• Aroma360, LLC v. Air Esscentials, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 6, 2026 · IPR2025-00706 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4, and 7–10 are unpatentable as obvious over Goubet and anticipated by Gao; proposed substitute claims 20 and 21 are denied as indefinite and lacking written-description support.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In the Response, Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute” the definition of one of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner, but Patent Owner “reserves the right to address [the definition] should new issues materialize.” PO Resp. 6. Patent Owner did not address this issue in the Sur-reply. As noted in the Decision on Institution, Petitioner’s proposed definition appears generally consistent with the record, including the prior art. See Dec. Inst. 8 (citing In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579). We remove the phrase “at least” in both listed options, however, as that phrase adds ambiguity. Further, Patent Owner has not argued at trial that Petitioner’s proposal for the level of ordinary skill leads to an improper understanding of how a skilled artisan would have understood either the challenged patent or the prior art. In the analysis below, we continue to apply the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted in the Decision on Institution, as proposed by Petitioner.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Network LLC, 929 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2019). At first glance, the language of the limitation at issue—which, again, recites “the compressed air and the operative fluid mix together in said mixing chamber to form the fluid dispersion”—would seem to require the “fluid dispersion” (under the stipulated construction) to be fully formed in the “mixing chamber.” In other words, the language of the limitation alone would seem to support Patent Owner’s proposed construction for the “form the fluid dispersion” limitation. But the claim construction analysis does not end with consideration of the claim language alone. Next, we turn to the Specification. The Federal Circuit has said that the specification “is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Here, the discussion in the Specification of precisely the same language as in the limitation at issue strongly supports that “to form a fluid dispersion” in the limitation at issue requires only initial mixing of the compressed air and operative fluid in the mixing chamber, with further “formation” of the ”fluid dispersion” occurring downstream of the mixing chamber: More importantly, the “predetermined amount” of compressed air and the “preselected amount” of the operable fluid are initially mixed together in the mixing chamber 226 to form a fluid dispersion. The diffusion chamber 112" is further structured to facilitate the formation of a plurality of substantially uniform droplets, as defined hereinabove, in the fluid dispersion prior to discharge from the diffusion chamber 112" through discharge port 132. Ex. 1001, 10:62–11:2 (emphasis added) (discussing Figure 6), quoted, in part, at Pet. Reply 6–710; see also Ex. 1001, 5:64–6:4 (same language, except without double primes, in a discussion of Figures 1 and 2). To be sure, certain passages in the Specification could be read to indicate that a “fluid dispersion” must be fully formed in the “mixing chamber.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 6:11–12 (“More in particular, the suppression chamber 232 receives the fluid dispersion from the mixing chamber 226.”); see also id. at 7:22–33, 11:39–52 (both implying that a “fluid dispersion” is formed in the mixing chamber). But the passage block quoted directly above (and the similar one bridging columns 5 and 6) more directly addresses the issue at hand—i.e., the scope of “form the fluid dispersion”—by using the same” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedMixed

    “As an initial matter, the record here does not support any sound basis to disregard the entirety of Dr. Micklow’s Declaration for allegedly not reviewing the parties’ claim constructions. See Pet. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1046, 115:15–18). Contrary to Petitioner’s argument, in the cited discussion, Dr. Micklow does not indicate that he applied an incorrect understanding of a claim term. Cf. Cordis Corp. v. Bos. Sci. Corp., 658 F.3d 1347, 1357–58 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (disregarding testimony “based on an incorrect understanding of the claim construction”), cited at Pet. Reply 1. Instead, we read Dr. Micklow’s testimony as clarifying that he was not involved in claim construction at all and that, as stated, he “made [his] opinions based on what [he] read in the patents.” Ex. 1046, 112:11–12; see also id. at 115:15–18 (“I don’t know if I would even apply claim construction. I applied engineering principles to a document that had been published with the patent office.”).” slip op. at 18

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

    “To satisfy its burden of proving obviousness, a petitioner cannot employ mere conclusory statements. The petitioner must instead articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016); TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1066 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Although the KSR test is flexible, the Board ‘must still be careful not to allow hindsight reconstruction of references . . . without any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to produce the claimed invention.’”) (citation omitted). Based on the complete record, we agree with Patent Owner that “Petitioner’s asserted motivation boils down to the conclusory statement that given Goubet and Kaiser, ‘it was well known in the field at the time of the invention that droplets of greater uniformity result in uniform droplet evaporation.’” PO Resp. 31 (quoting Pet. 59). We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s discussion of the alleged reasons to combine (Pet. 59) is insufficient to support the proposed combination here. See Magnum Oil, 829 F.3d at 1380. Specifically, we are not persuaded that Kaiser’s teachings—which relate to combustion (Ex. 1014 at 43)—would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to the proposed modifications, which would allegedly “improve the smoothness (i.e., less harsh) of the aroma generated as the oil droplets evaporate in the surrounding airspace.” See Pet. 59 (emphasis added); White Pet. Decl. ¶ 251 (same); see PO Resp. 32 (“Rather, Dr. White merely describes the ability to achieve the effect as in the claimed patent, not why a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would look to the field of electrospray injection and combustion in mesoscale power-generation systems, using high-voltage electric fields to generate charged fuel droplets for controlled combustion in catalytic micro-combustors when considering atomization for scents.”). For these reasons, we determine, in light of the complete record, that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had reason to combine Goubet and Kaiser, as proposed. slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 10,583,449 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,583,449
• Nxtgen Toys, LLC v. Zipstring, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 20, 2026 · IPR2024-01213 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 12, and 15–17 are unpatentable; substitute claim 27 is allowed, while substitute claims 21–26 and 28 are denied as obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “was typically a person with a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, aerospace engineering, physics, or other science or 6 Patent Owner does not rely on any objective indicia of nonobviousness in this proceeding. engineering based degree that [was] familiar with general principles of mechanics and aerodynamics with at least two years of experience in product design and development in the field of toys or other amusement type devices.” Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 2–6, 22–26). Patent Owner states that it submitted the following proposal for a POSITA in the related district court litigation: “[a POSITA] would have had at least a B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Aerospace Engineering, Industrial Design, Product Design, or similar field, with at least two years industry experience in one of these fields, and such POSITA would have been familiar with general principles of mechanics, fluid mechanics and aerodynamics.” PO Resp. 4–5. We note that the parties’ proposals overlap considerably, and neither party argues the inadequacy of the other party’s proposal or that any patentability issue in this case turns on the resolution of this issue. We find Petitioner’s definition consistent with the problems and solutions disclosed in the ’774 patent and prior art of record, and adopt it as our own. See, e.g., GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579 (approving the determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art by appeal to the references of record). We would arrive at the same findings and conclusions in this Decision if we adopted Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Id. at 1312–13. Only terms in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See 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)). Petitioner contends that no “term requires construction to resolve the invalidity grounds presented in this Petition since the prior art renders claims 1–4, 12, and 15–17 unpatentable under any reasonable interpretation of the claims.” Pet. 7. Patent Owner argues that it “does not believe express claim constructions are necessary during this proceeding because the claims can readily be given their ordinary and customary meaning in the context of the patent at the time it was filed.” PO Resp. 5. Based on the parties’ positions and our view of the record, we need not expressly construe any claim limitations to resolve the issues in this Decision. To the extent that any implicit claim construction issues relate to the issues raised by the parties, we address them in the context of the parties’ patentability arguments below.” slip op. at 9

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

    “string, and that adding Scorch’s slot removes this arguably inconvenient process by allowing insertion and removal of a string without removing and reinstalling any aspects of the housing. See Pet 85–86 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 174–175; Ex. 1007, 3:30–3:53, 6:03; Ex. 1008, 3:46–4:45); Pet. Reply 18–20 (citing in part Ex. 2002 ¶ 187 (Dr. Janét’s testimony that Wagner’s removal and reinstallation of a cover “may be viewed as an inconvenient process”)). Making insertion and removal of the string easier and quicker provides a notable advantage over Wagner’s existing device. See id. Scorch itself supports this argument and the related expert testimony because it discusses insertion and removal of strings and stated that the slot allows a user to “swap them out really quick.” Ex. 1007, 3:30–53. Petitioner also persuasively argues that a POSITA would know how to add the slot while maintaining the proper operation of the device, such as allowing insertion and removal of the string and avoiding inadvertent exiting of the string from the device. See Pet. 86–87 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 175–176; Ex. 1007, 4:00–30, Ex. 1008, 2:49–52); Pet. Reply 19, 21 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 174–176). We find Petitioner’s arguments and reasoning in support of adding Scorch’s slot to Wagner’s housing straightforward and persuasive. Patent Owner’s arguments against the combination do not directly refute Petitioner’s reasoning or cast doubt on Scorch’s statement that its slot enables “quick” insertion and removal of a string—quicker than Wagner’s method that requires removal and replacement of a cover on its housing. See PO Resp. 16–22; PO Sur-reply 14–20; Ex. 2002 ¶ 187 (acknowledging inconvenience of Wagner’s existing process for insertion and removal of a string). Patent Owner suggests that Petitioner’s proposed combination fails to take into consideration certain drawbacks such as the risk of inadvertent string exit from the housing or slot, but Petitioner expressly addresses such concerns in the Petition. See PO Resp. 18 (stating that Scorch’s slotted funnel may allow the string to “shoot out the slot” and that Scorch addresses this by adding “a bent wire” to “prevent the string from coming out the side”); PO Sur-reply 16–17; Pet. 86–87 (arguing that Wagner’s flanges would help to trap the string in place, but if not, Scorch’s additional structures could be used to restring the string and “to further reduce the risk of a string inadvertently exiting” the device). We agree with Petitioner that a POSITA would understand how to incorporate Scorch’s slot without causing inadvertent removal of the string—using structures already present in Wagner and Scorch—and the need to add such unclaimed structurers does not teach away from the combination as Patent Owner suggests. See Pet. 86–87; PO Resp. 22. We also agree with Petitioner that a POSITA would understand how to make minor modifications, if necessary, to allow insertion and removal of the string around Wagner’s flanges. See Pet. Reply 21 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 174–176).” slip op. at 26

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

    “refute Petitioner’s reasoning or cast doubt on Scorch’s statement that its slot enables “quick” insertion and removal of a string—quicker than Wagner’s method that requires removal and replacement of a cover on its housing. See PO Resp. 16–22; PO Sur-reply 14–20; Ex. 2002 ¶ 187 (acknowledging inconvenience of Wagner’s existing process for insertion and removal of a string). Patent Owner suggests that Petitioner’s proposed combination fails to take into consideration certain drawbacks such as the risk of inadvertent string exit from the housing or slot, but Petitioner expressly addresses such concerns in the Petition. See PO Resp. 18 (stating that Scorch’s slotted funnel may allow the string to “shoot out the slot” and that Scorch addresses this by adding “a bent wire” to “prevent the string from coming out the side”); PO Sur-reply 16–17; Pet. 86–87 (arguing that Wagner’s flanges would help to trap the string in place, but if not, Scorch’s additional structures could be used to restring the string and “to further reduce the risk of a string inadvertently exiting” the device). We agree with Petitioner that a POSITA would understand how to incorporate Scorch’s slot without causing inadvertent removal of the string—using structures already present in Wagner and Scorch—and the need to add such unclaimed structurers does not teach away from the combination as Patent Owner suggests. See Pet. 86–87; PO Resp. 22. We also agree with Petitioner that a POSITA would understand how to make minor modifications, if necessary, to allow insertion and removal of the string around Wagner’s flanges. See Pet. Reply 21 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 174–176). At best, Patent Owner’s arguments on this issue establish potential drawbacks in Petitioner’s proposed combination, but drawbacks alone do not defeat Petitioner’s obviousness rationale that includes readily apparent benefits. See Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit . . . should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another.”); Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine “). In addition, even if Patent Owner were correct that Wagner’s existing design works as well as Petitioner’s proposed combination, given all of the tradeoffs involved, that would not fatally undermine Petitioner’s showing. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (obviousness does not require that the proposed combination “is the preferred, or most desirable, combination”). On this record, Petitioner’s (and Scorch’s) stated advantages that are achieved when adding Scorch’s slot to Wagner’s housing adequately support Petitioner’s motivation to combine rationale.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 11,674,774 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 11,674,774
• Luxottica Of America Inc. v. E-Vision Optics, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 23, 2025 · IPR2024-01030 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20, 22–31, and 33–37 are unpatentable; claims 21 and 32 were not shown unpatentable, principally because the proposed combinations failed to establish motivation to combine or the required airtight seal.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We find that the proposals from the parties substantially overlap, such that it remains unclear whether any substantive difference exists. Notably, neither party argues that the minor differences in the proposals lead to a different outcome on any issues in this proceeding. Based on our review of the proposals, we apply Patent Owner’s proposal because it is consistent with the problems and solutions disclosed in the ’483 patent and prior art of record. See, e.g., GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579 (approving the determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art by appeal to the references of record). The outcome of the issues addressed in this Decision would not change if we applied Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 9

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

    “hermetically sealed” module does not encompass waterproof modules that are not airtight. First, as Petitioner admits, as a general matter, “[s]omething that is hermetically sealed is sealed so as to be airtight.” Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 103; Ex. 1010, 269); PO Sur-reply 16. Petitioner later tries to argue that the specification puts a different spin on this meaning, but still acknowledges that “[o]utside the context of the ’483 patent, a hermetic seal is sometimes equated with an airtight seal.” See Pet. Post-hearing 2–3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 103; Ex. 1010, 269). Based on our review of the record, the “ordinary meaning” of “hermetically sealed” means “airtight,” and, as noted above, “airtight” is not the same thing as “waterproof.” Second, the claims support Patent Owner’s position by including dependent claims that separately claim a “hermetically sealed” module (claims 13 and 32) and a “waterproof” module (claims 15 and 34), strongly suggesting that the terms have a different scope to avoid rendering some claims redundant. See Ex. 1001, 11: 65–66, 12:3–4, 12:52–53, 12:55–56. Petitioner argues in its Post-hearing brief that claims requiring waterproof modules are “a narrower species” of hermetic seal, but fails to explain how hermetic, airtight, and waterproof seals would not fall within the scope of both claims using its approach. Pet. Post-hearing Reply 2. Petitioner’s earlier argument in its Reply also seems to cut against this position by asserting that the specification “treats hermitically sealing as conventional and equivalent to waterproofing,” with different dependent claims directed to two allegedly “equivalent” terms making little sense. Pet. Reply 14 (emphasis added). The most natural reading of the claim language suggests that “hermetically sealed” means airtight, and does not encompass modules that are waterproof but not airtight. Third, while the specification does not define “hermetically sealed” and uses “waterproof” and “hermetically sealed” in similar contexts, it does not suggest that “hermetically sealed” does not require an airtight seal consistent with its ordinary meaning. See Pet. Reply 14–15 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:47–53, 9:15–18, 10:47–50). Instead, the specification states that hermetic seals prevent water from contacting electronics, which remains consistent with Patent Owner’s position because airtight hermetic seals are also waterproof. See Ex. 1001, 6:47–53, 9:15–18. The specification also states that “[t]he module preferably houses any of the aforementioned electrical components in a substantially water-proof and wear resistant/moisture resistant environment and is preferably hermetically sealed.” Id. at 10:47–50 (emphasis added). This passage supports Patent Owner’s position by suggesting that the preferable “hermetically sealed” module goes beyond mere water resistance. See PO Sur-reply 16–17. slip op. at 16

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “2. Petitioner’s Anticipation Arguments and Evidence Petitioner argues that Howell-596 discloses every limitation of claims 1, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 18, and points to specific portions of Howell-596 and expert testimony to support its arguments. See Pet. 10–20 (citing Ex. 1002; Ex. 1003). We have reviewed the evidence and arguments of record and find that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the limitations in claims 1, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 18 are disclosed by Howell-596 for the reasons set forth in the Petition, which we adopt as our own. See id.11 Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Howell-596 anticipates claims 1, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 18.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Based on these undisputed points and the parties’ arguments, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to establish that a POSITA would have been motivated to locate Howell-596’s module housing 1700, which contains its UV detection system 1500, behind a user’s ear. Petitioner never squarely addresses the fact that placing Howell-596’s UV detection system behind a user’s ear would negatively impact its performance. Pet. 31–33; Pet. Reply 17–22. As a result, even if we accept Petitioner’s arguments and evidence as to the various advantages when placing electronics behind a user’s ear, it fails to establish a motivation to combine that requires placing Howell-596’s module housing 1700, and therefore its UV detection system, behind a user’s ear. Petitioner never acknowledges the readily apparent disadvantages of placing a UV detection system behind the ear, where it may not work at all. See Pet. 31–33. Nor does Petitioner argue that, in its combination, adjustments would be made to ensure accurate operation of Howell-596’s UV detection system. See id. Similarly, Petitioner notes that both Howell-596 and Howell-833 disclose UV sensors behind the ear of a user, but those teachings do not establish that placing Howell-596’s module behind the ear would ensure proper operation of its UV detection system housed within that module. See Pet. Reply 17–22. Instead, even though Howell-596 discloses a sensor behind the ear of a user, it maintains the UV detection system in a module toward the front of the temple, away from the ear. See id. at 18–19; PO Surreply 21–22; Ex. 1003 ¶ 205 (describing UV detection system 2102), Fig. 21 (showing UV detection system 2102 toward the front of the temple). Moreover, Petitioner’s reliance on the sensor placed behind the ear of the user in Howell-596 lacks weight because that sensor merely indicates that the device “is being worn by a user,” which serves a very different purpose than Howell-596’s UV detection system, which seeks to monitor a user’s exposure to UV radiation, a central purpose of Howell-596’s eyewear. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 205, code (57). Howell-833 also employs a UV sensor behind the ear, but Petitioner does not establish that it operates any differently than the “being worn” sensor in Howell-596, and therefore does not establish that Howell-596’s UV detection system would still work for its intended purposes in Petitioner’s proposed combination. See Pet. Reply 19–20.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 8,708,483 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,708,483
• Luxottica Of America Inc. v. E-Vision Optics, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 11, 2025 · IPR2024-01071 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 are unpatentable as obvious; the Board found each challenged claim unpatentable under at least one asserted § 103 ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We find that the proposals from the parties substantially overlap, such that it remains unclear whether any substantive difference exists. Notably, neither party argues that the minor differences in the proposals lead to a different outcome on any issues in this proceeding. Based on our review of the proposals, we apply Patent Owner’s proposal because it is consistent with the problems and solutions disclosed in the ’541 patent and prior art of record. See, e.g., GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579 (approving the determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art by appeal to the references of record). The outcome of the issues addressed in this Decision would not change if we applied Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), we apply the claim construction standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under that standard, we give the words of a claim their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by one skilled in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Id. at 1312–13. Only terms in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See 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)). Here, Petitioner posits that “no claim terms require construction to resolve the obviousness challenges here.” Pet. 12. Patent Owner does not oppose Petitioner’s position or proffer any constructions of its own. See generally PO Resp. We determine that no express construction of any claim element is necessary to resolve the issues in this proceeding.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Based on our review of the record, we find Petitioner’s arguments and evidence as to the motivation to combine Howell-596 and Howell-158 persuasive. Importantly, the references themselves support the combination because Howell-158 expressly teaches the advantages of using an insulating layer with metal frames and incorporates by reference Howell-596 and its embodiments that disclose all but the insulating layer limitations of claim 1. See Pet. 15–21. While Patent Owner correctly notes that the references do not expressly teach the use of the insulating layer in the Howell-596 embodiments, the references do not teach away from that approach and at least implicitly support Petitioner’s proposed combination, which involves using an advantageous design element (an insulating layer) with another embodiment incorporated into the same document. See id.; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 3 (incorporating Howell-596), 52–53 (disclosing the use of metal frames and the advantages of using an insulating layer with metal frames). Patent Owner does not dispute that the stated advantages of the insulating layer— preventing short circuits and reducing leakage current—would apply to the embodiments of Howell-596 when those designs incorporate a metal frame. See PO Resp. 18 (arguing that the advantages of the insulating layer only apply if metal frames are implemented in Howell-596’s system). In short, the references themselves amply support Petitioner’s motivation to combine arguments and the expert testimony Petitioner relies on in support of those arguments. See Pet. 21–24; Pet. Reply 2–10; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 63–69.” slip op. at 19

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “POSITA would have found it obvious, through routine optimization, to select a housing module with the claimed thickness of less than or equal to 0.7 mm. See Aller, 220 F.2d at 456; In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) (“[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable . . . is ordinarily within the skill of the art.”); see also Power- Kennedy Contracting Corp. v. Concrete Mixing & Conveying Co., 282 U.S. 175, 184–85 (1930) (“[O]bviously a mere change in proportion would involve no more than mechanical skill and would not amount to invention.”). Several reasons support Petitioner’s arguments, which we address in turn.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 8,905,541 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,905,541
• Exotec Product France SAS / Exotec North America Inc. et al. v. Opex CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 28, 2025 · IPR2024-00850 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–12, 14, and 23–27 are unpatentable as obvious over Raizer and Hangzhou.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We consider the asserted grounds of unpatentability in view of the” slip op. at 9

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

    “C. Claim Construction Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner proposes an express construction” slip op. at 10

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

    “that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. In this case, we must determine whether one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Hangzhou’s disclosure of driving its auto-guided trolleys 200 under shelves 100 would improve the operation of Raizer’s system in the same way. For us to resolve this question in Petitioner’s favor, Petitioner must provide “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” Id. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). However, bodily incorporation, i.e., “an actual physical substitution of” Hangzhou’s auto-guided trolleys or operating software into Raizer’s system, is not required. See In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.”); In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”).” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 11,472,632 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,472,632
• Apple Inc. v. Willow Laboratories, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 26, 2025 · IPR2024-00296 · APJ Alyssa A Finamore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6, 8, 10–13, 15, 17, 19–21, 23–26, and 28 are unpatentable as obvious over Abdul-Hafiz and Raley, or over Abdul-Hafiz, Raley, and Secker.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “appear to be that Patent Owner specifies that the POSITA’s knowledge and experience may include optical sensors and that the POSITA may have a degree emphasizing software. We do not deem these differences material, particularly because the optical sensors and technologies at issue are those used in physiological monitoring technologies. Moreover, both parties agree that the POSITA would have a working knowledge of physiological monitoring technologies. Ex. 1003 ¶ 22; Ex. 2079 ¶ 37. Nonetheless, we find the additional specificity of Patent Owner’s definition to be helpful. Also, Patent Owner’s definition appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’911 patent. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed definition of the POSITA. We note, however, that we would reach the same outcome under either definition of the POSITA. See also PO Resp. 12 (Patent Owner asserting “under any proposed level of skill, the claims’ patentability is confirmed for at least the reasons set forth below.”).” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Kenny’s explanation finds support in Raley, and we find his explanation credible. Ex. 1079 ¶¶ 9–11. We agree that Raley’s opening 26 has a vertical depth. In order for emitters 21, 22, 23, 24 to be flush with opening 26 as depicted in Raley’s Figure 3 (see PO Resp. 17–18 (arguing that LEDs are flush with opening 26)), the opening must have a depth to accommodate the thickness of the emitters. We further agree that opening 26 is within a solid body, namely interconnect cable 20. We also agree that, in view of the structure and function of Raley’s probe 40 and interconnect cable segment 20, a POSITA would have understood opening 26 is designed to receive the emitters therein. Given that Raley’s interconnect cable segment 20 includes opening 26 that is designed to receive emitters 21, 22, 23, 24 therein, Petitioner has persuaded us that Raley’s LEDs are recessed into a cavity under both the plain and ordinary meaning of “cavity” and Petitioner’s construction from the Delaware Litigation.” slip op. at 27

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

    “testimony regarding a POSITA’s understanding of Figure 11B of Abdul-Hafiz. Ex. 2079 ¶¶ 87–88. More pertinent to claim construction, however, is a POSITA’s understanding of the claim term in view of the Specification. See, e.g., Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (“As we stated in Vitronics, the specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Circ. 1996))). In this regard, Petitioner points to Dr. Madisetti’s Rebuttal Expert Report, which was submitted on behalf of Patent Owner in the Delaware Litigation, where, upon reviewing the Specification of the ’911 patent for written description support for the claims, Dr. Madisetti testifies that “[a] POSITA would have known that the detection surface area of a given detector is essentially the entire surface area of the detector.” Ex. 1082 ¶ 912. During oral argument, Patent Owner attempts to reconcile the apparent inconsistency between this testimony and Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Tr. 34:20–36:12. In particular, Patent Owner asserts that, according to the ’911 patent Specification, the entire surface of the light-detecting side of the detector is the area that light reaches because there is “nothing blocking the entire area of the of the light-detecting side of the detector from receiving light.” Id. at 35:12–13. Patent Owner’s assertion, however, ignores EMI shield grid 2444 and foil 2450 that are placed on and at least partly cover the light-detecting side of the detector. Ex. 1001, 13:38–53, Fig. 24. Accordingly, we find Dr. Madisetti’s testimony regarding a POSITA’s understanding of the Petitioner’s construction, and we adopt Petitioner’s construction of “a detection surface area of the at least one detector” as the surface area of the light-detecting side of the detector.” slip op. at 16

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

    “reasons against it in the Sur-reply, we are persuaded that a POSITA would have found it obvious to modify Abdul-Hafiz’s aperture to have an area smaller than the detection surface area to prevent optical noise sources such as ambient light and piped light reaching the detector. We disagree with Patent Owner that Petitioner does not explain why a POSITA would have made Abdul-Hafiz’s aperture smaller than the detection surface area. Preventing optical noise sources explains why a POSITA would have made Abdul-Hafiz’s aperture smaller than the detection surface area because making the area of the aperture smaller than the detection surface area helps prevent optical noise sources from reaching the detector. Even if Abdul-Hafiz’s low noise housing 400 and fixed shield 1005 mitigate optical motivation to make something better. See Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[W]e have repeatedly held that an implicit motivation to combine exists . . . when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient.”). Adding an additional protection against optical noise by limiting the diameter of Abdul-Hafiz’s aperture would have enhanced the optical noise mitigation of the low noise housing and fixed shield. Moreover, apart from Abdul-Hafiz, Petitioner does not identify in the prior art an opening having a smaller area than a detection surface area. Petitioner, however, identifies a known relationship between the size of the opening relative to the detection surface area and preventing optical noise from ambient light and piped light. Pet. 50 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 3, 33); Reply 11–12 (citing Ex. 1011, 96–97, Fig. 6.6; Ex. 1079 ¶¶ 30–32; Ex. 1080 ¶ 73; Ex. 1081, 12:51–63, 14:19–47, 14:28–47). When one parameter is known to influence a specific result, such as the size of the opening relative to the detection surface area preventing optical noise, discovering the optimum value of the parameter is generally obvious. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (Fed. Cir. 1980) (“Discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” (citing In re Antoine, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955))). Furthermore, we agree with Petitioner that the proposed modification to Abdul-Hafiz, namely reducing the area of the aperture to be smaller than the detection surface area, is simple and that a” slip op. at 43

  Patent outcomesUS 10,984,911 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,984,911
• Apple Inc. v. Masimo CorporationSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 25, 2025 · IPR2024-00290 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 6, 11–17, 19, 21, 22, 27, 28, 32, 34, 36, 37, and 42–44 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 4, 18, and 20 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “In our Institution Decision, we deemed the differences in the parties’ proposals not material due to their substantial overlap, adopted Patent Owner’s proposal for purposes of that Decision, noted that the outcome of the Decision would not change if we adopted Petitioner’s proposal, and instructed the parties to “explain the differences and their relevance to the patentability issues in this case, and state whether any issue in the case turns on those differences” if either party continued to propose differing proposals during trial. Inst. Dec. 10–11. After institution, neither party has explained the materiality of the differences in their proposals or argued that any issues in this case turn on those differences. Based on our review of the parties’ proposals, we find Patent Owner’s proposal consistent with the level of skill exemplified by the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’223 patent. Accordingly, we apply Patent Owner’s proposal in our analysis in this Decision. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355 (“[T]he prior art itself” may reflect an appropriate level 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))). The outcome of this Decision would not change if we applied Petitioner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for petitioner
  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Naghavi, Hochstedler, and Burnes discloses all of the limitations in claim 1. b. Motivation to Combine After summarizing its proposed combination, Petitioner provides a number of reasons for combining the references. Pet. 9–17. Petitioner breaks its motivation to combine arguments into three separate categories that we address below. See id. at 13–17. Patent Owner raises a number of arguments in support of its contention that “a POSITA would not have been motivated to combine the references to replace a measured value of one parameter with the measured value of another parameter,” which we address in the context of Petitioner’s arguments below. See PO Resp. 44–57. Many of Patent Owner’s arguments rely on Patent Owner’s proposed claim constructions for “replaced” and “measured value,” which we do not adopt for the reasons discussed above. For example, the first sentence in Patent Owner’s argument contends that “Naghavi, Hochstedler and Burnes do not disclose using the same screen area to display two currently measured parameters,” but we do not read the claims as requiring the display of “two currently measured parameters” consistent with Patent Owner’s construction for “measured values.” See id. at 44 (citing Ex. 2042 ¶ 125). Such arguments lack weight given that we have rejected their premise, and although Patent Owner’s arguments are suffused with references to its claim constructions, we attempt to identify where Patent Owner does not rely on those constructions in our analysis below.” slip op. at 47

  Patent outcomesUS 8,190,223 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,190,223
• Google LLC / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Nariste Networks Pty. Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 9, 2025 · IPR2023-01374 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 37–45 are unpatentable as obvious over Watters; the Board also found claims 37, 40, and 43 obvious over Nohara and did not reach the remaining grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableUnpatentable

    “First, Watters teaches that the relevant distance moved is relative to “the last GPS update,” with the “last GPS update” referring to the “first fix” acquired in step 1200. See Ex. 1005, 22:57–60; id. at 2:39–49 (“first fix” means initial position determined by GPS). Watters thus teaches that the starting point for the step 1230 inquiry regarding distance moved is based on information acquired in step 1200. Although Watters does not go on to expressly teach determining how far the device has moved away from the step 1200 GPS fix by comparing that GPS fix with the cellular-network-based position acquired in step 1220, it strongly suggests doing so by teaching acquiring the cellular-network position in the very same process that requires both determining how far the device has moved and the starting point (the GPS fix) for that determination. See In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 383 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (a “reference must be considered not only for what it expressly teaches, but also for what it fairly suggests.”). In other words, by teaching acquiring information that can be used to determine distance moved, and then teaching determining distance moved, Watters strongly suggests using the already-acquired information to perform the distance-moved calculation.” slip op. at 20

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “teaching acquiring the cellular-network position in the very same process that requires both determining how far the device has moved and the starting point (the GPS fix) for that determination. See In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 383 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (a “reference must be considered not only for what it expressly teaches, but also for what it fairly suggests.”). In other words, by teaching acquiring information that can be used to determine distance moved, and then teaching determining distance moved, Watters strongly suggests using the already-acquired information to perform the distance-moved calculation.” slip op. at 21

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Pet. 8 (citing Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Petitioner asserts that the recited function is “determining when said embedded GPS module should be powered on, said embedded GPS module then being powered on dependent on at least one of a current radio position and a position error of said mobile device determined from the wireless communications network, said wireless communications network being different from said GPS.” Id. at 10–11. Petitioner further asserts that the structure disclosed in the ’206 patent corresponding to this function is a “CPU or other processing unit programmed with a thresholding algorithm to determine when to power on said embedded GPS module based on comparing at least one of a position and position error to one or more thresholds, and equivalents.” Id. Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioners’ identified recited function and corresponding structure for this term.” PO Resp. 15. We adopt the parties’ agreed-upon construction for the above term.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Superguide did not, however, establish a per se rule that a limitation containing the phrase “at least one of” followed by “and” should be read conjunctively.9 For example, courts and the Board “have found SuperGuide 8 Although Petitioner asserts that we need not resolve this question, we note that Petitioner’s proposed ground of unpatentability based on Nohara is premised only on the disjunctive interpretation. See Pet. 46 (“Nohara teaches the claims under the ‘disjunctive’ interpretation.”). 9 See L.A. Biomed. Res. Inst. at Harbor-UCLA Med. Ctr. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 849 F.3d 1049, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that the plain meaning of “an inapplicable when the listed items following ‘at least one of’ are not categories containing many possible values.” Apple, Inc. v. Evolved Wireless LLC, 2017 WL 6543970, at *4 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2017) (listing district court and Board decisions). We agree with this understanding of SuperGuide; for example, it would not make sense to say “at least one of ‘A’” if there was only one possible ‘A.’ Here, of course, there can be only one possible value for “current radio position.” The mobile device cannot be in two places at the same time. Further, we find nothing in the Specification of the ’206 patent to support the possibility of multiple values for “position error” associated with a single current radio position. Therefore, we interpret the claim term disjunctively; e.g., determining when the embedded GPS module should be turned on is dependent on current radio position or position error (or both).” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS RE48,206 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
• Topp & Screed S.A. v. Somero Enterprises, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 16, 2024 · IPR2024-00051 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 are unpatentable as anticipated by Quenzi and obvious over Quenzi; claims 10–15 are unpatentable as obvious over Jochems and Quenzi.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing. Although Jochems discloses that its machine includes “a vibration beam 27 which is driven by vibration motor 28” (Ex. 1004, 4:14–16), Jochems does not provide details regarding the nature of its vibration beam or how it functions. See generally Ex. 1004. Quenzi, on the other hand, explains that its vibrating beam “flatten[s], smooth[s] and consolidate[s] the uncured concrete while being partially supported thereon.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 13; see also id. ¶ 81 (“The floating action of the vibrator beam 20 over the uncured concrete then continues to consolidate, smooth, level and finish the uncured concrete surface.”). Petitioner’s contentions are supported by its witness, Mr. Breidenbach. See Ex. 1006 ¶ 183. Mr. Breidenbach further testifies that the benefits of a floating-type vibration beam, such as disclosed by Quenzi, were well known and desirable at the time the application resulting in the ’366 patent was filed. Id. ¶¶ 184–188.” slip op. at 25

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “an undergraduate education in mechanical, civil, construction, or industrial engineering, or a related field and at least two years of experience in research, design, development, testing, or use of mechanical or industrial equipment.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 42). Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional education may substitute for experience and vice-versa.” Id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 42). 3 At this stage of the proceeding, the parties have not directed us to any such objective evidence. Based on the arguments presented and the cited references, we find Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill reasonable and for purposes of this Decision, adopt it as our own.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We agree with Petitioner’s interpretation of the Second Wherein Recitation. Of particular note, the ’366 patent states that, “[i]n the illustrated embodiment [of Figure 19], screed head assembly 314′ is attached at the front frame portion 312a.” Ex. 1001, 20:45–47 (emphasis added). Figure 19 is reproduced below. Figure 19 illustrates screeding machine 310′ comprising wheeled support 312, including front frame portion 312a, and screed head assembly 314′. Id. at 20:34–37. The screed head assembly is not mounted directly to the front frame portion. Rather, “screed head assembly 314′ is pivotally mounted to front frame portion 312a via an upper arm linkage 334 and a lower arm linkage 332.” Id. at 20:61–63. Thus, based on our review of the record, “attached at” as used in the ’366 patent does not require a direct connection. Instead, the use of intermediate components is within the meaning of “attached at.” It follows that “said vibratable member is adjustably attached at a rearward end of said grade establishing element” as recited in claim 1 does not require the vibratable member to be connected directly to the grade establishing element, but rather allows for the vibratable member to be connected to the grade establishing element via intermediary components. The patent Examiner and Applicant appear to have interpreted the term in the same manner during prosecution. See Ex. 1002, 94 (the Examiner finding that Nomura’s4 tamper 34 “is adjustably attached at a rearward end of” leveling blade 33), 116–18 (the Applicant addressing the Examiner’s rejection but not contesting the Examiner’s interpretation); Ex. 1007, Fig. 2 (illustrating the positioning of Nomura’s tamper 34 and leveling blade 33).” slip op. at 18

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Quenzi repeatedly discloses that its vibration beam floats on and is at least partially supported at the struck-off surface of the uncured concrete. In the summary section, Quenzi discloses that its “vibrating member generally floats upon or is supported directly on the uncured concrete surface created by the grade setting device ahead of it.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 9; see also id. ¶¶ 11 (“the ability of the apparatus to be at least partially supported upon the desired correct elevation surface it creates”), 12 (“[t]he concrete surface working member is at least partially supported on the uncured concrete surface”), 13 (“the concrete surface working member comprises a vibrating member or beam which is vibratable to flatten, smooth and consolidate the uncured concrete while being partially supported thereon”). Regarding the first embodiment discussed in the detailed description, Quenzi discloses that “the vibrator beam 20 floats on or is at least partially supported on the uncured surface” and “vibrator beam 20, along with the screeding device 10, floats on or is at least partially supported on the uncured concrete surface.” Id. ¶¶ 68, 70. Quenzi discloses that the vibrating beams of the asserted embodiments operate in the same manner as the first embodiment. See id. ¶¶ 90, 102, 121. Quenzi also explicitly discloses that the vibrating beams of the asserted embodiments operate in this same manner. See id. ¶¶ 92 (“the vibrating beam 220 rests upon the uncured concrete”), 112 (“vibrating beam 320 is at least partially supported by, or essentially ‘floating’ upon, the uncured concrete surface”), 121 (“vibrating beam 420 [is] substantially similar to . . . vibrating beam 320”); see also id. ¶ 141 (referring to the asserted embodiments when describing another embodiment as “[s]imilar to the embodiments discussed above, screeding device 810 is at least partially supported on an uncured concrete surface and moved along and over the concrete surface to screed and smooth the surface via vibration of the vibrator beam 820 as the vibrator beam 820 floats on or is at least partially supported on the uncured surface” (emphasis added)). And as correctly noted by Petitioner, the ’366 patent relies on Quenzi as an example of how its screed head assembly operates and is attached to the frame portion. See Ex. 1001, 20:45–54. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Quenzi supports Petitioner’s contentions. g. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 1 is anticipated by Quenzi.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 8,038,366 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,038,366
• Hydration Labs, Inc. D/B/A Bevi v. Smart Soda Holdings, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 6, 2024 · PGR2024-00002 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: claims 1–5, 7–14, and 16–18 are anticipated by Cimatti, and claims 6, 15, 19, and 20 are unpatentable on additional obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s declarant, Pete Wolski, testifies that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date would have had at least a B.S. degree in mechanical engineering or electrical engineering (or equivalent experience) and would have had at least two years of practical experience with designing beverage dispensers.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 25). There is no dispute regarding Petitioner’s articulation of the level of skill in the art. For purposes of this decision, we analyze the asserted prior art with respect to the level of skill set forth by Petitioner because it is consistent with the prior art.” slip op. at 7

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

    “B. Claim Construction Petitioner contends that “[f]or this proceeding, Petitioner does not believe any claim constructions are needed.” Pet. 10–11. Our decision does not require an express construction of any particular claim terms. See Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 7

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Claim 1 additionally recites that “a concentration of a dietary supplement included in the selected function that is included in the enhanced flavored mixture is larger than a concentration of the dietary supplement included in the selected flavor that is included in the enhanced flavored mixture.” Ex. 1001, 12:28–33. Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites that “a concentration of the dietary supplement included in the selected flavor is zero.” Id. at 12:36–38. Accordingly, claim 1 allows for the concentration of the dietary supplement included in the selected flavor to be zero.” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableUnpatentable

    “As for the remaining claims, Petitioner asserts that claims 6 and 15 are unpatentable as obvious over Cimatti, Bethuy, and O’Laughlin and over Cimatti, Bethuy, and Wallace. Pet. 93–98. Petitioner asserts that claims 19 and 20 are unpatentable as obvious over Cimatti, Bethuy, Shannon, and Holler. Pet. 98–101. We have reviewed those contentions and determine that Petitioner has also shown those claims to be unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence for the reasons given by Petitioner. Id. at 93– 101.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 11,724,927 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 11,724,927

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.