- Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/SAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 22, 2024 · IPR2022-01318 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 6 are unpatentable as obvious over Duan; claims 5, 8 are unpatentable as obvious over Duan and Wu.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“II. ANALYSIS A. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill would have been knowledgeable regarding liquid cooling systems for computer systems, would have had a Bachelor of Science (B.S.) in electrical or mechanical engineering, or similar advanced post-graduate education in this area, or would have possessed at least 2–3 years of experience in liquid cooling systems for computer systems or similar systems. A POSITA would be knowledgeable of the concepts, components, and their functions described as “prior art” in the ’355 patent such as, e.g., pumps, radiators, fans, reservoirs, and other techniques of heat dissipation and liquid cooling. (Ex- 1001,1:11–47.) In addition, a POSITA would be knowledgeable about electric motors and their components (e.g., electromagnetic coils, rotors, stators, AC/DC motors, etc.) Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 13–18). Patent Owner has not proposed a level of ordinary skill in the art. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill as it appears to be consistent with the level of skill reflected by the specification and in the asserted prior art references.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Based on our analysis of the proceeding, we conclude that no claim term requires express construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“disclosures. Pet. 17–45. Petitioner maps the claimed reservoir to Duan’s “structure formed by an accommodation chamber 21, lower cover 225, cap 3, and cooling plate 1.” Id. at 18. Petitioner maps the claimed double-sided chassis to Duan’s accommodation chamber 21 and the claimed impeller cover to Duan’s lower cover 225. Id. at 22–27. Petitioner maps the claimed thermal-exchange chamber to Duan’s cap 3 and cooling plate 1, with heat-absorbing face 11 and cooling plate 1 corresponding to the claimed heat exchanging interface. Id. at 27–36. Petitioner maps the claimed radiator to Duan’s cooling stage 53. Id. at 36–39. Petitioner asserts that Duan’s inlet is “below a center of the impeller” because it is along the axis about which the impeller rotates. Id. at 39–41. Petitioner asserts that Duan’s lower cover 225 defines an outlet tangential to the impeller’s circumference. Id. at 41–45. In summary, Petitioner asserts that Duan, without modification, discloses all of claim 1’s limitations. Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s contentions, as it has filed no Patent Owner Response. We have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and conclude that they show by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1’s subject matter would have been obvious over Duan. See Pet. 17– 45. We adopt Petition’s unchallenged contentions as our analysis.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“As to claim 5, Petitioner asserts that it would have been obvious to use Wu’s approach to securing chassis and heat-exchanging interface to the heat generating component, because Duan discusses the need to assemble its components but does not provide detailed instruction. Id. Thus, the modification would provide the benefit of securing Duan’s cooling plate module and cooling plate to the CPU. Id. at 72. For claim 8, Petitioner asserts that it would have been obvious to use Wu’s approach to blowing air through the radiator using a fan driven by a motor separate from the pump’s motor. Id. at 72–73. Petitioner reasons that doing so would improve Duan’s performance by increasing heat dissipation. Id. at 74. We agree that Petitioner’s contentions support the modification with rational underpinning.” slip op. at 12
Patent outcomesUS 10,078,355 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,078,355 - PTAB · Feb 6, 2023 · IPR2022-01318 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8 based on a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over Duan, and Duan with Wu.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“involved two petitioners accused of infringement based on the same product—made by one petitioner and incorporating technology licensed from the other. Valve I, at 9–10 (finding a significant relationship between the two petitioners “with respect to Patent Owner’s assertion” of the challenged patent); Valve II, at 10 (same); see Prelim. Reply 3. Patent Owner has asserted no such relationship here, and we conclude that Patent Owner has failed to establish that Petitioner has a significant relationship with the -522 IPR petitioner. Representation by the same counsel and being accused of infringing the same patent does not create a relationship that justifies discretionarily denying institution. Accordingly, Factor 1 weighs strongly against denying institution.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim, and we institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill would have been knowledgeable regarding liquid cooling systems for computer systems, would have had a Bachelor of Science (B.S.) in electrical or mechanical engineering, or similar advanced post-graduate education in this area, or would have possessed at least 2-3 years of experience in liquid cooling systems for computer systems or similar systems. A POSITA would be knowledgeable of the concepts, components, and their functions described as “prior art” in the ’355 patent such as, e.g., pumps, radiators, fans, reservoirs, and other techniques of heat dissipation and liquid cooling. (Ex-1001,1:11-47.) In addition, a POSITA would be knowledgeable about electric motors and their components (e.g., electromagnetic coils, rotors, stators, AC/DC motors, etc.) Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 13–18). Patent Owner does not dispute this definition of a person of ordinary skill. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill as it appears to be consistent with the level of skill reflected by the specification and in the asserted prior art references.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Based on our analysis of the issues in dispute at this stage of the proceeding, we conclude that no claim term requires express construction at this time. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).” slip op. at 14
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,078,355 - PTAB · Dec 28, 2021 · IPR2021-01195 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 6, 7, 11, and 12, finding a reasonable likelihood that the Batchelder-based obviousness grounds would prevail.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached
“Under the Board’s precedential decision in SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp., when no time-bar or estoppel would apply once determining Petitioner did not name all RPIs, the Board need not address the issue. IPR2020-00734, Paper 11 (Oct. 6, 2020) (precedential); see also Lumentum Holdings, Inc. v. Capella Photonics, Inc., IPR2015-00739, Paper 38 at 6 (PTAB Mar. 4, 2016) (precedential) (“[O]ur jurisdiction to consider a petition does not require a ‘correct’ identification of all RPIs in a petition.”); Mayne Pharma Int’l Pty. Ltd. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., 927 F.3d 1232, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[I]f a petition fails to identify all real parties in” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“the ’354 patent, the overlap in the asserted prior art, and our prior determination of unpatentability regarding the ’354 patent, we conclude that the merits of Petitioner’s case in this proceeding are substantively strong. Thus, this factor weighs strongly in favor of institution. 7. Holistic assessment of factors and conclusion We consider the above factors and take “a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review.” Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6. In weighing the totality of the evidence, we decide not to exercise discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution.” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“C. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill would have been knowledgeable regarding liquid cooling systems for computer systems, would have earned at least a bachelor’s degree, such as a B.S. (bachelor of science), or equivalent thereof, in electrical or mechanical engineering or a closely related field, and would have possessed at least two or three years of experience in liquid cooling systems for computer systems or in similar systems. Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 23–26). Patent Owner does not dispute this definition of a person of ordinary skill. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill as it appears to be consistent with the level of skill reflected by the specification and in the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“construe claim terms “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019). The parties stipulated to constructions of “reservoir” and “chamber” in the district-court litigation. Ex. 1005, 2. Petitioner proposes additional constructions for “impeller” and “radiator.” Pet. 8–10. Patent Owner does not dispute those constructions. See generally Prelim. Resp. Based on our analysis of the issues in dispute at this stage of the proceeding, we conclude that none of the claim terms identified by the parties require express construction at this time. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).” slip op. at 15
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,613,601 - Guest-Tek Interactive Entertainment Ltd. v. Nomadix, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Aug 22, 2018 · IPR2018-00376 · APJ Stephen C Siu · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and upheld denial of institution on the Slemmer and Vu obviousness ground because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“When rehearing a decision on a petition, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). 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). A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed.” 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
“The Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Notably, we must base our determination of a “reasonable likelihood” that Petitioner would “prevail” on “the information presented in the petition,” specifically. In the present case, Petitioner has not provided a basis, legal or otherwise, in support of its position that we must determine a “reasonable likelihood” based on information presented in some other petition, much less based on some other evidence of record in another proceeding. For example, in IPR2016-00077, the panel based its decision on a “Declaration by Mr. Keith Olsen.” That evidence is not of record in this proceeding.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“supporting Petitioner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the cited references. Req. Reh’g. 8–10. In particular, Petitioner reiterates previous arguments presented in the Petition such as “Vu is one of the first prior art references to teach the handshake” but that “other prior art references also teach it.” Req. Reh’g 9. These arguments were previously addressed. Decision 7–8. Although Petitioner may disagree with our resolution of the arguments that Petitioner presented in its Petition, such arguments were considered fully in our Decision.” slip op. at 4
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other
“construction for the term ‘TCP connection hand shake completion data,’ which resulted in an incorrect determination.” Req. Reh’g. 5. In particular, Petitioner now proposes a broadest reasonable construction of the term “TCP connection hand shake completion data” to mean “two devices initiating a communication session by the first device sending information to a second device, and the second device then responding to the first device.” Req. Reh’g. 7. Based on this newly proposed construction of the term “TCP connection hand shake completion data,” Petitioner argues that Vu discloses this feature. Req. Reh’g. 6–8. Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), Petitioner must “identify all matters [Petitioner] believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” Petitioner did not present this proposed construction in the Petition. See generally Req. Reh’g.; see generally Pet. We could not have “misapprehended or overlooked” what was not presented.” slip op. at 4
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,266,266 - Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Corp.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 12, 2018 · IPR2017-00627 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 10–16, 21–23, 25, and 38–46 are unpatentable; claims 6–9, 17–20, 24, and 47 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Although the dictionary defines “periodically” as “from time to time” or “at regular intervals of time,” based on the record before us, we agree with Patent Owner that its proposed construction is how one skilled in the art would have understood that term in the context of the ’345 patent Specification. Turning first to the intrinsic evidence, the Specification explains that “[t]he future and current minimum values are calculated continuously and initiated periodically, for example, every 5 seconds.” Ex. 1001, 8:37–39. Although the Specification later notes that “[i]t will be appreciated that, while specific values are used as in the several equations and calculations employed in the present invention, these values may be different than those shown” (id. at 8:64–67), this passage does not mean that the Specification contemplates arrangements where “periodically” is simply “from time to time.” Rather, we determine that statement from the Specification indicates that the specific amount of time (i.e., every 5 seconds) may vary. Turning now to the extrinsic evidence, the testimony of Dr. Douglas supports our conclusion, explaining that “at regular intervals of time” is the “only . . . definition . . . consistent with the understanding of a person skilled in the art in light of the specification of the ’345 Patent and its use in the particular field of audio signal processing” because [l]ike the “period” of an audio signal itself, which is the amount of time it takes for a signal to repeat itself, “periodically” as recited in claims 6 and 9 and throughout the remainder of the specification of the ’345 Patent refers to actions that occur at regular intervals (e.g., every 5 seconds rather than merely “from time to time”). Ex. 2002 ¶ 48. Moreover, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Hochwald testifies that outside of the context of the ’345 patent Specification, “periodically” means “at regular time intervals” (Ex. 2005, 99:13–15), and when asked about that term’s meaning in the context of the ’345 patent Specification, Dr. Hochwald simply noted that “all I can do is read what it says,” which is that “[i]t’s doing something periodically, for example, every five seconds” (id. at 100:4–6). Accordingly, the testimony from Dr. Douglas, as well as that from Dr. Hochwald, supports Patent Owner’s construction. In summary, we adopt Patent Owner’s construction of “periodically,” requiring “at regular intervals of time,” because (1) this is consistent with how this term is used in the context of the ’345 Patent Specification; and (2) this is supported by the testimony of both experts.” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“Patent Owner responds that, because Helf uses average values (i.e., the average of eight consecutive values), it does not disclose using a minimum value. PO Resp. 17–23. Patent Owner acknowledges that the ’345 patent, itself, uses a “smoothing process [that] produces frequency bins with multiple smoothed magnitude values, ultimately finding the minimum of all of the values,” but contends that “Helf’s averaging process produces a single output representing one average of the original samples.” Id. at 20–21 (underlining omitted) (citing Ex. 1001, 8:14–28; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 52, 63–72). We disagree with Patent Owner’s characterization of the differences between Helf and the ’345 patent. While Helf may ultimately produce a single minimum value, as discussed above, that value is based on a minimum value of the averages calculated over the given time period. At oral hearing, Patent Owner acknowledged that Helf determines many averages values (i.e., the averages of the eight consecutive frames) and determines a minimum of those values. See, e.g., Tr. 22:2–6. The claim simply requires a “future minimum value,” and does not preclude that value from being a minimum value taken from a set of average values. Indeed, such an interpretation of the claim would be inconsistent with the ’345 patent’s use of smoothed values noted by Patent Owner. Ex. 1001, 8:14–28. The testimony of Dr. Douglas cited by Patent Owner does not convince us otherwise. See Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 52, 63–72 (effectively repeating Patent Owner’s contentions, which are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above). Accordingly, we are persuaded that Helf’s minimum value (Mk) corresponds to the “future minimum value” recited in claims 4 and 39.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundMotivation foundMixed
“With respect to its “running minimum estimator,” Helf explains that the “running minimum estimator” is used “when either the speech signal is never absent for more than a second or the background noise itself is never constant in spectral shape.” Ex. 1010, 8:11–15. Helf acknowledges that its “running minimum estimator” is “much less accura[te]” than its “stationary estimator,” which is typically used for background noise estimates. Id. at 8:15–17. As a result, Helf only uses its “running minimum estimator” if “[i]t has been more than 10 seconds since the last update of the background noise spectral estimate due to the Stationary Estimator,” and “[t]he difference, D, between the past background noise estimate, which may have resulted from the Stationary Estimator or the Running Minimum Estimator, and the current Running Minimum Estimator is great.” Id. at 8:32–42. We see no persuasive reason to set Helf’s current background noise estimate (Nk and Ck, considered the “current minimum” by Petitioner) to the minimum estimate (Mk) from the “running minimum estimator” (considered the “future minimum” by Petitioner). The testimony of Dr. Douglas supports this conclusion. See, e.g., Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 119, 120. Addressing the portions of Helf noted above, Dr. Douglas testifies that “Helf only relies on Mk in a ‘worst case’ scenario” and “disfavors the use of Mk, even where Bk is unavailable,” and concludes that “one of ordinary skill would not be motivated to force the use of the disfavored Mk every ten seconds even where the much more accurate Bk estimate is available.” Id. ¶ 119. Dr. Douglas further testifies that “one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to abandon[] the comparison of D to a threshold” because “one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Helf is a signal-dependent system, and it would not abandon its ability to adapt to varying signal conditions in favor of a blind periodic update using a disfavored estimate.” Id. ¶ 120. We credit the testimony of Dr. Douglas over that of Dr. Hochwald in this regard. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 157–159; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 115–120. The testimony from Dr. Douglas is consistent with the disclosure of Helf, while that of Dr. Hochwald is based on conclusory statements. For example, the only portions of Dr. Hochwald’s testimony cited in the Petition in connection with the rationale provided in this challenge are conclusory statements that “[a] person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to modify Helf to update the background noise estimate after every 10 second period based on the teachings of Martin,” and “[t]he skilled person would have recognized it was beneficial to periodically update the minimum noise value to ensure it accurately reflected the current noise level,” which are contrary to the disclosure of Helf noted above. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 158, 159.” slip op. at 21
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedOther
“We see no persuasive reason to set Helf’s current background noise estimate (Nk and Ck, considered the “current minimum” by Petitioner) to the minimum estimate (Mk) from the “running minimum estimator” (considered the “future minimum” by Petitioner). The testimony of Dr. Douglas supports this conclusion. See, e.g., Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 119, 120. Addressing the portions of Helf noted above, Dr. Douglas testifies that “Helf only relies on Mk in a ‘worst case’ scenario” and “disfavors the use of Mk, even where Bk is unavailable,” and concludes that “one of ordinary skill would not be motivated to force the use of the disfavored Mk every ten seconds even where the much more accurate Bk estimate is available.” Id. ¶ 119. Dr. Douglas further testifies that “one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to abandon[] the comparison of D to a threshold” because “one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Helf is a signal-dependent system, and it would not abandon its ability to adapt to varying signal conditions in favor of a blind periodic update using a disfavored estimate.” Id. ¶ 120. We credit the testimony of Dr. Douglas over that of Dr. Hochwald in this regard. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 157–159; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 115–120. The testimony from Dr. Douglas is consistent with the disclosure of Helf, while that of Dr. Hochwald is based on conclusory statements. For example, the only portions of Dr. Hochwald’s testimony cited in the Petition in connection with the rationale provided in this challenge are conclusory statements that “[a] person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to modify Helf to update the background noise estimate after every 10 second period based on the teachings of Martin,” and “[t]he skilled person would have recognized it was beneficial to periodically update the minimum noise value to ensure it accurately reflected the current noise level,” which are contrary to the disclosure of Helf noted above. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 158, 159.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 6,363,345 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,363,345 - SK Hynix Inc. / SK Hynix America Inc. et al. v. Netlist, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 5, 2018 · IPR2017-00692 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–15 are unpatentable: claims 1–14 as anticipated by Best and obvious over Best, and claim 15 as obvious over Best, Mills, and Bonella.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“construction “requires two layers of IC packages, in which a first IC package (the Board’s ‘carrier’) contains one or more second IC packages (the Board’s memory chips).” PO Resp. 39. Petitioner counters that “[t]he Board’s construction does no such thing.” Pet. Reply 18–19. We agree with Petitioner. Patent Owner’s argument is predicated upon the erroneous assertion that “[e]ach memory chip in the Board’s ‘carrier’ requires a different IC package (i.e., a second IC package) that encloses at least one memory die.” PO Resp. 39. Each memory chip does not require its own integrated circuit package. On the contrary, it may be, as Best discloses, a die enclosed with another die in a single IC package. Having considered the arguments and evidence, we maintain our construction of “memory module” to mean “a carrier that contains one or more memory chips,” where “carrier” encompasses an integrated circuit package.” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Otherwise, we determine that no express finding on a specific corresponding level of technical education and experience is necessary. Here, the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 15
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We have reviewed the arguments provided by Patent Owner and determine such arguments are insufficient to have Mr. Maltiel’s declaration excluded in its entirety. Rather, it is within our discretion to assign the appropriate weight to be accorded evidence. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a); see also, e.g., Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding the Board has discretion to give more weight to one item of evidence over another “unless no reasonable trier of fact could have done so”); In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”); and Velander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“In giving more weight to prior publications than to subsequent conclusory statements by experts, the Board acted well within [its] discretion.”). Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that we should give the entirety of Mr. Maltiel’s declaration no weight.” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“8–14. Pet. 30–37, 44–49. Notwithstanding Patent Owner’s arguments, which we have considered and which we address below, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing, which we adopt as our own findings and conclusions, that claims 1–14 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Best.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 8,874,831 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,874,831 - Apple Inc. v. Virnetx Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 22, 2017 · IPR2016-00331 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–11, 14–25, and 28–30 are unpatentable as obvious over Beser and RFC 2401.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s contentions are not persuasive. Patent Owner fails to explain sufficiently why the notion of “performing an additional evaluation” constitutes an implicit part of the claimed intercept clause. Addressing similar arguments by Patent Owner, a Board panel made a similar determination in the ’237 FWD relied upon by Petitioner. ’237 FWD 11 (“the record show[s] that the additional functionality urged by Patent Owner should not be imported into the intercepting phrase”).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther
“broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)). Under this standard, absent any special definitions, claim terms or phrases are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). For the purposes of this Decision, only the claim terms or clauses below need express construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only those terms in controversy need to be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“We find Dr. Tamassia’s testimony as to public accessibility of RFCs in general to be credible, especially given the independent support of RFC 2026 (Ex. 1036), the contents of which Patent Owner does not challenge.7 As part of routine discovery, see 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(ii), Patent Owner had the opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Tamassia, but does not point us to any discussion of this issue. Moreover, RFC 2401’s contents are consistent with the publication process described by RFC 2026 and Dr. Tamassia, including the inclusion of a date “November 1998” on the top right corner of the first page of the document. Ex. 1008, 1. In addition, this document—a request for suggestions and improvements for an Internet standards protocol, 7 As addressed below, Patent Owner objects and moves to dismiss a number of Exhibits based on hearsay and relevancy. See Paper 20 (Motion to Exclude). having no indication of being a mere draft or internal paper—is precisely the type of document whose very purpose is public disclosure, including on the Internet. Both of the magazine articles, Exhibits 1064 and 1065, further corroborate the indicia of availability on the face of RFC 2401, although they are not necessary to our finding of public accessibility. We do not rely on the testimony of Sandy Ginoza, Exhibits 1060 and 1063, which Patent Owner seeks to exclude as discussed further below.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not articulate a persuasive reason for giving Dr. Tamassia’s declaration, as a whole, little or no weight in our analysis. We agree with Petitioner that experts are not required to opine on every relevant factual and legal issue in order to be accorded substantial weight. The cases upon which Patent Owner relies do not show otherwise. For example, Patent Owner cites Schumer v. Laboratory Computer Systems, Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2002), for the proposition that “[expert] testimony . . . ‘must identify each claim element, state the witnesses’ interpretation of the claim element, and explain in detail how each claim element is disclosed in the prior art reference.’” PO Resp. 52–53. Patent Owner’s quotation, however, mischaracterizes Schumer by omitting introductory words necessary to the meaning of the quoted sentence. In its entirety, the quoted portion of Schumer states the following: Typically, testimony concerning anticipation must be testimony from one skilled in the art and must identify each claim element, state the witnesses’ interpretation of the claim element, and explain in detail how each claim element is disclosed in the prior art reference. The testimony is insufficient if it is merely conclusory. Schumer, 308 F.3d at 1315–16. The Federal Circuit then adds that it is not the task of the courts to “attempt to interpret confusing or general testimony to determine whether a case of invalidity has been made out” and “if the testimony relates to prior invention and is from an interested party, as here, it must be corroborated.” Id. at 1316. So, instead of laying out a specific, required format for the content of all testimony regarding invalidity, as asserted by Patent Owner, this portion of Schumer confirms the unremarkable proposition that conclusory, overly general, confusing, and self-interested testimony should not be relied upon. Id.; see also Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd. v. Turn-Key-Tech, LLC, 381 F.3d 1142, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“General and conclusory testimony, such as that provided by Dr. Kazmer in this case, does not suffice as substantial evidence of invalidity.”). Patent Owner does not show that the whole of Dr. Tamassia’s testimony suffers from any of these failings. Under 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), the preponderance of the evidence standard governs in determining whether Petitioner establishes unpatentability. We exercise discretion to determine the appropriate weight to accord the evidence presented, including expert opinions, based on the underlying facts supporting the opinion. We accord relevant portions of Dr. Tamassia’s testimony the appropriate weight based on that particular testimony and supporting evidence.” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 8,504,696 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,504,696 - Clearcorrect Operating, LLC v. Align Technology, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 24, 2017 · IPR2016-00270 · APJ James J Mayberry · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 are unpatentable under § 103(a) over Snow, Hultgren, and Kesling.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“Factual indicators of the level of ordinary skill in the art include “the various prior art approaches employed, the types of problems encountered in the art, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology involved, and the educational background of those actively working in the field.” Jacobson Bros. v. United States, 512 F.2d 1065, 1071 (Ct. Cl. 1975); see also Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting with approval Jacobson Bros.). We find that the prior art of record is primarily directed to computer modeling an individual patient’s teeth and orthodontics. For example, Snow is primarily focused on creating a three-dimensional computerized dental record for an individual patient. Ex. 1003, Abstract. Hultgren is related to generating electronic data by scanning dental and soft tissue of a specific patient. Ex. 1004, Abstract. The ’037 patent’s “Description of the Background Art” describes tooth positioners for orthodontic treatment and digital imaging for designing orthodontic appliances and orthodontic treatment. See Ex. 1001, 2:21–63; see also id. at 9:44–47 (“General techniques for producing plaster casts of teeth and generating digital models using laser scanning techniques are described, for example, in U.S. Pat. No. 5,605,459.”). Align contends “that digital modeling was in its very early stages in the relevant timeframe and that practitioners were still in the process of determining how best to measure 3D tooth models.” PO Resp. 35 (citing to Dr. Mah’s deposition testimony). This contention contradicts the ’037 patent, which discloses that generating three-dimensional digital data representing the shape and position of a patient’s tooth was known in the prior art. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 9:44–48 (incorporating by reference into the ’037 patent U.S. Patent No. 5,605,459, which discloses generating three-dimensional electronic data representing a patient’s teeth); id. at 2:50–52 (identifying as background art U.S. Patent No. 5,011,405, which discloses a number of ways to generate accurate digital information defining the shape and location of a patient’s tooth).4 As ClearCorrect contends, the record is replete with evidence that the level of ordinary skill of a practicing orthodontist encompasses knowledge of making three-dimensional representations of the shape and location of an individual patient’s teeth. See Reply 14–15. Accordingly, based on our underlying factual findings discussed above, we determine that the level of ordinary skill in the art is a practicing orthodontist, including a person having a doctorate in dental science and three to five years of training and practical experience in orthodontics or a person with expertise in digital modeling and analysis and substantive knowledge of orthodontics.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Claim construction begins with the language of the claims. Source Vagabond Sys. Ltd. v. Hydrapak, Inc., 753 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2014). We discern no language in the “providing” steps themselves that require that the digital data be three-dimensional representation of a patient’s actual teeth. The express phrase “plurality of digital data sets” is not further limited to the underlying source of the digital data, whether it be two-dimensional or three-dimensional data. Further, the claim language characterizes a plurality of digital data sets as representing a progression from an initial tooth arrangement, through at least one successive tooth arrangement, to a final tooth arrangement. Align fails to adequately explain how this language requires the initial and successive tooth arrangements to include the actual shape of individual teeth. As we discuss in greater detail below, claims 1 and 9 recite that the digital data sets representing these successive tooth arrangements serve as the basis for fabricating incremental position adjustment appliances, but the claim language does not otherwise limit these appliances to appliances requiring to fit precisely the actual shape of the patient’s tooth. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 8:50–54 (defining appliances broadly to include, for example, retainers, which would not necessarily include tooth-receiving cavities that must be precisely fit to a patient’s actual tooth).” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“obviousness determination is a pure question of fact.’” PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 464 F.3d 1286, 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). ClearCorrect reasons that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’037 patent would have combined the teachings of Snow, Hultgren, and Kesling to arrive at the invention of claims 1 and 9 to provide more precise dental appliances and save manufacturing costs. Pet. 22. ClearCorrect explains that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to create a plurality of digital data sets and digitally reposition the teeth, as taught by Snow, and to use the digital data sets representing the repositioned teeth to control a fabrication machine to produce a plurality of positive casts of the successive tooth arrangements, as described by Hultgren. The positive casts would then be used for producing the plurality of dental incremental position adjustment appliances well known in the art, as negatives of the positive casts taught by Kesling. Id. (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 54-55; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 101-102). ClearCorrect further explains that Snow, Hultgren, and Kesling are all in the field of dentistry and are concerned with creating or manipulating three-dimensional models of a patient’s teeth. Pet. 22. ClearCorrect contends that the combination would result in more precise dental appliances as Snow’s digital data represents more precise tooth arrangements as compared to Kesling’s manual process. Id. at 22–23. Also, machine fabrication of positive models would save manufacturing costs as it replaces Kesling’s labor-intensive process. Id. at 23. As ClearCorrect further explains, the combination represents merely automating a known manual process. Id. Finally, ClearCorrect explains that the predictability in the art would have suggested to the artisan of ordinary skill that there was a reasonable likelihood of success. Id. (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 55 and Ex. 1008 ¶ 105).” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“For objective evidence to be accorded substantial weight, its proponent must establish a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the claimed invention.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1995). “[T]here is a presumption of nexus for objective considerations when the patentee shows that the asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product and that product ‘is the invention disclosed and claimed in the patent.’” WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal citation omitted); see also PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 734, 747 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Because the evidence shows that the SignalTight connectors are ‘the invention disclosed and claimed in the patent,’ we presume that any commercial success of these products is due to the patented invention . . . . This is true even when the product has additional, unclaimed features.”) (internal citations omitted). “The presumption of nexus is rebuttable: a patent challenger may respond by presenting evidence that shows the proffered objective evidence was ‘due to extraneous factors other than the patented invention.’ Such extraneous factors include additional unclaimed features and external factors, such as improvements in marketing.” WBIP, LLC, 829 F.3d at 1329 (internal citation omitted). We find that Align is entitled to the presumption of a nexus. Align offers evidence that its method claimed in claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 is used in producing it products. See PO. Resp. 45–47. As discussed in greater detail below, we further find, however, that the record evidence rebuts this presumption. Accordingly, we afford little weight to Align’s commercial success evidence. We find that the record evidence demonstrates that the commercial success is attributable, in greater part, to the aesthetic appeal and convenience of products in addition to any computer implementation and fabrication reflected in the challenged claims. For example, Align’s 10-K for 2000 states that its products “significantly reduces the aesthetic and other limitations associated with braces.” Ex. 2018, 5.14 Align states that benefits of its products include excellent aesthetics, comfort, improved oral hygiene, reduced treatment time, reduced root absorption, and reduced emergency situations as broken aligners can be replaced. Id. at 8. Align fails to explain how these benefits are attributed to claimed features of the challenged claims. See also Ex. 2019, 7–8 (providing a 10-K for 2003 that provides benefits to dental professionals and patients, with only one benefit— 14 In referencing Align’s 10-K exhibits, we cite to the exhibit page number, not the 10-K page number. “[a]bility to visualize treatment and likely outcomes”—attributable to claimed features of the challenged claims); Ex. 2020, 7–8 (providing the 10- K for 2006 stating the same benefits); Ex. 2021, 10–11 (providing 10-K for 2008 stating same benefits); Ex. 2022, 12 (providing 10-K for 2011 stating favorability with respect to key competitive factors are “effectiveness of treatment; price; software features; aesthetic appeal of the treatment method; customer support; customer online interface; brand awareness; innovation; distribution network; comfort associated with the treatment method; oral hygiene; ease of use; and dental professionals’ chair time”); Ex. 2023, 13 (providing 10-K for 2014 with same statement as in 2011 regarding favorability with respect to key competitive factors); Ex. 2024, 12 (providing 10-K for 2015 with same statement as in 2011 regarding favorability with respect to key competitive factors). Other record evidence also supports a finding that any commercial success of Align’s products is attributable, at least in part, to unclaimed features. For example, Exhibit 2025 indicates that features such as the invisible nature of the aligners and comfort attribute to the products’ success. See Ex. 2025, A Stealth Substitute for Braces, Designed Only for Adults, col. 2. The article also notes Align’s $38 million advertising campaign. Id. at col. 3; see also Ex. 2012, 2 (explaining that Align initiated “the first effort by an orthodontics products company to appeal directly to consumers through television”). Further, the article quotes Dr. Jerrold, program director of postgraduate orthodontics at New York University’s School of Medicine, as saying “[t]he only reason that this is a better mousetrap is that it’s invisible.” Id. at col. 4. Further, as ClearCorrect argues, Dr. Valley testified that Align’s product success was attributable to factors that includes aligners that are less noticeable than braces, more comfortable than braces, and allows for better oral hygiene than braces. See Reply 21; Ex. 1056, 34:8–35:5. Still further, a finding that any commercial success of Align’s slip op. at 41
Patent outcomesUS 6,699,037 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,699,037 - Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd / SL Corporation v. Adaptive Headlamp Technologies, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 15, 2017 · IPR2016-01368 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 3–26, 28–32, and 35 are unpatentable as obvious under the listed combinations of Kato and additional references.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“The parties’ formulations as to the level of ordinary skill in the art are similar to one another, and neither party identifies with specificity an error in the opposing party’s formulation. The parties also agree that none of the disputes in this case turn on differences between the parties’ respective formulations. Tr. 33:1–6, 67:20–68:1. On the record presented we hold that the cited prior art is representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the level of ordinary skill in the art may be evidenced by the cited references themselves). Specifically, the references are consistent with the parties’ formulations and demonstrate the level of skill in the art. Our determinations regarding the patentability of the challenged claims would remain the same under either party’s proposed formulation.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“usage, could encompass motorcycles. Tr. 41:12–23. Patent Owner further concedes that the ’034 patent does not contain an express lexicographic definition of the term “vehicle,” (Tr. 41:24–43:8), and instead argues that “the disclosure of the patent in the claims and the problem to be solved” make clear that the term “vehicle” excludes motorcycles (id. at 42:19–43:5). Patent Owner, however, does not sufficiently identify the portions of the specification that allegedly support its claim construction argument. See PO Resp. 6–7 (indicating that Patent Owner’s claim construction argument is based on “certain discussion throughout the specification of the ’034 patent, as noted throughout this Response”). Patent Owner cites to Paragraph 38 of the Katona Declaration (see PO Resp. 7), but this declaration testimony relates to the Kato reference and does not identify any portion of the ’034 patent that supports Patent Owner’s argument (see Ex. 2002 ¶ 38; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 4–5). Moreover, we find that the “Claim Interpretation” section of the Katona Declaration is conclusory in nature because it does not identify any specific portion of the ’034 patent specification that supports Patent Owner’s argument. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 44. For the foregoing reasons, and based on the current record and our review of the specification of the ’034 patent, we are not persuaded that the intrinsic record contains a lexicographic definition or a disclaimer that would exclude motorcycles from the scope of the term “vehicle.” To the contrary, the specification makes clear that the term ”vehicle” is a broad term that is intended to encompass any type of vehicle. Accordingly, we determine that the term “vehicle,” as used in the specification and claims of the ’034 patent, encompasses motorcycles.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“directed to different fields of endeavor, depends on its argument that the term “vehicle,” as used in the ’034 patent, excludes motorcycles. As discussed above, we reject this argument. In view of our determination that the ’034 patent’s use of the term “vehicle” does not exclude motorcycles, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments (see Reply 7–8; Ex. 1037 ¶ 23) and find that Kato is directed to the same field of endeavor as the ’034 patent, i.e., automatic directional control systems for vehicle headlights. Compare Ex. 1001, 1:57–67, with Ex. 1007 ¶ 1. Even if the ’034 patent’s controller and Kato’s motorcycle controller were directed to different fields of endeavor, Kato’s controller would still be reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the ’034 patent. In particular, we find that Patent Owner is incorrect in its assertion that “[n]o crossover applicability exists [] between control devices for a motorcycle headlight and those of four-wheeled vehicles.” PO Resp. at 19. For example, Kato’s controller adjusts a headlight’s optical axis based upon changes to pitch angle or steering angle of a motorcycle. Ex. 1007 ¶ 11; see Ex. 1037 ¶ 33. The controller of the ’034 patent adjusts the aiming angle of vehicle headlights to account for operating conditions such as “steering angle” and “pitch.” Ex. 1001, 2:3–20. In view of the fact that the ’034 patent and Kato both disclose controllers that automatically adjust headlights of motorized vehicles according to steering angle and pitch, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments (see Reply 8–13; Ex. 1037 ¶¶ 24–29) that Kato would “logically have commended itself” to the attention of an inventor considering the problem addressed by the ’034 patent, even if the problem addressed by the ’034 patent only related to four wheeled vehicles. See In re Icon Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2007). On this record, we find that Kato qualifies as analogous art.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“teaches away from the use of Takahashi’s thresholds, or that such thresholds would render Kato’s system unsuitable for its intended purpose. Kato’s stated “Object of the Invention” is “to provide a headlight optical axis control device that can stably ensure a beam irradiation range of a headlight even when pitch, bank, steering angle or the like change while driving a motorcycle.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 6. Kato does disclose an embodiment that is able to correct direction of a headlamp “immediately” (id. ¶ 8), but we do not find that the portions of Kato cited by Patent Owner “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation” into the use of a threshold of the type taught by Takahashi. Galderma Labs. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2013); see PO Resp. 28–29, Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 57–58. We also do not find that such thresholds would render Kato’s system unsuitable for its intended purpose. See PO Resp. 30–31; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 57–58. Rather, we agree with Petitioner that a skilled artisan would have realized that Takahashi’s threshold values could have been set to minimize time delays while still realizing the advantages of Takahashi’s invention (i.e., avoiding unnecessary headlight adjustments due to short-term disturbances, such as those caused by a rough road surface). Reply 17–18; Ex. 1037 ¶¶ 34–39. Patent Owner also has failed to cite any persuasive evidence of improper hindsight. See PO Resp. 29, 33. We find on this record that combining Takahashi’s reference values with the Kato’s headlight optical axis control system would result in an obvious “combination of familiar elements according to known methods . . . [that] does no more than yield predictable results.” See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. We also find on this record that a person of ordinary skill would have recognized that Takahashi’s thresholds could have been used to improve Kato’s motorcycle headlight controller in the same way they were used to improve Takahashi’s headlight controller. See id. at 417.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 7,241,034 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,241,034 - Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd / SL Corporation v. Adaptive Headlamp Technologies, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 15, 2017 · IPR2016-00079 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 3–26, 28–32, and 35 are unpatentable under § 103(a) over the ten instituted combinations of prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“The parties’ formulations as to the level of ordinary skill in the art are similar to one another, and neither party identifies with specificity an error in the opposing party’s formulation. The parties also agree that none of the disputes in this case turn on differences between the parties’ respective formulations. Tr. 33:1–6, 67:20–68:1. On the record presented we hold that the cited prior art is representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the level of ordinary skill in the art may be evidenced by the cited references themselves). Specifically, the references are consistent with the parties’ formulations and demonstrate the level of skill in the art. Our determinations regarding the patentability of the challenged claims would remain the same under either party’s proposed formulation.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“The specification of the ’034 patent uses the term “vehicle” in a broad sense. For example, the Background of the Invention section of the ’034 patent uses the term “vehicle” to encompass “land vehicles, and many other types of vehicles (such as boats and airplanes, for example).” Ex. 1001, 1:20–21. The specification also makes clear that the claims are not limited to the specific vehicle types described in the Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiment. See, e.g., id. at 2:60–3:3 (“The illustrated headlight 11 is, of itself, conventional in the art and is intended to be representative of any device that can be supported on any type of vehicle for the purpose of illuminating any area.”) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s first argument, that Kato and the ’034 patent are directed to different fields of endeavor, depends on its argument that the term “vehicle,” as used in the ’034 patent, excludes motorcycles. As discussed above, we reject this argument. In view of our determination that the ’034 patent’s use of the term “vehicle” does not exclude motorcycles, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments (see Reply 7–8; Ex. 1037 ¶ 23) and find that Kato is directed to the same field of endeavor as the ’034 patent, i.e., automatic directional control systems for vehicle headlights. Compare Ex. 1001, 1:57–67, with Ex. 1007 ¶ 1. Even if the ’034 patent’s controller and Kato’s motorcycle controller were directed to different fields of endeavor, Kato’s controller would still be reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the ’034 patent. In particular, we find that Patent Owner is incorrect in its assertion that “[n]o crossover applicability exists [] between control devices for a motorcycle headlight and those of four-wheeled vehicles.” PO Resp. at 19. For example, Kato’s controller adjusts a headlight’s optical axis based upon changes to pitch angle or steering angle of a motorcycle. Ex. 1007 ¶ 11; see Ex. 1037 ¶ 33. The controller of the ’034 patent adjusts the aiming angle of vehicle headlights to account for operating conditions such as “steering angle” and “pitch.” Ex. 1001, 2:3–20. In view of the fact that the ’034 patent and Kato both disclose controllers that automatically adjust headlights of motorized vehicles according to steering angle and pitch, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments (see Reply 8–13; Ex. 1037 ¶¶ 24–29) that Kato would “logically have commended itself” to the attention of an inventor considering the problem addressed by the ’034 patent, even if the problem addressed by the ’034 patent only related to four wheeled vehicles. See In re Icon Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2007). On this record, we find that Kato qualifies as analogous art.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Takahashi’s thresholds operate to “prevent the illumination of the lamp [] from being corrected inadvertently when a sudden change in the posture of the vehicle occurs temporarily or due to the wrong operation of the lamp [] caused by external disturbances.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 6. We are not persuaded that Takahashi’s thresholds could not be used to prevent the direction of Kato’s motorcycle headlight from being corrected inadvertently in the event of a temporary change in vehicle posture or external disturbance. Mr. Katona, Patent Owner’s expert, identifies several differences between motorcycles and four-wheeled vehicles, but does not persuasively and credibly explain why these differences would have prevented the use of such thresholds to prevent Kato’s headlight from being adjusted inadvertently in the event of a sudden and transient disturbance. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 54–56. We find credible the testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Wilhelm, that a skilled artisan would have realized that Takahashi’s thresholds could be used to prevent a motorcycle headlight controller from making undesirable adjustments to the headlight. Ex. 1019 ¶¶ 61–62; Ex. 1037 ¶¶ 34–36. We also are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Kato teaches away from the use of Takahashi’s thresholds, or that such thresholds would render Kato’s system unsuitable for its intended purpose. Kato’s stated “Object of the Invention” is “to provide a headlight optical axis control device that can stably ensure a beam irradiation range of a headlight even when pitch, bank, steering angle or the like change while driving a motorcycle.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 6. Kato does disclose an embodiment that is able to correct direction of a headlamp “immediately” (id. ¶ 8), but we do not find that the portions of Kato cited by Patent Owner “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation” into the use of a threshold of the type taught by Takahashi. Galderma Labs. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2013); see PO Resp. 28–29, Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 57–58. We also do not find that such thresholds would render Kato’s system unsuitable for its intended purpose. See PO Resp. 30–31; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 57–58. Rather, we agree with Petitioner that a skilled artisan would have realized that Takahashi’s threshold values could have been set to minimize time delays while still realizing the advantages of Takahashi’s invention (i.e., avoiding unnecessary headlight adjustments due to short-term disturbances, such as those caused by a rough road surface). Reply 17–18; Ex. 1037 ¶¶ 34–39. Patent Owner also has failed to cite any persuasive evidence of improper hindsight. See PO Resp. 29, 33. We find on this record that combining Takahashi’s reference values with the Kato’s headlight optical axis control system would result in an obvious “combination of familiar elements according to known methods . . . [that] does no more than yield predictable results.” See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. We also find on this record that a person of ordinary skill would have recognized that Takahashi’s thresholds could have been used to improve Kato’s motorcycle headlight controller in the same way they were used to improve Takahashi’s headlight controller. See id. at 417.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 7,241,034 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,241,034
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.