• Preomics GmbH / Biognosys AG. v. The Brigham And Women’S Hospital, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 23, 2026 · IPR2024-01473 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4, 6, 17, 22, and 25 are unpatentable as anticipated by and obvious over Cai; claims 2, 3, 7, 23, and 24 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We disagree with Patent Owner and again find Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art sufficient for the reasons explained in the Decision on institution. See Dec. 8–10. As explained before, the formal training required by Petitioner’s description of a POSA includes understanding of both proteins and analytical techniques for studying them. See Dec. 9. Neither Patent Owner, nor its declarant, Dr. Cimas, clearly articulates a competing POSA description at trial, but both suggest more formal training, e.g., a graduate degree, is required. See Resp. 65–66; Ex. 2023 ¶ 8 (agreeing with our observation that the educational backgrounds of the inventors and authors of Cai, Zaccaria, and Hu “suggests that a graduate degree is more typical for a POSA”) (quoting Dec. 9, n. 5). Even if we were to accept that modification, it would not change our findings herein. Nor does it suggest that Dr. Vargas, who holds a Ph.D. in chemistry from Stanford University and has substantial experience with mass spectrometry and other analytical techniques, is unqualified to testify from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 1004 (Vargas CV). Accordingly, our findings and conclusions would be the same, even assuming the perspective of a POSA possessing the higher level of formal training and specific proteomics experience that Patent Owner suggests is appropriate here.5” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “Ex. 1001, 20:33–39. As Petitioner points out, the first sentence in this passage does not define the term “biological sample,” but rather the term “sample.” Id. According to that sentence, the term “sample” refers to either “a biological sample or a complex biological sample obtained from a subject.” Id. (emphasis added). Patent Owner’s argument assumes, without explanation, that the phrase “obtained from a subject” modifies both instances of “biological sample” in the first sentence. Id. But it need not be read that way. Indeed, that sentence is more naturally read to define “sample” as one of two things––either a “biological sample” or a “complex biological sample” with only the latter being “obtained from a subject.” Id. In addition, the second sentence in the passage above supports Petitioner’s view that the term “biological sample” is not limited to a sample obtained directly from a subject. It provides a broad, non-exhaustive list of “[s]uitable biological samples” that specifically includes the types of biological samples, i.e., “cell lysates,” “systemic blood,” “plasma,” assayed in Petitioner’s cited references. Ex. 1001, 20:36–39. It also lists as an example “processed tissue samples,” which would include samples that have been modified (i.e., “processed”) from the form in which they were originally obtained. Id.; see also Ex. 1001, 20:52–57 (describing tissue processing). Given this broad description, we agree with Petitioner that there is no basis in the cited intrinsic evidence for reading in the “negative limitations” Patent Owner seeks to try to distinguish the particular biological samples assayed in Cai, Hu, and Zaccaria. See Reply 3–4.” slip op. at 12

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

    “We agree with Petitioner. Step 1(a) recites forming coronas around a plurality of particles of “different particle types.” Ex. 1001, 86:53–60. Step 1(b) recites separating a “subset of the plurality of the particles comprising the coronas.” Id. at 86:61–65. As Petitioner correctly observes, as a matter of ordinary English parlance, “there is no requirement whatsoever that the ‘subset’ have all of the same characteristics as the set from which it is separated.” Reply 10. By way of analogy, consider a jar containing a plurality of coins of different coin types, e.g., nickels and dimes. One can separate out a “subset” of that plurality of coins (plural) by removing any two coins from the jar—this is true even if the two coins are both nickels or both dimes. In the same way, nothing in the ordinary meaning of the claim language requires the subset in step 1(b) to include particles with coronas representative of each of the different particle types in step 1(a). Nor has Patent Owner identified any other evidence that supports its attempt to read such a requirement into the claims. See Resp. 16, 18 (citing expert testimony that is not inconsistent with the broader, ordinary meaning of the claim language and, even if it was, would not be a proper basis for limiting the same). For these reasons, we reject Patent Owner’s interpretation of “a subset of the plurality of particles comprising the coronas” in step 1(b) as limited to a subset of each type of particle comprising the coronas formed in step 1(a).” slip op. at 15

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “We credit Petitioner’s showing above and agree that Cai discloses a method comprising all of the steps in claim 1. Beginning with step 1(a), Cai discloses contacting two different particle types, i.e., MWCNT and CB, with HeLa cell lysate (i.e., a biological sample) to form protein coronas around those particles. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 199–206; Ex. 1005, Abstr. (describing MWCNT and CB as distinct “forms of carbon nanoparticles” that bind “vastly different sets of proteins”). Cai’s results show the coronas formed around the MWCNT and CB particles comprise overlapping and distinct proteins as recited in step 1(a). Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 216–222; Ex. 1005, 587 (“a small number of CB-binding proteins also bind to MWCNTs”). A subset of the proteins from the coronas on these particles is then prepared by eluting the bound proteins and analyzing them with SDS-PAGE in a MWCNT and CB “pull-down,” which reads on step 1(b). Ex. 1005, 586 (Fig. 1A–B depicting scheme for “pull-down experiment” and describing other “pull-down experiments” used with SILAC media in Fig. 3), 588 (Fig. 3). Regarding step 1(c), Cai discloses assaying the proteins in those subsets using LC-MS/MS with SILAC encoding to characterize and quantify the relative abundance of the proteins that bind to each type of particle.11 Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 225–229; Ex. 1005, 586–587 (describing “systemic characterization of carbon nanoparticle-protein corona”), 588 (Fig. 3). Cai’s results show “the relative abundance of the MWCNT-binding proteins spread over 8 orders of magnitude” and that “some of the proteins with the highest binding efficiencies” are actually “low abundance proteins” in the lysate, meaning that that Cai’s method selectively enriches such proteins for detection. Ex. 1005, 587. We credit Dr. Vargas’s testimony that these results demonstrate that Cai’s method achieves the “dynamic range” recited in step 1(c). Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 225–229.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 11,435,360 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,435,360
• Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01350 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 5–10 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 11–14 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish the claimed capacity retention after 400 cycles.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have held a Bachelor’s degree in chemistry or chemical engineering, with at least 4 years of experience in cell design, electrochemical techniques, and battery materials development.” Pet. 4. Petitioner further contends that a “Master’s Degree can substitute[] for some of the relevant experience,” and “[e]quivalent training with battery specific experience can accommodate other degreed fields.” Id. 9 The parties here do not address objective evidence of nonobviousness. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan. PO Resp. 20. We adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the ’641 patent, the prior art of record, and the parties’ arguments.” slip op. at 6

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

    “The parties agree that the term “charge cut-off voltage” is “the maximum voltage to which the battery is configured to be charged.” PO Resp 21–22; Pet. Reply 1. The parties dispute, however, whether the “charge cut-off voltage” is a “battery property” or “the voltage applied to the battery during charging.” PO Resp. 21–24; Pet. Reply 1–6. We need not resolve the precise meaning of “charge cut-off voltage” because there is no dispute that Yamaki discloses this limitation under either party’s interpretation of the claim term. Upon review of the prior art and the parties’ arguments, we determine that no terms of the ’641 patent require express construction. 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))); Pet. Reply 1 (asserting that the challenged claims are unpatentable under either parties’ construction of “charge cut-off voltage”).” slip op. at 7

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “Patent Owner’s arguments do not persuasively undermine Petitioner’s position. Sakamoto expressly discloses setting the ratio of negative to positive electrode active material in the range of 1.05 to 1.30. Ex. 1005 ¶ 8. Sakamoto also explains why this range is preferable, i.e., if the ratio is roughly equal “the charge-discharge cycle performance is insufficient due to significant deterioration from charging and discharging,” and if the ratio is 10 Citations to the prosecution history of Yamaki are to the page numbers added to the lower right corner of the document. too high “too much of the compound does not participate in charging and discharging.” Id. ¶¶ 6, 8. These disclosures are sufficient to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the ratios disclosed in Sakamoto in Yamaki. Id. ¶ 8 (providing a secondary battery with a capacity ratio between 1.05 and 1.30 and noting that by setting the ratio within this range the resulting secondary lithium battery is “safe due to low risk of heat being generated and an explosion occurring”). We also disagree that Sakamoto teaches away from elevated voltages or from increasing the amount of lithium in circulation. See PO Resp. 29. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, Sakamoto provides no general teaching against using a charge cut-off voltage above 4.2 V, or against increasing the level of lithium in circulation. Nor does Sakamoto “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” the claimed invention. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Rather, Sakamoto warns against setting the reversible capacities of the positive and negative electrode substantially equal as this may result in excess lithium plating on the surface of the electrode. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 8. We agree with Petitioner that this disclosure would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to design a battery with a higher capacity in the negative electrode active material than the positive electrode active material. Pet. 11–12.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “We also disagree that Sakamoto teaches away from elevated voltages or from increasing the amount of lithium in circulation. See PO Resp. 29. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, Sakamoto provides no general teaching against using a charge cut-off voltage above 4.2 V, or against increasing the level of lithium in circulation. Nor does Sakamoto “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” the claimed invention. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Rather, Sakamoto warns against setting the reversible capacities of the positive and negative electrode substantially equal as this may result in excess lithium plating on the surface of the electrode. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 8. We agree with Petitioner that this disclosure would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to design a battery with a higher capacity in the negative electrode active material than the positive electrode active material. Pet. 11–12.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,749,641
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2025 · IPR2024-00597 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2–4 and 6–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Abe and Guyomard, with claims 9–10 also obvious over Iwaizono; claims 1 and 5 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Master’s degree in material science, chemical engineering, chemistry, or similar field with four years of experience designing testing, and building secondary lithium batteries.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of “(1) positive electrode materials, (2) negative electrode materials, (3) separators, (4) electrolytes, (5) charge-discharge parameters, and (6) protection circuits, as well as ‘battery failure modes’ such as plating and the formation of dendrites.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 50–51). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 17. Upon review of the prior art of record and the parties’ arguments, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’641 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We also agree with Patent Owner that the charge cut-off voltage is not necessarily the applied voltage during charging. PO Resp. 20. Rather, depending on the charging protocol used and when in the charging cycle the voltage is applied, the applied voltage could be higher than the battery voltage. Ex. 2013; Ex. 2006 ¶ 91. For example, as discussed in more detail below with respect to the Uemura grounds, when fast charging using constant current is used and the charging rate is not slow, the applied voltage will be higher than the battery voltage when the constant current charging phase is stopped. Ex. 2006 ¶ 91; Ex. 2013. Likewise, during constant current/constant voltage charging, the applied voltage approximates the battery voltage only when the battery is nearly completely charged. Ex. 2013; Ex. 2006 ¶ 91. Thus, the applied voltage may be, but is not necessarily, the charge cut-off voltage. In view of the foregoing, we construe “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 as “the maximum value to which the battery is configured to be charged.” PO Resp. 18; Ex. 2008, 217:6–11; Pet. Reply 5. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, however, we do not understand the phrase “configured to be charged” to necessarily represent a single voltage for the battery that is determined based on the structure and chemistry of the battery. Pet. Reply 4–5. Rather, the charge cut-off voltage is a selected potential, or voltage, of the battery or cell at the end of charging that is controlled by a circuit or device, such as a charger or control circuit within the battery. Ex. 1001, 9:50–55; Ex. 1048, 2, 7–8; Ex. 1008, 3:9–13. And, for the reasons discussed herein, the charge cut-off voltage may be, but is not necessarily, the same as the applied voltage during charging. PO Resp. 20.” slip op. at 15

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

    “charge cut-off voltage “greater than 4.2 V but less than 5.8 V” and calculating a specific or theoretic capacity “with a charge cut-off voltage limited to 4.2” (claim 1) or “with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V” (claim 5). Ex. 1001, 16:56–61, 17:6–11. Although the parties dispute the precise scope of these claim terms, the parties agree that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 refers to the potential of the battery as a whole (between the cathode and the anode), and not a half-cell voltage using lithium metal as a counter electrode.10 Tr. 17:1–3 (agreeing 10 With respect to the phrase “as calculated by a theoretic capacity with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V,” the parties in fact appear to be in that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claim 5 refers to a full-cell voltage); Sur-reply 5; PO Resp. 22. We need not further construe the claims to resolve the disputes between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Given Mr. Juzkow’s unambiguous testimony that Uemura uses constant current charging that would stop when the applied voltage reached 11 The chart is reproduced from SAFT, Charging your lithium-ion batteries: 5 expert tips for a longer lifespan, (https://www.saft.com/energizing-iot/charging-your-lithium-ion-batteries-5-expert-tips-longerlifespan#:~: text=When%20the%20battery%20provides%20current,This%20restore s%20the%20battery's%20capacity). 4.3 V, as well as Dr. Yao’s persuasive testimony that Uemura’s constant charging rate is not slow, we credit the testimony of Dr. Yao that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the internal voltage to which the battery of Uemura was charged is less than 4.3 V. Ex. 2006 ¶ 119. In particular, Dr. Yao persuasively testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have believed that the charge cut-off voltage was no more than 4.2 V, and most likely equal to “about 4 V.” Id. ¶¶ 119–122.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,749,641
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2025 · IPR2023-01183 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2–4 and 6–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Abe and Guyomard, with claims 9 and 10 also obvious over Iwaizono; claims 1 and 5 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Master’s degree in material science, chemical engineering, chemistry, or similar field with four years of experience designing testing, and building secondary lithium batteries.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of “(1) positive electrode materials, (2) negative electrode materials, (3) separators, (4) electrolytes, (5) charge-discharge parameters, and (6) protection circuits, as well as ‘battery failure modes’ such as plating and the formation of dendrites.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 50–51). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 17. Upon review of the prior art of record and the parties’ arguments, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’641 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 9

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

    “constructions. First, we agree with Petitioner that the ’641 patent indicates that the charge cut-off voltage selected for a particular battery need not be a fixed property of the battery or something that is set by the design and chemistry of the battery. Consistent with this conclusion, the ’641 patent discloses that a “charging device controls the charge cut-off voltage of the single lithium-ion cell within a range from 4.3 V to 5.8 V.” Ex. 1001, 9:50– 55. This strongly suggests that the charge cut-off voltage is controlled by the charger and is not necessarily an inherent property of the battery. Patent Owner contends that this is merely an unclaimed embodiment, but the relevant disclosure states that the charging device for the “present invention” may be any type of device “with the proviso that said charging device controls the charge cut-off voltage.” Id. at 9:50–53.” slip op. at 12

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

    “charge cut-off voltage “greater than 4.2 V but less than 5.8 V” and calculating a specific or theoretic capacity “with a charge cut-off voltage limited to 4.2” (claim 1) or “with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V” (claim 5). Ex. 1001, 16:56–61, 17:6–11. Although the parties dispute the precise scope of these claim terms, the parties agree that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 refers to the potential of the battery as a whole (between the cathode and the anode), and not a half-cell voltage using lithium metal as a counter electrode.10 Tr. 17:1–3 (agreeing 10 With respect to the phrase “as calculated by a theoretic capacity with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V,” the parties in fact appear to be in that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claim 5 refers to a full-cell voltage); Sur-reply 5; PO Resp. 22. We need not further construe the claims to resolve the disputes between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Given Mr. Juzkow’s unambiguous testimony that Uemura uses constant current charging that would stop when the applied voltage reached 11 The chart is reproduced from SAFT, Charging your lithium-ion batteries: 5 expert tips for a longer lifespan, (https://www.saft.com/energizing-iot/charging-your-lithium-ion-batteries-5-expert-tips-longerlifespan#:~: text=When%20the%20battery%20provides%20current,This%20restore s%20the%20battery's%20capacity). 4.3 V, as well as Dr. Yao’s persuasive testimony that Uemura’s constant charging rate is not slow, we credit the testimony of Dr. Yao that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the internal voltage to which the battery of Uemura was charged is less than 4.3 V. Ex. 2006 ¶ 119. In particular, Dr. Yao persuasively testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have believed that the charge cut-off voltage was no more than 4.2 V, and most likely equal to “about 4 V.” Id. ¶¶ 119–122. Petitioner argues that because the battery of Uemura is charged “to” a maximum voltage of 4.3 V, Uemura discloses the claimed charge cut-off voltage under either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s construction of the term. Pet. Reply 11–12 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 81; Ex. 1044 ¶¶ 56–59). This argument is not persuasive because Mr. Juzkow unambiguously testified that charging in Uemura stopped when the applied voltage reached 4.3 V, and Uemura discloses that the battery was charged “at” a voltage ranging from 4.3 V to 2.0 V, not “to” such a voltage. Ex. 1009 ¶ 81; Ex. 2008, 113:2–13; Ex. 2006 ¶ 119 n.64; Sur-reply 9. In view of the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Uemura anticipates independent claims 1 and 5 of the ’641 patent.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,749,641
• Chongqing Yanmei Technology Co., Ltd. v. Terves, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 27, 2024 · IPR2023-00521 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 19–61, 63–77, and 79 are unpatentable as anticipated by Doud; claims 78, 80, and 81 are not shown unpatentable. The contingent motion to amend is granted in part and denied in part.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have at least a Ph.D. in chemistry, metallurgy, or material science or material engineering” or, in the alternative, “would have a Bachelor of Science or Master of Science degree in one of these disciplines plus experience involving the use and design of dissolvable metal alloys for use in creating tools and other downhole parts for well drilling or completion activities.” Pet. 13–14. Patent Owner does not oppose Petitioner’s contentions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 12 n.4. Upon review of the prior art of record and the parties’ arguments, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan as it is consistent with the prior art of record.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “With respect to claim 19, Petitioner proposes constructions for the terms “in situ precipitate” and “a plurality of particles of said in situ precipitate having a size of no more than 50 µm.” Pet. 11–12. With respect to claims 76–81, Petitioner proposes a construction for the term “wherein said additive material includes one or more metal materials selected from the group consisting of 0.1–35 wt. % copper, 0.1–24.5 wt. % nickel and 0.1–20 wt. % cobalt.” Id. at 13. Patent Owner contends no claims require construction for purposes of this Decision. PO Resp. 12 n.4, 17–18; Mot. 16–17. Upon review of the prior art of record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Final Written Decision. 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 8

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateWritten description adequateMixed

    “Ex. 2027, 20:25–21:5 (emphasis added). The disclosure that the “magnesium composite” of “[t]he present invention” “includes at least 50 wt% magnesium” is unambiguous and constitutes strong evidence that the inventors were not in possession of a magnesium composite with less than 50 wt. % magnesium, or additive concentrations above 50 wt. %. See SciMed Life Systems, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovasular Systems, Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that a description of the “present invention” as having a particular structure “is strong evidence that the claims should not be read to encompass the opposite structure”). Consistent with this conclusion, the original claims of the ’295 application all limited the additive material in the composite to 0.05 wt %–45 wt %. Ex. 2027, 26:1– 13, 29:9–15. Likewise, in each example where copper, nickel, or cobalt additives are used in the range recited in the proposed substitute claims, the magnesium composite is “over 50 wt% magnesium,” and any claims that do not require this range of magnesium are limited to an additive range of “about 0.05 wt%–45 wt% of said mixture.”8 Ex. 2027, 6:13–7:4, 7:16–19, 8 Written description support is considered from the view point of the ordinarily skilled artisan. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Patent Owner, bearing the burden to show written description support in any priority application for which it seeks the benefit of its filing date, provides no testimony from an ordinarily skilled artisan regarding written description support in the ’295 application, or any evidence to show what such an artisan would conclude from the express disclosures of the ’295 application. Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at 7; In re NTP, 654 F.3d 1268, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (noting that “a patent’s claims are not entitled to an earlier priority date merely because the patentee claims priority . . . Rather, for a patent’s claims to be entitled to an earlier priority date, the patentee must demonstrate that the claims meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120”). Where there is any ambiguity in the disclosures of the ’295 application, the absence of supporting testimony tends to cut against 26:2–31:2; see Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 12, 13, 18, 19, 16–21, 26, 28, claims 16–21, 26– 28. In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded that Patent Owner has demonstrated that the inventors of the priority applications were in possession of a magnesium cast composite that included less than 50 wt. % magnesium, or greater than 50 wt. % additives. As proposed substitute claim 104 encompasses a magnesium cast composite with up to 90 wt. % additives, and therefore as little as 10 wt. % magnesium, Patent Owner has not demonstrated that the full scope of this claim finds written description support in any application prior to the ’915 application, filed on October 12, 2018.” slip op. at 17

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteIndefiniteMixed

    “The definiteness requirement of § 112(a) is satisfied when “a patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable clarity.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 910 (2014); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (changing the claim construction standard used to review a claim proposed in a motion to amend from the broadest reasonable construction to the “same construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b)”). Proposed substitute claim 104 generically requires “in situ precipitate” and also a specific type of in situ precipitate: “in situ galvanically-active intermetallic precipitate.” Mot. Appendix A. Although this claim would have best been clarified by Patent Owner after seeking preliminary guidance on its Motion to Amend, upon review of the written description, claims, and figures of the ’740 patent, as well as Patent Owner’s clarification in its Reply to the Opposition, we agree with Patent Owner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the “in situ galvanically-active intermetallic precipitate” is merely a more complete description of the “in situ precipitate” mentioned earlier in the sentence. Mot. Reply 4. As such, we do not find that this part of proposed substitute claim renders claim 104 indefinite.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 10,689,740 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,689,740
• Apple Inc. v. Alivecor, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 26, 2023 · IPR2022-00872 · APJ Jeffrey N Fredman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–8, 10, 12, and 13 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 3, 9, and 11 were not shown unpatentable because the combinations lacked a persuasive reason to record spoken messages simultaneously with ECG …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “PO Resp. 9. Patent Owner asserts “a POSA would have understood the plain and ordinary meaning of the term ‘acoustic signal’ [is] a signal that is transmitted as a sound wave through the ambient environment.” Id.; Ex. 2003 ¶ 25. Patent Owner therefore asserts a POSA would have understood the claimed “frequency modulated ECG acoustic signal” is a signal that is transmitted as a sound wave through the ambient environment, [and excludes] signals transmitted by electronic or wireless radio means, because claim 1 requires the acoustic signal to be “received from a built-in microphone of the smartphone.” PO Resp. 9; Ex. 2003 ¶ 26. Petitioner responds by asserting that “a POSITA would have understood that acoustic transmission is a form of wireless transmission.” Pet. Reply 24; Ex. 1021, 46:7–47:5 (citing the Jafari Deposition where Dr. Jafari stated “in the event of an acoustic signal, there is no need to connect a wire”) Having considered the entire record, we do not find there is a substantive dispute over the term “acoustic signal” as both Patent Owner and Petitioner agree that acoustic signals include wireless signals transmitted as a sound wave through the environment. We will apply this understanding in our further analysis.” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had either (1) at least a bachelor of science in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, or biomedical engineering, or a related discipline, with at least two years of relevant multidisciplinary work experience designing wearable devices and/or sensors for measuring physiological signals or parameters of mammals, or (2) a medical degree and at least five years of relevant work experience designing wearable devices and/or sensors for measuring physiological signals or parameters of mammals.” slip op. at 5

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “interference of sound waves was a known phenomenon at the time of the invention does not demonstrate that the ordinary artisan would have had reason to select particular carrier frequencies for the ECG acoustic signals that avoided human voice frequencies in the absence of any disclosure that such frequencies were known to interfere. Rather, we agree with Patent Owner that this is hindsight reasoning because until the ’882 patent pointed out this concern in the context of claim 1, there is no indication the prior art recognized that human voice interference was an issue.” slip op. at 26

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMixed

    “that Vyshedskiy’s disclosure of a list of preferred carrier frequencies represents a permissible “obvious to try” situation. In KSR, the Supreme Court stated that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. And simply because the prior art “discloses a multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular formulation less obvious.” Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The instant facts represent a situation where, at the time of invention in 2010, it would have been obvious to try the known carrier frequencies of Vyshedskiy for modulation of the acoustic ECG signal of Albert in the claimed frequency range of 6 kHz to 20 kHz because these carrier frequencies would have been obvious alternatives to try to address Vyshedskiy’s disclosed design need for simultaneous measurement of heart sound auscultation and ECG heart cycle. See Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 13– 15).” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 8,509,882 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,509,882
• Extractiontek Sales LLC v. Gene Pool Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 23, 2023 · IPR2022-01011 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 and 9–11 are unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds; claims 8 and 12–20 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “On the full trial record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, with Patent Owner’s additions. The additions are consistent with the evidence of record. For example, we find that adding chemistry and biology degrees is appropriate in view of Dr. Miller’s testimony that college-level chemistry and biology courses typically include training on extractive technologies. Ex. 1017 (Miller Tr.), 38:9–39:18. We also agree with Patent Owner that the educational level of the inventors may be considered (see Env’t Designs, Ltd., 713 F.2d at 696), and on this record, we accept Patent Owner and Dr. Miller’s undisputed representation that “named inventor Jason Wasserman had a bachelor’s degree in Agricultural Science and Sustainable Agriculture, a life sciences degree.” Ex. 2008 (Miller Decl.) ¶ 32; PO Resp. 5. Thus, for the reasons above, we define a person of ordinary skill in the art as someone who would have had (1) a bachelor’s degree in chemistry, biology, mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, petroleum engineering, or an equivalent field of physical science, life science, or engineering; and some academic or industry experience working with, designing, or studying methods of extracting solute from a source material or similar devices; or (2) at least four years of industry experience working with, designing, or studying methods of extracting solute from a source material or similar devices.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Based on this experience, we determine that Dr. Miller qualifies as a person of ordinary skill in the art because by 1992, he had “at least four years of industry experience working with, designing, or studying methods of extracting solute from a source material or similar devices,” as required by the level of ordinary skill we adopt herein. He also avers that he gained additional training and engaged in additional extraction work prior to the effective filing date. Id. Additionally, between 2015 and 2020, Dr. Miller “enter[ed] the cannabis extraction and concentration industry, designing, building, and operating [his] own facility,” further qualifying him as a person of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 2002 (Miller Decl.) ¶ 10; see also Reply 6 (acknowledging Dr. Miller’s post-2015 “experience and expertise in closed loop extraction systems”). Although this work started in 2015 (two years after the effective filing date of 2013), a person of ordinary skill in the art need not have been one of ordinary skill at the time of a patent’s filing date. See U.S. Endoscopy Group, Inc. v. CDX Diagnostics, Inc., IPR2014-00639, Paper 27, at 18 (Sept. 14, 2015) (“A witness must provide testimony about the level of skill in the art as of the critical date; however, the witness need not have acquired that knowledge as of the critical date.”). For the reasons discussed above, we determine that Dr. Miller is qualified in this proceeding to testify from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 14

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

    “We find that Patent Owner has the better argument. Patent Owner’s citations demonstrate that “[t]he ’751 patent consistently describes ‘solvent collection line’ as a line, a pipe, hose, or tube used for the transport of gasses or liquids,” and that this usage is consistent with the way both parties’ declarants use the term “line.” PO Resp. 29–30; Ex. 1001, 9:16–10:41, 14:65–15:10, Figs. 1, 2, 5; Ex. 2002 (Miller Decl.), ¶ 60; Ex. 2003 (Chess Depo. Tr.), 100:6–17, 145:20–146:7, 169:18–171:2. In contrast, Petitioner’s argument is undermined by the same passage it cites. Specifically, “what the ’751 Patent explains in the same paragraph Petitioner cites is that the ‘solvent collection line 190 is configured to pass through condensing system 105 between second pump 102 and solvent collection container 15.’” Sur-reply 14–15 (quoting Ex. 1001, 8:60–63) (emphasis Patent Owner’s). “Figure 5 shows that both ‘solvent collection line 190’ and ‘coolant line 109’ are still ‘lines’ as they pass through ‘first condenser column 107.’” Id. at 15 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 5, 9:48–58). Figure 1, in contrast, shows that coolant pump 104 is a component that is distinct from coolant line 109. See id. (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 1, 9:6–25). For the above reasons, we construe “line” to mean “a pipe, hose, or tube.”” slip op. at 19

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

    “We need not define the exact contours of a “canister interface,” including deciding whether it is “more than a mere connector.” Nor do we need to construe the claim term “support.” It is sufficient to note that a canister interface is not simply the system’s canisters themselves. The plain language of the claims recite that the “canister interface” must be configured to “support” the canisters (thereby distinguishing the canister interface from the canisters themselves). The Specification likewise distinguishes the canister interface and the canisters, indicating that the canister interface “allow[s] canisters to be easily detached and reattached.” Ex. 1001, 11:61– 62. Similarly, Mr. Chess distinguished a “detachable canister interface” from the system’s canisters/containers, characterizing the former as a “fitting of some sort so that you can disconnect or connect the solvent source container to the extraction vessel or canister.” Ex. 2003 (Chess Depo. Tr.), 182:10–16 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 46

  Patent outcomesUS 9,144,751 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,144,751
• Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Colibri Heart Valve LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 11, 2023 · IPR2022-00878 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 55–72, 78–80, 83, and 84 are unpatentable over the instituted grounds; Petitioner did not show claim 85 unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill In determining the level of skill in the art, we consider the type of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus. Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been a mechanical engineer, medical device engineer, or an interventional cardiologist with a working knowledge of stent-based prostheses for use in a patient’s heart or vasculature to replace and/or repair a diseased valve, intravascular delivery systems for the delivery of such prostheses, and methods associated with the delivery and implantation of such prostheses in a patient. Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1026 ¶ 27). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner[’s] definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 2. 8 The parties have not directed our attention to any objective evidence of obviousness or non-obviousness. reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Terms Defined by the ’400 Patent 1. Both parties discuss claim terms (“substantially conical,” “folds,” “biocompatible membrane [that] does not comprise a treated tissue,” “cusp,” “cuff wall,” “frame,” “mobile leaflet layer” or “mobile leaflet,” “proximal,” “non-transverse”, and “plurality of . . . leaflets”) which are defined by the ’400 patent’s explicit definition of these terms or its explicit definition of a related term (e.g., definition of “folding” also defines claim term “folds”). Pet. 26–28; PO Resp. 26–28. Both parties assert that the definitions in the ’400 patent define these claim terms. Id. We agree. For the claim terms defined by the ’400 patent, Patent Owner has acted as its own lexicographer by setting out the definitions of these claims terms in the specification of the ’400 patent. Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am., LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 10 We note that throughout its claim construction arguments, Patent Owner refers to the claim construction of the word “attach;” however, the claim term at issue is “attached.” We understand Patent Owner to be referring to this claim term and treat Patent Owner’s arguments as if they refer to the claim term “attached.” discussed in Sections D–F below, we construe these terms in accordance with their definitions set forth in the ’400 patent.” slip op. at 14

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

    “f) Conclusion Re Claim Construction For “Attached” We begin our analysis by reiterating that under the Phillips standard, claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one with ordinary skill in the art in the context of the specification, the prosecution history, other claims, and even extrinsic evidence including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises, although extrinsic evidence is less significant than the intrinsic record. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17. When a patent owner wishes to employ a definition that is different from the ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term, it may do so by acting as its own lexicographer setting out the definition of that claim term in the specification of its patent. Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365. As discussed in Section II.C.1 above, Patent Owner has acted as its own lexicographer and defined numerous claim terms in the ’400 patent. See Ex. 1001, 11:41–13:18. Thus, it is readily apparent that when Patent Owner intended to employ a definition of a claim term that differed from the the ordinary and customary meaning of that claim term, Patent Owner provided such a definition. A person of ordinary skill in the art would infer accordance with their ordinary and customary meaning. Having considered the full record before us including the evidence, testimony, and argument in support of the parties’ positions, we agree with Petitioner that the claim term “attached” should be construed in accordance with its ordinary and customary meaning, which the parties agree is “fastened, secured, or joined, directly or indirectly.”12 Pet. Reply 1; PO Resp. 15. We do not find that the context of the ’400 patent further narrows this term such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “attached” to require attachment “at the same location.” Accordingly, we apply the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim term “attached” in considering the challenges set forth in the Petition discussed below.” slip op. at 22

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “testimony, and arguments in support of both parties’ positions, we agree with Petitioner that Melsheimer’s cusps are substantially conical as required by independent claim 55. The definition of “substantially conical” set forth in the ’400 patent does not require that every part of the structure in question resemble a cone. Ex. 1001, 12:47–54. Rather, it requires a structure that “resembles a cone or portion thereof at some point in the practical use of the structure” and a “cross-sectional perimeter or area of the structure in the operationally closed position that decreases moving from the level of the leaflet apposition to the proximal end of the valve.” Id. (emphasis added). Melsheimer discloses receptacles 18 that are cone-shaped. Ex. 1003, Fig. 4A. Although, Melsheimer’s leaflet 16 and receptacle 18 pairs are not entirely cone-shaped, they do still resemble a cone. Further, Melsheimer’s receptacles 18 have the required cross-sectional perimeter. See id. Accordingly, we determine that these pairs (i.e., Melsheimer’s cusps) are “substantially conical” in accordance with the definition set forth in the ’400 patent. Conclusion For Grounds 1–3 Having considered the full record before us including the evidence, testimony, and arguments of both parties, we determine that Petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 55, 56, 58, 59–61, 63, 65, and 66 are anticipated by Melsheimer (Ground 1). We further determine that claims 57, 64, 78, and 79 are unpatentable over Melsheimer alone or in combination with Eberhardt (Ground 2) and that claims 62, 83, and 84 are unpatentable over Melsheimer alone or in combination with Pavcnik (Ground 3).” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 9,737,400 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,737,400
• Extractiontek Sales LLC v. Gene Pool Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 26, 2023 · IPR2022-00625 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 7–17 are unpatentable: claims 1, 7, 9–13 under §102 over Britt; claims 8 and 14 under §103 over Britt and Buese; and claims 15–17 under §103 over Hebert and Britt. Claims 2–6 …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “On the full trial record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, as modified by Patent Owner. Patent Owner’s proposed additions to the educational level are consistent with the evidence of record. For example, we find that adding chemistry degrees is appropriate in view of Dr. Miller’s testimony that “extractive technologies are chemistry,” and that college level chemistry typically includes training on extractive technologies. Ex. 1023 (Miller Tr.), 35:9–22, 38:25–39:18. Similarly, adding biology degrees is appropriate because Dr. Miller testified that in training for a biology degree, one is exposed to college-level chemistry and training in extractive technologies. Id. at 38:9–24. We also agree with Patent Owner that the educational level of the inventors may be considered (see Envtl Designs, Ltd., 713 F.2d at 696), and on this record, we accept Patent Owner and Dr. Miller’s undisputed representation that “named inventor Jason Wasserman had a bachelor’s degree in Agricultural Science and Sustainable Agriculture, a life sciences degree.” Ex. 2007 (Miller Decl.) ¶ 37; PO Resp. 4.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyDecided for patent owner

    “ordinary skill in the art based on education because he holds degrees in geology and earth and environmental sciences, which are not specifically recited in the proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Reply 3. Petitioner characterizes Dr. Miller’s degrees as “advanced degrees in life sciences” (id. at 3), while Patent Owner characterizes them as “at least an ‘equivalent physical science degree’” (Sur-reply 5). On this record, we determine that we need not resolve whether Dr. Miller’s degrees qualify him as a person of ordinary skill in the art, because we find that he is qualified based on his experience. Dr. Miller has “decades (1988 to present) of direct experience in the use of partial and complete extractions of diverse materials in environmental studies.” Ex. 2007 (Miller Decl.) ¶ 8. He has also “studied, used, and developed thousands of extractions to solubilize and remove oils, wastes, metals, and other toxins from soil, water, plants, and animal tissues for analysis.” Id. He avers that “[e]xtractive chemistry was core to [his] business practice in 1988 and remains so to this day,” and that “[b]y 1992 [he] would have developed ordinary skill in the art having 4 years of experience relevant to the current subject.” Id. ¶ 10. Based on this experience, we determine that Dr. Miller qualifies as a person of ordinary skill in the art because by 1992, he had “at least four years of industry experience working with, designing, or studying methods of extracting solute from a source material or similar devices,” as required by the level of ordinary skill we adopt herein. He also gained additional training and engaged in additional extraction work prior to the effective filing date. Id.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “of a source material,” and “[w]ithin the canister, the source material is exposed to a solvent to create an extract mixture.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:1–3). We adopt this understanding of the term “canister,” because it is supported by the cited portion of the Specification and is undisputed on this record.” slip op. at 15

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

    “Ex. 1001, 22:1–6. We agree with Petitioner this language does not require control over when the extract mixture formed in step 1(c) is communicated to the extract containers in step 1(d). Reply 7. Dr. Miller conceded that “[e]xtraction is going to start instantaneous[ly],” such that at least some portion of an extract mixture is instantaneously created in step 1(c). Ex. 1023 (Miller Tr.), 67:23–68:7, 120:8–13. Thus, “the next step could occur instantaneously.” Reply 9. We see nothing in the claim language requiring any degree of completion of step 1(c), or any waiting period, before step 1(d) begins. Nor do Patent Owner’s briefs point to any particular aspect of these limitations that allegedly demand such an interpretation. See generally PO Resp. 5; Sur-reply 6–9. Dr. Miller asserts that the plain meaning of steps “does not allow for a passive, automatic, and continuous flow of extract mixture from the canister to one or more extract containers” (Ex. 2007 (Miller Decl.) ¶¶ 30–31), but he too fails to identify what in the language of these terms prohibits this. The claims here “do not exclude a continuous process, in which later steps are initiated as soon as at least some product from the previous step forms, while previous steps are still ongoing.” Kaneka Corp. v. Xiamen Kingdomway Group Co., 790 F.3d 1298, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 9,587,203 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,587,203
• Dexcom, Inc. v. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 10, 2023 · IPR2022-00605 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 8–10, and 12–17 are unpatentable over Gravesen and Brister; claims 7, 11, and 18–28 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The person of ordinary skill in the art as of the earliest possible effective filing date (“POSITA”) would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Bioengineering, Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, or a related subject, and one or more years of experience researching, developing and/or designing insertable medical devices, including, e.g., systems for implanting wearable medical devices such as cannulas, infusion sets, and analyte sensors, or equivalent experience. Less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a Master’s Degree, and vice versa. Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1003 (Fletcher Decl.) ¶ 22). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. PO Resp. 11 n.1. Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed on this record, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedOther

    “Second, turning to the extrinsic evidence of record, Dr. Fletcher points to a general dictionary definition indicating that a rotor is simply a “rotating member.” Ex. 1003 (Fletcher Decl.) ¶ 81 (citing Ex. 1025 (dictionary excerpts), 1). In contrast, Dr. Cima provides no evidence corroborating his evidence. The language Patent Owner quotes from the Petition comes from a “Dictionary of Mechanical Engineering.” See Pet. 38 n.9 (quoting Ex. 1024, 328). This contradicts Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s proposed construction “has no basis in mechanical engineering.” PO Resp. 19. view that a rotor must rotate on a central axis. He cites a textbook indicating that “[r]otational motion needs to take place around an appropriate axis,” but he does not explain whether or why the “appropriate axis” must necessarily be a “central axis.” Ex. 2024 (Cima Decl.) ¶ 179 (quoting Ex. 2040 (Rotordynamics) 2 (emphasis added)). “Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 11

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

    “On the full trial record, we again find that Patent Owner’s proposed narrowing is unwarranted. First, the intrinsic record does not support Patent Owner’s required “central” axis. Patent Owner argues that the Specification describes two inserter embodiments as having “rotors,” and those rotors have a central axis. PO Resp. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1001, 29:25–28, 29:55–59, Figs. 32, 45). Patent Owner, however, fails to explain why those embodiments should be understood to limit the claims. For example, in Phillips, the Federal Circuit “expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323; see also SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[A] particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.”). Second, turning to the extrinsic evidence of record, Dr. Fletcher points to a general dictionary definition indicating that a rotor is simply a “rotating member.” Ex. 1003 (Fletcher Decl.) ¶ 81 (citing Ex. 1025 (dictionary excerpts), 1). In contrast, Dr. Cima provides no evidence corroborating his evidence. The language Patent Owner quotes from the Petition comes from a “Dictionary of Mechanical Engineering.” See Pet. 38 n.9 (quoting Ex. 1024, 328). This contradicts Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s proposed construction “has no basis in mechanical engineering.” PO Resp. 19. view that a rotor must rotate on a central axis. He cites a textbook indicating that “[r]otational motion needs to take place around an appropriate axis,” but he does not explain whether or why the “appropriate axis” must necessarily be a “central axis.” Ex. 2024 (Cima Decl.) ¶ 179 (quoting Ex. 2040 (Rotordynamics) 2 (emphasis added)). “Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 11

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Although the Petition does state that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would understand the plain and ordinary meaning of a ‘recess’ to include ‘an indentation in a line or surface (as an alcove in a room),’” the Petition does not specify what else is “include[d]” in this term, nor does it specify that the plain and ordinary meaning of “recess” includes the entire interior of a housing. The Petition also does not invoke the Specification as demonstrating that the plain and ordinary meaning of “recess” includes the entire housing.13 Pet. 64 (emphasis added). Petitioner’s belated proposal also conflicts with the language of the claims themselves. Independent claim 1 recites “a rotor disposed within the inserter housing.” Ex. 1001, 43:42. Dependent claim 7 narrows claim 1 by reciting that “the housing comprises a recess in which the rotor is received.” Id. at 44:11–12. If the interior of the inserter housing and the recess could be one and the same as Petitioner proposes, there would be no need for claim 7, because it would not further limit claim 1. See 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) (“a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed”); see also Nazomi Commc’ns, Inc. v. Arm Holdings, PLC, 403 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The concept of claim differentiation ‘normally means that limitations stated in dependent claims are not to be read into the independent claim from which they depend.’”) (quoting Karlin Tech., Inc. v. Surgical Dynamics, Inc., 177 F.3d 968, 971–72 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Accordingly, we decline Petitioner’s belated request to construe “recess” to include “an entire cavity of a housing or a cylinder.” 13 We acknowledge that Petitioner argued that the entire interior of Gravesen’s housing maps to the claimed “recess,” but this was in the context of comparing the prior art to the claim as construed. Indeed, Petitioner asserted that “the space within [Gravesen’s] housing is an alcove.” Pet. 64– 65 (emphasis added). In sum, Petitioner did not timely argue that the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “recess” includes an entire cavity of a housing or a cylinder. We adopt the only construction Petitioner offered and supported in the Petition. In view of the above, we construe “recess” as meaning “an indentation in a line or surface (as an alcove in a room).”” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 10,945,649 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,945,649

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.