- PTAB · Dec 13, 2021 · IPR2020-01062 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision
The Board granted cancellation of claims 1–15, 19–20, and 22–24; allowed substitute claims 26–29, 31–38, and 40–44; and denied substitute claims 30 and 39 for lack of written-description support.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 78–79; see Pet. 10. In the Institution Decision, we adopted Mr. Fischer’s definition for purposes of that decision. Institution Decision (Paper 7) 9–10. Patent Owner states that it “accepts that definition for the purposes of this proceeding.” Rev’d MTA 24. Mr. Fischer’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Mr. Fischer’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner proposes constructions for “code” and “Electronic Product Code (EPC).” Opp. to Rev’d MTA 6. Patent Owner asserts that “the limitations of the substitute claims do not require construction and should, instead, be construed in accordance with their ordinary meaning.” Rev’d MTA 24. According to Patent Owner, the addition of certain features of the proposed substitute claims renders moot Petitioner’s arguments concerning the meaning of the term “code.” Id. Additionally, Petitioner argues that the content of the recited codes— an EPC and a code different from the EPC—constitutes “printed matter” (non-functional descriptive material) and, therefore, are not entitled to patentable weight. Opp. to Rev’d MTA 7–10; Pet. Sur-reply 5–6. We need not reach this issue. Even if we construed the specifically recited codes as being non-functional descriptive material, Petitioner, for reasons discussed below, has not shown that the claimed subject matter is unpatentable. Also, the parties do not identify any other issue in this case that turns on whether the two recited codes are non-functional descriptive material. See, e.g., Opp. to Rev’d MTA 11–12 (Petitioner arguing that the relied-on prior art discloses codes in the form of an EPC and a TID (i.e. a code other than the EPC)). On this record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“A patent claim is indefinite when that claim, “viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, [does not] inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, Inc. v. BioSig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 910 (2014).” slip op. at 12
- ScopeDecided for patent owner
“Motion to Amend, that “[c]onstruing ‘a first and second memory bank’ to mean, for example, two memories instead of ‘a memory’ also impermissibly broadens the claims.” Opp. to Rev’d MTA 4 n.1 (citing Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 3024– 3027); see also Pet. Sur-reply 1–2 (“the scope of the proposed claims is impermissibly broadened to encompass logical memory banks storing codes in more than one memory.”); Tr. 7:12–13 (“That’s improper because it enlarges the scope of claims to include two memories instead of just one.”). Petitioner’s argument appears to assume that the proposed substitute claims require two memories (as opposed to the recited “memory bank[s]”) and that, because two memories are quantitatively more than one memory, the claims have been broadened. We disagree with Petitioner’s arguments. The arguments are contingent upon a construction of two memory banks being the same scope as two memories. See Opp. to Rev’d MTA 4 n.1 (“Construing . . . impermissibly broadens the claims.”). Petitioner has not offered any persuasive argument or evidence that the two different terms—“memory” and “memory bank” are coextensive or that the more general term “memory” can encompass two of the more specific “memory bank[s].” Further, even if the proposed substitute claims required two memories rather than two memory banks, adding the requirement of a second memory (or, as written in the proposed claims, two memory banks rather than “a memory” as in the issued claim) is further limiting the claims and, therefore, is not broadening the scope. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc., 183 F.3d at 1374. We agree with Patent Owner that the amended language regarding two memory banks does not impermissibly broaden the scope relative to the original claims.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 8,134,451 - PTAB · Jun 28, 2018 · IPR2017-00414 · APJ James T Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over either Cohen and Martin or Holmes and Martin because the combinations did not establish the claimed separate shaping before mixing.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“As used herein, the term “hearing aid profile” refers to a collection of acoustic configuration settings for hearing aid 102, which are used by a processor 110 to shape electrical signals related to sounds to compensate for the user's hearing loss. Ex. 1001, 3:11–15. Petitioner states that Patent Owner defined this term in the ’538 patent as “a collection of acoustic configuration settings for hearing aid 102, which are used by processor 110 to shape electrical signals related to sounds to compensate for the user’s hearing loss.” Pet. 15. According to Petitioner, this construction is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term, relying upon the testimony of its witness Dr. Les Atlas. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 38).10 Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed construction. Resp. 10–11. 10 Dr. Les Atlas is the Petitioner’s witness in this matter. We find him qualified to testify as to the subject matter of this proceeding, by virtue of his education and experience. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 4, and Appendix A thereto. We are cognizant of Patent Owner’s suggestion that we give his testimony “little, if any, weight” because of the similarity of the testimony with Petitioner’s arguments and discrepancies between it and his deposition testimony. Resp. 31–34. We give Dr. Atlas’ testimony appropriate contextual weight herein based upon the content of the testimony itself, and any contrary testimony in Exhibit 2005. We decline to assign generally no weight to his testimony, however. supports, and is consistent with, Petitioner’s proposal. Ex. 1001, 3:12–16. Accordingly, we determine that the broadest reasonable construction, in light of the specification of the ’538 patent, of the term “hearing aid profile” is a “collection of acoustic configuration settings for hearing aid, which are used by a processor to shape electrical signals related to sounds to compensate for a user’s hearing loss.”” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“For the purposes of our decision, we determine that no other claim terms need explicit construction. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (citation omitted).” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“11 Petitioner defines the level of ordinary skill in the art as someone with a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and at least two years of experience in the field of audio engineering. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 25). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s definition. Resp. passim. The references in the record support a finding that this is the appropriate level. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of skill in the art). 12 The record contains no allegations or evidence of secondary considerations.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed
“We find the testimony of Dr. Atlas on the key point of obviousness of pre-mixing processing to be less persuasive than that of Mr. Brown. We also find Dr. Atlas’ testimony falls short of adequately explaining how the combination of Cohen and Martin teaches a nexus (i.e., the “based on both the first [shaped] output signal and the second [shaped] output signal” (emphasis added) (hereinafter, “based on both limitation”) limitation recited in claim 1) between the claim 1 requirements of: (1) a condition precedent of shaping both a first output signal and a second output signal; and (2) a subsequent result of using both the first shaped output signal and the second shaped output signal if the hearing aid is in a third mode. Dr. Atlas assumes that one of ordinary skill in the art would process separately each signal and then mix them. Ex. 1003 ¶ 66. We find Dr. Atlas’ assumption is flawed. Specifically, in making this assumption, Dr. Atlas does not address adequately how the combination of Cohen and Martin opines “it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art” (emphasis added), his later sentences appears to base his opinion principally on the reason one of ordinary skill in the art could do it. Id. In particular, he testifies: Because Cohen’s hearing aid applies different hearing aid profiles to different input sources, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art to add the functionality of the combination mode as taught by Martin to Cohen’s hearing aid such that the speaker would produce an audible sound based on the output signals of the processor. Combining two signals such that both signals are sent to a speaker to an audible combination of sounds, that is where each signal is sufficiently perceived, was well within the technical ability of a person of ordinary skill in the art. To accomplish this would require that each one of the two signals is passed through an appropriate hearing aid profile. For example, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that a different hearing aid profiles could be used for an audio coil inputs and that of a neighboring conversation and environmental sounds through a microphone. Namely, it is commonly known that the different frequency sensitivity of an audio telecoil versus a microphone can be beneficially compensated for. (Rodriquez, Ex. 1011, Abstract)” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,649,538 - PTAB · Dec 19, 2017 · IPR2016-01107 · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 21 was not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Neilson, Kelly, and Miller because the references did not teach the nozzle limitations without hindsight, and secondary considerations weighed against obviousness.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownNo construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Based on the record before us, we determine that the phrase, “a nozzle oriented towards the splash shield,” means “a nozzle pre-positioned such that it points at the splash shield,” and the phrase, “directing rinsing fluid onto the splash shield using the nozzle,” means “spraying rinsing fluid onto the splash shield from the pre-positioned nozzle.” Our claim constructions are supported by the claim language for at least two reasons: First, the phrase, “a nozzle oriented towards the splash shield,” describes a component of a mixing machine. Claim 21 recites: “providing a mixing machine having . . . a nozzle oriented towards the splash shield.” Ex. 1001, 7:1–5. This limitation describes the structure of a mixing machine that is used to perform the claimed method. As Petitioner explains, “[c]laim 21 is a method claim that separately recites attributes of the provided mixing machine and a step of directing rinsing fluid.” Pet. Reply 4. “Oriented” describes the position of the nozzle in the machine. The nozzle is oriented before it is used to direct rinsing fluid onto the splash shield. In other words, the nozzle is pre-positioned. Second, the claim drafter used the term, “positionable,” rather than” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“3. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We accept Dr. Slocum’s definition of a person having ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”) as an engineer with at least an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or related discipline and at least three years of professional or research experience in the design of consumer or medical products that utilize fluid systems. Ex. 1010 ¶ 20. Dr. Maynes states that he does not necessarily agree with Dr. Slocum’s definition, but does not provide and alternative definition or no persuasive reasoning as to why Dr, Slocum’s definition is incorrect. Ex. 2023 ¶ 6. We also rely on Petitioner’s references as reflecting the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“limited to automatic rinsing, Miller discloses an electronically controlled nozzle 129. Pet. Reply 12. Petitioner argues that it would have been a simple substitution to modify Kelly’s spray device 56 with Miller’s electronically controlled nozzle 129 and that the teachings of Kelly and Miller would have led a skilled artisan to orient Miller’s electronically controlled nozzle 129 toward Neilson’s lid 16 and direct rinsing fluid thereon. Id. at 12–13 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 69, 82–85; Ex. 2027, 169–72). We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument for two reasons. First, Petitioner’s reply argument relies on impermissible hindsight. The combination of Neilson, Kelly, and Miller does not teach or suggest the nozzle limitations of claim 21 without relying on the claim as a roadmap for selecting and modifying the teachings. Miller teaches nozzle 129 for spraying cleaning fluid onto a blender spindle after each use. Ex. 1004 ¶ 55, Figs. 17, 18. Miller also discloses a splash shield in the form of a tubular sleeve inserted into a mixing container during blending. Id. ¶ 42; Ex. 1005, 4:1–4, 4:33–36. Like Neilson’s lid 16, Miller’s splash shield is manually removed for cleaning. Ex. 1003, 5:65–66; Ex. 1004 ¶ 45; Ex. 1005, 5:4–10. Although Miller’s nozzle 129 is pre-positioned, it is not pointed at a splash shield. See Ex. 1004 ¶ 55, Fig. 18 (showing nozzle 129 for dispensing cleaning fluid onto spindle 114). To meet the nozzle limitations of claim 21, Kelly’s nozzle would need to be modified from a manually positionable nozzle to one that is pre-positioned such that it points at a splash shield. Such a modification is not suggested by Miller, which does not teach or suggest a nozzle pointed at a splash shield and instead teaches that the splash shield is manually removed for cleaning. Ex. 1004 ¶ 45; Ex. 1005, 5:4–10. Thus, even if combined, Neilson, Kelly, and Miller do not, absent hindsight, teach or suggest a method of rinsing a splash shield in which a nozzle is pre-positioned such that it points at the splash shield and rinsing fluid is sprayed onto the splash shield from the pre-positioned nozzle.” slip op. at 20
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Dr. Slocum that is not supported by Miller, and we, thus, decline to afford it substantial weight. Pet. Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 69, 84, 85); see also Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 77).8 In paragraph 69, Dr. Slocum testifies that, “in the case of Miller,” the angle of the nozzle is adjusted “to clean . . . the splash shield.” Ex. 1010 ¶ 69. In paragraph 85, Dr. Slocum testifies that Miller teaches “the rinsing fluid [is] used for the splash shield.” Id. ¶ 85. In paragraph 77, Dr. Slocum testifies that Miller discloses using a nozzle oriented towards a splash shield for directing rinsing fluid onto the splash shield. Id. ¶ 77. Dr. Slocum’s testimony is inconsistent with Miller, which teaches that the splash shield is manually removed for cleaning. Ex. 1004 ¶ 45; Ex. 1005, 5:4–10. In fact, on cross-examination, Dr. Slocum conceded that Miller does not disclose automatic cleaning of the sleeve (splash shield) 8 See supra note 7. and that Miller’s nozzle is not pointed at the sleeve. Ex. 2027, 189:8– 190:11. Petitioner also relies on Dr. Slocum’s testimony that a PHOSITA reading Kelly would have substituted an electronic valve for Kelly’s manual valve and would have “put a bunch of them in at a bunch of different angles,” so when the valves are actuated, the whole thing is cleaned. Ex. 2027, 169:5–172:9; see Pet. Reply 13. In our view, the cited testimony is not credibly based on the teachings of the prior art references, as opposed to the teachings of the ’662 patent. Whereas Dr. Slocum opines that it would have been obvious to clean a splash shield using electronically operated nozzles (id.), Neilson, Kelly, and Miller all teach manual cleaning of a splash shield. Ex. 1002, 4:13–20; Ex. 1003, 5:65–66; Ex. 1004 ¶ 45; Ex. 1005, 5:4–10. In view of the inconsistencies between Dr. Slocum’s testimony and the teachings of Miller, we do not give substantial weight to his opinion that the method of claim 21 would have been obvious to a PHOSITA in view of Neilson, Kelly, and Miller.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,520,662
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.