• Jiangsu Favored Nanotechnology Co., Ltd. v. P2i Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 11, 2025 · IPR2024-00380 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 7, and 9–14 are unpatentable as obvious over Cohen and Legein or Francesch and Legein; Petitioner’s motion to strike is denied as moot.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “The parties agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’087 patent in June 20154 “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in a field such as chemistry, physics, or chemical engineering, as well as at least two years of experience with plasma-polymerization techniques.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 22–29); PO Resp. 13 (Patent Owner stating that it “does not dispute this characterization of the level of ordinary skill in the art.”); see also PO Sur-reply 1–2 (noting both parties’ agreement on the education and experience level of the ordinarily skilled artisan).” slip op. at 7

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

    “On the fully developed trial record, we determine that no claims need an express construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Because of Patent Owner’s shifting definitions of the education and experience level of the ordinarily skilled artisan, it is unclear on the complete record what precise definition Patent Owner and Dr. Senkevitch are applying when arguing the skilled artisan’s capabilities. PO Resp. 13, 22–27, 31–32, 34–40; PO Sur-reply 1–6, 11–13; Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 30, 31, 33, 34, 37, 40, 52–55, 60, 68, 74, 76, 77, 80–86, 89, 91, 94, 95, 100, 102–105, 108, 110, 111, 113–116, 118–120, 122, 124, 127–134. We, therefore, give Dr. Senkevitch’s testimony regarding the capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art minimal weight, which leaves us with Patent Owner’s insufficiently supported arguments regarding the skilled artisan’s capabilities. PO Resp. 13, 22–27, 31–32, 34–40; PO Sur-reply 1–6, 11–13. Moreover, as Petitioner correctly points out, the ʼ087 patent expressly teaches that the precise conditions for forming a protective polymeric coating “will vary depending upon factors such as, without limitation, the nature of the monomer compound, the crosslinking agent, the substrate, as well as the desired properties of the coating” and that such “conditions can be determined using routine methods.” Ex. 1001 15:1–15:5 (emphasis added); Pet. Reply 17. Where the patent itself leaves to the judgment of an ordinarily skilled artisan the assessment of these factors to ascertain suitable conditions for forming the protective coating, we find persuasive Petitioner’s view that it would have been well within the level of ordinary skill to ascertain such suitable conditions.” slip op. at 20

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

    “We disagree with Patent Owner. Although the claims of the ʼ087 patent recite obtaining the protective cross-linked polymeric coating “by exposing the device or component to a plasma,” the field of endeavor analysis in an analogous art inquiry does not exclusively turn on the claims at issue, but rather takes account of the entirety of a patent’s disclosure. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (explaining that “the PTO must show adequate support for its findings on the scope of the field of endeavor in the application’s written description and claims” (emphasis added)); In re Mettke, 570 F.3d 1356, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (rejecting an argument that the field of endeavor was limited to a claimed “Internet terminal” when “the specification describes various communication media, including facsimile machines and email, as related to the invention.”). This is significant here because the ʼ087 patent discloses that “[t]he … invention relates to protective coatings” and specifically “relates to protective coatings for electronic or electrical devices and components thereof, and methods of forming such coatings.” Ex. 1001, 1:14–17. Based on this disclosure, we find that the ʼ087 patent’s field of endeavor relates to “protective coatings for electronic or electrical devices and components thereof” broadly, not just those formed on such devices or components via a plasma polymerization process as asserted by Patent Owner. Id. Although Cohen does not explicitly disclose that its crosslinked polymers constitute a “protective coating,” Cohen does disclose that its “copolymerizable mixture can be cast into films” (Ex. 1004, 2:61–62), that the polymerization can “effected in situ,” and that the polymers may be used in “numerous” electrical applications (id. at 5:17–25). Tr. 8:9–10:2, 27:2– 21; see Pet. Reply 5 (explaining how “Cohen described insulating polymers that could be applied as films and be used to protect substrates including cables and electrical coils.” (citing Ex. 1004, 2:60–63, 5:13–25)). These disclosures suggest strongly that Cohen’s crosslinked polymers––if cast into a film or formed in situ on an electrical device or component––would serve as a protective coating on that electrical device or component, even though Cohen does not expressly refer to its crosslinked polymers ipsis verbis as a “protective coating.” Thus, we find that Cohen is within the field of endeavor of the ʼ087 patent.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 11,041,087 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,041,087
• Google LLC v. Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01210 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 18 is unpatentable as anticipated by Shkedi and Zhu; claims 1, 15, 41, and 52 were statutorily disclaimed, and the alternative obviousness grounds were not reached.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther

    “After institution, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 26, “PO Resp.”). Patent Owner also filed a statutory disclaimer of claims 1, 15, 41, and 52. PO Resp. 1; Ex. 2024. Accordingly, the only claim remaining for our consideration at trial is claim 18. See 35 U.S.C. § 253 (disclaimer of claims considered effective as if part of original patent); 37 C.F.R. § 42.107 (Board will not institute trial on disclaimed claims). Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 33, “Reply”), and Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply (Paper 37, “Sur-reply”).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this proceeding. PO Resp. 11–12 (citing Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 47–48). For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as 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 9

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

    “Upon consideration of the parties’ arguments and for the reasons explained below, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s additional requirement of evaluating the calibration data to determine the boundaries of the area represented by a grid point should not be included in the construction of either “grid point” or “non-uniform grid point.” Instead, based on the full record, we discern no reason to alter our prior construction of “grid point” as “a point associated with representative calibration data for an area” and maintain that construction for this Final Written Decision for the following reasons. First, the construction of “grid point” we adopt here is supported by the Specification of the ’358 patent. Namely, the ’358 patent discloses that “[i]n general, a non-uniform grid point (NUG) may represent the signal characteristics and/or calibration data over a given region,” and “NUGs represent an area of collected calibration data.”9 Ex. 1001, 3:57–67. The district court identified the second quoted passage, which is identically recited in the ’104 patent (see Ex. 1018, 3:50–60) as “provid[ing] a clear indication of the meaning of ‘grid point.’” Ex. 1028, 19 (emphasis added). We agree with the district court’s analysis. Although the ’358 patent does not explain how a generic “grid point” might differ from the described “nonuniform grid point,” we do not find this distinction pertinent to construing “grid point” in this case because neither party raises this issue. Furthermore,” slip op. at 18

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

    “We agree with Petitioner. The pertinent disclosure from Shkedi reads: Simply stated, if a mobile telephone (at a user selected location) measures a plurality of service antenna signals and stores these with their respective service antenna identifications, then that mobile telephone (or an equivalent unit) upon observing an respective signal strengths—can reasonably conclude that it is within a predetermined proximity of the original user selected location. Ex. 1006, 8:41–48. Here, we find that the language “within a predetermined proximity of the original user selected location” refers to an area around the original user selected location. In other words, “within a predetermined proximity of the original user selected location” discloses that, instead of being exactly at the original user selected location, the mobile telephone only need be in the area or vicinity of the original user selected location. Indeed, in acknowledging “that Shkedi assumes the user is within some ‘predetermined’ distance of [the original user selected] location” (PO Resp. 33), Patent Owner effectively confirms this interpretation of Shkedi’s disclosure. That is, being within some predetermined distance of the original user selected location is equivalent to being within a circle centered on the original user selected location and having a radius equal to the predetermined distance. That Shkedi allegedly only “assumes” that the user is within the predetermined distance of the original user selected location does not detract from the fact that Shkedi’s disclosure of “within a predetermined proximity of the original user selected location” describes an area around the original user selected location.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 8,400,358 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,400,358
• Google LLC v. Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01209 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 2 is unpatentable as anticipated by Shkedi; the Board did not reach the alternative obviousness ground based on Shkedi and Spain.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther

    “After institution, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 27, “PO Resp.”). Patent Owner also filed a statutory disclaimer of claims 1, 3, and 11. PO Resp. 1; Ex. 2024. Accordingly, the only claim remaining for our consideration at trial is claim 2. See 35 U.S.C. § 253 (disclaimer of claims considered effective as if part of original patent); 37 C.F.R. § 42.107 (Board will not institute trial on disclaimed claims). Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 34, “Reply”), and Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply (Paper 39, “Sur-reply”).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this proceeding. PO Resp. 11–12 (citing Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 47–48). For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as 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 9

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

    “contention that, because the district court referred to the data points within an area being statistically similar as the defining characteristic of a NUG region, the claimed grid points cannot exist until after the calibration data is gathered and analyzed. See PO Resp. 18–19. This contention, even if correct, is not persuasive because it is generally improper to read limitations from specific embodiments into the claims. See Cadence Pharms. Inc. v. Exela PharmSci Inc., 780 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[E]ven if all of the embodiments discussed in the patent included a specific limitation, it would not be proper to import from the patent’s written description limitations that are not found in the claims themselves.” (internal quotations omitted)); see also 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 a part of the claim.”). Patent Owner’s assertion that the ’379 provisional application and the ’784 patent both describe evaluating the statistical similarities of calibration data (PO Resp. 10, 20) also fails to provide a sufficient reason to import a requirement to evaluate the calibration data into the construction of “grid point” or “non-uniform grid point.” Similarly, Patent Owner’s assertion that is “of great importance” because it is fundamental to generating the grid points is unpersuasive. See PO Resp. 27. Even describing evaluation as being “of great importance” is an insufficient basis for importing a requirement for evaluation. See Texas Instruments, Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 805 F.2d 1558, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“[The Federal Circuit] has cautioned against limiting the claimed invention to preferred embodiments or specific examples in the specification.”).” slip op. at 19

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

    “We agree with Petitioner. The pertinent disclosure from Shkedi reads: Simply stated, if a mobile telephone (at a user selected location) measures a plurality of service antenna signals and stores these with their respective service antenna identifications, then that mobile telephone (or an equivalent unit) upon observing an identical list of service antennas with substantially identical respective signal strengths—can reasonably conclude that it is within a predetermined proximity of the original user selected location. Ex. 1006, 8:41–48. Here, we find that the language “within a predetermined proximity of the original user selected location” refers to an area around the original user selected location. In other words, “within a predetermined proximity of the original user selected location” discloses that, instead of being exactly at the original user selected location, the mobile telephone Indeed, in acknowledging “that Shkedi assumes the user is within some ‘predetermined’ distance of [the original user selected] location” (PO Resp. 33), Patent Owner effectively confirms this interpretation of Shkedi’s disclosure. That is, being within some predetermined distance of the original user selected location is equivalent to being within a circle centered on the original user selected location and having a radius equal to the predetermined distance. That Shkedi allegedly only “assumes” that the user is within the predetermined distance of the original user selected location does not detract from the fact that Shkedi’s disclosure of “within a predetermined proximity of the original user selected location” describes an area around the original user selected location.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 7,561,104 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,561,104
• Google LLC v. Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 14, 2025 · IPR2023-01212 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 7, 9, 32, 38, and 40 are unpatentable as anticipated by Spain and obvious over Spain as evidenced by Agiwal.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “III. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art: would have been someone knowledgeable in wireless networks, cellular radio systems, mobile communication devices and radio navigation systems. That person would have at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, with a background in radio frequency communications and/or navigation system technology as well as approximately two years of industry experience working on radio communication and/or navigation systems. Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 44). Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 13. 1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, effective March 16, 2013. Because the application and provisional application for the ’753 patent were filed before this date, the pre-AIA version of §§ 102, 103 apply. See Ex. 1001, codes (22), (60). Petitioner does not dispute that the filing date of the provisional application filing date applies. See Pet. 6; see generally Pet. Reply. 2 US 2003/0064735 A1, published April 3, 2003 (Ex. 1006). 3 Ankur Agiwal, LOCATOR – Location Estimation System For Wireless LANs, WMASH 2004: Proceedings of the Second ACM International Workshop on Wireless Mobile Applications and Services on WLAN Hotspots, 102–109 (2004) (Ex. 1005). For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent with the ’753 patent and the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s additional requirements of evaluating the calibration data to determine the boundaries of the area should not be included in the construction of “grid point.” Instead, based on the full record, and for the reasons explained below, we discern no reason to alter our prior construction in the Institution Decision of “grid point” as “a point associated with representative calibration data for an area.” Dec. 22– 23.” slip op. at 17

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

    “The evidence supports that Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated that Spain teaches “generating one or more sets of grid points for said calibration data,” as recited in limitation [1.2]. Spain states that: In another embodiment, the database is built by taking fingerprint measurements at predetermined locations and using intelligent algorithms that interpolate the fingerprints at all locations in between the sampled locations. Ex. 1006 ¶ 101. Relevant to this disclosure, Mr. Williams testifies that “Spain discloses generation of sets of grid points wherein each set includes newly interpolated grid points” because “the two grid points used to interpolate an additional grid point or points and the generated additional grid point or points are collectively a generated ‘set’ of grid points (i.e., a ‘set’ which includes the two calibrated grid points and the associated interpolated grid points).” Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 76–77 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 54, 55, 101). It is not disputed that Spain’s “fingerprints” are calibration data having characterizing parameters, such as observed signal strength, observed at calibration points. See Ex. 1006 ¶ 35. We find that this evidence demonstrates that Spain discloses generating one or more grid points, where the grid points are associated with calibration data.10 Accordingly, the evidence provides support that Spain’s interpolation of fingerprints at different locations discloses generation of one or more sets of grid points, where the grid points are associated with calibration data. Spain also discloses that: . . . the fingerprint corresponds not to one exact spot on the surface of the earth, but instead to a small area. The Lat and Long fields in this embodiment indicate a position inside the area, preferably the center point.” slip op. at 33

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “2. Discussion Petitioner refers to Agiwal to note that, like Spain, “Agiwal discloses an initial approximate location-based search of its database using live measurement data transmitted from a mobile device.” Pet. 18. Petitioner, however, relies only on Spain for its obviousness assertions. Id. at 22–38. The above discussion and Petitioner’s showing related to anticipation by Spain also equally apply to the obviousness showing over Spain as presented by Petitioner. See Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Patent Owner presents no additional arguments specifically directed to Petitioner’s showing as to obviousness under Spain that we have not already addressed. See generally PO Resp. Patent Owner also presents no evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness. See generally PO Resp. Weighing the record as a whole in view of the findings and analysis above, we conclude that Petitioner has met its burden to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 7, 9, 32, 38, and 40 would have been obvious over Spain as evidenced by Agiwal.” slip op. at 43

  Patent outcomesUS 8,406,753 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,406,753
• Google LLC v. Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 14, 2025 · IPR2023-01211 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 4 and 26 are unpatentable: claim 4 is anticipated by Shkedi, and claims 4 and 26 are obvious over Zhu and Spain.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “requirement of evaluating the calibration data to determine the boundaries of the area represented by a grid point should not be included in the construction of either “grid point” or “non-uniform grid point.” Instead, based on the full record, we discern no reason to alter our prior construction of “grid point” as “a point associated with representative calibration data for an area” and maintain that construction for this Final Written Decision. The construction of “grid point” we adopt is supported by the Specification of the ’494 patent. Namely, the ’494 patent discloses that “[i]n general, a non-uniform grid point (NUG) may represent the signal characteristics and/or calibration data over a given region,” and “NUGs represent an area of collected calibration data.”9 Ex. 1001, 3:58–4:2. The district court identified the second quoted passage, which is identically recited in the ’104 patent (see Ex. 1018, 3:50–60) as “provid[ing] a clear indication of the meaning of ‘grid point.’” Ex. 1028, 19 (emphasis added). We agree with the district court’s analysis. Although the ’494 patent does not explain how a generic “grid point” might differ from the described “nonuniform grid point,” we do not find this distinction pertinent to construing “grid point” in this case because neither party raises this issue. Also, based on the claim words “non-uniform grid point,” a “non-uniform grid point” is a type of grid point. Furthermore, the district court construed “grid point” only, not “non-uniform grid point.” Id. at 18–20.” slip op. at 19

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “at the time the application was filed, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the critical time. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. The resolution of this question is important because it allows us to “maintain[] objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.” Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu–Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In assessing the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quotation omitted). Generally, it is easier to establish obviousness under a higher level of ordinary skill in the art. Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“A less sophisticated level of skill generally favors a determination of nonobviousness . . . while a higher level of skill favors the reverse.”). Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been someone knowledgeable in wireless networks, cellular radio systems, mobile communication devices and radio navigation systems, having at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, with a background in radio frequency communications and/or navigation system technology as well as approximately two years of industry experience working on radio communication and/or navigation systems. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 30). Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 11–12. We adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the ’494 patent specification and 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 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We also credit Mr. Williams’s testimony that determining which calibration data is representative of an area “would not require analysis” because “[i]t could be just the actual measurement,” and “analysis could be part of it, but it doesn’t have to be.” Ex. 2023, 37:10–22. Patent Owner’s argument that this testimony is not instructive because Mr. Williams limited his responses to the construction of calibration data and avoided responding to the question asked is not persuasive. See Sur-reply 8–9. Although Mr. Williams did refer to “the calibration data construction” in his response, we disagree that he avoided responding to the question asked. He was asked: “To determine which of that calibration data is representative of an area would require analyzing that set of collected calibration data, right?” and directly responded: “It would not require analysis. It could be just the actual measurement.” Ex. 2023, 37:10–16. This testimony responded to the question asked. He then stated: “I believe that is an issue as part of the calibration data construction,” before concluding: “So analysis could be part of it, but it doesn’t have to be.” Ex. 2023, 37:17–22. Merely expressing a belief that the issue or question asked relates to the calibration data construction does not equate to his response being limited to the calibration data construction.” slip op. at 23

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

    “Thus, “grid points” and “calibration points” in the ’494 patent are distinct elements that can overlap. Specifically, a “grid point” is a point associated with representative calibration data for an area, and a “calibration point” is a point at which calibration data is collected. These points can occupy the same physical location (i.e., the same longitude/latitude coordinates) but still be a “grid point” and a “calibration point.” For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the overlap between “grid points” and “calibration points” in Shkedi undermines Petitioner’s position and evidentiary showing. Petitioner, thus, has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Shkedi teaches each element of claim 4 including non-uniform grid points. We determine that the preponderance of the evidence establishes that claim 4 is anticipated by Shkedi.” slip op. at 42

  Patent outcomesUS 8,786,494 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,786,494
• Google LLC v. Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 10, 2025 · IPR2023-01213 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 10, 12, 13, 21, and 22 are unpatentable as obvious over Crane and Spain; claim 11 is dismissed as moot.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “at the time the application was filed, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the critical time. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. The resolution of this question is important because it allows us to “maintain[] objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.” Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu–Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In assessing the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quotation omitted). Generally, it is easier to establish obviousness under a higher level of ordinary skill in the art. Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“A less sophisticated level of skill generally favors a determination of nonobviousness . . . while a higher level of skill favors the reverse.”).” slip op. at 9

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

    “after November 13, 2018, a patent claim shall be construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (as amended Oct. 11, 2018). This rule adopts the same claim construction standard used by Article III federal courts, which follow Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), and its progeny. Under this standard, the words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would have to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, in the context of the entire patent including the specification. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13.” slip op. at 10

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Pet. 15–18. Petitioner’s proposed constructions are consistent with the claim construction decision from related litigation or the parties’ prior stipulations regarding claim construction. Id.; Ex. 1023 (parties’ stipulation); Ex. 1027 (parties’ stipulation); Ex. 1028, pp. 24–32 (District Court order). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed claim construction. PO Resp. passim. We note that, the District Court held, in a non-final order, that claims 1 and 12 were indefinite because of the term “in proximity.” Ex. 1028, 24– 28. The District Court, however, did not issue a final ruling with respect to claims 1 and 12 because the parties narrowed the dispute concerning the ’784 Patent to only claim 11. Ex. 2018, ¶ 3. We also note that we do not need to assess whether or not the term “in proximity” renders claims 1 and 12 indefinite to assess the Petition. Rather, we agree with Petitioner that the “in proximity” language is at least broad enough to “encompass” the matter set forth in Petitioner’s claim construction. See Pet. 17, 37–41. This is sufficient definition to make it logically possible to reach the merits of Petitioner’s challenge. See Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 801, 813 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (holding that indefiniteness only precludes a patentability determination 102 or 103 if the indefiniteness makes it “logically impossible” to reach such a decision).” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to implement Spain’s location determination system as part of Crane’s system and that such an implementation would have a reasonable expectation of success. Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 111–112). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contentions regarding this recitation. Based on the entire trial record, we agree with Petitioner’s analysis and credit Mr. William’s testimony supporting Petitioner’s position. Thus, in view of the evidence of record, we find that Crane and Spain disclose the preamble of recitation 1.1.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 9,097,784 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,097,784
• Global Shade Corporation v. With-U E-Commerce (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 7, 2024 · IPR2023-00580 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 13, and 14 are unpatentable under § 103; proposed substitute claims 15–19 are unpatentable over Rousselle, Tsai, Ohnishi, Hoober, and Seo, so the revised motion to amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Although not identical, the parties’ definitions are substantially similar. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we determine that no reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We note, however, that our obviousness analysis in this Decision would not differ if we adopted either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner asserts construction is unnecessary and does not propose any term for construction. Pet. 7 (citing Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Patent Owner does not propose any specific claim construction for any term of the challenged claims. PO Resp. 14. On the full record, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe 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

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

    “points to any teaching, suggestion, or motivation in either reference” to replace Tsai’s leg locks with Rousselle’s central lock. PO Resp. 44 (citing Pet. 36; Ex. 1002 ¶ 103). Petitioner disagrees, arguing that the Petition cites “voluminous disclosure” from Rousselle identifying the benefits of a central lock. Reply 18 (citing Pet. 35). We agree with Petitioner. The Petition provides several rationales, supported by Dr. Stein’s testimony, for making the alternative modification. Pet. 35–37. For instance, Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Rousselle discloses the benefits of a central lock over Tsai’s individual leg locking system, such as making the canopy easier and more convenient for a single user to operate. Id. at 35–36 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 102–103; Ex. 1003, 3:38–47; Ex. 1005, 4:29–5:5, 8:5–33, Figs. 1, 2, 18, 19). Petitioner also argues that the proposed modification is the simple addition of one known element to another known element to obtain predictable results and uses a known technique to improve a similar device and yield predictable results. Id. at 36–37 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 105–107; KSR, 550 U.S. at 417). We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence and find the reasons to combine persuasive. In sum, we determine that Petitioner’s proposed reasons to combine Rousselle and Tsai in accordance with the alternative modification are realistic, have rational underpinning, and are supported by expert testimony, which we find persuasive and credit. Thus, Petitioner’s evidence shows that a skilled artisan would have had reasons to combine the teachings of in doing so. slip op. at 32

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that Tsai’s disclosure of pulling the poles or legs apart to unfold the frame does not disparage central activation to the extent of discouraging one of ordinary skill in the art from investigating or considering Rousselle’s central lock in connection with Tsai’s shelter frame. See DePuy Spine, 567 F.3d at 1327 (holding a reference does not teach away “if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not ‘criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage’ investigation into the manually pulling the four poles 1 outwardly.” Ex. 1005, 10:28–29 (emphasis added). As such, Tsai “merely expresses a general preference” for this technique (see DePuy Spine, 567 F.3d at 1327) and does not specifically require it. We agree with Petitioner that Tsai’s general preference for this technique does not teach away from any other method for unfolding the frame. Furthermore, Tsai’s statement that the shelter frame of Figures 16 and 17 is “somewhat difficult to unfold in that an extra person is sometimes needed to push the center strut C upwardly to its completely extended position” (Ex. 1005, 2:19–22) does not disparage all other center lock configurations, in particular the configuration taught by Rousselle. As Petitioner points out, Rousselle discloses that its collapsible shelter/tent with the central lock arrangement can be erected by a single person. Ex. 1003, 13:59–65. So, instead of requiring “an extra person,” the shelter frame of the combination of Tsai and Rousselle could be erected by a single person. Similarly, Tsai’s statement that the shelter frame of Figures 16 and 17 reduces headroom in the tent (Ex. 1005, 2:17–19) does not disparage all other center lock configurations. We agree with Petitioner that the inner units of both Rousselle and Tsai’s Figure 1 embodiment are different than the inner units shown in Figures 16 and 17, which are large scissors-type linkages located well below the canopy’s roof supported by center strut C. See Reply 11. In contrast, Rousselle discloses shelter/tent 10 in which collapsible frame 100 supports sheet-material cover 200. Ex. 1003, 6:30–32; Fig. 1(A). Unlike the shelter frame of Tsai’s Figures 16 and 17, Rousselle’s frame does not include an upwardly extending center strut propping up the sheet-material cover. Instead, sheet-material cover 200 rests directly on frame in which canopy supporting rods 3 (i.e., the “inner units”) form a canopy support for supporting the canopy material. Ex. 1005, 4:11–25, 7:15–20. Accordingly, neither Rousselle’s or Tsai’s frames present the headroom issue that Tsai identifies with respect to the prior art shelter frame of Figures 16 and 17.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 10,669,738 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,669,738
• Hunter’S Manufacturing Company, Inc. D/B/A Tenpoint Crossbow Technologies v. Ravin Crossbows, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 9, 2024 · IPR2023-00407 · APJ Robert J Silverman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated by Stanziale ’771; the Board did not reach the alternative grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “As an initial matter, the recited expression “mounted to” is broad. The Federal Circuit has explained that words in a claim “will ordinarily be given their full meaning,” without imposing narrowing modifications on the claim language. Johnson Worldwide, 175 F.3d at 989, see also Virginia Panel, 133 F.3d at 865–66. As to whether the “mounted to” connection may be an indirect connection, the parties agree that an indirect connection is permitted — a view that is amply supported by the intrinsic record, as discussed above. With regard to the types of movement that may occur between a “string guide” and a corresponding “limb,” the intrinsic record shows that that various types of movements (including no movement at all) are characterized as “mounted to.” Slight variations of “mounted to,” occurring in the intrinsic record, are helpful in understanding the claim language — particularly because the ’015 patent itself uses such a variant (“mounted . . . on”) to describe the very connection (between a “string guide” and a “limb”) that is elsewhere, and in claim 1, is described as “mounted to.” See Ex. 1001, 5:23–26.” slip op. at 22

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

    “Patent Owner’ sole argument — i.e., that Stanziale ’771 fails to teach the “mounted to” limitation — is based upon its construction of the “mounted to” limitation, which permits the “string guide” to be rotatable relative the corresponding “limb,” but permits no other type of relative motion. See PO Resp. 4, 13–14. As discussed above, we do not accept Patent Owner’s construction of the “mounted to” limitation. In Stanziale ’771, first and second pulleys 145, 146, and interconnecting pivot 147 (all three of which Petitioner maps to claim 1’s “string guide[s]”) are pivotally connected to a number of intermediate members (e.g., lever arms or pushing arms 32, connecting elements 27, and constraining member 29) which are, in turn, pivotally connected to elastic members 10 (which Petitioner maps to claim 1’s “limb[s]”). See Pet. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1012 7:9–17, 8:26–8:13, 11:8–9, 14:18–15:22, 16:24–25, 16:29, 17:2, 17:15–17, 17:24–27, 19:12–30, 20:32–21:16, Figs. 1–7; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 177–179); see also Ex. 1012 11:3–7, 11:34–12:4, 12:10–17, 16:29–18:3, 18:22–19:30, Figs. 8, 9, 10a, 10b. Therefore, Stanziale ’771, in Petitioner’s mapping, teaches the “string guide[s]” connected indirectly to the “limb[s].” Per the construction of the “mounted to” limitation employed herein (“connected to, either directly or indirectly”), Petitioner establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Stanziale ’771 teaches the “string guide[s]” “mounted to” the “limb[s],” as recited in claim 1 of the ’015 patent. Contrary to Patent Owner’s concerns (see Paper 47, 1), the indirect connection between Stanziale ’771’s “string guide[s]” and “limb[s]” is not “unbounded.” Rather, the connection disclosed by Stanziale ’771 is the type of indirect connection supported by the intrinsic record. See supra § II.B. Patent Owner’s contention that “a POSA would be disinclined to rely on [Stanziale ’771] as a reference for the improved crossbow design disclosed in Claim 1” is not persuasive. See PO Resp. 38 (citing Ex. 2029 ¶ 46). The test for anticipation is whether a prior art reference discloses each and every element recited in the claim, not whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have been inclined to rely on the reference. See Net MoneyIN, Inc., 545 F.3d at 1369.” slip op. at 32

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “Motions to exclude evidence are authorized under 35 C.F.R. § 42.64. Rule 42.64(b)(1) states: “Once a trial has been instituted, any objection [to evidence] must be filed within five business days of service of evidence to which the objection is directed.” Further, “[t]he objection must identify the grounds for the objection with sufficient particularity to allow correction in the form of supplemental evidence.” 35 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1). “A motion to exclude evidence must be filed to preserve any objection.” 35 C.F.R. § 42.64(c).” slip op. at 40

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “In the present proceeding, Petitioner proposed — and Patent Owner does not dispute (see PO Resp. 3) — the following definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art: A hypothetical POSA to which the ’015 Patent pertains would be a technical person who has at least some experience working in the field of archery, reviewing crossbows or engineering related to bows and/or crossbows, and is generally familiar with prior art crossbows. (Ex. 1016 ¶17.) Such a person would likely have at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or, alternatively, would have several years of experience in the field of archery or engineering related to bows and/or crossbows. (Id.) Pet. 28. As discussed above, we adopt Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill for the purposes of this Decision. See supra § II.A. Petitioner alleges various deficiencies in Mr. Teater’s background, education, and knowledge. Paper 39, 4–8. Nevertheless, Mr. Teater satisfies the definition, of a person of ordinary skill in the art, that Petitioner advanced. Specifically, Mr. Teater has reviewed crossbows for 14 years, encompassing the relevant priority date for the ’015 patent, during which time he wrote evaluations of various bows and crossbows, developed and published testing standards for crossbows, and served on the Archery Trade Association’s technical committee for standards and guidelines. Paper 41, 4 (citing Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 3, 4, 7). Accordingly, Mr. Teater satisfies Petitioner’s definition of “a technical person who has at least some experience working in the field of archery, reviewing crossbows or engineering related to bows and/or crossbows, and is generally familiar with prior art crossbows.” Pet. 28. Petitioner emphasizes that Mr. Teater “does not have a degree in mechanical engineering.” Paper 39, 4 (citing Ex. 2034, 1; Ex. 1034, 43:20–44:5). However, no degree of any kind is mandatory for satisfying Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Indeed, Petitioner’s definition states that “[s]uch a person would likely have at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or, alternatively, would have several years of experience in the field of archery or engineering related to bows and/or crossbows.” Pet. 28 (emphasis added). There is no dispute that Mr. Teater meets this standard. Petitioner raises various other issues that form no part of the definition that Petitioner advanced — for example, whether Mr. Teater has taught courses related to crossbows, whether he is named as an inventor on a” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 9,354,015 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,354,015
• Micron Technology, Inc. v. Katana Silicon Technologies LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00071 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 3–5, 8, 11, 20–22, 27–29, 31, and 33 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of prior art and skilled-artisan knowledge.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “On the fully developed record, we find that Petitioner’s construction, “a layer that adheres,” is more strongly supported by the evidence than Patent Owner’s construction, “a pre-formed layer that is adhered.” Our analysis begins with the claim language. The term “adhesion layer” appears in each of the ’806 patent’s independent claims, which include both method and device claims. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 13:44–63 (claim 1 directed to a “semiconductor device”); id. at 17:58–18:17 (claim 30 directed to a “method of manufacturing a semiconductor device”). Claim 1 recites “a first semiconductor chip having a first adhesion layer adhered to its back surface” and “a second semiconductor chip having a second adhesion layer adhered to its back surface.” Id. at 13:49–51, 13:54–56 (emphasis added). Claim 30 recites the steps of “forming a first insulating adhesion layer on a back surface of a first wafer” and “forming a second insulating adhesion layer on a back surface of a second wafer.” Id. at 17:60–62, 18:3–5 (emphases added). In the absence of contrary evidence, we must assume that the term “adhesion layer” has the same meaning in all claims of the ’806 patent. In re Varma, 816 F.3d 1352, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“the principle that the same phrase in different claims of the same patent should have the same meaning is a strong one, overcome only if ‘it is clear’ that the same phrase has different meanings in different claims,” quoting Fin Control Sys. Pty, Ltd. v. OAM, Inc., 265 F.3d 1311, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). The language of claim 30 and similarly worded claims of the ’806 patent suggests strongly that an “adhesion layer” may be formed in situ on the back surface of a wafer and need not be pre-formed, as argued by Patent Owner. The testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Elenius, supports this interpretation. See Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 43, 50 (testifying that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would recognize that there are multiple methods of forming an ‘adhesion layer’ on the back surface of the semiconductor chip” and that “[p]astes and other adhesives, adhesive agents, adhesive layers or other material that are dispensed onto a substrate or chip back are formed into a layer over time as they harden through curing” (emphasis added)). Thus, the language of claims 30 and 31 does not support Patent Owner’s construction that the “adhesion layer” must be a pre-formed layer that is adhered. Cf. PO Resp. 22–25 (arguing for that construction).” slip op. at 17

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Citing testimony from Dr. Suhling, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the priority date of the ’806 patent would have had i) a bachelor-level degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, material science, or a related subject and five or more years of experience working in the field of semiconductor packaging; ii) a Master’s-level degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, material science, or a related field, and at least 1-3 years of experience in the design/development of semiconductor packages; or iii) a Ph.D.- level degree in mechanical engineering, material science, electrical engineering, or a related field, and at least some experience in the area of semiconductor packaging. Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 28–32). Petitioner further states that “[a]dditional education may substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience may substitute for formal education.” Pet. 18. Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Elenius, states that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical, mechanical or materials engineering and two to three years of experience in the design or development of semiconductor manufacturing, or the equivalent.” Ex. 2014 ¶ 32. Mr. Elenius further states that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. For purposes of this Decision, we find no meaningful differences” slip op. at 14

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

    “3. Reasons to Combine Petitioner contends that it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ball’s teachings of stacking chips with Mostafazadeh’s process for applying adhesive to create individual chips with adhesive backsides. Pet. 28–29. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Ball and Mostafazadeh for several reasons, including to provide a more efficient manufacturing process for multichip modules and to simplify the stacking process. Pet. 28–31. Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine Mostafazadeh with Ball because there would have been no reasonable expectation of success and the combination would not have resulted in a functioning semiconductor device. PO Resp. 39. Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner’s combination of Ball and Mostafazadeh would fail for multiple reasons and that Mostafazadeh does not describe multi-chip stacked mounting. Id. at 39–52. Having considered the evidence and arguments, we determine that the preponderance of the evidence favors Petitioner. Petitioner demonstrates persuasively that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasons to combine Ball’s stacked multichip module with Mostafazadeh’s process for applying adhesive at the wafer stage and then dicing to create individual chips with adhesive backsides. Pet. 28–31. In particular, Petitioner shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Mostafazadeh’s teaching of applying the adhesive to a wafer surface and then subsequently dicing the wafer in order to provide a more efficient manufacturing process for multichip modules and to simplify Ball’s process of stacking chips. Id.; see KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (stating that the “mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement” suggests obviousness). The teachings of both Ball and Mostafazadeh support Petitioner’s combination. Ball teaches a stacked multichip module using flip-chip and wire bond interconnections, where a lower chip is flip-chip connected to a substrate using metal bumps, and an upper chip is wire bond connected to the substrate. Ex. 1005, Abstract, 3:42–64, 4:58–59, 5:3–12, 5:18–20, 5:23– 27, Fig. 1. Ball teaches that the upper chip is attached to the lower chip in a back-to-back arrangement with a layer of adhesive applied over a back side of the lower chip. Id. Mostafazadeh teaches a method for applying integrated circuit dies to support surfaces. Ex. 1003, Abstract. In Mostafazadeh’s method, an adhesive coating is formed on a surface of a semiconductor wafer, the adhesive coating is dried, and the semiconductor wafer is diced to form integrated circuit dies, each having an adhesive layer on its mounting surface, i.e., its back surface. Id. at 3:5–11, 5:20–25, 7:9–11, 7:29–8:2, Fig. 2 (steps 104–110). A selected die is then attached to an associated support surface by placing the adhesive layer of the selected die in contact with the associated support surface. Id. at 3:11–13, 8:10–12, Fig. 2 (steps 112–118).” slip op. at 33

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that Petitioner meets its burden of proof for claim element [3d]. Our finding is supported by Figure 1 of Ball, which depicts a second chip mounted to a first chip in a back-to-back arrangement. Ex. 1002 ¶ 158; Ex. 1005, Fig. 1. More particularly, Ball’s Figure 1 shows that back side 32 of upper die 12 (the claimed “second semiconductor chip”) is mounted to back side 30 of lower die 14 (the claimed “first semiconductor chip”) by adhesion layer 28. Ex. 1005, 5:18–20. Relying on Dr. Suhling’s testimony, Petitioner shows persuasively that “a circuit is formed on the front surface 34 of upper die 12 . . . , as evidenced by bonding pads 36 and wires 38 connecting the upper die’s circuitry to the wiring layer on substrate 16.” Pet. 41; Ex. 1002 ¶ 159. We credit Dr. Suhling’s unrebutted testimony that, “[b]ecause the circuitry is on the front side of upper die 12, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would know that the back surface adhesive layer is ‘where a circuit is not formed.’” Ex. 1002 ¶ 159. Patent Owner argues that, to meet claim elements [3b] and [3d], “a reference must show that an adhesion layer extends to cover the entire back surface of the second semiconductor chip where a circuit is not formed.” PO Resp. 30. We find no support in the claim language or other intrinsic evidence for Patent Owner’s argument. In our view, the phrase “back surface where a circuit is not formed” identifies the back side of the chip as opposed to the front side, where a circuit is formed. Ex. 1001, 14:26–27 (claim element [3d]). Our interpretation is supported by the claim language as a whole. Claim element [3b], for example, recites “a first semiconductor chip having a circuit forming on its front surface and an adhesion layer adhered to its back surface.” Id. at 14:17–19 (emphasis added). In this” slip op. at 47

  Patent outcomesUS RE38,806 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
• Micron Technology, Inc. v. Katana Silicon Technologies LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00072 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12–19, 23–26, 30, and 32 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations of prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Although the proposals for the level of skill in the art by the parties’ declarants have differences in wording, we find no meaningful differences between the parties’ respective definitions that would materially alter the outcome of this Decision. Nevertheless, based on our review of the ’806 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’806 patent, and cited prior art, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 14

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

    “On the fully developed record, we find that Petitioner’s construction, “a layer that adheres,” is more strongly supported by the evidence than Patent Owner’s construction, “a pre-formed layer that is adhered.”” slip op. at 16

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

    “Petitioner shows persuasively that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Mostafazadeh with Ball and Fogal. Pet. 32–33. The evidence discussed above concerning reasons to combine supports a reasonable expectation of success. We are also persuaded by Dr. Suhling’s testimony that the “combination of Ball, Fogal, and Mostafazadeh would require no modification of the multichip modules in Ball and Fogal: rather Mostafazadeh merely explains in more detail methods known in the art for creating chips with adhesive surfaces.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 239; see also id. ¶¶ 62– 69 (describing prior art methods for applying adhesive to the backside of a wafer). For the foregoing reasons, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully combining Ball, Fogal, and Mostafazadeh.” slip op. at 46

  • ExcludeOther

    “We do not discuss or cite any of these exhibits in this Decision, or rely on any of them in reaching our determination that all of the challenged claims are unpatentable. Because their presence in the record would not affect our analysis in this Decision, we dismiss as moot Petitioner’s motion with respect to these exhibits.” slip op. at 72

  Patent outcomesUS RE38,806 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR

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.