- Wolfspeed, Inc. / Ideal Industries Lighting, LLC D/B/A Cree Lighting et al. v. Cao Lighting, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 28, 2023 · IPR2023-00129 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 21–40, 42–44, 47–49, 52–53, 56–59, 62–63, 65–68, 71–73, 77–78, 81–82, 85–86, and 88–91 are unpatentable over Begemann, Krames, and Allen; claim 41 is not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“In the Reply, Petitioner uses the Krames declaration (Ex. 1028) to argue, for example, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have used a lower amperage than the 1.5 A dc that Patent Owner’s Response focuses on. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1028 ¶ 22). This use of the Krames declaration is timely because it responds to an argument Patent Owner makes in the Patent Owner Response. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“A reply may only respond to arguments raised in . . . patent owner response.”). As to relevancy and whether the Krames declaration is applicable to the facts of this case, the issues at hand are (1) whether or not a person having ordinary skill would have had reason to use the Krames LED with Begemann with a reasonable expectation of success and (2) whether or not the Krames LED is capable of outputting light at greater than about 40 milliwatts. Again, we emphasize that claim 21 does not recite a method where the LED within the recited semiconductor light source actually outputs greater than about 40 milliwatts. The Krames declaration is relevant to the facts of this case because the declaration has bearing on whether or not a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the Krames reference’s LED with Begemann’s lightbulb design. See, e.g., Ex. 1028 ¶ 22. Patent Owner argues that evidence must be relevant to motivation to combine “an LED chip from the Krames article (operating at 1.5 amps to produce 170 milliwatts of output)” but claim 21 has no “operating at 1.5 amps to produce 170 milliwatts of output” requirement. What is relevant is that Krames discloses a single chip that has the capability of outputting more or less light depending on operating conditions. Pet. Opp. 3; see also Ex. 1008, 8 (providing that Figure 12 of the Krames reference is described as illustrating “[l]ight output vs. current characteristic of a blue … 1x1 mm2 AlGaInN LED in a power package, compared to a conventional AlGaInN LED in a 5 mm lamp a package”). Because claim 21 does not require actually running the recited LED at any particular wattage or amperage, it is appropriate for the Krames declaration to rebut Patent Owner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill would not have considered using the Krames LED with Begemann at high amperage by explaining that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered using the exact same Krames LED with Begemann at a low amperage instead and that at this lower amperage the Krames LED would generate an amount of heat that would be easily dissipated by Begemann’s lamp while still providing an optical output of “greater than about 40 milliwatts” as recited by claim 21. Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 23–24 (citing Ex. 1008, 8). The fact that the Krames LED is configured to run at the high amperage if desired for a different application does not negate the rationale for combining the Krames LED to run at a lower amperage.” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that the challenged claims relate to light fixtures, LED packaging, and LED chip layer structure and that the ’961 patent claims reflect “a hybrid of the light bulb art and semiconductor art.” Resp. 19. The prior art of record, for example, Begemann, likewise reflects “a hybrid of the light bulb art and semiconductor art.” Id. (quoting Pet. 28). Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Lebby, agreed that a person having ordinary skill in the art would need to be “familiar with thermal issues.” Ex. 2015, 26:15– 28:16. While Petitioner’s proposed description of a person having ordinary skill in the art could, in some instances, be sufficient to qualify a person as having ordinary skill, Patent Owner’s proposal is a more complete and accurate description of the level of skill commensurate with the scope of the challenged ’961 patent claims. Patent Owner’s description appears consistent with the prior art and patent specification before us and is supported by witness testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). For the purpose of this Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s description. We further note that the outcome of our decision would be the same under either party’s asserted skill level.” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“particularly relevant.” Resp. 14–15. First, Patent Owner argues that “a light emitting diode (LED) chip configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts” means “at least one LED chip is capable of emitting light greater 9 Petitioner states that “Patent Owner thus contends the recited ‘reflective layers’ can include transparent or semi-transparent layers that exhibit some reflectivity (e.g., SiO2) or an interface between two layers (e.g., the buffer and substrate layers) that exhibit differing indices of refraction.” Pet. 20. Patent Owner frames this as being Petitioner’s “novel construction” (Resp. 16), but Petitioner does not expressly endorse this Patent Owner contention. than about 40 milliwatts.” Resp. 14–15. Patent Owner notes that a district court already adopted this construction and notes that the “LED chip” includes LEDs, LED modules, and LED arrays but excludes laser chips, laser modules, and VCSEL chips. Id. (citing Ex. 2003, 15–18). Petitioner argues that the phrase “needs no construction” and that Petitioner’s grounds meet this construction. Reply 1–2. We adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction because it is well supported by the record including the District Court’s reasoning. Ex. 2003, 15–18. slip op. at 20
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner’s claim construction is well-supported by the record including the reasoning provided by the California and Delaware district courts. Ex. 2002, 19–21 (California district court explaining why the “reflective layers” must be distinct layers based on how claim 8 is structured and also explaining why the amount of reflection must be non-negligible); Ex. 2003, 2, 13 (Delaware district court explaining why reflection has to be more than negligible but need not reflect more light than the light absorbed or transmitted). We, thus, agree that “first and a second reflective layers . . . 10 Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction combines various statements made by the district courts into one statement. Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2002, 19–21; Ex. 2003, 2, 13). serving to reflect light emitted by said active layer” means that the “first and second reflective layers are distinct from each other and reflect more than negligible light.” We further note that the preponderance of the evidence supports that as little as one percent light reflectance is “non-negligible” in this context. Reply 4; also Ex. 1032, 188:7–14 (Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Shealy, testifying that reflection “on the order of one percent” would be more than negligible); see also Tr. 53 (counsel for Patent Owner agreeing that Dr. Shealy opined that “three percent reflection is enough to be non-negligible”).” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 6,465,961 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,465,961 - Wolfspeed, Inc. / Ideal Industries Lighting, LLC D/B/A Cree Lighting et al. v. Cao Lighting, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 28, 2023 · IPR2023-00123 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 21–40, 42–44, 47–49, 52–53, 56–59, 62–63, 65–68, 71–73, 77–78, 81–82, and 85–91 are unpatentable over Begemann, Krames, and Allen; claim 41 was not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“declaration addresses the Patent Owner Response and is relevant to the issues at hand. We start with an important observation: claim 21 (the only independent claim at issue) is an apparatus claim; the claim is directed to a “semiconductor light source.” Ex. 1001, 9:52. One requirement of this apparatus is that it comprise “at least one semiconductor chip” (id. at 10:1) where the “at least one semiconductor chip is a light emitting diode (LED) chip configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts.” Id. at EPRC, 1:34–36. As we explain when addressing claim construction, infra, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “a light emitting diode (LED) chip configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts” as meaning “at least one LED chip is capable of emitting light greater than about 40 milliwatts.” See Section III.D, infra (emphasis added). Because of these recitations, Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that the prior art teaches or suggests a semiconductor chip “capable of emitting light greater than about 40 milliwatts.” As explained herein, we determine that in the Petition, Petitioner met this burden by establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the Krames reference teaches an LED chip that has this capability. Pet. 54 (quoting Ex. 1008, 10). Notably, claim 21 does not require actual operation of anything at greater than 40 milliwatts because claim 21 is not a method claim. Petitioner never had a burden of establishing a method of running the Krames reference’s LED at this power output within a semiconductor light source.” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that the challenged claims relate to light fixtures, LED packaging, and LED chip layer structure and that the ’961 patent claims reflect “a hybrid of the light bulb art and semiconductor art.” Resp. 19. The prior art of record, for example, Begemann, likewise reflects “a hybrid of the light bulb art and semiconductor art.” Id. (quoting Pet. 28). Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Lebby, agreed that a person having ordinary skill in the art would need to be “familiar with thermal issues.” Ex. 2015, 26:15– 28:16. While Petitioner’s proposed description of a person having ordinary skill in the art could, in some instances, be sufficient to qualify a person as having ordinary skill, Patent Owner’s proposal is a more complete and accurate description of the level of skill commensurate with the scope of the challenged ’961 patent claims. Patent Owner’s description appears consistent with the prior art and patent specification before us and is supported by witness testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). For the purpose of this Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s description. We further note that the outcome of our decision would be the same under either party’s asserted skill level.” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“particularly relevant.” Resp. 14–15. First, Patent Owner argues that “a light emitting diode (LED) chip configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts” means “at least one LED chip is capable of emitting light greater 9 Petitioner states that “Patent Owner thus contends the recited ‘reflective layers’ can include transparent or semi-transparent layers that exhibit some reflectivity (e.g., SiO2) or an interface between two layers (e.g., the buffer and substrate layers) that exhibit differing indices of refraction.” Pet. 20. Patent Owner frames this as being Petitioner’s “novel construction” (Resp. 16), but Petitioner does not expressly endorse this Patent Owner contention. than about 40 milliwatts.” Resp. 14–15. Patent Owner notes that a district court already adopted this construction and notes that the “LED chip” includes LEDs, LED modules, and LED arrays but excludes laser chips, laser modules, and VCSEL chips. Id. (citing Ex. 2003, 15–18). Petitioner argues that the phrase “needs no construction” and that Petitioner’s grounds meet this construction. Reply 1–2. We adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction because it is well supported by the record including the District Court’s reasoning. Ex. 2003, 15–18. slip op. at 20
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“The facts above are evidence of the Krames reference’s publication as of June 29, 2000, because the facts tend to make the Krames reference’s publication as of June 29, 2000, more probable than it would be without the facts. See Fed. R. Evid. 401(a) (defining evidence as relevant “if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the 13 We note that Dr. Lebby does not directly state when the Proceedings were widely available. See Sur-Reply 14. evidence”). The evidence is sufficient to support publication. Meanwhile, no evidence of record suggests that Krames was not a printed publication as of June 29, 2000. Thus, a preponderance of the evidence supports Krames’s prior art status. Patent Owner argues that Ms. Watters “never establishes a firm date when Krames was purportedly available to the relevant public.” Resp. 25. Patent Owner bases this argument by taking a tortured reading of Ms. Watters’s statement that “[m]embers of the interested public could locate a copy of [the Proceedings] on or after June 29, 2000, the date it was catalogued.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1020, 3); see also Sur-Reply 13–14. The best understanding of Ms. Watters’s statement, in view of the context of Ms. Watters explaining the library’s cataloguing process, is that a member of the interested public had two options: the person could choose to locate the Proceedings on June 29, 2000, or the person could choose to locate the Proceedings after June 29, 2000. Thus, the statement supports public availability as of June 29, 2000.” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 6,465,961 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,465,961 - Wolfspeed, Inc. / Ideal Industries Lighting, LLC D/B/A Cree Lighting et al. v. Cao Lighting, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 28, 2023 · IPR2022-00847 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 21, 22, 25, 26, 28–30, 32–36, 40, 42–44, 47–49, 52, 53, 56–59, 62, 63, 65–68, 71–73, 77, 78, 81, 82, 85, 86, and 88–91 are unpatentable over Begemann, Krames, and Allen; claim 41 is …
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Patent Owner’s argument is unpersuasive because the Krames declaration addresses the Patent Owner Response and is relevant to the issues at hand. We start with an important observation: claim 21 (the only independent claim at issue) is an apparatus claim; the claim is directed to a “semiconductor light source.” Ex. 1001, 9:52. One requirement of this apparatus is that it comprise “at least one semiconductor chip” (id. at 10:1) where the “at least one semiconductor chip is a light emitting diode (LED) chip configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts.” Id. at EPRC, 1:34–36. As we explain when addressing claim construction, infra, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “a light emitting diode (LED) chip configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts” as meaning “at least one LED chip is capable of emitting light greater than about 40 milliwatts.” See Section III.D, infra (emphasis added). Because of these recitations, Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that the prior art teaches or suggests a semiconductor chip “capable of emitting light greater than about 40 milliwatts.” As explained herein, we determine that in the Petition, Petitioner met this burden by establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the Krames reference teaches an LED chip that has this capability. Pet. 54 (quoting Ex. 1008, 10). Notably, claim 21 does not require actual operation of anything at greater than 40 milliwatts because claim 21 is not a method claim. Petitioner never had a burden of establishing a method of running the Krames reference’s LED at this power output within a semiconductor light source.” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that the challenged claims relate to light fixtures, LED packaging, and LED chip layer structure and that the ’961 patent claims reflect “a hybrid of the light bulb art and semiconductor art.” Resp. 19. The prior art of record, for example, Begemann, likewise reflects “a hybrid of the light bulb art and semiconductor art.” Id. (quoting Pet. 28). Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Lebby, agreed that a person having ordinary skill in the art would need to be “familiar with thermal issues.” Ex. 2015, 26:15– 28:16. While Petitioner’s proposed description of a person having ordinary skill in the art could, in some instances, be sufficient to qualify a person as having ordinary skill, Patent Owner’s proposal is a more complete and accurate description of the level of skill commensurate with the scope of the challenged ’961 patent claims. Patent Owner’s description appears consistent with the prior art and patent specification before us and is supported by witness testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). For the purpose of this Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s description. We further note that the outcome of our decision would be the same under either party’s asserted skill level.” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“particularly relevant.” Resp. 14–15. First, Patent Owner argues that “a light emitting diode (LED) chip configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts” means “at least one LED chip is capable of emitting light greater 9 Petitioner states that “Patent Owner thus contends the recited ‘reflective layers’ can include transparent or semi-transparent layers that exhibit some reflectivity (e.g., SiO2) or an interface between two layers (e.g., the buffer and substrate layers) that exhibit differing indices of refraction.” Pet. 20. Patent Owner frames this as being Petitioner’s “novel construction” (Resp. 16), but Petitioner does not expressly endorse this Patent Owner contention. than about 40 milliwatts.” Resp. 14–15. Patent Owner notes that a district court already adopted this construction and notes that the “LED chip” includes LEDs, LED modules, and LED arrays but excludes laser chips, laser modules, and VCSEL chips. Id. (citing Ex. 2003, 15–18). Petitioner argues that the phrase “needs no construction” and that Petitioner’s grounds meet this construction. Reply 1–2. We adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction because it is well supported by the record including the District Court’s reasoning. Ex. 2003, 15–18. slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“It is unnecessary to construe any other claim terms in this Decision because none of the parties’ disputes turn on the meaning of other claim terms. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 6,465,961 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,465,961 - Markforged Inc. v. Continuous Composites, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 26, 2023 · IPR2022-00679 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12, 20, and 21 were not proven unpatentable; the asserted obviousness grounds failed for insufficient motivation to combine, teaching away, or missing claim limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“Patent Owner statutorily disclaimed claims 13–19 on July 25, 2023, rendering Petitioner’s Grounds 4, 9, and 10 moot. Ex. 2008. Thus, our Final Written Decision does not address Petitioner’s Grounds 4, 9, and 10. The Board heard oral arguments in an in-person hearing conducted on July 27, 2023. See Paper 23.” slip op. at 4
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“(“POSITA”) would have had a master’s or bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, materials science, or a related degree, and either at least 3–5 years of experience (with a master’s degree), or at least 5–6 years of experience (with a bachelor’s degree), in composite materials or additive manufacturing. Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 36). Patent Owner states that it “does not agree that Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art accurately reflects the level of ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date . . . [, but r]egardless [of] the level of skill, . . . the Petition does not show the challenged claims are unpatentable.” Resp. 14–15. Patent Owner does not propose a different level of skill in the art. See id. at 15 (“Patent Owner reserves the right to propose a level of ordinary skill in the art later in this proceeding, or in other proceedings.”). On this record, we determine that the level of ordinary skill is reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (specific findings on the 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))). Although a more specific definition is not necessary, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition because, on this record, it is consistent with the disclosures of the asserted prior art references. Neither party, however, advances information explaining how or why the result in this case would change based on the level of ordinary skill determined by the Board.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner advances no specific construction of any claim term, but rather proposes that “claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning.” Pet. 14. Patent Owner asserts that the term “anchor” should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning, which, according to Patent Owner, is “contact to which the path of composite material is adhered to enable pulling of the path.” Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2006, 2, 53). Petitioner responds that “[i]n the parallel litigation, the Court has construed ‘anchor point’ and ‘anchor’ as ‘a contact point to which the path is affixed and that serves as an origin point for the formation of the path.’” Reply 3. On the complete record, we determine that no claim term needs an express construction to resolve the controversy. C. GROUND 1 – ALLEGED OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 20 AND 21 OVER LIPSKER” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“combining multiple embodiments from a single prior art reference (Resp. 31), i.e., “there must be a motivation to make the combination and a reasonable expectation that such a combination would be successful, otherwise a skilled artisan would not arrive at the claimed combination.” In re Stepan, 868 F.3d 1342, 1346 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2017). On this record, Petitioner fails to provide any such motivation to combine the embodiment in Lipsker’s Figure 2 with those of Figures 4A, 4B, 4C, and 5 to arrive at the subject matter of claim 20. Pet. 23–31. Rather, Petitioner merely points to the disparate embodiments of Figures 2, 4A, 4B, 4C, and 5 and portions of Lipsker’s disclosure pertaining to those embodiments, and asserts that Lipsker “discloses” the individual limitations recited in claim 20. See, e.g., id. at 25 (Petitioner, relying on Figure 2, asserting that “Lipsker discloses the preamble of Claim 20”), 27 (Petitioner, relying on Figure 5, asserting that “Lipsker discloses Element 20[a]”), 28 (quoting Lipsker’s descriptions of wire and adhesive dispensed separately as depicted in Figure 2, and asserting “Lipsker discloses Element 20 [c]”), 29 (pointing to Figures 4A, 4B, and 4C and asserting “Lipsker discloses Element 20[d]”). Pointing to disparate embodiments without providing a sufficient motivation to combine them is not enough to establish the obviousness of claim 20 as a whole. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (holding that a claim “composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art”).” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 10,744,708 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,744,708 - Gce Gas Control Equipment Inc. v. Vbox, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 1, 2023 · IPR2023-00527 · APJ Jane E Inglese · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show that Deane disclosed or suggested the claimed removal direction for claims 1–23.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“As discussed above, when addressing Ground 1 in the Petition, the Petitioner contends that Berntson (in addition to Deane) teaches a separation cartridge selectively removable from a receptacle, but contends that Deane alone renders obvious a separation cartridge selectively removable from a receptacle “by movement relative to the receptacle in a first direction.” Pet. 54–55, 82. For the first time in the Reply, however, the Petitioner contends that “applying Berntson’s basic teachings to Deane . . . would result in a cartridge removable through the POC bottom.” Reply 4; see also id. at 1 (describing Petitioner’s Scenario A). In neither the Petition nor the Reply, however, does the Petitioner identify with any degree of specificity the “basic teachings” of Berntson that a POSITA would have applied to Deane, nor without relying on impermissible hindsight, how the combined teachings of Deane and Berntson would have led the POSITA to the claimed subject matter. In particular, the Petitioner does not describe how or why Berntson would have led a POSITA to modify Deane’s gas fractionalization apparatus, much less describe any specific modifications that would have resulted in a separation cartridge removable through the bottom of Deane’s gas fractionation apparatus. Equally importantly, the Petitioner does not provide a sufficient rationale for combining the prior art teachings. The Petitioner does not explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered any modifications of Deane’s apparatus in view of Berntson. The Petitioner, therefore, does not provide sufficient information to establish that combining Berntson with Deane would remedy the deficiencies of the Petitioner’s contentions based on Deane alone, discussed above.” slip op. at 21
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“would be used to construe the claims in a civil action held under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, claim terms generally are given their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of the invention when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). We construe terms in controversy only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached
“E. Discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) In view of our determination that the Petitioner does not meet the threshold for instituting review on the merits, we need not address the parties’ dispute about whether the Board should exercise its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Pet. 28–29; Prelim. Resp. 45–57.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,357,628 - PTAB · Jun 28, 2023 · IPR2023-00326 · APJ Jane E Inglese · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–16 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
“Considering the totality of the information presented in the record before us, we conclude that the Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenge to the patentability of claim 12.” slip op. at 31
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“Considering the totality of the information on the record before us, we determine that Deane, Dubois, and Hill previously were presented to the Examiner during prosecution, and Berntson is cumulative to Cole, which previously was presented to the Examiner during prosecution. 2. Advanced Bionics Part 2: Becton, Dickinson factors (c), (e), and (f) Having determined that the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office, we turn to the second part of the Advanced Bionics framework and consider Becton, Dickinson factors (c), (e), and (f) to determine “whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” Advanced Bionics, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 7–8, 10.” slip op. at 40
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“The Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree, or the equivalent degree, in mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, or a related field, and 2–3 years of experience in the research, design, or development of portable oxygen concentrators and related hardware, software, and firmware, or equivalent experience.” Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 226–229). The Petitioner further proposes that “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience, or more education and less experience, may also meet this standard.” Id. At this stage of the proceeding, the Patent Owner does not dispute the Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 14. We find, at this stage, that the asserted prior art itself is sufficient to demonstrate the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art). To the extent a more precise definition is required, we apply the Petitioner’s unopposed definition for purposes of determining whether to institute review, because it is consistent, on this record, with the disclosures of the asserted prior art references.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The Petitioner presents express constructions for three claim terms: “separation cartridge,” “receptacle,” and “selectively removable.” Pet. 21– 26. Although the Patent Owner contests the Petitioner’s proposed constructions of these terms, the Patent Owner proposes an alternative construction of only the term “separation cartridge.” Prelim. Resp. 14–23, particularly 20. Nonetheless, the Patent Owner further indicates that construction of “separation cartridge,” “receptacle,” and “selectively removable” is not needed at this stage because the Petitioner’s proposed constructions are “not related to any controversy in this IPR proceeding.” Prelim. Resp. 14–23, particularly 16. Taking into consideration the information presented, we determine that none of the claim terms requires express construction for purposes of deciding whether to institute review.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,389,614 - PTAB · Jun 15, 2023 · IPR2023-00214 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Institution
Instituted inter partes review of claims 21, 25–29, 36, 40–43, 47–49, and 52–57 on all asserted grounds; Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness.
RulingsInstitution decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedInstituted
“The facts here are analogous to those of Hulu, LLC. The Bogner reference provides the indicia at bottom left corner of its first page. Ex. 1007, 143. The indicia states: “Part of the SPIE Conference on Light- Emitting Diodes Research, Manufacturing and Applications III • San Jose, California • January 1999 SPIE Vol 3621 • 0277-786X/99/$10.00.” Id. The January 1999 date being printed adjacent to the name of a particular conference and San Jose, California suggests that the paper was presented at the 1999 conference. The “99” within 0277-786X/99/$10,00 indicates a 1999 publication, and the “$10.00” suggests public availability at the price of ten dollars in 1999. As further evidence, Petitioner includes in the record a page from the SPIE website that appears to be from October 12, 2022. Ex. 1007, 1. The page indicates Bogner was published “14 April 1999” in “SPIE Proceedings Vol. 3621.” Id.11 This information is consistent with the indicia on the first page of the paper itself. The evidence, in total, supports Petitioner’s contention that the paper was presented at a conference in January 1999 and then published within SPIE Proceedings Volume 3621 in April 1999–– absent contrary evidence, which Patent Owner does not advance at this stage of the proceeding. As in Hulu, LLC, the Bogner reference’s indicia provide some evidence of printed publication status. The page from the SPIE website provides further evidence. Thus, given the record as a whole, which contains some evidence that Bogner was a printed publication as of 1999 and no evidence to the contrary, and in view of the Hulu LLC precedent, we determine that Petitioner has established at this stage of the proceeding a reasonable likelihood that the Bogner reference is a printed publication that was publicly accessible before the critical date12 of the challenged patent.” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Decided for petitioner
“Conclusion Factor one weighs strongly against exercising our discretion to deny institution, factor three weighs against exercising our discretion to deny institution or is neutral, factors six and seven are neutral or weakly favor discretionary denial, and the remaining factors are neutral. The balance of the General Plastic factors thus weighs against exercising our discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution. Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution based on the General Plastic factors.” slip op. at 24
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“Here, we decline to exercise discretion to deny this Petition based upon multiple Petitions for three reasons. First, as we explain in Section III(H) of this decision, the Petition is strong on the merits, and Patent Owner has, at this stage, offered little argument refuting the merits. Second, Patent Owner’s burden to respond to both petitions is lessened by Patent Owner’s familiarity with much of the prior art at issue. As Patent Owner emphasizes, all or nearly all of the art in the Petitions was previously raised either during prior examination or in other inter partes reviews. Indeed, it seems likely that, if the Cree IPR (or related follow on IPRs) proceeds to a decision on the merits, there may be little left unresolved for the instant Petition. Institution here, however, provides Petitioner an opportunity to challenge the ’961 patent based on Krames in the event that the IPR based on Cree does not reach a decision on the merits. Third, while the two petitions present different invalidity grounds (addressing the same claims) and, as explained above, are not wholly redundant, the two parallel petitions have a great deal of overlap. Prelim. Resp. 26 (arguing that the two petitions are “redundant”). Because portions of the petitions are similar, this also reduces Patent Owner’s burden to respond. Thus, based on the totality of specific circumstances unique to these two petitions, we decline to exercise discretion to deny institution based on parallel petitions.” slip op. at 25
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons above, we determine that the information presented in the Petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to challenged claims 21, 25–29, 36, 40–43, 47– 49, and 52–57 of the ’961 patent. At this juncture in the proceeding, we have not made a final determination with respect to the patentability of the challenged claims, or with respect to claim construction. V. ORDER For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review of claims 21, 25–29, 36, 40–43, 47–49, and 52–57 of the ’961 patent is hereby instituted with respect to all grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition; and” slip op. at 52
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,465,961 - PTAB · Jun 15, 2023 · IPR2023-00213 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 21, 25–29, 36, 40–43, 47–49, and 52–57 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the §103 obviousness challenges.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Conclusion as to claim 21 Based on the evidence in the present record, we determine that Petitioner has shown sufficiently for purposes of this Decision that the combination of Begemann, Bogner, and Sugiura teaches or suggests all elements of claim 21 and that Petitioner sufficiently shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the references’ teachings with rational underpinning and reasonable expectation of success. Thus, we determine Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claim 21 is unpatentable over the combination of Begemann, Bogner, and Sugiura. b. Dependent Claims 25–29, 36, 40, 42, 43, 47–49, and 52–57 Petitioner accounts for the limitations recited in claims 25–29, 36, 40, 42, 43, 47–49, and 52–57 (which depend from claim 21). Pet. 6, 51–71. Petitioner shows sufficiently for purposes of this Decision that each element of claims 25–29, 36, 40, 42, 43, 47–49, and 52–57 is taught or suggested by the combined teachings of Begemann, Bogner, and Sugiura and shows reason to combine the references’ teachings with rational underpinning and reasonable expectation of success. Thus, we determine that Petitioner has sufficiently established a reasonable likelihood of establishing claims 25–29, 36, 40, 42, 43, 47–49, and 52–57 are obvious in view of Begemann, Bogner, and Sugiura.” slip op. at 45
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“We do not agree, however, that Petitioner fails to show material error. Rather, Petitioner shows sufficiently that the outcome of the reexamination hinged on Patent Owner’s representation that the prior art did not teach LED chips “configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts.” Pet. 19 (quoting Ex. 1014, 238–239 (Patent Owner’s statement in file history); see also Ex. 1014, 159 (examiner explaining that claims are found patentable based on Patent Owner’s argument that the “greater than about 40 milliwatts” recitation is not “taught or suggested by any reference currently relied on”). Petitioner then explains in detail why Patent Owner’s representation, and the Examiner’s resulting conclusion, was in error. Pet. 20–24. Petitioner’s explanation as to why Begemann, the cited art, actually taught the “greater than about 40 milliwatts” recitation is supported by the evidence of record sufficiently to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success at trial. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 85–93, 141–144 (Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Jokerst, explaining why the references suggest the “greater than about 40 milliwatts” recitation when a correct calculation is applied).” slip op. at 20
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Decided for petitioner
“the presently cited art at the time a different petitioner filed the Cree IPR. Prelim. Resp. 27. We note, however, that this factor also includes considering whether the prior art relied on in the later petition “could have been found with reasonable diligence.” General Plastic, slip op. at 20. Although the cited references easily could have been found by reviewing the ’961 patent’s file history, it is less clear that the key alleged error in Patent Owner’s representations concerning the teachings of those references would have been readily apparent. As such, this factor is neutral. 3. whether at the time of filing of the second petition the petitioner already received the patent owner’s preliminary response to the first petition or received the Board’s decision on whether to institute review in the first petition; Patent Owner argues that Petitioner used the Board’s institution decision (instituting trial) in the Cree IPR as a roadmap for its petitions. Prelim. Resp. 27–28. Patent Owner, however, presents no factual evidence merely result from the strength of references raised in prior reexamination rather than copying from one petition to another. The record lacks evidence directly establishing how or why Petitioner came to select the evidence the Petition relies upon, and we decline to speculate. to support this point, for example, instances in the Petition that facially support a finding that the arguments presented in the Petition track the analysis in the Board’s prior institution decision. Moreover, we agree with Petitioner that the road-mapping concern is either not relevant or is less relevant when the earlier IPR was instituted. Reply 1–2; see also General Plastic, slip op. at 17–18 (explaining that factor 3 is directed to road-mapping concerns). This is not a multiple-bites-of-an-apple situation where the second bite is modified after the first bite fails. This factor weighs against discretionary denial or is neutral.” slip op. at 24
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“The facts here are analogous to those of Hulu, LLC. The Bogner reference provides the indicia at bottom left corner of its first page. Ex. 1007, 143. The indicia states: “Part of the SPIE Conference on Light- Emitting Diodes Research, Manufacturing and Applications III • San Jose, California • January 1999 SPIE Vol 3621 • 0277-786X/99/$10.00.” Id. The January 1999 date being printed adjacent to the name of a particular conference and San Jose, California suggests that the paper was presented at the 1999 conference. The “99” within 0277-786X/99/$10,00 indicates a 1999 publication, and the “$10.00” suggests public availability at the price of ten dollars in 1999. The indicia also suggest that the paper was published by an established publisher—SPIE (the international society for optics and photonics). As further evidence, Petitioner includes in the record a page from the SPIE website that appears to be from October 12, 2022. Ex. 1007, 1. The page indicates Bogner was published “14 April 1999” in “SPIE Proceedings Vol. 3621.” Id.10 This information is consistent with the indicia on the first page of the paper itself. The evidence, in total, supports Petitioner’s contention that the paper was presented at a conference in January 1999 and then published within SPIE Proceedings Volume 3621 in April 1999–– absent contrary evidence, which Patent Owner does not advance at this stage of the proceeding. As in Hulu, LLC, the Bogner reference’s indicia provide some evidence of printed publication status. The page from the SPIE website provides further evidence. Thus, given the record as a whole, which contains some evidence that Bogner was a printed publication as of 1999 and no evidence to the contrary, and in view of the Hulu LLC precedent, we determine that Petitioner has established at this stage of the proceeding a reasonable likelihood that the Bogner reference is a printed publication that was publicly accessible before the critical date11 of the challenged patent.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,465,961 - PTAB · May 23, 2023 · IPR2023-00198 · APJ Hubert C Lorin · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–19 and all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on Ground I’s Burton obviousness challenge.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“However, if Petitioner has provided a Sotera4 stipulation, we will not discretionarily deny institution under § 314(a) in view of a District Court Action. See Director Memorandum, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA-Post Grant Proceedings With Parallel District Court Litigation, U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (June 21, 2022) (“Director Memo”), at 3, 7, 9. Petitioner argues: the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution of an IPR or PGR in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition (i.e., a “Sotera stipulation”). In that regard, the Petition provided this stipulation: Petitioner[] want to make clear they are consenting to a full Sotera stipulation and Petitioner will not pursue in the parallel district court litigation or other parallel proceedings the same grounds as raised in this Petition or any grounds that Petitioners could have reasonably raised before the PTAB. Petitioners agree to not pursue any of the grounds raised in this Petition, any grounds raised within Petitioners’ invalidity contentions, or any grounds Petitioners could have reasonably raised before the PTAB in the parallel district court litigation or any parallel proceeding.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“Petitioner’s arguments are new ones because no arguments during prosecution were presented for a first and second reflector. Therefore, there is no overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on Burton, Schuknect, and Baek. Cf. Becton, Dickinson factor (d). Relying on materially-different references not before the Examiner, that is, Burton, Schuknecht, and Baek, Petitioner presents arguments addressing the now-claimed first and second reflector limitations that the Examiner did not examine. See Pet. 21–23 (Burton); 45–48 (Schuknecht); and, 73–75 (Baek). For the reasons discussed related to Becton, Dickinson factors (a), (b), and (d), we find the art and arguments are not the same or substantially the same as was previously presented to the Office. 2. Second step of the framework Because the same or substantially the same art or arguments were not previously presented to the Office, we do not consider whether Petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office. See Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 9–11.” slip op. at 18
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated, under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. For the reasons stated below, we institute inter partes review as to challenged claims 1–19 of the ’114 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“reasoning Petitioner provides for why the claimed device would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over the combination of Schuknecht, Hsu, Leong, and the knowledge of a POSITA is insufficient. Obviousness requires showing that a POSITA would have had a motivation to combine Schuknecht, Hsu, Leong, and the knowledge of a POSITA in the way required to achieve the claimed device and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. PAR Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. TWI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (emphasis added). Rather than explaining why one would have included LEDs in Schuknecht’s device with a reasonable expectation of success at arriving at the claimed device, Petitioner explains why a POSITA could have generally substituted fluorescent bulbs for LEDs. Schuknecht is directed to an air flow management specifically designed for vent chambers containing high wattage lamps such as fluorescent lamps. See Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 2 (“The devices presented here are directed to a compact fluorescent lamp (‘CFL’) type lighting fixture that has improved cooling capability.”), 7 (The invention “is primarily, but not exclusively, directed at CFL fixtures where the sum of wattage of all of the lamps in the fixture exceeds 200 watts.”). We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioners do not provide any argument that an optimal temperature of an LED bulb matches that of a CFL fixture. Nor do Petitioners provide any argument that an LED bulb, as disclosed by Hsu, might generate output in excess of 200 watts/fixture, as required by Schuknecht. Prelim. Resp. 38 (citing Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 4–7). Petitioner does not address why a POSITA would have modified Schuknecht’s vent chamber that is specifically designed for managing heat associated with using fluorescent bulbs to manage heat from LEDs, if any, with a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the claimed illumination device. For that reason, a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in demonstrating that claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Schuknecht, Hsu, Leong, and the knowledge of a POSITA on this record has not been demonstrated.” slip op. at 47
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,721,114 - Sigray, Inc. v. Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · May 22, 2023 · IPR2022-00218 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–15 were not shown unpatentable because the prior art did not establish the claimed projection magnification or scintillator; the revised contingent motion to amend was dismissed as moot.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We determine that the level of ordinary skill in the art, as articulated by Patent Owner, more accurately reflects the subject matter of the ’704 Patent and the asserted prior art than does Petitioner’s articulation. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself reflects 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)). Petitioner does not explain how “control theory” and “applied mathematics” (Pet. 16) relate to the subject matter of the ’704 Patent and the asserted prior art, and Petitioner’s reference to requisite level of skill. Furthermore, whereas Petitioner requires a POSITA to have “x-ray and computing imaging experience” (id.), Patent Owner more particularly specifies “x-ray microtomography experience” (PO Resp. 5), which is the field of art for the ’704 Patent, as well as many of the asserted prior art references. Ex. 1001, code (54) (“High resolution direct-projection type x-ray microtomography system using synchrotron or laboratory-based x-ray source”); Ex. 1007 (discussing X-ray microcomputed tomography); Ex. 1008 (discussing X-ray nanotomography and microtomography); Ex. 1010, code (54) (“Method and apparatus for utilizing an electro-optic detector in a microtomography system”); Ex. 1011 (title: “Three-dimensional X-ray Microtomography”). For these reasons, we apply Patent Owner’s definition of a POSITA. Even if we applied Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA, however, the outcome would be the same because our resolution of the controversy does not turn on the differences between the parties’ contentions about level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In an inter partes review, we apply the same claim construction standard as would be used by a district court to construe a claim in a civil action involving the validity or infringement of a patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record. Id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2012). (“all claim terms should receive their plain and ordinary meaning”); PO Resp. 5 (applying the same constructions as Petitioner). We determine that no claim term requires express construction for purposes of resolving any controversy between the parties. 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 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“On balance, we find that the testimony of Drs. Bentley and Arce about Jorgensen is more credible than Dr. Kia’s testimony, which is often conclusory and insufficiently supported by the evidence. Drs. Bentley and Arce do a better job of explaining and reconciling Jorgensen’s varying descriptions of the X-ray beam than does Dr. Kia. For example, although Dr. Kia relies on Jorgensen’s repeated references to a “cone-beam,” we find that Petitioner’s evidence does not outweigh the explanations provided by Drs. Bentley and Arce, particularly in view of Jorgensen’s description of the X-ray beam as “collimated” and “shielded by a lead-wrapped brass tube.” See II.D.2.d. and e., supra. Even if we consider Petitioner’s improper new reply argument about filling the CCD, we find that argument insufficient and does not outweigh Patent Owner’s unrebutted evidence about CCD pixel size. See II.D.2.f. and g., supra. In sum, viewing the record as a whole, we find that Petitioner has not shown persuasively that Jorgensen inherently discloses projection magnification within the claimed range.” slip op. at 38
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable
“standard.” Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., No. 2022-1147, 2023 WL 2994166, at *10 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 19, 2023). “Inherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities.” Oelrich, 666 F.2d at 581. “The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” Id. (emphasis added). Rather, the patent challenger must “show that the natural result flowing from the operation as taught would result in the performance of the questioned function.” Id.; see PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., 917 F.3d 1376, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (determining that the Board’s reliance on inherency was improper because the structure relied upon to meet a claim element “does not necessarily exist” in the reference). As discussed above, it is undisputed that there can be no projection magnification unless the X-ray beam is diverging, and there is a vigorous dispute about whether Jorgensen teaches a diverging X-ray beam. See negatively impacted by Petitioner’s and Dr. Kia’s admittedly incorrect interpretations of Jorgensen’s disclosures concerning “projected at a 4° angle” and “the X-ray beam geometry is used to achieve magnification.” Ex. 1007, H1104; see II.D.2.b. and c., supra. On balance, we find that the testimony of Drs. Bentley and Arce about Jorgensen is more credible than Dr. Kia’s testimony, which is often conclusory and insufficiently supported by the evidence. Drs. Bentley and Arce do a better job of explaining and reconciling Jorgensen’s varying descriptions of the X-ray beam than does Dr. Kia. For example, although Dr. Kia relies on Jorgensen’s repeated references to a “cone-beam,” we find that Petitioner’s evidence does not outweigh the explanations provided by Drs. Bentley and Arce, particularly in view of Jorgensen’s description of the X-ray beam as “collimated” and “shielded by a lead-wrapped brass tube.” See II.D.2.d. and e., supra. Even if we consider Petitioner’s improper new reply argument about filling the CCD, we find that argument insufficient and does not outweigh Patent Owner’s unrebutted evidence about CCD pixel size. See II.D.2.f. and g., supra. In sum, viewing the record as a whole, we find that Petitioner has not shown persuasively that Jorgensen inherently discloses projection magnification within the claimed range.” slip op. at 37
Patent outcomesUS 7,400,704 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,400,704
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.