• 3d Diagnostix, Inc. v. Watson Guide IP, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 27, 2026 · PGR2024-00040 · APJ James A Tartal · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–7, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 17 are unpatentable under § 103, including over Llop ’126 and Sichuan, and over Llop ’126, Sichuan, and Scherer for claims 5, 6, and 12.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the earliest priority date of the ’209 patent “would at least have had a doctoral degree in dentistry and at least three to four years of experience working with guided dental surgery for installing dental implants and prostheses.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 49). Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Resp. 4. Based on our review of the record before us, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, because it is supported by the evidence of record and consistent with the disclosure in the ’209 patent and in the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 11

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

    “1. “drill guide” and “fixation base” Petitioner contends that the claim terms “drill guide” and “fixation base” require construction “to resolve certain of the unpatentability grounds presented.” Pet. 13–14. In particular, Petitioner proposes that “drill guide” means “drill guide made from metal or metallic alloy without traditional plastic or acrylic,” and that “fixation base” means “fixation base made from metal, metallic alloy or other strong material without traditional plastic or acrylic.” Id. According to Petitioner, the Specification “teaches that the composition of the drill guide is ‘a metal or metallic alloy,’” and provides no other alternatives. Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:35–36). Petitioner similarly alleges that “fixation base” is described as “being fabricated from a metal, metal alloy, or other strong material,” and that “traditional plastic or acrylic” is excluded in light of disclosures in a provisional application. Id. at 21–24. According to Petitioner, its proposed constructions should be adopted “based on disclaimer of claim scope in the provisional application incorporated into the [’209] patent specification.” Id. at 14–24. Patent Owner contends that we need not address the constructions proposed by Petitioner because the issues addressed by Petitioner’s proposed constructions only concern allegations of unpatentability directed to claims 11 and 13, which Patent Owner disclaimed. Resp. 4–5; Disclaimer 1. In Reply, Petitioner argues that its proposed constructions are relevant to Patent Owner’s evidence of objective indicia of non-obviousness, including the alleged nexus. Reply 18–19 n.3. In light of our analysis below, because no determination in this Decision turns on whether we adopt Petitioner’s proposed constructions of “drill guide” and “fixation base,” we find that no express construction of these terms is required. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 12

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

    “substitution of the word ‘enclose’ for the term ‘surround.’” Sur-reply 6. We noted in the Institution Decision that “construing the claim term ‘surround’ to mean ‘enclose’ does not further inform or clarify to a person of ordinary skill in the art what is encompassed by the claim limitation.” Dec. 15. We reach the same conclusion here on the full record and find no basis to rewrite the Challenged Claims to replace “surround” with “enclose.” To the extent Patent Owner can be understood to suggest that we import additional limitations into the claims based on the exemplary figures in the ’209 patent, we decline to do so. Regardless, given the recognition by the Parties that “surround” and “enclose” are synonymous, our determinations in this Decision would have been the same had we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed definition of “surround” to mean “enclose.” Further, with regard to the claim language “configured and dimensioned to surround at least a portion of the teeth of the patient,” Patent Owner proposes construing “a portion of the teeth” as “at least some teeth.” Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2007 ¶ 44). Patent Owner, however, offers no sufficient explanation in its Response to explain how why a “portion of the teeth” means “at least some teeth.” The Specification does not provide an explicit definition of “a portion of the teeth” and does not suggest an intention to use a meaning of the term “a portion of the teeth” that is particular to the ’209 patent. To the extent Patent Owner can be understood to imply that we should import additional limitations into the Challenged Claims based on the exemplary figures in the ’209 patent, we decline to do so. For that reason, alone, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction.” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “38; Sur-reply 9–10. First, Patent Owner argues that Sichuan is non-analogous art. Resp. 34–38. “To be considered within the prior art for purposes of the obviousness analysis, a reference must be analogous.” Circuit Check Inc. v. QXQ Inc., 795 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Wang Labs., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 993 F.2d 858, 864 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). “Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 66 F.4th 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (quoting In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 11,806,209 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,806,209
• Solaris Oilfield Site Services Operating, LLC / Solaris Oilfield Site Services Personnel, LLC v. Masaba, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 26, 2026 · IPR2024-01179 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–25 are unpatentable under § 103 over the asserted combinations of Waldner, Dynatek, and additional references; the Board cancelled all challenged claims.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Also, to the extent Masaba relies on extrinsic expert testimony, we note that Masaba’s expert cites absolutely no support for his understanding of the claims, much less explains why we should adopt his understanding over the plain and ordinary meaning of “conveying aggregate” and “moving aggregate.” See Ex. 2004 ¶ 34. Absent supporting citations, such extrinsic testimony is entitled to little, if any, weight. As such, we reject the notion that Waldner’s discharge chute member 242 is not a conveyor “for conveying aggregate” or “for moving aggregate,” as required by claim elements 1[h] and 1[i].” slip op. at 21

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We disagree that Dr. Durham does not possess the necessary level of skill in the art to qualify as an expert in this case. Looking at the specification of the ’689 patent and the prior art of record, we think Masaba sets the bar too high. We acknowledge that one of ordinary skill in the art should have some education and/or experience in the mechanical art of conveying aggregate materials, but we do not think opining on the ’689 patent and asserted prior art necessarily requires that person to have the amount of education and experience that Masaba advocates. The ’689 patent relates generally to an “aggregate transferring system for receiving aggregate from a vehicle and elevating the aggregate to a higher vertical level for deposit into, for example, a silo.” Ex. 1001, 1:15– 18. And, as described in the ’689 patent and discussed later, the transferring system is an assembly of known types of conveyors, such as a belly-dump truck conveyor, a bucket elevator, and an articulated belt conveyor, for transferring the aggregate horizontally and vertically from a belly-dump truck to the discharge point, such as a silo. Without doubt, Dr. Durham has enough education and experience to reliably opine on the combination of known parts.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningNo construction needed

    “We reject this argument for several reasons. First, nowhere does the plain language of the claims specify how the aggregate is conveyed or moved from the conveyor extension assembly’s inlet to its outlet, be it passively by means of gravity or actively by means of a conveyor belt. Instead, the claims simply use those verbs according to their plain and ordinary meaning, which is “to transfer or deliver” or “to cause to go or pass” from one place to another. See Ex. 3001, 253 (defining “convey”), 760 (defining “move”).10 Second, the specification of the ’689 patent similarly uses these terms in a plain and ordinary sense, without ever attributing to them some sort of special meaning. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:9–12 (“The apparatus 10 is suitable for performing the transfer of aggregate from 10 We reference the original pagination of the dictionary in which these definitions appear. one location to another, such as, for example, from a vehicle carrying the aggregate to a silo 1 for storing the aggregate.”). The ’689 patent specification also makes clear that active conveyance of the aggregate is an option and not a requirement of the claimed invention, stating that the conveyor extension assembly “may further include a conveyor belt 150.” Ex. 1001, 10:60–66 (emphasis added). Limiting claim elements 1[h] and 1[i] to a device “for actively conveying” or “for actively moving aggregate” would improperly import limitations from the specification into the claims. Thus, based on the intrinsic evidence, we determine that claim elements 1h and 1k are properly construed to encompass passive and/or active movement of the aggregate via the conveyor extension assembly.” slip op. at 20

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Not reached

    “Owner asserts” that two claim terms—“unloader structure” and “trailer structure”—should be construed as means-plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Solaris submits an express construction detailing the corresponding structure in the specification for performing the recited function of the claimed unloader and trailer structures. See id. at 24–25. Only in disputing Solaris’s Ground 3 does Masaba advocate that the claim term “trailer structure” should be construed under § 112(f), and then only in conjunction with dependent claims 3 and 21. See PO Resp. 58. As such, we address Masaba’s proposed construction in our analysis of Ground 3. We now turn to Solaris’s grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 11,780,689 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,780,689
• Ascentcare Dental Product, Inc. v. Solmetex, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 23, 2025 · IPR2025-01104 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim obvious over the asserted prior-art combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2025). An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . 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). Upon institution of inter partes review, the review proceeds “on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Based on our consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we conclude that the information does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “the ’329 patent was filed would have had “at least a B.S. degree in mechanical engineering or a related field with at least two years’ experience designing dental devices” and that “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree, and vice versa.” Pet. 32. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s definition is overly narrow and argues that “[n]othing in the claims of the ’329 Patent requires experience designing ‘dental devices.’” Prelim. Resp. 19. According to Patent Owner, “the claims are directed to the structural components of a dental isolation mouthpiece, and an individual with a mechanical engineering degree and experience designing medical devices would be a [person of ordinary skill in the art] for purposes of the ’329 Patent.” Id. (citing Ex. 2030 ¶ 83). We adopt Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill for purposes of this Decision. We determine that this level of ordinary skill in the art—i.e., an individual with a mechanical engineering degree and experience designing medical devices—is consistent with the level of technical understanding and competence reflected in the ’329 patent Specification and the asserted prior art references, based on our review of the current record. Moreover, our determination in this Decision would be the same were we to adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Patent Owner asserted “[p]lain and ordinary meaning” for “a plurality of protrusions” in claims 9 and 30, whereas Petitioner proposed “an internal structure attached to the second wall that prevents the collapse of the first and second wall during suction.” Prelim. Resp. 20 (citing Ex. 2039). Here, Patent Owner argues that “protrusion” should be construed to mean “a structure attached to the second wall but not the first wall,” with respect to claims 1, 9, and 30, and to mean “a structure attached to the first wall but not the second wall,” with respect to claim 21. Id. at 24. Patent Owner also argues that structure attached to both the first wall and the second wall is inconsistent with “the plain and ordinary meaning of ‘protrusions’ in light of the specification.” Id. at 21 (citing Ex. 2030 ¶¶ 111–112). We address Patent Owner’s arguments in the context of our analysis of Petitioner’s contentions below.” slip op. at 11

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

    “combination deficient. Petitioner argues that Park’s walls are “likely to collapse under the suction force,” based not on Park, but on Baughan, which states that “discs” in Baughan are used to prevent the “flexible sleeve” of Baughan from collapsing. Pet. 89. (citing Ex. 1007, 3:46–48). Petitioner reasons that because Park uses silicone, a flexible material, Park’s walls must also collapse like Baughan. Id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 32, 34). Petitioner, however, directs us to no disclosure in Park to suggest that the material used in Park or the arrangement of Park would collapse in the same manner as Baughan. Indeed, if Park’s mouthpiece collapses as Petitioner speculates, it would appear likely to render Park inoperable. See Ex. 2030 ¶ 205. Additionally, Petitioner recognizes that in Park “the sidewalls and the insertion part 111 would help resist this collapsing force,” and states that in Park it “is unclear whether the mouth prop 100 includes a spine or other rigid structure running through the middle of the mouth prop 100.” Pet. 89– 90. Thus, whether Park is susceptible to collapse is, at best, unknown. See Prelim. Resp. 48 (asserting that a person of ordinary skill would have known “that silicone can have varying degrees of hardness, tensile strength, and elasticity such that Park’s mouthpiece would not necessarily collapse under suction”) (citing Ex. 2030 ¶¶ 189–90; Ex. 2036; Ex. 2037). Even assuming, as Petitioner asserts, that “additional anti-collapsing structure would assist at the weakest areas of the tongue retractor” in Park, Petitioner offers insufficient reasoning for why a person of ordinary skill would have turned to Baughan and modified the structure taught by Baughan to instead conform to what is recited in claim 1. Petitioner’s suggestion that “common sense” would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structures of Baughan to solve a problem with collapse in Park that Park does not suggest was a problem is likewise unpersuasive and insufficient. Pet. 93 (further asserting that “it was well known in the art how to make projections on a flat surface”). Petitioner’s reliance on Johnson as generically teaching that protrusions can be on flat surfaces does not supply a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have made the proposed modifications outside of improper hindsight. See also Prelim. Resp. 58, 59 (arguing that the projections in Johnson are on a semicircular surface, not on a flat surface as Petitioner asserts) (citing Ex. 1008 Figs. 4, 5). Based on the evidence and arguments presented, we determine that Petitioner fails to show sufficiently for purposes of instituting inter partes review that the asserted combination of Park, Baughan, and Johnson, or in further combination with Zheng, teaches “protrusions protruding from an interior surface” of one wall of the mouthpiece “towards” an opposing wall of the mouthpiece, as required by claim 1, or that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the asserted references in the manner alleged by Petitioner.” slip op. at 28

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 12,011,329
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Ouraring, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 17, 2025 · IPR2024-01077 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 11, and 13–20 were not shown unpatentable over either Yuen and Mestas or Schröder and Mestas, principally because the curved-battery and waterproof-cavity showings were deficient.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “at least a four-year degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, optical engineering, or related field of study, or equivalent experience, and at least two years’ experience in academia or industry studying or developing physiological monitoring devices such as non-invasive biosensors.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that the term “ring” is not limited to a finger- worn ring. All of the challenged independent recite a “wearable ring computing device” (claims 1 and 11) or “ring computing device” (claim 14). Nothing in the claim language itself refers to where that device is worn. Moreover, the fact that Patent Owner has in several related patents added claim language to expressly recite a ring that is “finger-worn” or “worn around the finger” evidences that the plain meaning of the term “ring” by itself does not require such. Ex. 1362, 44:45–46:61 (claims 1–18); Ex. 1363, 44:64–46:56 (claims 1–17); Ex. 1364, 48:22–23 (claim 1); see Nystrom v. TREX Co., Inc., 424 F.3d 1135, 1143 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (explaining that the fact that another claim recites a “wood decking board” suggests the term “board” is not itself limited to one made from wood or cut from a log because “[w]hen different words or phrases are used in separate claims, a difference in meaning is presumed”). This understanding is further supported by the Specification of the ’859 patent. It is true, as Patent Owner asserts, that the Specification describes a preferred embodiment that is a finger-worn ring. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Figs. 22A–B, 23A (depicting a finger-worn ring). But precedent cautions against importing limitations from the preferred embodiment into claims. See, e.g., Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (en banc) (“[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.”). Indeed, the Specification here anticipates such arguments and makes clear that the applicants’ wearable computing device (WCD) is not limited to a ring worn on the finger: The WCD can be in the form of a ring that can be worn on the finger of a human (or animal) user. Although the WCD of the present disclosure is depicted as a ring that can be worn on the finger of a user, other shapes, designs, and form factors can be utilized for the WCD. For example, the WCD can be in the form of a wrist band, bracelet, necklace, earring, or any other type of wearable accessory. In this regard, references to the finger of a user in the present application can be considered to apply to other portions of a human body depending on the form of the WCD, such as wrist, neck, ear, etc. Ex. 1001, 8:51–61.” slip op. at 11

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

    “ordinarily-skilled artisan to modify Yuen’s device to form the waterproof cavity recited in claim 1, much less explain the particular modifications Petitioner contends that artisan would have made to Yuen’s device housing to achieve such. This is particularly problematic given that the figures Petitioner relies upon in Yuen and Mestas uniformly depict larger, wrist/arm-band type devices. See Ex. 1006, Figs. 2–13, 12:52–55 (depicting a “wrist-worn or arm-mounted accessory such as a watch or bracelet”); Ex. 1010, Figs. 1–6, ¶ 151 (same). Thus, Petitioner’s obviousness theory requires multiple modifications to Yuen’s depicted structure: (1) modifying the identified portions of Yuen’s device housing so that they form a waterproof cavity therebetween; and (2) shrinking that device and its components down to a ring designed to fit around a single toe. We credit Dr. Mercier’s testimony that such modifications would require a “complex” re-engineering of Yuen’s existing structure that Petitioner and Dr. Anthony do not sufficiently explain. See Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 108–109, 129–130, 137–138. The testimony in Dr. Anthony’s supplemental declaration does not provide the missing explanation. Dr. Anthony continues to assert that Yuen’s sensor protrusion is sealed in the space between the alleged bounding members, relying on the same annotated versions of Figures 4 and 5, without addressing the fact that according to Petitioner’s own annotations those bounding members only form a shell that is open to the attachment band at either end. See Ex. 1079 ¶¶ 26–28. Indeed, Dr. Anthony appears to acknowledge that Yuen only teaches attaching the sensor module portion of the alleged cavity with watertight glue, but asserts that “it would not make sense to have a device that is waterproof in some areas and not others.” Id. ¶ 29. That assertion, however, is not supported by anything beyond Dr. Anthony’s say-so and ignores that Yuen’s teachings regarding a watertight seal/glue refer only to the sensor package portion of the alleged cavity. See Ex. 1006, 14:66–15:4, 15:10–14. Dr. Anthony’s assertion that Mestas teaches additional “waterproofing techniques” that could be applied to Yuen’s housing is similarly cursory. See Ex. 1079 ¶ 30. He does not identify what those techniques are or how a POSITA would use them to modify Yuen. Id. Accordingly, we do not credit this testimony.” slip op. at 27

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia with nexusDecided for patent owner

    “the asserted evidence of secondary considerations and a patent claim if the patentee shows that the asserted evidence is tied to a specific product and that the product ‘is the invention disclosed and claimed.’” Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (emphasis added)). “That is, presuming nexus is appropriate when the patentee shows that the asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product and that product embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). If, on the other hand, “the thing that is commercially successful is not coextensive with the patented invention—for example, if the patented invention is only a component of a commercially successful machine or process, the patentee is not entitled to a presumption of nexus.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 10,139,859 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,139,859
• Freightcar America, Inc. v. National Steel Car LimitedInstituted
  PTAB · Dec 16, 2025 · IPR2025-01046 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 2–15, finding a reasonable likelihood that the 1946 Cyclopedia, Lindström, and Wong render at least claim 2 obvious; claim 1 was disclaimed.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner responds that Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is incorrect, “because design or analysis experience with other industrial wheeled vehicles would not necessarily be applicable to the art of the ’892 Patent.” Prelim. Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 2035 ¶¶ 38–39). According to Patent Owner, a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have at least a bachelor’s degree in a discipline related to mechanical engineering, physics, structural design, or an equivalent discipline, and at least two years of experience designing or analyzing rail cars.” Id. (citing Ex. 2035 ¶¶ 34, 38). The parties agree that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in a discipline related to mechanical engineering, physics, structural design, or an equivalent discipline, and at least two years 5 Because Patent Owner statutorily disclaimed claim 1, this ground is moot. Patent Owner, however, disagrees that the experience should include designing or analyzing “similar vehicles.” Prelim. Resp. 12. At this stage, for the reasons below, limiting the ordinary skill in the art to “at least two years of experience designing or analyzing rail cars” does not affect our analysis of the parties’ dispute or our determination that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Thus, based on the preliminary record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill to determine whether review should be instituted.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner’s declarant does not have “actual industry experience with railcar structures” and, thus, “makes the wrong conclusions and conflates various concepts that a [person of ordinary skill in the art] with practical industry experience and knowledge would not.” Prelim. Resp. 12–13 (citing Ex. 2035 ¶ 39). For the reasons discussed below, in our preliminary analysis, we give credit to the cited testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, because it finds support in the relied-upon portions of the record.” slip op. at 13

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

    “At this stage, we need not construe expressly any claim term to resolve the parties’ dispute regarding whether Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “been obvious over the 1946 Cyclopedia and Wong. Weighing the parties’ arguments and evidence, we find Petitioner provides sufficient rational underpinning for its assertion that it would have been obvious in view of Wong to implement a cross-wise extending beam to reinforce the 1946 Cyclopedia’s NSC ore car’s end slope sheet. Pet. 52–53; Prelim. Resp. 28– 30. In response to Petitioner’s assertion that “[t]he upper, outboard end of [Wong’s slope sheet 26] is reinforced by a cross-wise, L-shaped beam positioned under the slope sheet,” Patent Owner argues that “Wong does not provide reinforcement, but simply shows two sheets being connected for lading containment and load transfer.” Pet. 52; Prelim. Resp. 29. At this stage, we find Petitioner has the better position. Although we agree with Patent Owner that Wong shows two sheets connected to one another, that does not negate Petitioner’s correct observation that Wong shows an upper end of its end slope sheet 26 resting on an L-shaped structure, which apparently would reinforce end slope sheet. Pet. 52; Ex. 1003 ¶ 56. reason to look to Wong in the first place,” we again find that Petitioner has the better position at this stage. Prelim. Resp. 29. For example, Wong’s disclosure of “hopper railcar 10” (Ex. 1006, 3:6–9) and the 1946 Cyclopedia’s disclosure of “Freight Cars: Hopper Ore” (Ex. 1004, 27–28; Ex. 1054, 27–28) support Petitioner’s position that “Wong and the 1946 Cyclopedia are in the same field.” Pet. 52; see also id. at 76 (“Wong discloses a rail road hopper car (‘hopper railcar’ 10)”), 18–19 (“The ore-car section of the 1946 Cyclopedia—entitled ‘Freight Cars: Hopper Ore’— contains drawings and a photograph of an ore car manufactured by Patent Owner NSC.”); Ex. 1003 ¶ 56 (“Wong and the 1946 Cyclopedia are in the same field of hopper railcars”) (citing Ex. 1004, 27–28; Ex. 1006, code [57]). This position is not persuasively rebutted by Patent Owner’s argument that Wong’s hopper railcar 10 uses aluminum and steel together for certain reasons. Prelim. Resp. 28–29.” slip op. at 23

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,166,892
• Freightcar America, Inc. v. National Steel Car LimitedInstituted
  PTAB · Dec 16, 2025 · IPR2025-01047 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–44 on all presented challenges, finding a reasonable likelihood that FreightCar would prevail on at least one claim based on Hart, the 1906 Cyclopedia, and Wong.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition and for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Thus, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–44 of the ’515 patent on all presented challenges. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2024) (“When instituting . . . review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”); see also SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The parties agree that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in a discipline related to mechanical engineering, physics, structural design, or an equivalent discipline, and at least two years of experience designing or analyzing rail cars.” Pet. 29; Prelim. Resp. 9. Patent Owner, however, disagrees that the experience should include designing or analyzing “similar vehicles.” Prelim. Resp. 9. At this stage, for the reasons below, limiting the ordinary skill in the art to “at least two years of experience designing or analyzing rail cars” does not affect our analysis of the parties’ dispute or our determination that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Thus, based on the preliminary record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill to determine whether review should be instituted. Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner’s declarant does not have “actual industry experience with railcar structures” and, thus, “makes the wrong conclusions and conflates various concepts that a [person of ordinary skill in the art] with practical industry experience and knowledge of rail cars would not.” Prelim. Resp. 9–10 (citing Ex. 2035 ¶ 35). For the reasons discussed below, in our preliminary analysis, we give credit to the cited testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, because it finds support in the relied-upon portions of the record.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner’s declarant does not have “actual industry experience with railcar structures” and, thus, “makes the wrong conclusions and conflates various concepts that a [person of ordinary skill in the art] with practical industry experience and knowledge of rail cars would not.” Prelim. Resp. 9–10 (citing Ex. 2035 ¶ 35). For the reasons discussed below, in our preliminary analysis, we give credit to the cited testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, because it finds support in the relied-upon portions of the record.” slip op. at 10

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

    “to further support the upper, outboard end of the slope sheet with a crosswise, L-shaped beam as in Wong,” and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, because of “the benefits of reinforcing the slope sheet at its upper end, where its connection with another structure creates a stress concentration.” Pet. 63 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 108). Petitioner points to Hart’s transverse beam b3 and argues that it suggests using a transverse beam like Wong if Hart is modified so that upper beam b3 no longer supports the slope sheet. Id. (citing Ex. 1008, Fig. 1). Petitioner also argues that the references are in the same field and that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success. Id. at 63–64 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 108; Ex. 1008, Fig. 1). Based on the preliminary record, Petitioner shows that its proposed combination of Hart, the 1906 Cyclopedia, and Wong teaches or suggests the above-quoted limitations of claim 24 and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined those references in the manner asserted with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 19

  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,132,515
• Fluidmaster, Inc. v. Danco, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 15, 2025 · IPR2024-00633 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 7–15, 19, and 20 are unpatentable over Brown and Ho; claims 2–6 and 16–18 were not shown unpatentable on the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Brown’s adapter tube 23 (i.e., the extended portion) does not extend radially from a longitudinal axis of valve assembly 13 (i.e., the toilet fill valve). Ex. 1021, Fig. 1. Mr. Jobin testifies that a POSITA would not be motivated to move adapter tube 23 from a vertical position to a radial position because “a radial extended portion is directly counter to the stated goals of Brown (e.g., reducing noise caused by turbulence), at least insofar system.” Ex. 2013 ¶ 251; see Ex. 1021, 1:9–62. Patent Owner’s argument is persuasive. Petitioner’s analysis and Dr. Cameron’s testimony is conclusory and does not sufficiently explain why a POSITA would be motivated to make the proposed modification to Brown. For example, Petitioner does not sufficiently explain how such a modification would result in a more compact toilet fill valve system that could be adapted to fit in more toilet tank designs. Further, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Cameron sufficiently address Mr. Jobin’s testimony regarding Brown’s desire for a quieter toilet. See Pet. Reply 23; Ex. 1036 ¶ 84. Petitioner fails to meet its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 2 is unpatentable over Brown and Ho.” slip op. at 35

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “description is an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a POSA. Using this test, the invention must be described in a manner sufficient to demonstrate that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “One shows that one is ‘in possession’ of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Written description is a question of fact judged as of the relevant filing date. Falko–Gunter Falkner v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2006). An ipsis verbis disclosure, however, is not necessary to satisfy the written description requirement. Vas–Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The disclosure need only reasonably convey to a POSA that the inventor had possession of the subject matter in question, even if every nuance of the claims is not explicitly described in the specification. Id.; see Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351. Patent Owner argues that the ’993 patent claims were “fully supported as of the filing date of at least the ’606 Application . . . March 11, 2004” because the ’606 Application discloses regulating water flow and a POSITA would know that appropriate devices for regulating water flow includes nonadjustable waterflow restrictors. PO Resp. 68; PO Sur-reply 28–30. Patent Owner’s argument is persuasive. The ’606 Application discloses: [W]hen the toilet fill valve 100 is open and water flows from the water inlet 103 to the water outlets 106 and into a toilet tank, an amount of water is also supplied to the bowl fill valve inlet 113 that flows through the bowl fill valve 109 and out the bowl fill valve outlet 116. By virtue of the manual setting of handle 119 valve 109 is regulated. In this manner, the flow of water is regulated so that enough water flows out of the bowl fill valve 109 to fill a toilet bowl without wasting any water down a drain. Ex. 1012, 47, ¶ 8 (emphasis added); see also Ex. 1001, 2:28–39. As can be seen from the passage above, the ’606 Application discloses regulating an amount of water supplied to a toilet bowl using a valve (i.e., a water flow regulator). Ex. 2013 ¶ 288.” slip op. at 48

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “1. Analysis of Claims 1–18 Schuster is available as prior art if the ’993 patent is only entitled to its January 27, 2014, filing date and not entitled to claim priority to earlier filing dates of the parent applications. On its face, the ’993 patent claims priority to a number of earlier parent applications, including Application No. 12/786,904 (the ’904 Application) filed May 25, 2010, and the Application code 63. Petitioner contends that the ’993 patent is not entitled to claim priority to the filing date of the earlier parent applications, and, thus, Schuster, a parent application of the ’993 patent, is available as prior art.15 Pet. 91–92. Petitioner alleges that the earlier parent applications, specifically Application No. 12/786,904 (the ’904 Application), do not provide written description support for the ’993 patent’s claim term “water flow regulator.” According to Petitioner, “water flow regulator” encompasses both adjustable devices for restricting the flow of water (i.e., valves) and fixed devices for restricting the flow of water (i.e., restrictors). Pet. 15. Petitioner contends that the ’904 Application does not provide support for water flow restrictors and, thus, does not provide support for the broader claim term water flow regulators. Id. at 14–15, 91–92. Petitioner argues that only adjustable water flow devices (i.e., valves) are supported by the ’904 Application. Id. Petitioner, thus, asserts that earliest effective filing date of the ’993 patent’s claims is the filing date of its application, January 27, 2014. Id. at 92. To be entitled to claim the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. § 120 each application in the priority chain must comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See Hollmer v. 14 The parties do not dispute that the ’993 patent and the earlier parent applications, including the ’904 Application and the ’606 Application, have the same pertinent portions of their specifications. See PO Resp. 71, n.16; Ex. 1004 ¶ 324. 15 Schuster issued on January 31, 2012, from Application No. 12/786,904, filed on May 25, 2010. Ex. 1029, code (21), (22), (45). Schuster, thus, issued more than one year prior to January 27, 2014.” slip op. at 46

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentable

    “2. Analysis of Claims 19 and 20 Claim 19 depends from claim 14 and additionally recites, “wherein the waterflow regulator comprises an adjustable water flow regulator that is configured to adjust the flow rate of the second portion of the water based at least in part on a setting of the adjustable water flow regulator.” Ex. 1001, 12:16–20. Claim 20 depends from claim 14 and recites the same additional limitation. Id. at 12:21–24. Claims 19 and 20, thus, require the water flow regulator to be an adjustable water flow regulator. Petitioner indicates that the earlier parent applications provide written description support for an adjustable water flow regulator. Pet. 91 (“[T]he ’904 application specification makes it clear that the adjustability of the bowl fill valve is a desirable and essential feature of the invention”); PO Surreply 28. Accordingly, Petitioner fails to meet its burden to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 19 and 20 are unpatentable over Schuster.” slip op. at 50

  Patent outcomesUS 9,139,993 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,139,993
• Ascentcare Dental Product, Inc. v. Solmetex, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 12, 2025 · IPR2025-01175 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not sufficiently show the patent was eligible for IPR when it filed the petition less than two months after issuance.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied

    “We determine that Petitioner cannot credibly certify that the ’418 patent is available for inter partes review, based on a claim of priority on the face of the ’418 patent to the ’939 provisional application filed prior to the effective date of the AIA, where, as here, Petitioner contradictorily contends in the Petition that the ’939 provisional application “does not support all claim limitations” of the ’418 patent.4 Id. If Petitioner’s allegation that claims of the ’418 patent are not supported by the ’939 provisional application is correct, then the ’418 patent would be a post- AIA patent for which a petition may not be filed earlier than 9 months after the ’418 patent issued. See 35 U.S.C. § 311(c). Thus, based on the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner, Petitioner fails to show that the ’418 patent is eligible for inter partes review when Petitioner filed the Petition less than two months after the ’418 patent issued. 35 U.S.C. § 311(c), 37 C.F.R. § 42.102(a)(1). We, therefore, deny the Petition. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we find that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the Petition complies with 35 U.S.C. § 311(c) and, therefore, deny the Petition.” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportNot reached

    “review when the Petition was filed “because the ’418 Patent claims priority to December 7, 2012 and is therefore,” not a post-AIA patent. Pet. 17 (emphasis added). Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, the ’418 patent is a post-AIA patent if any claim of the ’418 patent does not have priority to the ’939 provisional application, regardless of whether, on its face, the ’418 patent “claims priority” to an application filed prior to the effective date of the AIA. See In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1276–77 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[A] patent’s claims are not entitled to an earlier priority date merely because the patentee claims priority.”).” slip op. at 9

  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 12,290,418
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Ouraring, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 2, 2025 · IPR2024-00928 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 11–13, and 16–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Schröder and Yuen, LeBoeuf, or LeBoeuf and Wissmar; Schröder alone did not render its challenged claims unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 14. We adopt this uncontested definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. This definition is supported by the record and consistent with the disclosure in the ’034 patent and the references cited in the Petition.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Petitioner has the better position, as we agree with Petitioner that the ’034 patent discloses an embodiment that uses transparent potting as a window, rather than to form the overall form factor and encapsulate components: [Figure] 16C is a perspective view of the WCD with potting material 1630. As described above, the PCB, battery, and components can be disposed within the space. Once disposed therein, a potting 1630 can be provided atop the components and within the cutaway portion 1616. The potting 1630 can be transparent to allow for transmission of light through the cutaway portions 1616. Ex. 1001, 20:51–57. This configuration is shown below in Figure 16C. “[Figure] 16C is a perspective view of the WCD with potting material.” Ex. 1001, 6:1–2. As Figure 16C shows, potting material 1616 forms a window in only a portion of the WCD’s exterior. can be used to encapsulate components and form the overall form factor in some embodiments. E.g., Ex. 1001, 17:4–8, 18:61–62. But Patent Owner does not persuade us that claim 12 is limited to those embodiments. PO Resp. 29; SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim.”). Accordingly, we do not construe claim 12’s “external transparent potting” as requiring material that “forms the ‘overall form factor of the WCD 120, in addition to providing a housing for one or more electronic components,’” as suggested by Patent Owner. PO Resp. 29. Nor do we construe the claim language as requiring material that “also fills the space and encapsulates the components,” as suggested by Patent Owner. Id.” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments and find that Patent Owner has the better position. Although Schröder describes some aspects that are similar to those of a printed circuit board, Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand Schröder’s inlay 12 or carrier foil to be a “printed circuit board,” as recited in independent claims 1, 11, and 16. As an initial matter, while Schröder refers to a “circuit board” in another context, it never refers to the carrier foil or inlay in its finger-ring embodiment as such. See Ex. 1007, 22:48–49; see also Ex. 1079 ¶ 21 (Dr. Anthony acknowledging that Schröder’s only reference to a “circuit board” is “unrelated to Schröder’s finger-ring teachings”). Instead, Schröder describes features of that inlay, explaining that “[t]he carrier foil itself consists of a flexible plastic material, e.g.[,] PET or Kapton” and “antenna coil 8 can for example be printed on the carrier foil by means of a conductive paste” and “a depression is manufactured in the carrier foil, e.g.[,] by milling, lasering, etching, before the chip module 10, the antenna coil 8 and optional further electronic devices are inserted into the depression.” Ex. 1007, 13:26–31, 13:35–37. Schröder further describes that “[a]t least one further foil can be applied to the carrier foil or the ring blank on at least one side” to produce a “multilayer foil composite” that can be “interconnected” by means of “glue” slip op. at 23

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “show that Schröder’s inlay 12 is a PCB. Relying on testimony from Dr. Anthony, Petitioner asserts that Schröder’s inlay 12 serves as a flexible carrier made of materials “commonly understood to be printed circuit board materials” such as PET and Kapton. Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 172; Ex. 1006, 12:28–29). Dr. Anthony did not provide a clear explanation of a person of ordinary skill in the art’s understanding of a PCB in his direct testimony. article describing a PCB as a “laminated sandwich structure of conductive and insulating layers” was an accurate description of a PCB: Q. So is the first sentence of this Wiki page, in your mind, an accurate description of a printed circuit board? A. So, the first sentence, “A printed circuit board (PCB)[] also called [a] printed wiring board, []is a laminated sandwich structure of conductive and insulating layers, each with a pattern of traces, planes, and other features (similar to wires on a flat surface) etched from one or more sheets of copper laminated onto or between sheet layers of nonconductive substrate.” And so your question again was? Q. Is that a fair definition of printed circuit board in your mind? A. It’s a fair description of the general process for circuit boards, layers of conductive traces.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 9,582,034 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,582,034
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Ouraring, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 25, 2025 · PGR2024-00030 · APJ Linda E Horner · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 17 and 18 are unpatentable under §112(d) for improper dependent form; claims 1–10 and 12–16 were not shown unpatentable on the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “We do not credit Dr. Anthony’s testimony, which is based on the arbitrary shading in Figure 7 (see Ex. 1002 ¶ 174), that Schröder teaches or suggests limitation 1[d] because it (1) is inconsistent with Petitioner’s reasoning for limitation 1[c], and (2) it is based on an admitted misreading of the embodiment of Schröder’s Figure 5 (see Ex. 1002 ¶ 175). As to the first item, Dr. Anthony states that “a POSITA would have been motivated to place a battery in a part of the cavity that is far from a PCB holding other electrical components because that configuration allows for better thermal management.” Ex. 1002, para. 175. The problem with this statement is that Petitioner relies on Schröder’s teaching that inlay 12, i.e., the alleged PCB, could include “other electrical components,” such as a battery to support its position that Schröder suggests placing a battery between the ring halves. See, e.g., Pet. Reply 2 (pointing to Dr. Mercier’s depo testimony that inlay 12 with “other components” is inserted between ring halves); id. at 3 (relying on Schröder’s teaching about placing components in depressions on inlay 12). So, Petitioner earlier asserts for the battery limitation 1[c] that Schröder teaches or suggests putting a battery on inlay 12 inside the ring halves, but then for limitation 1[d], Dr. Anthony testifies that a POSITA would place the battery “far” away from the inlay 12 (i.e., the alleged PCB). These positions are inconsistent.” slip op. at 25

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “at least a four-year degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, optical engineering, or related field of study, or equivalent experience, and at least two years’ experience in academia or industry studying or developing physiological monitoring devices such as non-invasive biosensors. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 18–22). Petitioner also contends that a person of ordinary skill would have been “familiar with, for example, sensor system design and signal processing” and that “[a] higher level of education or skill might make up for less experience, and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Resp. 26. We adopt this uncontested definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. This definition is supported by the record and consistent with the disclosure in the ’178 patent and the references cited in the Petition.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Patent Owner indicates that in the related ITC proceeding involving the ’178 patent, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) adopted three constructions agreed-upon by the parties in that proceeding8 and also construed two disputed terms.9 Resp. 26–27 (citing Ex. 2016, 5, 6, 14). Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner, however, that no terms need to be construed to decide the issues raised in the Petition. Id. at 27. We reviewed the constructions adopted by the ITC. Ex. 2016, 5, 6, 14. 8 In the ITC proceeding, the ALJ adopted the parties’ agreed-upon constructions that: (1) the preamble of claim 1 [a finger-worn wearable ring device] is limiting; (2) [positioned/configured to fit] within a “cavity” is [positioned/configured to fit] within a “hollow space”; and (3) [the internal housing component] “coupled with” [the external housing component] is [the internal housing component] “connected with” [the external housing component]. Ex. 2016, 5. 9 In the ITC proceeding, the ALJ construed the claims such that: (1) the internal and external housing components of claims 1, 12, and 17 enclose space and do not necessarily exclude potting material; and (2) “circumferential,” as recited in claims 1, 17, and 18, does not require a closed shape. Ex. 2016, 14, 17. These constructions are not germane to the issues we need to decide to resolve this proceeding. Thus, we agree that no explicit claim construction is necessary for this decision. To the extent the parties’ arguments raise any implicit issues of claim construction, we address those issues within the context in which they are raised in our analysis below.” slip op. at 11

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

    “The record supports Patent Owner’s argument that Mestas’s batteries are much too large to fit within a ring form factor, and “Mestas’s batteries, layout, and other components . . . would have to be scaled down 5 to 10 times to be appropriately sized for a finger worn ring.” Resp. 64 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Dr. Anthony’s cross-examination testimony at Ex. 2021, 313:12). Moreover, we do not credit Dr. Anthony’s testimony that miniaturization of the battery would have been “trivial to implement.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 242. Dr. Anthony admitted on cross-examination that it would not have been within the level of skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art to design a smaller version of Mestas’s battery, and that such a person would need to procure a battery of the appropriate size and specifications for implementation in a finger-ring from a battery manufacturer. Ex. 2021, 315:9–318:9. Yet Dr. Anthony had not ascertained, for purposes of his testimony, whether there was a battery available in 2013 that was appropriate to fit within the inlay space of the modified version of Schröder’s finger-ring that he and Petitioner allege would have been obvious to one of skill in the art at that time. Id. at 321:5–10. Further, we credit Dr. Mercier’s testimony that Dr. Anthony’s testimony fails to consider the differences in power requirements between Mestas and Schröder or to account for the constraints of such a substantially smaller form factor in Schröder’s finger-ring as compared to Mestas’s wrist device. Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 159–160. Although large curved batteries suitable for use in a wrist band or other larger wearable device, such as shown in Mestas, were known at the time of the ’178 patent, we also have evidence that prior art “finger ring wearables up to the ’178 patent had used ‘coin’ type batteries.” Id. at 66 (citing Ex. 2018 ¶ 161). We credit Dr. Mercier’s testimony that a person having ordinary skill in the art would look to a coin type battery for the necessary power requirements of Schröder’s device. Ex. 2018 ¶ 161. Indeed, this testimony is consistent with the other art of record that consistently shows the use of flat batteries in finger-ring devices, often stacked above and protruding from the general ring shape of the device. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 (Niwa), Figs. 22, 28; Ex. 2025 (Asada ’701 patent), Fig. 4; Ex. 1035 (Rhee), Figs. 7-1, 8-1, 8-2; Ex. 1037 (Asada article), Fig. 9; Ex. 1034 (Asada ’199 patent), Fig. 2; Ex. 1028 (Kimura), Fig. 24; Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 61–70. In fact, Oura’s first-generation ring design, released in 2015, used a Superbowl ring-type design, with the battery and other components mounted on top of the ring. Ex. 2034; Ex. 2018 ¶ 71. Based on these findings, Petitioner has not met its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify Schröder’s finger-ring to place a curved battery between the internal and external housing components in light of the teachings in Mestas. Thus, Petitioner has not met its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that dependent claim 3 of the ’178 patent is unpatentable over Schröder and Mestas.” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 11,868,178 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,868,178

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.