- Unified Patents Inc. v. Synchview Technologies, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · May 28, 2020 · IPR2019-00470 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and maintained denial of institution because the record lacked evidence to determine the scope of “DVR” and whether the prior art met that limitation.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“In summary, the record does not include sufficient information for a determination of the claim scope of “DVR.” It is Petitioner’s burden to show, in the Petition, “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed” and “[h]ow the construed claim is unpatentable.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)–(4). Without such an explanation of Petitioner’s position and supporting evidence, we cannot conduct the necessary factual inquiry for determining whether Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood in demonstrating that the prior art meets this limitation. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862–63 (CCPA 1962) (reversing the Board’s decision of obviousness because it relied on “what at best are speculative assumptions as to the meaning of the claims”).” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In summary, the record does not include sufficient information for a determination of the claim scope of “DVR.” It is Petitioner’s burden to show, in the Petition, “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed” and “[h]ow the construed claim is unpatentable.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)–(4). Without such an explanation of Petitioner’s position and supporting evidence, we cannot conduct the necessary factual inquiry for determining whether Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood in demonstrating that the prior art meets this limitation. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862–63 (CCPA 1962) (reversing the Board’s decision of obviousness because it relied on “what at best are speculative assumptions as to the meaning of the claims”). We are unable to conclude, therefore, that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in demonstrating the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“In summary, the record does not include sufficient information for a determination of the claim scope of “DVR.” It is Petitioner’s burden to show, in the Petition, “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed” and “[h]ow the construed claim is unpatentable.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)–(4). Without such an explanation of Petitioner’s position and supporting evidence, we cannot conduct the necessary factual inquiry for determining whether Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood in demonstrating that the prior art meets this limitation. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862–63 (CCPA 1962) (reversing the Board’s decision of obviousness because it relied on “what at best are speculative assumptions as to the meaning of the claims”).” slip op. at 5
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 6,788,882 - Facebook, Inc. / Whatsapp, Inc. et al. v. Uniloc 2017 LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Jan 17, 2019 · IPR2017-01428 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving intact the determination that claims 9–12, 14–17, 25, and 26 are unpatentable.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“issue of claim scope was raised in connection with Patent Owner’s arguments of attaching one or more files to an “instant voice message.” Paper 8, 11−12. Similarly, in our Final Written Decision we noted that simply construing “instant voice message,” without more, does not resolve the dispute of the parties because Patent Owner raised arguments distinguishing the prior art on the basis of “attaching” a file to the data content itself. Final Dec. 18. The Board construes terms that resolve the dispute of the parties, and “attaches” was one of those terms. Id.; see Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); 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 3
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“issue of claim scope was raised in connection with Patent Owner’s arguments of attaching one or more files to an “instant voice message.” Paper 8, 11−12. Similarly, in our Final Written Decision we noted that simply construing “instant voice message,” without more, does not resolve the dispute of the parties because Patent Owner raised arguments distinguishing the prior art on the basis of “attaching” a file to the data content itself. Final Dec. 18. The Board construes terms that resolve the dispute of the parties, and “attaches” was one of those terms. Id.; see Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); 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 3
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 8,995,433 - Apple Inc. / Facebook, Inc. et al. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Sep 6, 2018 · IPR2017-00222 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving intact its determination that claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable over Vuori and Malik.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision,” and the “request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” The burden here, therefore, lies with Patent Owner to show we misapprehended or overlooked the matters it requests that we review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“allegedly had no opportunity to brief. However, Patent Owner was given notice in our Decision on Institution that its arguments concerning the recited “list” were arguments concerning claim scope and that Patent Owner” slip op. at 2
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Vuori did not teach transmitting a “list.” Final. Dec. 32 (noting that Patent Owner relies on language in the Specification describing Figure 8); Prelim. Resp. 13−14. Then, we made two factual determinations based on the evidence of record, in light of Figure 8, which Patent Owner raised, and in light of the description of Figure 10, which Petitioner relied on as disclosing the “list.” See, e.g., Final Dec. 31 (noting arguments by Petitioner regarding Figure 10 and paragraph 47 of Vuori). Thus, we supported our determination based on evidence of record provided by Patent Owner and Petitioner. We discussed the testimony of Mr. Easttom and ultimately did not credit it in its entirety. Id. at 33 (explaining that Mr. Easttom’s testimony of “one value at a time” “at best, appears to focus only on the SVM fetcher, which requests the ‘current’ value of some SVM presentity’s information,” and finding that Vuori does not support the testimony or Patent Owner’s narrow view of Vuori in this regard).” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“have not followed the holding in In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, 829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Req. Reh’g. 3−4. With regard to claim construction, it was Patent Owner, not Petitioner, who attempted to paint Vuori as teaching transmission of “one value at a time.” Final Dec. 31 (“Patent Owner urges that we focus on Vuori’s explanation of distributing presence information . . . ‘one value at a time’.”). We analyzed Figure 8 of Vuori because Patent Owner relied on that figure as support for its contention that Vuori did not teach transmitting a “list.” Final. Dec. 32 (noting that Patent Owner relies on language in the Specification describing Figure 8); Prelim. Resp. 13−14. Then, we made two factual determinations based on the evidence of record, in light of Figure 8, which Patent Owner raised, and in light of the description of Figure 10, which Petitioner relied on as disclosing the “list.” See, e.g., Final Dec. 31 (noting arguments by Petitioner regarding Figure 10 and paragraph 47 of Vuori). Thus, we supported our determination based on evidence of record provided by Patent Owner and Petitioner. We discussed the testimony of Mr. Easttom and ultimately did not credit it in its entirety. Id. at 33 (explaining that Mr. Easttom’s testimony of “one value at a time” “at best, appears to focus only on the SVM fetcher, which requests the ‘current’ value of some SVM presentity’s information,” and finding that Vuori does not support the testimony or Patent Owner’s narrow view of Vuori in this regard).” slip op. at 3
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,243,723 - PTAB · Sep 6, 2018 · IPR2017-00221 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, maintaining its construction of “local network” and “external network”; it did not revisit whether Malik disclosed those limitations.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision[,]” which party “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“cannot be the differentiator between ‘local’ and ‘external’ networks” as alleged by Patent Owner.” Reh’g Req. 3. As we explained in our Final Written Decision, we construed the two terms to be relative. Final Dec. 10– 15. In other words, whether a network is “local” or “external” depends on the perspective of a particular device. We are not persuaded that Figure 5 indicates otherwise. In Figure 5, two networks are labeled “local” (i.e., network 204 and network 504), and one network (network 102) is labeled “Internet.” Ex. 1001, Fig. 5. From the perspective of IVM client 508, network 504 is local; however, from the perspective of IVM client 208, network 504 is external. This is consistent with the description of Figure 5, which states that IVM client 508 “may be located in a user’s residence and be connected to a local IP network 504,” which “can be a WiFi network or a local area network (i.e., LAN), which is also within the user’s residence.” Ex. 1001, 19:66–20:4. At the same time, the ’890 patent describes IVM client 508 as a “global IVM client.” Id. at 20:10–14. Therefore, we do not agree that our construction “yields a non-sensical understanding” of these terms. See Reh’g Req. 4.” slip op. at 4
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Owner’s proposed construction. Although Dr. Forys may have used the term “types” loosely to distinguish between local and external networks, we are not persuaded that he used that word in the same way Patent Owner is using it. See Reh’g Req. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 56 (Dr. Forys stating that “[t]he variations among the independent claims are mostly related to different types of networks.”)). The word “type” is often used to distinguish things with different characteristics, and Patent Owner does not persuade us that, in the context of this case, the word references any particular characteristic of a network. Instead, we read Dr. Forys’s testimony as using the word “type” to distinguish between networks that differ solely based on the relative locations of the different networks. This is consistent with the rest of his testimony. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 64–70 (Dr. Forys explaining his understanding of the difference between “external network” and “local network” to be solely based on the relative location of the networks). Fourth, as explained in our Final Written Decision, we give “little weight to” the quoted testimony of Mr. Easttom, in which he states that the terms are “analogous to the terms ‘private network’ and ‘public network’” because this testimony “is not explained or supported in any way.” Final Dec. 14 (quoting Ex. 2001 ¶ 24). We are not persuaded otherwise by Patent Owner’s quotation from the next paragraph of testimony in which Mr. Easttom discusses claim differentiation. Reh’g. Req. 6–7 (quoting Ex. 2001 ¶ 25 (“A POSA would understand from this explicit claim differentiation the” slip op. at 6
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 7,535,890 - Necksgen, Inc. v. Simpson Performance Products, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jul 25, 2018 · IPR2018-00133 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place its denial of institution because Petitioner did not show the asserted art taught claim 1[d] or establish motivation to combine with a reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW When considering a request for rehearing, the Board reviews its decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if the decision was based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if an unreasonable judgment is made in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Additionally: “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“the Preliminary Response. In our Decision, we determined that “[w]e do not need to construe expressly any claim terms for purposes of this Decision” because it did not appear, from the arguments presented, that any claim terms were in dispute. Dec. 6. When we considered the parties’ positions in reaching our Decision, we were aware that the term “tether” was defined in the ’529 patent, even though Petitioner did not state that expressly. In other words, we understood, and now explicitly determine, that the patentee acted as his own lexicographer by setting forth a specific definition for “tether” in the ’529 patent. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (if the specification “reveal[s] a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess[,] . . . the inventor’s lexicography governs”) (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Motivation to Combine & Reasonable Expectation of Success Petitioner contends that we abused our discretion by failing to consider the appropriate claim scope when evaluating motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success. Req. Reh’g 10–14. First, as discussed above, we did not fail to consider the appropriate claim scope. Second, we have now set forth that claim scope expressly. In light of our discussion above, our analysis regarding motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success is no different from that which we set forth in our Decision. Dec. 11–15. Petitioner’s reiteration of the same positions set forth in Petition does not persuade us that we abused our discretion in finding that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of demonstrating that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been promoted to modify and combine the teachings as proposed by Petitioner with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded by Petitioner’s argument that we abused our discretion with respect to these issues.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,351,529 - C&D Zodiac, Inc. v. B/E Aerospace, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 9, 2018 · IPR2017-01274 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied C&D Zodiac’s rehearing request and left in place its denial of institution because the hypothetical forward wall limitation did not provide ascertainable claim scope.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision[,]” which party “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“In the Institution Decision, we explained that we were unable to determine the metes and bounds of the hypothetical enclosure unit limitation required by all the challenged claims. Inst. Dec. 7–12. Specifically, we found that “[a]s a whole, the claim language does not in any comprehensible way tie the relative position of the seat support to the shape of the wall, be it “substantially not flat” or, hypothetically speaking, “substantially flat.”” Inst. Dec. 10. In light of this uncertainty, we found that “Petitioner has not provided sufficient information for a determination of the scope of certain limitations, such as the ‘additional space’ and, therefore, we cannot conduct the necessary factual inquiry for determining whether the prior art meets this limitation.” Id. at 16.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In the Institution Decision, we explained that we were unable to determine the metes and bounds of the hypothetical enclosure unit limitation required by all the challenged claims. Inst. Dec. 7–12. Specifically, we found that “[a]s a whole, the claim language does not in any comprehensible way tie the relative position of the seat support to the shape of the wall, be it “substantially not flat” or, hypothetically speaking, “substantially flat.”” Inst. Dec. 10. In light of this uncertainty, we found that “Petitioner has not provided sufficient information for a determination of the scope of certain limitations, such as the ‘additional space’ and, therefore, we cannot conduct the necessary factual inquiry for determining whether the prior art meets this limitation.” Id. at 16.” slip op. at 3
Claim constructioncites MarkmanPatents in suitUS 9,365,292 - C&D Zodiac, Inc. v. B/E Aerospace, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 8, 2018 · IPR2017-01273 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing of its decision denying institution because Petitioner did not show an abuse of discretion in finding claims 1–6 indefinite in scope.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision[,]” which party “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In the Institution Decision, we explained that we were unable to determine the metes and bounds of the hypothetical enclosure unit limitation required by all the challenged claims. Inst. Dec. 7–9. Specifically, we found that the claim language “leaves us to compare the claimed enclosure unit with a configuration that we know nothing about, except that it has an alternative hypothetical enclosure unit with ‘a substantially flat front wall located in the substantially the same position in the cabin as the forward wall.’” Inst. Dec. 8. In light of this uncertainty, we found that “Petitioner has not provided sufficient information for a determination of the scope of the hypothetical enclosure unit limitation and, therefore, we cannot conduct the necessary factual inquiry for determining whether the prior art meets this limitation.” Id. at 9.” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“determine the metes and bounds of the hypothetical enclosure unit limitation required by all the challenged claims. Inst. Dec. 7–9. Specifically, we found that the claim language “leaves us to compare the claimed enclosure unit with a configuration that we know nothing about, except that it has an alternative hypothetical enclosure unit with ‘a substantially flat front wall located in the substantially the same position in the cabin as the forward wall.’” Inst. Dec. 8. In light of this uncertainty, we found that “Petitioner has not provided sufficient information for a determination of the scope of the hypothetical enclosure unit limitation and, therefore, we cannot conduct the necessary factual inquiry for determining whether the prior art meets this limitation.” Id. at 9.” slip op. at 3
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 9,434,476 - Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 27, 2017 · IPR2017-00493 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place its denial of institution because the Petition failed to identify corresponding structure and show the prior art disclosed the same or equivalent structures.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous We did not undertake an analysis to determine whether the equivalent structure was shown in the prior art because Petitioner failed to do so in the first instance: “By not identifying a corresponding structure, material, or acts in the ’542 patent specification, Petitioner does not show where that structure, material, or acts or its equivalent is disclosed by Maresh-I.” Dec. 18 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art . . . relied upon.”)). conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). The request must identify, specifically, all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, opposition, or reply. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner
“In particular, we first construed “right means,” “left means,” “second end portion support,” “first support,” “second support,” “first member,” and “second member” as invoking § 112, ¶ 6, because none of the terms has a sufficiently definite meaning as a name for structure. Dec. 7–15. Second, with respect to independent claims 1, 46, 75, and 86, we found that Petitioner did not identify corresponding structure, material, or acts in the specification for performing each of the recited functions. See id. at 17–18 (discussing Maresh-I), 19–21 (discussing Stearns). With respect to independent claims 91, 94, 97, and 100, we found that even if we accepted Petitioner’s identification of the alleged corresponding structure, material, or acts, Petitioner’s analysis failed to show that the prior art structures were the same or equivalent. Id. at 18 (discussing Maresh-I), 20–21 (discussing Stearns). Rather, Petitioner’s analysis focused entirely on the functional language of these claim elements without identifying and addressing the corresponding structure. Id. at 18 (discussing Maresh-I), 20–21 (discussing Stearns).1” slip op. at 2
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“We disagree. Petitioner did not do either. First, Petitioner did not identify any portion of the specification describing corresponding structure in the Petition. Second, there is no mention of tracks or swing arms in the discussion of Maresh-I and Stearns at pages 14, 15, and 40 of the Petition, let alone any argument that the structures identified in either reference are equivalent. See Pet. 14, 15, 40. Accordingly, we did not misapprehend or overlook whether Petitioner complied with these requirements for means-plus-function claim terms; Petitioner did not. Petitioner’s Alleged Analysis and Evidence Regarding the Same or Equivalent Structures” slip op. at 7
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 7,341,542 - Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 27, 2017 · IPR2017-00494 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place its denial of institution because the Petition did not explain how the prior-art structures were the same as or equivalent to the claimed structures.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). The request must identify, specifically, all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, opposition, or reply. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“focuses on the functional language of these claim limitations and fails to explain how the structures of Maresh-I and Stearns are the same as, or equivalent to, those identified in the ’219 patent. Dec. 15–16. For example, Petitioner’s discussion of Maresh-I equates the claimed “first means” and “second means” with Maresh-I’s “radially displaced pins of cranks 760,” but fails to make any argument explaining how these are the same or equivalent structures. See Pet. 13–14. Petitioner also points to paragraphs 37 and 90 of Mr. Ganaja’s declaration where he testifies that Maresh-I’s radially displaced pins are crank arms and that a connection between rollers 2023 and cranks 2020 is the crank arm in Stearns. Req. Reh’g 5–6 (discussing Ex. 1006 ¶ 37), 6 (discussing Ex. 1006 ¶ 90). There is no question that Mr. Ganaja’s testimony in these paragraphs addresses the issues that we found lacking in the Petition. The problem for Petitioner, however, is that the Petition itself did not include these arguments equating the structures as Mr. Ganaja did. Citing to these paragraphs of Mr. Ganaja’s declaration without providing any explanation of the significance thereof in the Petition itself is insufficient. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”). See also DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866–67 (7th Cir. 1999) (“A brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archaeologist with the record.”).” slip op. at 4
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“focuses on the functional language of these claim limitations and fails to explain how the structures of Maresh-I and Stearns are the same as, or equivalent to, those identified in the ’219 patent. Dec. 15–16. For example, Petitioner’s discussion of Maresh-I equates the claimed “first means” and “second means” with Maresh-I’s “radially displaced pins of cranks 760,” but fails to make any argument explaining how these are the same or equivalent structures. See Pet. 13–14. Petitioner also points to paragraphs 37 and 90 of Mr. Ganaja’s declaration where he testifies that Maresh-I’s radially displaced pins are crank arms and that a connection between rollers 2023 and cranks 2020 is the crank arm in Stearns. Req. Reh’g 5–6 (discussing Ex. 1006 ¶ 37), 6 (discussing Ex. 1006 ¶ 90). There is no question that Mr. Ganaja’s testimony in these paragraphs addresses the issues that we found lacking in the Petition. The problem for Petitioner, however, is that the Petition itself did not include these arguments equating the structures as Mr. Ganaja did. Citing to these paragraphs of Mr. Ganaja’s declaration without providing any explanation of the significance thereof in the Petition itself is insufficient. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”). See also DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866–67 (7th Cir. 1999) (“A brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archaeologist with the record.”). Accordingly, we did not misapprehend or overlook discussion in the Petition regarding these structures.” slip op. at 4
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“In particular, we first construed “first means” and “second means” as invoking § 112, ¶ 6, as proposed by Petitioner and Patent Owner. Dec. 9. Second, we found that even if we accepted Petitioner’s identification of the alleged corresponding structure, material, or acts, Petitioner’s analysis failed to show that the prior art structures were the same or equivalent. Id. at 15– 16 (discussing Maresh-I and Stearns). Rather, Petitioner’s analysis focused entirely on the functional language of these claim elements without addressing the corresponding structure. Id.” slip op. at 2
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 7,632,219 - Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 27, 2017 · IPR2017-00490 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, finding no overlooked or misapprehended matter in its § 112, ¶ 6 construction and its determination that Petitioner’s prior-art analysis was deficient.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). The request must identify, specifically, all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, opposition, or reply. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner
“In particular, we first construed “second portion support” as invoking § 112, ¶ 6, because it did not have a sufficiently definite meaning as a name for structure. Dec. 7–10. Second, we found that Petitioner did not identify corresponding structure, material, or acts in the specification for performing the recited function of guiding the second portions of the right and left foot engagement members to follow a forward-rearward reciprocating motion in response to the user moving the user’s feet with striding steps during the striding exercise as the right and left crank arms reciprocally lift and lower the first portions of the right and left foot engagement members. Id. at 11–12 (quoting Ex. 1001, 22:65–23:4). Third, we determined that Petitioner’s analysis was deficient because it did not identify where the same structure, material, or acts or their equivalents were found in the prior art.1 Id. at 12–13.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“§ 112, ¶ 6, because it did not have a sufficiently definite meaning as a name for structure. Dec. 7–10. Second, we found that Petitioner did not identify corresponding structure, material, or acts in the specification for performing the recited function of guiding the second portions of the right and left foot engagement members to follow a forward-rearward reciprocating motion in response to the user moving the user’s feet with striding steps during the striding exercise as the right and left crank arms reciprocally lift and lower the first portions of the right and left foot engagement members. Id. at 11–12 (quoting Ex. 1001, 22:65–23:4). Third, we determined that Petitioner’s analysis was deficient because it did not identify where the same structure, material, or acts or their equivalents were found in the prior art.1 Id. at 12–13.” slip op. at 2
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 6,689,019
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.