• Precision Planting LLC / Agco Corporation v. Deere & CompanyNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 2, 2020 · IPR2019-01048 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not proven unpatentable over Hedderwick and Koning because Petitioner did not establish a persuasive motivation to combine the references as proposed.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Based on the prior art, Dr. Glancey’s opinion testimony and analysis, and providing some, but minimal, weight to Dr. Taylor’s opinion testimony, we determine that the evidence favors Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill, primarily based on Dr. Glancey’s analysis and reasons summarized above. Accordingly, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in a technology pertinent to the challenged claims would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or similar field, and two years of experience designing agricultural products or related machinery, or five years of experience designing agricultural products or related machinery, without a four-year undergraduate engineering degree. A recipient of other academic degrees may qualify as a person of ordinary skill if they have taken coursework or have experience in the pertinent technology. Additional education could offset less work experience; additional work experience could offset less education or coursework.” slip op. at 18

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

    “[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 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)). We determine that an explicit construction of the claims is not necessary for the purposes of determining whether the challenged claims are not patentable. slip op. at 20

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

    “sufficiently persuasive evidence, even in combination, to establish why a person of ordinary skill would have modified Hedderwick by (1) selectively gleaning only a portion of Koning’s conveying system, i.e., belt 44 with bristles 45, (2) selectively excluding Koning’s belt 23, and then (3) modifying Koning’s brush belt by reversing its orientation so that it carries seeds deposited into the bristles, as in the ’906 patent, rather than covering and guiding seeds carried by a separate and distinct conveyor belt, as in Koning. See WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding an absence of a motivation to reverse parts to an orientation that was “totally backwards” from what one of skill in the art would even attempt). Petitioner’s arguments do not acknowledge the different function of Koning’s brush belt, or explain why a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to adapt Koning’s brush belt to such a use and reasonably expect success in doing so. We determine Petitioner fails to meet its burden of providing a sufficiently persuasive explanation or reason for concluding that one of skill in the art would have combined these particular references to produce the claimed invention. “Without any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to arrive at the claimed invention, we are left with only hindsight bias.” Metalcraft v. Toro, 848 F.3d at 1367. “[W]e cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention.” Id.” slip op. at 30

  • ExcludeOther

    “II. MOTION TO EXCLUDE Petitioner and Patent Owner each move to exclude a substantial number of exhibits on a number of different evidentiary grounds. See Pet. Mot. Excl.; PO Mot. Exclude. As our analysis does not refer to any of those exhibits, we dismiss each motion as moot.” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 9,686,906 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,686,906
• Precision Planting, LLC / Agco Corp. v. Deere & CompanyNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 30, 2020 · IPR2019-01044 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Hedderwick, Koning, and Benac because Petitioner did not establish motivation to combine or a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “have had either (1) a bachelor’s degree plus four years of experience in mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or a related field or (2) a master’s degree plus two years of experience in mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or a related field.” Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 19– 20). In the testimony the Petition cites in support of that proposal, Mr. Prairie lists factors that are typically considered in assessing the level of ordinary skill in the art, and then states “[b]ased on these factors together with my experience and expertise,” his opinion of the level of ordinary skill in the art is the same as Petitioner proposes. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 19–20. This conclusory testimony is entitled to little weight. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 12

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

    “construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” See Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,358 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) effective November 13, 2018) (now codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)).6 That standard “includ[es] construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id.; see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). We determine that no terms require express construction to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim terms need only be construed “to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). V. OBVIOUSNESS OVER HEDDERWICK, KONING, AND BENAC” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Glancey, explains that [i]f a wheel is used to load and place seeds within a moving belt with brush hairs, the wheel must be able to disengage from seeds while the seeds remain in between brush hairs. If the wheel maintains contact with the seed after the seed has moved into the brush hairs, the wheel will continue to apply force to the seed and eject or remove the seed from the profile of the brush hairs . . . . Ex. 2200 ¶ 223. Dr. Glancey testifies, credibly, that in Petitioner’s combination, seeds would have been rejected from the belt because, as the paddle wheel rotates, seeds “would be scooped through the belt.” Id. ¶ 225.” slip op. at 31

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

    “way the references use endless members in the form of brush belts and paddle wheels, versus the way Petitioner uses those components in the proposed combination. Contrary to Petitioner’s and Mr. Prairie’s assertions, the proposed combination does not merely apply known techniques to a known device, because none of the cited references use brush belts and paddle wheels in the manner Petitioner proposes. As discussed in greater detail below, Benac teaches that a paddle wheel can be used to ensure that seeds jammed in vacuum holes are released reliably, and then dropped to the ground. Benac does not address brush belts as an endless member and, therefore, does not teach that paddle wheels can be used to guide seeds into the bristles of a brush belt, as Petitioner proposes. See Pet. 64. And Koning does not teach a brush belt that captures seeds released from above, as Petitioner and Mr. Prairie propose. See Pet. 61–62; Ex. 1002 ¶ 104; Ex. 2193, 190:10–191:3; Ex. 2263, 167:21–170:9. Rather, Koning’s brush belt maintains the relative position of potatoes lying on a conveying surface by holding them from above while the conveyor moves them to the furrow. Ex. 1004, 3:16–24, 5:3–14, Fig. 4. Petitioner’s arguments do not adequately account for these differences between the references’ use of a brush belt as an endless member and paddle wheels versus the proposed combination. Moreover, Patent Owner points out problems ordinarily skilled artisans would have encountered in attempting to combine the references as Petitioner proposes. Petitioner does not persuasively explain how those issues could have been overcome, and instead simply asserts, essentially, that ordinarily skilled artisans could have figured it out. See, e.g., Ex. 1135 ¶ 80. It is Petitioner’s burden to establish that ordinarily skilled artisans would have been motivated to combine the success in doing so. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Petitioner’s arguments and evidence do not carry that burden.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 8,813,663 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,813,663
• Precision Planting, LLC / Agco Corp. v. Deere & CompanyNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 30, 2020 · IPR2019-01046 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 3 were not shown unpatentable over Hedderwick, Koning, and Yamahata under § 103 because Petitioner did not establish motivation to combine or a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Based on the evidence and arguments of record, we determine that the evidence favors Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill. Our determination is primarily based on Dr. Glancey’s analysis and reasons summarized above, as well as the prior art of record and the sophistication of the technology of the ’199 patent. We have considered Mr. Prairie’s opinion, but we give that testimony minimal weight due to the lack of supporting explanation. Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Specifically, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in agricultural engineering, or a similar field, and two years of experience designing agricultural products or related machinery. Alternatively, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had five years of experience designing agricultural products or related machinery, without a four-year undergraduate engineering degree.” slip op. at 13

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

    “IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION “In an inter partes review proceeding, a claim of a patent . . . shall be construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” See Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,358 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) effective November 13, 2018) (now codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)).7 That standard “includ[es] construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id.; see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). We determine that no terms require express construction to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim terms need only be construed “to the extent” slip op. at 14

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Ex. 1135 ¶ 51. Yet it is Petitioner’s burden to show motivation and reasonable expectation of success for the proposed combination, not Patent Owner’s burden to show that the prior art demonstrates the futility of the proposed combination. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, Petitioner’s affirmative showing on motivation and reasonable expectation of success for using Koning’s brush belt in the proposed combination is unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above. And Patent Owner’s evidence of difficulties an ordinarily skilled artisan would have expected to encounter in that proposal serves to highlight the issues that Petitioner’s showing ignores. Petitioner additionally contends that Patent Owner’s arguments are based on the erroneous premise that an ordinarily skilled artisan must be able to physically combine the references. See Pet. Reply 7 (citing In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332–33 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). We disagree. Patent Owner’s arguments, summarized above, simply point out that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have expected success in combining the references’ teachings in the way Petitioner proposes. Motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success are properly assessed with reference to the combination as Petitioner has framed it. The Federal Circuit has explained that doing so is not inconsistent with Mouttet. See Samsung, 925 F.3d at 1382–83 (“We will not fault the Board for analyzing Petitioners’ obviousness grounds in the way presented in the Petition.”).” slip op. at 34

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner’s and Mr. Prairie’s analysis does not acknowledge, much less bridge, the gap between Koning’s use of a brush belt to hold potatoes from above as they lie on a conveying surface, versus the brush belt’s use in above.10 During his deposition, Mr. Prairie resisted agreeing that the potatoes are lying on the conveyor in Koning, testifying that he takes from Koning’s description that “they are captured within the belt with brush hairs. And that there is some weight that’s along the conveying member 23.” Ex. 2193, 96:24–99:25. Mr. Prairie testified that he “do[es]n’t believe the brush hairs support the full weight of the potatoes,” but that Koning did not provide him sufficient information to answer whether the conveying member supports the majority of the weight of the potatoes. Id. at 106:22–107:21. In our view, it is clear from Koning’s description that the potatoes lie on the conveyor and the purpose of the brush belt is to maintain their position relative to each other while they are moved by the conveyor. Ex. 1004, 3:16–24, 5:3–14, Fig. 4; see also Ex. 2205 ¶¶ 140–141 (Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Glancey, testifying that a simple mechanical analysis shows that in Koning, about 87% of the potatoes’ weight is supported by the conveying member). Mr. Prairie’s refusal to acknowledge the differences between the brush belt’s function in Koning versus the proposed combination undermines the credibility of his testimony that the proposed combination would have been a simple application of a known technique to a known device. 10 See WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting expert testimony that supported the absence of a motivation to combine: “[I]f I can equate this one to kind of a simple analogy, if you’re trying to build a piece of furniture. What’s a typical thing? You put on a piece of wood. You take a nail, and you hit the nail with a hammer. In control terms, what Mr. Phipps is suggesting is that you put the hammer on the workbench, pick up the piece of furniture and bash the piece of furniture onto the hammer. It’s totally backwards from what I believe one of skill in the art would even attempt . . . .”). have been simple for an ordinarily skilled artisan to adapt Koning’s brush belt for use in the proposed combination, where seeds are deposited onto the brush belt from above—is further undermined by his testimony that he “can’t recall a time where I’ve seen a seed being dropped into a brush belt.” Ex. 2193, 113:5–9; see also Ex. 2263, 81:2–12 (“Q. And you never attempted to drop a seed onto a moving brush belt to see whether that would be inserted into the brush belt, correct? A. As I stated, for the purposes of this case, I did not do any physical experimentation with a moving brush belt as I didn’t feel it was necessary. The prior art discloses sufficient information.”) (objection omitted). Mr. Prairie has “had some industrial design projects where we’ve had to utilize brushes for various applications,” but he “ha[s] not used a brush belt to convey seed.” Ex. 2194, 297:6–16. Mr. Prairie testified that “prior to writing this declaration, brush belt technology was not a specific area that I study, that I was researching.” Ex. 2263, 79:6–9. Indeed, during his initial deposition in this case, the only specific example of a moving brush belt Mr. Prairie could recall seeing was Patent Owner’s ExactEmerge product. Ex. 2193, 108:6–110:10. The basis for Mr. Prairie’s opinion, that a seed would be expected to enter a moving brush belt in the proposed combination, appears to only be Koning itself. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 79–81; Ex. 2193, 116:12–19, 118:7–23; Ex. 2263, 159:5–160:2. When asked at his deposition, Mr. Prairie did not explain any other engineering analysis he performed to make that determination. Ex. 2193, 114:23–117:12. Mr. Prairie testified that he “did not operate a brush belt for this declaration because [he] didn’t feel it was necessary to make my assessments” and he “did not do study or experimentation on a brush belt as I did not feel it was necessary.” unpersuasive because, as discussed above, Koning does not teach using a brush belt to receive and convey seeds that have been dropped onto it from above. Mr. Prairie does not account for that difference by explaining why an ordinarily skilled artisan would expect Koning’s brush belt to effectively capture and carry seeds dropped from above, as in the proposed combination.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 9,480,199 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,480,199
• Coastal Industries, Inc. v. Shower Enclosures America, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 19, 2018 · IPR2017-00573 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5, 7–9, 11–14, and 16–26 are unpatentable; claims 4, 6, 10, and 15 are not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 33 and 34 are granted.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “invention. Pet. 26. Patent Owner sets forth many assertions related to the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. PO Resp. 3–14, 20–30; PO Supp. Resp. 15–20. Petitioner responds to those assertions. Pet. Reply 2–4, 9–18; Pet. Supp. Reply 15–16. While we will address each of those assertions, as a substantive matter, Petitioner asserts that “PO does not dispute the definition of a PHOSITA, offer a contrary definition, explain how a different definition might affect the Board’s analysis, nor contest the Board’s specific interpretation of the prior art references to put the PHOSITA determination at issue.” Pet. Reply 16–18; Pet. Supp. Reply 15– 16. We agree with that assessment. Moreover, we note that the level of ordinary skill in the art is often reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Accordingly, as an initial matter, we address Petitioner’s unopposed substantive assertion with respect to the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other

    “1. “track members” Independent claims 1, 12, 19, and 22 each recite “track members.”” slip op. at 28

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted

    “B. Patentability of Substitute Claims 33 and 34 Petitioner asserts that various claim limitations are disclosed in the” slip op. at 100

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “701, 702 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that Mr. Poenariu’s testimony is entirely based on his finding as to the level of ordinary skill in the art, and because Mr. Poenariu did not articulate a sufficient factual basis for his conclusion as to the level of ordinary skill in the art, his entire testimony us unreliable and should be excluded. PO Mot. 5–6. Petitioner responds that Mr. Poenariu discloses more than a sufficient amount of underlying facts on which to base his testimony, and, thus, Patent Owner’s assertions go to weight and not admissibility. Pet. Opp. 6–9. We agree with Petitioner.” slip op. at 105

  Patent outcomesUS 7,174,944 mixed
  Claim constructioncites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,174,944
• Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 10, 2018 · PGR2017-00015 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · PGR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–4 not unpatentable: the obviousness grounds failed to establish the claimed elastic fastener limitation, and claim 3 was not shown indefinite or lacking written-description support.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner and determine that a POSA would have been a person having a general knowledge about, and experience with, expandable containers, including, without limitation, balloons, and at least an associate’s degree in mechanical engineering, or the equivalent. This level of skill is consistent with the types of problems and solutions described in the ’612 patent and cited prior art. For example, the ’612 patent describes a fluid inflatable system that uses elastic valve 20A (e.g., mechanical gasket, O-ring, etc.) for sealing fluid inside multiple containers (e.g., water balloons). See Ex. 1001, 1:22–24, 3:10–16. In any event, none of the issues in this case turn on the definition of a POSA, and the prior art of record provides ample evidence of the level of skill in the art. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (finding that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not err in concluding that the level of ordinary skill was best determined by the references of record); see also Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”’) (internal citation omitted).” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther

    “1. Terms Construed in the Institution Decision We construed the term “elastic fastener” in our Decision on Institution, which is set forth in the following table. Inst. Dec. 14. Claim Term Construction in Institution Decision elastic fastener “an elastic element for attaching things together” Neither party disputes the language of this construction. See generally Prelim Resp. 17; Reply. We adopt them for this Final Written Decision. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting Rodale Press, Inc. v. FTC, 407 F.2d 1252, 1256–57 (D.C. Cir. 1968)) (“‘an agency may not change theories in midstream without giving respondents reasonable notice of the change’ and ‘the opportunity to present argument under the new theory.’”)” slip op. at 14

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteNot shown unpatentable

    “While the terms “unfilled state” and “filled state” describe the fullness for a container, we do not agree with Petitioner that the claim language requires determining the precise amount of fluid for each state. Section 112(b) requires that we read claim terms in the context of the surrounding claim language, not in isolation. Telebrands, 733 F. App’x at 1020. When we look at the entire claim phrase—“regardless whether the first and second ones of the plurality of containers are in a filled state or an unfilled state”— the plain language is clear that regardless of whether the balloons are in either state, the “at least first and second ones of the plurality of containers are disposed sufficiently close to each other such that they press against each other.” In other words, the exact volume of fluid or water needed to reach a “filled state” does not need to be determined in order to understand the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement. We are further persuaded because this is consistent with the district court’s construction of this term. See Ex. 1023, 19–20.” slip op. at 17

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable

    “Based upon our review of the specification, and consideration of the arguments and evidence presented, Petitioner’s position is not persuasive. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to show that the ’612 patent does not provide such adequate guidance to a person of ordinary skill in the art. On its face, Figure 1 of the ’612 patent (reproduced below) shows containers 18 in contact or pressing against one another with the reasonable clarity required by Vas–Cath Inc. Figure 1 of the ’612 patent is reproduced above. Although the ’612 patent describes, as Petitioner notes, that tubes 16 can be different lengths, we are not persuaded that the ’612 patent’s disclosure of an embodiment with different tube lengths detracts from the concurrent disclosure in Figure 1 of an embodiment, where it is difficult to describe containers 18 as being not in contact with each other. Additionally, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to show adequately that a person of ordinary skill would not have understood the ’612 patent as describing the containers in Figure 1 as pressing against one another in an unfilled state. The ’612 patent indicates Figure 1 shows elastic valve 20A in an open configuration when container 18A is attached to tube 16A to allow container 18A to fill with fluid. Ex. 1001, 3:14–18. In this open configuration, container 18A is to be filled with fluid, after which, “it may be removed from tube 16A, whereupon elastic valve 20A closes, thereby closing the neck of container 18A and sealing the fluid inside.” Id. at 3:18–21 (emphasis omitted). The ’612 patent refers to Figure 1 to describe an embodiment where elastic valve 20A is in an open configuration to fill a container that has not been filled (i.e., unfilled) and removed from tube 16A. Thus, we are persuaded that, at least, Figure 1 and this accompanying description of Figure 1 in the ’612 patent provides sufficient written description for the recited limitation that “at least first and second ones of the plurality of containers are disposed sufficiently close to each other such that they press against each other . . . in a filled state or an unfilled state.”” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 9,527,612 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,527,612
• DISH Network Corporation / DISH Network L.L.C. v. Customedia Technologies, L.L.C.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 25, 2018 · CBM2017-00032 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–7, 16–19, 23–24, 26–28, 32–36, and 41 are unpatentable under § 101; the petitioner did not show claims 17, 18, 23, 24, and 28 unpatentable under § 112.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenOther

    “Considering each claim limitation, as well as each explicit citation to the specification expressly set forth in the Petition, we are persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of showing, via analysis and evidence explicitly set forth on pages 6–7 of the Petition, that independent claim 1, as a whole, does not recite a technological feature that is novel or unobvious.” slip op. at 22

  • Adverse judgmentOther

    “Response (Paper 24, “PO Resp.”) and disclaimed claims 5, 25, 39, and 43 (Ex. 2006). Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 38, “Pet. Reply”). Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply (Paper 40, “PO Sur”), and Petitioner filed a Response to the Sur-Reply (Paper 41, “Pet. Sur”).” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Claim Construction Petitioner and Patent Owner dispute the construction of certain claim terms. Pet. 23–28; PO Resp. 34–46. We apply the constructions of those terms set forth in Paper 49 in this decision.” slip op. at 7

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable

    “We agree. The preambles of independent claims 1, 19, and 33 expressly state as much. In particular, the preamble of claims 1 and 33 provide: “A system for providing targeted advertising to a multimedia content end user” (claim 1) or “a plurality of multimedia content end users” (claim 33). Ex. 1003, 46:13–14, 49:59–60. Likewise, claim 19’s preamble refers to “[a] device for providing targeted advertising to an end user.” Id. at 48:20–21. Taking claim 1 as a representative example, the remainder of the claim recites certain tangible components, namely a “storage device” and specifically, an “addressable and reserved storage space”; a “processor”; and “software implemented by” the processor. Id. at 46:13–28. The claim further requires the following functionalities: the processor “reserv[ing]” the storage space; the processor “select[ing] particular advertising data suitable for targeting to at least one end user based upon predefined criteria data”; the storage space “storing digital advertising data” and specifically, the “particular advertising data”; and the “particular advertising data” being “accessible to” the user. Id. Thus, we are persuaded that claim 1, taken as a whole, is focused on the concept of providing targeted advertising to a user. Further, the claims merely invoke computers as a tool to implement the concept of targeted advertising, and are not directed to any improvement in computer functionality. See Pet. 34; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 944–945. The claims recite generic components and functionality. For example, in claim 1, the required components, outlined above—a storage device and specifically, a storage space, a processor, and software— are conventional. The recited functionalities—reserving the storage space for advertising data, selecting advertising data targeted to a user, storing that data, and making that data accessible to the user—are likewise basic and routine. As Petitioner points out, the specification expressly acknowledges that some of the tangible components of the recited system were known. See Pet. 7–8, 33–34, 40–75; Ex. 1008 ¶ 949. For instance, the specification refers to storage device 14 as “any medium known in the art for storing electronic data” and similarly, “any storage device for audio/video information known in the art.” Ex. 1003, 13:22–28, 15:1–5, 24:66–25:7; see id. at [57], 5:3–6, 21:42–22:2. The testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Negus, also persuade us that each recited component and functionality was generic, conventional, and known. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 945, 949–954; see id. ¶¶ 955–987.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 9,053,494 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Mayo · Enfish
  Patents in suitUS 9,053,494
• Zepp Labs, Inc. v. Blast Motion, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 14, 2017 · IPR2016-00677 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8 are unpatentable: claims 1, 4, 7, and 8 as obvious over Mahajan, and claim 2 as obvious over Mahajan and Dugan.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Based on the above, we modify Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill as follows: “a person with a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical or electrical engineering or a related field with two to three years of experience working with data acquisition systems, including motion data captured using markers and sensors.” We decline, however, to limit the level of ordinary skill to “designing wireless motion capture sensors,” as the ’928 Patent does not disclose being limited to “design” and “wireless” sensors. We note, however, that, in this case, the prior art itself reflects an appropriate skill level. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). For example, the prior art of record, such as Mahajan, has been shown to relate to the field of data acquisition systems, and, in particular, motion capture sensors.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “basis for the proposed modification, nor identifies any benefit. PO Resp. 17–23. We disagree. The relevant portion of the Petition cites expressly to paragraphs 42 and 127 of Mahajan, and in quoting paragraph 127, Petitioner bolds the following: “‘[t]he apparatus can be used alone or in conjunction with other hardware . . . or software . . . and may be adapted for wired transmission of data, wireless transmission of data, or for storage of data on the apparatus.’” Pet. 17. The next sentence of the Petition then reads “[t]hus, Mahajan teaches that the on-board memory component for storage of data on the apparatus is an obvious design choice.” Pet. 17. This statement is supported by Dr. Nesbitt’s testimony, with which we agree, explaining that Mahajan provides the option to include on-board memory and leaves it to the designer to include it, considering that it was common to include memory in data capture systems to store the captured data. Ex. 1003 ¶ 115. We are unclear as to how this portion of the Petition can be read as asserting anything other than coupling memory for the purpose of data storage would have been, as Petitioner phrases it, an “obvious design choice” to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 17

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

    “its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S.Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016) (affirming that USPTO has statutory authority to construe claims according to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)). Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We must be careful not to read a particular embodiment appearing in the written description into the claim if the claim language is broader than the embodiment. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). For the purposes of this Decision, we determine that no claim term needs express interpretation. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 6

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

    “Accordingly, given our above findings that (1) Mahajan discloses a microcontroller and (2) coupling memory for the purpose of data storage was known to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, we have little trouble in concluding that it would have been obvious to modify microcontroller 50 of Mahajan by coupling memory thereto for the purpose, i.e., the predictable reason to combine of, of data storage. With no persuasive evidence of unpredictability or change in function of the microcontroller with memory combination, nothing more is required under KSR, nor under other Federal Circuit precedent. See Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp., 732 F.3d 1325, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting Power-One, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc., 599 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010)) (“a finding of obviousness at the time of invention requires a ‘plausible rational [sic] as to why the prior art references would have worked together’” (citation omitted)).” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 8,944,928 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,944,928
• Arctic Cat, Inc. v. Polaris Industries Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jul 5, 2017 · IPR2017-00455 · APJ Phillip J Kauffman · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims, failing to provide a sufficient rationale for either proposed prior-art combination.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Petitioner, and for that reason, section 325(d) is not relevant to our analysis. Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 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); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. We consider Patent Owner’s three underlying contentions under this standard.” slip op. at 9

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

    “cooling air unobstructed by exterior body panels and would avoid receiving hot air from inside the engine compartment, thereby cooling the CVT more effectively, reducing wear, and improving CVT efficiency. Pet. 19, 22; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 48–50, 54, 55, 230, 233; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 4–5. The premise of this reasoning is that airflow to Suzuki’s CVT is obstructed by an exterior body panel or panels. That premise is not supported adequately the record.” slip op. at 12

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

    “For the purposes of this decision, and on this record, we determine that no claim terms need express interpretation. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only those terms which are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 7

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Other

    “We reserve ruling on the Motion to Seal. Paper 7 and Exhibit 2015 will remain under seal in the interim. After the absence of a timely request for rehearing, or if filed, after resolution of a request for rehearing, Patent Owner may seek authorization to file a Motion to Expunge Paper 7 and Exhibit 2015. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.71(d)(1), 42.56.” slip op. at 3

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,217,501
• Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. William Beaumont HospitalNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 4, 2017 · IPR2016-00166 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioner did not prove claims 43–46, 48–55, 57, 59–66, and 68 unpatentable; strong evidence of industry praise and long-felt need, with commercial success and copying, outweighed the obviousness case.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We begin first with the claim language, and note that “three dimensional information” appears facially to be co-extensive with any information relevant to three dimensions. We discern that “length, width, and depth” are just such information. We have considered Patent Owner’s above-cited portions of the ’502 Patent, but are unpersuaded that those portions narrow “three dimensional information” with sufficient “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision” such that one of ordinary skill would have understood “three dimensional information” as co-extensive with Patent Owner’s proffered construction. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). For example, column 2, lines 42–48 and 51–55 certainly disclose that “volume” is desirable, but does not provide any equivalence between “three dimensional information” and “volume.” Indeed, column 2, lines 54–55 disclose “provide information regarding the location of soft-tissue target volumes,” indicating that “information” is a subset of “volume.”” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Balter, Petitioner’s expert, proffers that a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art, with respect to and at the time of the’502 patent, would have the following qualifications: “a medical physicist with a Ph.D. (or similar advanced degree) in physics, medical physics, or a related field, and two or more years of experience in radiation oncology physics and image processing/computer programming related to radiation oncology applications.” Ex. 1302 ¶ 14. Dr. Hashemi, Patent Owner’s expert, essentially agrees, with the only major differences to the above being that an M.S. is acceptable in lieu of a Ph.D, and that three years of experience is preferred. Ex. 2080 ¶ 17. Nominally, we accept Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art based on Dr. Balter’s more complete explanation. We note, however, that neither party has explained substantively any significance that the difference in the proffered levels of ordinary skill in the art would have in the obviousness analysis. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966); Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he level of skill in the art is a prism or lens through which a judge, jury, or the Board views the prior art and the claimed invention.”); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.”). To that end, we note that the prior art itself often reflects an appropriate skill level. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 10

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

    “the radiation therapy systems of Adler/Depp to include the CBCT/FPI system of Cho/Antonuk/Jaffray 1997, on pages 33–37 of the Petition which, for the reasons set forth below, we agree with and adopt. Patent Owner asserts that one of ordinary skill would not have modified the radiation therapy systems of Adler/Depp to include the CBCT/FPI system of Cho/Antonuk/Jaffray 1997, because both timing and dosage considerations teach away from the proposed combination. PO Resp. 29–36. We disagree. We begin with timing considerations. PO Resp. 29–34. Fundamentally, Patent Owner asserts that replacing the orthogonal 2-D images projections of Adler/Depp with the CBCT acquired images of Cho/Antonuk/Jaffray 1997 would represent “very poor methodology” because the CBCT system takes a significantly longer period of time to acquire and process images from a patient than the 2-D image system, e.g., 60 seconds to acquire the image, and 30–50 minutes to reconstruct the entire CT conebeam data set. PO Resp. 33–34. According to Patent Owner, such a delay is detrimental in the context of sending targeted radiation to a specific volume within the patient, because during that time, the patient from whom the images was acquired would most likely have shifted positions. PO Resp. 33–35. We are unpersuaded for several reasons. Primarily, we are unpersuaded because a fundamental assumption made by Patent Owner is that the patient must remain unrestrained. Patent Owner makes this assumption based on the assertion that “the primary goal of the Adler/Depp systems is to permit a patient to be relatively unrestrained during the radiotherapy procedure.” PO Resp. 31. We have reviewed Patent Owner’s supporting evidence, and are unpersuaded that the evidence supports Patent Owner’s assertion that “the primary goal of the Adler/Depp systems is to permit a patient to be relatively unrestrained during the radiotherapy procedure.” For example, Patent Owner cites to certain paragraphs of Dr. Hashemi’s Declaration, which in turn cite to certain portions of Depp. Ex. 2080 ¶¶ 107, 123, 126 (citing Ex. 1304, 11:66–12:23, Fig. 9). We have reviewed those portions of Depp, and find that while they do disclose that target location and treatment periods are on the order of seconds, they do not mention anything about “the primary goal of the Adler/Depp systems is to permit a patient to be relatively unrestrained during the radiotherapy procedure.”11 Accordingly, absent such an evidentiary foundation, we do not find credible Dr. Hashemi’s assertions concerning this matter. Even without explicit analysis by Patent Owner, we logically understand the connection between longer image acquisition and processing times, and the higher likelihood of interim patient movement. Absent the aforementioned “primary goal,” however, we are unclear as to why the converse of that goal would not be correct, i.e., that one of ordinary skill would have resolved the timing consideration by restraining the patient.” slip op. at 19

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “the radiation therapy systems of Adler/Depp to include the CBCT/FPI system of Cho/Antonuk/Jaffray 1997, on pages 33–37 of the Petition which, for the reasons set forth below, we agree with and adopt. Patent Owner asserts that one of ordinary skill would not have modified the radiation therapy systems of Adler/Depp to include the CBCT/FPI system of Cho/Antonuk/Jaffray 1997, because both timing and dosage considerations teach away from the proposed combination. PO Resp. 29–36. We disagree. We begin with timing considerations. PO Resp. 29–34. Fundamentally, Patent Owner asserts that replacing the orthogonal 2-D images projections of Adler/Depp with the CBCT acquired images of Cho/Antonuk/Jaffray 1997 would represent “very poor methodology” because the CBCT system takes a significantly longer period of time to acquire and process images from a patient than the 2-D image system, e.g., 60 seconds to acquire the image, and 30–50 minutes to reconstruct the entire CT conebeam data set. PO Resp. 33–34. According to Patent Owner, such a delay is detrimental in the context of sending targeted radiation to a specific volume within the patient, because during that time, the patient from whom the images was acquired would most likely have shifted positions. PO Resp. 33–35. We are unpersuaded for several reasons. Primarily, we are unpersuaded because a fundamental assumption made by Patent Owner is that the patient must remain unrestrained. Patent Owner makes this assumption based on the assertion that “the primary goal of the Adler/Depp systems is to permit a patient to be relatively unrestrained during the radiotherapy procedure.” PO Resp. 31. We have reviewed Patent Owner’s supporting evidence, and are unpersuaded that the evidence supports Patent Owner’s assertion that “the primary goal of the Adler/Depp systems is to permit a patient to be relatively unrestrained during the radiotherapy procedure.” For example, Patent Owner cites to certain paragraphs of Dr. Hashemi’s Declaration, which in turn cite to certain portions of Depp. Ex. 2080 ¶¶ 107, 123, 126 (citing Ex. 1304, 11:66–12:23, Fig. 9). We have reviewed those portions of Depp, and find that while they do disclose that target location and treatment periods are on the order of seconds, they do not mention anything about “the primary goal of the Adler/Depp systems is to permit a patient to be relatively unrestrained during the radiotherapy procedure.”11 Accordingly, absent such an evidentiary foundation, we do not find credible Dr. Hashemi’s assertions concerning this matter. Even without explicit analysis by Patent Owner, we logically understand the connection between longer image acquisition and processing times, and the higher likelihood of interim patient movement. Absent the aforementioned “primary goal,” however, we are unclear as to why the converse of that goal would not be correct, i.e., that one of ordinary skill would have resolved the timing consideration by restraining the patient.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 6,842,502 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,842,502
• Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. William Beaumont HospitalNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 4, 2017 · IPR2016-00162 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14, 16–29, 33, and 35–38 were not held unpatentable because the strong evidence of industry praise and long-felt need, with other objective evidence, outweighed the obviousness showing.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other

    “its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S.Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016) (affirming that USPTO has statutory authority to construe claims according to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)). Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). For the purposes of this Decision, we determine that only the following claim terms need express interpretation. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”). 7 A.L. Boyer, Laser “cross-hair” sidelight, Med. Phys., 5:58-60 (1978) (Ex. 1108, “Boyer”).” slip op. at 6

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

    “dimensional information” appears facially to be co-extensive with any information relevant to three dimensions. We discern that “length, width, and depth” are just such information. We have considered Patent Owner’s above-cited portions of the ’502 Patent, but are unpersuaded that those portions narrow “three dimensional information” with sufficient “reasonable 8 In evaluating the assertions set forth in the Declaration of James Balter, Ph.D., in Support of Petitioner’s Reply (Ex. 1500), we considered Patent Owner’s Motion for Observations on the Cross-Examination of Dr. James Balter (Paper 48) and Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observations on Cross-Examination (Paper 56). 9 In the Decision on Institution, we preliminarily agreed with Petitioner’s proposed construction of “three dimensional information.” Dec. 7–8. clarity, deliberateness, and precision” such that one of ordinary skill would have understood “three dimensional information” as co-extensive with Patent Owner’s proffered construction. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). For example, column 2, lines 42–48 and 51–55 certainly disclose that “volume” is desirable, but does not provide any equivalence between “three dimensional information” and “volume.” Indeed, column 2, lines 54–55 disclose “provide information regarding the location of soft-tissue target volumes,” indicating that “information” is a subset of “volume.” In another example, column 3, lines 40–43, mentions “three-dimensional (3- D) images,” which we agree would appear to require “volumetric” data; however, the claim limitation at issue is the broader term “three dimensional information.” In a further example, column 9, line 62, through column 10, line 5, clearly refers to “volumetric data,” but does not indicate its relation to “three dimensional information.” In yet another example, column 16, lines 43–45 and 58–62, do not recite “three dimensional information,” instead disclosing “3-D structure” and “3-D nature” in relation generally to “volumetric data,” but, again, not in a manner sufficient to indicate a particular relationship. Finally, in regard to assertions set forth in the Declaration of Dr. Hashemi, we discern some merit in his assertion that when reading the claim limitation “three dimensional information” in conjunction with another claim limitation “cone-beam computed tomography,” “a CBCT image is a volumetric image that provides the location, shape, and spatial orientation of the target volume in all directions, not just its length, width, and depth.” Ex. 2080 ¶ 85. The claim limitation at issue, however, reads “an image of said object, wherein said image contains at least three dimensional information of said object based on one rotation of said x-ray source around said object” (emphasis added). Accordingly, the claim limitation does not preclude an image having more information than “information concerning three dimensions of an object (such as length, width, and depth),” such as “a volumetric image of an object generated by reconstructing 2-D projection images.” Under Patent Owner’s construction, however, the image would be required to have such information. We are unpersuaded that such information is required under a proper construction of “three dimensional information” for the reasons set forth supra. We construe “three dimensional information” as “information concerning three dimensions of an object (such as length, width, and depth).”” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for patent owner

    “In the Institution Decision, we preliminary determined that “we are not persuaded that the term ‘computer’ fails to recite sufficiently definite structure. As a result, we decline to construe this limitation as a means-plusfunction limitation in accordance with § 112 ¶ 6.” Dec. 10. In its Response, Patent Owner agreed with the Board’s preliminary determination. PO Resp. 11. Petitioner did not address this construction in its Reply. See generally Pet. Reply 1–4. After considering our preliminary determination anew, in light a complete trial record, we remain unpersuaded that the term “computer” fails to recite sufficiently definite structure. Accordingly, we decline to construe this limitation as a means-plus-function limitation in accordance with § 112 ¶ 6.” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Balter, Petitioner’s expert, proffers that a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art, with respect to and at the time of the’502 patent, would have the following qualifications: “a medical physicist with a Ph.D. (or similar advanced degree) in physics, medical physics, or a related field, and two or more years of experience in radiation oncology physics and image processing/computer programming related to radiation oncology applications.” Ex. 1102 ¶ 13. Dr. Hashemi, Patent Owner’s expert, essentially agrees, with the only major differences to the above being that an M.S. is acceptable in lieu of a Ph.D, and that three years of experience is preferred. Ex. 2080 ¶ 17. Nominally, we accept Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art based on Dr. Balter’s more complete explanation. We note, however, that neither party has explained substantively any significance that the difference in the proffered levels of ordinary skill in the art would have in the obviousness analysis. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966); Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he level of skill in the art is a prism or lens through which a judge, jury, or the Board views the prior art and the claimed invention.”); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.”). To that end, we note that the prior art itself often reflects an appropriate skill level. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 6,842,502 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,842,502

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.