- PTAB · Sep 16, 2020 · IPR2018-00754 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request and left in place its determination that claim 9 was unpatentable over White and Lee under § 103(a).
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“The party filing a request for rehearing of a final written decision has the burden of showing a decision should be modified, and the 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 in its papers. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d); see also Req. Reh’g 1 (quoting from the rule). Therefore, Patent Owner bears the burden of establishing that we misapprehended or overlooked the matters that it requests that we review.” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“In our Final Written Decision, we explained that the Specification does not support Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation of the term “token” as being disk-shaped, and determined that “we need only determine that the term ‘token’ does not include an ‘action figure.’” Final Dec. 11–12. The full record indicated to us that, even if we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation of “token” as an “item required to begin play of a game,” Petitioner had still shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 9 is unpatentable over White and Lee. As described in our Final Written Decision, we found that “the teachings of White related to tag 5 in base portion 4a of character 4 used in the toy of Figure 1 support Petitioner’s argument that character 4 teaches a ‘game piece with built-in IC chip.’” Final Dec. 32. We understood that “Petitioner is proposing to modify White so that tag 5 is detachable and results in a ‘token with built-in IC chip,’” so that “the modified White character 4 would have base 4a with detachable tag 5 received in recessed portion 3.” Id. at 37 (citing Pet. 65–66; Dec. to Inst. 23; Pet. Reply 24); see also id. at 41–42 (determining that” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“We also found that “Lee . . . supports Petitioner’s declarant testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified White so that its tag 5 is detachable in the same manner as Lee so that ‘various action figures can be used with the token.’” Final Dec. 42 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 150). Petitioner, thus, showed by a preponderance of the evidence that Lee teaches or suggests a method of attaching a component to a figure that one of ordinary skill in the art would have applied to White’s tag 5 for the reason asserted by Petitioner.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,001,276 - Amazon.Com, Inc. v. M2m Solutions LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Jun 6, 2019 · IPR2017-01893 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, maintaining its claim construction and its finding that Kloba and Multer render claims 1–30 obvious.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS The burden of showing that the FWD should be modified is on Patent Owner, the party challenging the FWD. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). In addition, “[t]he 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.” Id.” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“As explained above, the Final Written Decision concluded that the ordinary meaning of the claim language is broad enough to encompass the sending of communications, based upon the results of processing consumer usage information, containing management instructions. FWD 25. Patent Owner does not explain persuasively why that conclusion was incorrect. We maintain that conclusion here. In claim 1, for example, it is reasonable to read the phrase “based upon the results of having processed at least some of the received consumer usage information” as modifying either “configured to send communications” or “management instructions that cause the stored data content files of one or more assets to be automatically modified.” Id. at 24. Patent Owner does not explain persuasively why such language could only modify management instructions.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableUnpatentable
“In any case, we addressed these limitations under the construction we adopted in the Final Written Decision, which is close to Patent Owner’s new construction, and found them taught by Kloba. FWD 51–55. Specifically, we found that Kloba’s figures 1I1 and 1X, and the corresponding description, showed that all instructions and objects, including the deltas (differences between objects currently in a client’s database and objects offered by content providers), are transmitted from the server to the client in one transmission during a synchronization, and that this transmission is based, in part, upon the results of processing the information collected through the interfaces of Figures 12 and 17. Id. at 52–54 (citing Ex. 1015, 8:7–19, 19:47, 19:51–25, 20:50–56; Pet. 33–34; Reply 8–9). We rejected Patent Owner’s argument that deltas were communicated separately from other synchronization information. Id.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,577,359 - Amazon.Com, Inc. v. M2m Solutions LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Jun 6, 2019 · IPR2017-01891 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, maintaining that claims 1–30 are unpatentable as obvious over Kloba and Multer under the adopted claim construction.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS The burden of showing that the FWD should be modified is on Patent Owner, the party challenging the FWD. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). In addition, “[t]he 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.” Id.” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“In any case, we agree with Petitioner that the language of the claims is clear. As we stated in the Final Written Decision, according to the plain language of claims 1 and 20, it is the communication of management instructions, not the management instructions themselves, that is based upon the results of processing at least some of the received consumer usage information. FWD 17–18. We maintain that conclusion here. The natural reading of the claim language is that “based upon the results of processing at least some of the received consumer usage information” modifies “communicate.”” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableUnpatentable
“In any case, we addressed these limitations under the construction we adopted in the Final Written Decision, which is close to Patent Owner’s new construction, and found them taught by Kloba. FWD 43–48. Specifically, we found that Kloba’s figures 1I1 and 1X, and the corresponding description, showed that all instructions and objects, including the deltas (differences between objects currently in a client’s database and objects offered by content providers), are transmitted from the server to the client in one transmission during a synchronization, and that this transmission is based, in part, upon the results of processing the information collected through the interfaces of Figures 12 and 17. Id. at 44–46 (citing Ex. 1015, 8:7–19, 19:47, 19:51–25, 20:50–56; Pet. 32–33; Reply 6–7). We rejected Patent Owner’s argument that deltas were communicated separately from other synchronization information. Id.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,504,007 - PTAB · Feb 4, 2019 · IPR2017-01538 · APJ Amanda F Wieker · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving intact the finding that claims 24–27 were unpatentable as obvious over Konishi and the Umeda, Raible, and Neal ground.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. THE REQUEST FOR REHEARING In pertinent part, 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) states: 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. Thus, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity merely to disagree with the Board’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence, or to present new arguments or evidence not presented previously.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“of this term most closely aligns with Dr. Trumper’s testimony that a “plumbing fitting” is “something that connects plumbing,” wherein such fittings have been used for hundreds of years to functionally connect pump components. Dec. 14 (citing Ex. 2007, 25:25–26:2, 62:5–72:24 (examples); Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 106–107). Thus, in the absence of any limiting language in the ’348 patent specification, we determined that the broadest reasonable construction of this term is “a connector that couples conduits together in a fluid-tight manner.” Id.” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Konishi discloses various types of thermoplastics that may be ‘used to seal the stator core, etc.’ [i.e., the claimed monolithic body]. Konishi also discloses that injection molding is an exemplary method of sealing the stator core. Thus, we determine that a POSITA, aware of Konishi’s teachings that injection-molding and thermoplastic materials may be used to seal the stator core, would have found such use obvious. Dec. 27 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 16, 30–31, 37–38). Consistent with Konishi’s express disclosures, we also explained that Dr. Trumper testified that such” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,928,348 - 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 - Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. v. Emerachem Holdings, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Jul 13, 2016 · IPR2014-01555 · APJ James T Moore · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied the Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving claims 1, 2, 7–12, 14–17, 19, 21–24, 31–42, and 44 unpatentable, and corrected the judgment to include claim 44.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“A. Rehearing Requests A rehearing request for a final decision is governed by 37 CFR § 42.71 (d), which provides that a party dissatisfied with a decision must specifically identify all matters believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed.5 We therefore consider Patent Owner’s request for rehearing to determine whether we misapprehended or overlooked a matter, and whether it makes a difference to our determination in the Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“In our final written decision we observed that “‘intimately and entirely coated’ mean[s] exactly what it says. In other words, it means the embodiment shown in Figs. 1a through 1c of the ʼ558 patent drawings and associated discussion in the written description portion of the specification.” Paper 50, 23. In doing so, we relied principally on the intrinsic evidence of record in the specification. On rehearing, Patent Owner asserts that the claim interpretation used by the Board is not part of the record and was not presented by Petitioner. Reh’g Req. 3. We are not persuaded by this argument. First, the Patent Owner itself advocated in the Patent Owner’s response that Kinoshita did not contain oxidation catalyst species “intimately and entirely coated with an absorber.” Paper 29, 19–20. Second, the Board is not bound by the Petitioner and Patent Owner’s interpretation of the claim language, which may have inherent favoring of a particular interpretation for strategic reasons, as discussed in the final written decision. See Paper 50, 23. Patent Owner states that it has had no opportunity to address the claim construction and that it is fundamentally unfair and unreasonable that Patent Owner has not had a chance to address this claim construction. Reh’g Req. 2–3. We take such a statement seriously. However, we are unable to discern how the Board overlooked or misapprehended any fact or argument, let alone how the claim interpretation adversely affected the outcome of this proceeding for the Patent Owner.” slip op. at 8
- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“loading, Hoekstra has insufficient catalyst to form a continuous layer, and there is no evidence the method of Hoekstra results in all platinum being entirely covered. Id. at 11–12. As we have not interpreted claim 1 as requiring a continuous catalyst layer, we are unpersuaded by the first assertion. As to the second, we relied upon evidence from Hoekstra example 1, Dr. Crocker, and Dr. Farrauto. For example, Dr. Farrauto testified that barium oxide completely coated the platinum group metal. Ex. 1003A. More specifically, Dr. Farrauto testified: 39. Hoekstra also discloses that prior to calcining the platinum group metal-impregnated carrier material, the composite is further impregnated with a compound of an alkaline earth metal in solution with a reducing agent. Ex. 1005 at col. 3, ln. 51-55. The reducing agent prevents the leaching of the platinum group metal component from the carrier into the alkaline earth metal solution. See Ex. 1005 at col. 1, ln. 37-59; col. 3, ln. 55-59; col. 5, ln. 4-8. 40. Because the platinum group metal component does not leach from the carrier, the alkaline earth metal compound will be coated over the platinum group metal component. Ex. 1003, 11–12. We also specifically noted that Hoekstra describes this prevention of leaching. Hoekstra explicitly states in describing the result of process steps described in Example 1 that “[t]his example demonstrates that the inclusion of a reducing agent, e.g., hydrazine hydrate, obviates leaching of the platinum group metal component from the carrier material during the second impregnation step [i.e., adding a barium oxide layer].” Ex. 1005, col. 5:4–8 (italics added).” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“evidence that claims 1, 7, 8, 12, 14, 21, 22, 32–35, and 38–42 of the ʼ558 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and claims 9–11 and 23 of the ʼ558 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (Ground 2, Hoekstra). Paper 50, 78. We also determined that Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 33–40, 42, and 44 of the ʼ558 patent are anticipated by Kinoshita. (Ground 3, Kinoshita). Id. at 79. We additionally determined that Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 2, 7–10, 14, 15, 17, 19, 24, 31, 33–37, 39, and 40 of the ʼ558 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). (Ground 4, Inui). Id. We finally determined that Petitioner established that claims 1, 7, 8, 14–17, 19, and 31 of the ʼ558 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and that claims 21–23 of the ʼ558 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (Ground 5, Stiles). Id.” slip op. at 4
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 5,451,558 - Meyer Products, LLC v. Douglas Dynamics, L.L.C.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 29, 2016 · IPR2015-01247 · APJ James A Worth · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving institution on claims 18 under Pruss and Keeler and claims 1, 4–7, and 18 under Coates and Hetrick; other grounds failed the institution threshold.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Under 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. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsMixed
“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). As applied here, the Petition must have specified which prior art structures are being relied on in the asserted ground such that “said lift frame, trunnion, A-frame and motion generating device all being attachable to and detachable from a vehicle as one assembly,” as recited by claim 1 and similarly required by claims 4–7 and 18. The Petition did not. slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“back bar and a pair of side bars arranged in a triangular or ‘A’ configuration,” the Board misapprehended or overlooked the fact that the Specification of the ’757 patent does not define the term “A-frame,” that the Specification states that the patent is “limited . . . by the scope of the following claims and their equivalents,” and that the Specification also uses the term “frame” without the prefix “A-” or uses the term preceded by “mount,” “lift,” or “A-”. Request 3–6. Petitioner argues that this misapprehension causes the Board’s construction to be divorced from the Specification and the record evidence. Request 6 (Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). As an initial matter, we note that Petitioner only cited to two portions of the Specification in the Petition in supporting its construction of “A-frame”: Ex. 1001, 4:62–64, 8:36–40. Pet. 8–9. Accordingly, we restrict ourselves to reconsideration of only this portion of the Specification. And upon reconsideration, we determine that the Board did not misapprehend or overlook the aforementioned cited portions of the Specification in construing “A-frame”; instead, the Board considered those portions expressly, but came to a different conclusion. Specifically, as set forth in the Decision, the fact that other shapes may be referred to in the Specification does not broaden the “A” shape of the “A-frame,” as recited in claims 1 and 4–7. The Decision notes Patent Owner’s suggestion that other claims, not at issue, might still allow for use of the invention with another shape for the frame. Decision 7. Petitioner argues that these other claims do not refer to an “A-frame.” Request 6. We agree. This argument is misplaced, however, as the lack of specificity of shape for the corresponding frame in the other claims is fully consistent with the notion that these other frames use a non-A-frame shape. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Decision misapprehended or overlooked any arguments with respect to the asserted ground of anticipation by Pruss.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). As applied here, the Petition must have specified which prior art structures are being relied on in the asserted ground such that “said lift frame, trunnion, A-frame and motion generating device all being attachable to and detachable from a vehicle as one assembly,” as recited by claim 1 and similarly required by claims 4–7 and 18. The Petition did not. slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 6,928,757
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.