addition, Patent Owner contends that Yoakim requires that the capsule holder be capable of receiving a set of multiple volume capsules and that there is a “snug fit” to avoid “unbalances.” Sur-reply 8 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 205, 479, 484, 507, 512). According to Patent Owner, Petitioner does not explain adequately how the use of Jarisch’s “straight chamber” with a capsule holder that does not engage with the side wall of the capsule would allow insertion of multiple volume capsules or permit a “snug fit” in the modified device of Yoakim. Id. at 8–9. Patent Owner’s view that Yoakim discloses the use of certain capsules which might not fit into a device with Jarisch’s non-flared structure is ineffective to undercut the sufficiency of Petitioner’s showing on this point. Petitioner is not seeking a bodily incorporation of Yoakim and Jarisch and, in any event, other embodiments of Yoakim do not require the type of flared capsule identified by Patent Owner. Ex. 1004, Fig. 63. Furthermore, we credit the testimony of Mr. Jobin that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood how to design the chamber of Yoakim to allow reading of a barcode on the underside of the flange. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 187–195. With respect to the argument that the use of Jarisch’s design would not allow a snug fit, we are directed to no persuasive evidence that Jarisch’s lack of contact between the capsule side wall and the holder would render the device inoperable or less effective. Resp. 39–40; see Reply 22 (citing Ex. 2019, 36:18–37:6). Indeed, as Petitioner points out, Jarisch indicates that its device, including its capsule holding means, allows the capsule to be successfully driven in rotation. Reply 22 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 23).” slip op. at 49

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “That argument is not persuasive. A reference need not identify or discuss another prior art patent or application in order for that reference to be deemed relevant or analogous art. Nor do we endeavor to determine why, or why not, a particular reference is discussed in a prior art reference. The analogous art inquiry focuses on reasonable pertinence and involves assessing the similarities between the claimed invention and the prior art, including the problems addressed and the closeness of the subject matter, as viewed by an ordinarily skilled artisan. Donner Tech., LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC, 979 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2020); see Airbus S.A.S. v. Firepass Corp., 941 F.3d 1374, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (relevant analysis focuses on comparing the disclosed embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention to the disclosures of the prior art). Against that backdrop, we reject Patent Owner’s suggestion that the inquiry involves whether the inventors of Jarisch saw a need to discuss Yoakim’s disclosure in Jarisch’s priority document.” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 10,994,923 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,994,923
• Chongqing Yanmei Technology Co., Ltd. v. Terves, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 27, 2024 · IPR2023-00521 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 19–61, 63–77, and 79 are unpatentable as anticipated by Doud; claims 78, 80, and 81 are not shown unpatentable. The contingent motion to amend is granted in part and denied in part.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have at least a Ph.D. in chemistry, metallurgy, or material science or material engineering” or, in the alternative, “would have a Bachelor of Science or Master of Science degree in one of these disciplines plus experience involving the use and design of dissolvable metal alloys for use in creating tools and other downhole parts for well drilling or completion activities.” Pet. 13–14. Patent Owner does not oppose Petitioner’s contentions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 12 n.4. Upon review of the prior art of record and the parties’ arguments, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan as it is consistent with the prior art of record.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “With respect to claim 19, Petitioner proposes constructions for the terms “in situ precipitate” and “a plurality of particles of said in situ precipitate having a size of no more than 50 µm.” Pet. 11–12. With respect to claims 76–81, Petitioner proposes a construction for the term “wherein said additive material includes one or more metal materials selected from the group consisting of 0.1–35 wt. % copper, 0.1–24.5 wt. % nickel and 0.1–20 wt. % cobalt.” Id. at 13. Patent Owner contends no claims require construction for purposes of this Decision. PO Resp. 12 n.4, 17–18; Mot. 16–17. Upon review of the prior art of record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 8

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateWritten description adequateMixed

    “Ex. 2027, 20:25–21:5 (emphasis added). The disclosure that the “magnesium composite” of “[t]he present invention” “includes at least 50 wt% magnesium” is unambiguous and constitutes strong evidence that the inventors were not in possession of a magnesium composite with less than 50 wt. % magnesium, or additive concentrations above 50 wt. %. See SciMed Life Systems, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovasular Systems, Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that a description of the “present invention” as having a particular structure “is strong evidence that the claims should not be read to encompass the opposite structure”). Consistent with this conclusion, the original claims of the ’295 application all limited the additive material in the composite to 0.05 wt %–45 wt %. Ex. 2027, 26:1– 13, 29:9–15. Likewise, in each example where copper, nickel, or cobalt additives are used in the range recited in the proposed substitute claims, the magnesium composite is “over 50 wt% magnesium,” and any claims that do not require this range of magnesium are limited to an additive range of “about 0.05 wt%–45 wt% of said mixture.”8 Ex. 2027, 6:13–7:4, 7:16–19, 8 Written description support is considered from the view point of the ordinarily skilled artisan. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Patent Owner, bearing the burden to show written description support in any priority application for which it seeks the benefit of its filing date, provides no testimony from an ordinarily skilled artisan regarding written description support in the ’295 application, or any evidence to show what such an artisan would conclude from the express disclosures of the ’295 application. Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at 7; In re NTP, 654 F.3d 1268, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (noting that “a patent’s claims are not entitled to an earlier priority date merely because the patentee claims priority . . . Rather, for a patent’s claims to be entitled to an earlier priority date, the patentee must demonstrate that the claims meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120”). Where there is any ambiguity in the disclosures of the ’295 application, the absence of supporting testimony tends to cut against 26:2–31:2; see Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 12, 13, 18, 19, 16–21, 26, 28, claims 16–21, 26– 28. In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded that Patent Owner has demonstrated that the inventors of the priority applications were in possession of a magnesium cast composite that included less than 50 wt. % magnesium, or greater than 50 wt. % additives. As proposed substitute claim 104 encompasses a magnesium cast composite with up to 90 wt. % additives, and therefore as little as 10 wt. % magnesium, Patent Owner has not demonstrated that the full scope of this claim finds written description support in any application prior to the ’915 application, filed on October 12, 2018.” slip op. at 17

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteIndefiniteMixed

    “The definiteness requirement of § 112(a) is satisfied when “a patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable clarity.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 910 (2014); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (changing the claim construction standard used to review a claim proposed in a motion to amend from the broadest reasonable construction to the “same construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b)”). Proposed substitute claim 104 generically requires “in situ precipitate” and also a specific type of in situ precipitate: “in situ galvanically-active intermetallic precipitate.” Mot. Appendix A. Although this claim would have best been clarified by Patent Owner after seeking preliminary guidance on its Motion to Amend, upon review of the written description, claims, and figures of the ’740 patent, as well as Patent Owner’s clarification in its Reply to the Opposition, we agree with Patent Owner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the “in situ galvanically-active intermetallic precipitate” is merely a more complete description of the “in situ precipitate” mentioned earlier in the sentence. Mot. Reply 4. As such, we do not find that this part of proposed substitute claim renders claim 104 indefinite.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 10,689,740 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,689,740
• Honeywell International Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V.Institution denied
  PTAB · Aug 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00493 · APJ Erica A Franklin · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Honeywell did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–9 were unpatentable over any of its three obviousness combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its obviousness challenge of independent claim 1 or dependent claims 2–9 over the combination of Simmelink and Section 73.1015.” slip op. at 23

  • Skill levelOther

    “PHOSITA) at the time of the ’532 patent “would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in the field of chemistry, chemical engineering, polymer chemistry, or materials science and at least three years of relevant work experience in the field of high strength fibers.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 18). Petitioner adds that individuals with different educational backgrounds could still be of ordinary skill in the art if they have “additional experience [that] compensates for a deficit in their education and experience stated above.” Id. According to Patent Owner, a person or ordinary skill in the art, would have (i) a bachelor’s degree in chemistry, polymer chemistry, materials science, chemical engineering, or biomedical engineering and (ii) three years of experience in designing and manufacturing gel-spun UHMWPE yarns. At this level of skill, a PHOSITA would have a detailed understanding of the information provided in the Technology Background, Section II, supra, including (i) the differences between linear HDPE and UHMWPE, (ii) the history underlying Section 73.1015 and the early failures of the 1960s-era blue, melt-extruded polyethylene sutures, (iii) why the molecular orientation of polyethylene molecules leads to strong yarns in the special case of gel-spun UHMWPE, and (iv) the challenges associated with coloring gel-spun UHMWPE yarns, especially for end-use medical applications. Prelim. Resp. 33–34. We note that the parties’ proposed definitions are largely similar, except that Patent Owner additionally recognizes a Bachelor’s degree in biomedical engineering and requires experience in designing and manufacturing gel-spun UHMWPE yarns. In any event, we do not need to the same under either proposed definition.” slip op. at 6

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “a skilled artisan would have understood that the “gel spinning” process recited in the claims requires the use of a solvent during the spinning process. Indeed, the Specification describes this term, as follows: Gel spinning is understood to include at least the steps of spinning filaments from a solution of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene in a spin solvent; cooling the filament obtained to form a gel filament removing at least partly the spin solvent from the gel filament; removing at least partly the spin solvent from the gel filament; and drawing the filament in at least one drawing step before during or after removing spin solvent. Ex. 1001, 2:31–37. We recognize the inventor’s lexicography as dispositive with respect to the meaning of the term “gel spinning.” See Phillips v. AWHCorp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005); SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1343–44 (Fed. Cir.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITADecided for patent owner

    “Claim 1 describes gel spinning as the manner by which the filaments comprised in the claimed colored multi-filament yarn are obtained. This, on its face, is a product-by-process claim element because it describes the filament structure being obtained in a particular way, i.e., by gel spinning. See Kamstrup A/S v. Axioma Metering UAB, 43 F.4th 1374, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (agreeing with the Board that “cast in one piece” is a product-by-process claim element as it describes the structure being cast “in a particular way”). For this element to be limiting, it must impart “structural and functional differences” that distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. See Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd, 580 F.3d 1340, 1365–67 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Patent Owner argues persuasively that gel spinning imparts structural and functional differences to the claimed product because the process “creates overlap between polyethylene molecules within the UHMWPE filaments that maximizes the intermolecular Van der Waals interactions, resulting in highly crystalline filaments with high tensile strength.” Prelim. Resp. 38, 22 (citing Ex. 1014, 62–66). According to Patent Owner, “the structure of the gel spun UHMWPE is substantially different from other types of UHMWPE such as compression-molded and ram-extruded UHMWPE used to make joint replacements and other orthopedic implants.” Id. at 38.” slip op. at 9

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,280,532

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.