- PTAB · Oct 6, 2026 · IPR2025-00530 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Original claims 1–9 were canceled; the non-contingent motion to add substitute claims 10–18 was denied for lack of written-description support, and claim 18 was also indefinite.
RulingsFinal written decision- 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“that either the ’303 application or the ’838 provisional contain adequate written description support for the disputed feature of limitation [10.d]. Though the disclosures cited by Patent Owner indicate that a secondary identifier can be used to aid in verification of a UAV, these disclosures also make clear that both first and second identifiers are transmitted by and received from the UAV. See, e.g., Ex. 2002, 4:15–17, 30:24–31:6; Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 14, 66. Patent Owner’s reliance on disclosure characterized as transmitting an identifier from a remote computing system “through the UAV” (Reply 2) is not persuasive. The cited disclosures from the ’303 application and ’838 provisional generally disclose that the identifiers transmitted by a UAV can be “generated remotely,” such as by a “remote computing system.” Ex. 2002, 14:23–15:2; Ex. 2003 ¶ 45. But Patent Owner has not identified disclosure indicating that a remote computing system may transmit an identifier to the identification receiver. In the ’303 application and ’838 provisional, only the UAV (which is part of the discrimination system, and thus not “remote”) actually transmits identifiers to the identification receiver. Patent Owner is correct in its assertion that an “aerial system identifier can be generated on-board the aerial system” or “generated remotely . . . at a remote computing system.” Mot. 7 (citing Ex. 2002, 14:23–15:2; Ex. 2003 ¶ 45). But even if a UAV’s identifier was at some time in the past generated by a remote computing system, the subsequent transmission of that identifier from the UAV to the identification receiver would not satisfy the plain language of limitation [10.d]. The claim language “receive … a second identifier from a computing system that is remote to the discrimination system” requires the receipt of a transmission of the second identifier from a remote computing system. This claim language limits the source of the received transmission (i.e., where the particular transmission is “receive[d] … from”). Thus, the relevant issue is from where was the recited second identifier received. The relevant is not where the second identifier was originally generated.” slip op. at 12
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteIndefiniteMixed
“We determine that the disputed language in limitation [10.d] is not indefinite. There is no recitation in proposed substitute claim 10 that the second identifier is transmitted solely from the identifier transmission system. Thus, the alleged irreconcilable contradiction cited by Petitioner is not recited in the claims. Petitioner’s position appears to rest on the fact that the ’303 application and ’838 provisional do not disclose receiving the second identifier from a remote computing system. See Sur-reply 6 (“To manufacture written description support, [Patent Owner] argues the claim encompasses identifiers routed ‘through the UAV.’”). Though we agree that limitation [10.d] lacks adequate written description support, this defect does not render the claim indefinite because the scope of limitation [10.d] is otherwise reasonably certain based on its plain language. See supra § III.C.4.” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference not prior artPriority date, deniedDecided for patent owner
“In contrast, the ’393 provisional never discloses that the described drone defense system may use the identity of a detected drone to develop a particular countermeasure. The disclosed RTSS certainly uses identity information to determine whether a drone is a threat. And if a threat is identified, the RTSS immediately starts “a series of processes … to determine what rule of engagement will be applied on the intruding drone.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 10. The ’393 provisional discloses that the system may select a particular countermeasure based on (i) the particular zone within a protected area within which a drone is located, (ii) “the behavior of the hostile drone,” or (iii) “other instructions.” Id. ¶¶ 9, 10. But the ’393 provisional never discloses that these “other instructions” may include the identity of the drone. The system disclosed in the ’393 provisional uses the identity of a drone to determine whether to activate the countermeasure system. See id. ¶¶ 16–18. But there is no disclosure in the ’393 provisional that the countermeasure system, once activated, uses the identity of the drone to develop the particular countermeasure to be employed. See generally Ex. 1006. Thus, though the Whitmarsh reference itself contains ample written description support for limitation [19e], the earlier-filed ’393 provisional does not. On this record, and having reviewed the ’393 provisional in its entirety, we determine that the ’393 provisional does not “reasonably convey[] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of” the subject matter of limitation [19e] of Whitmarsh’s claim 19 “as of the filing date” of the ’393 provisional. See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351.” slip op. at 27
§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,249,199 - PTAB · Dec 13, 2021 · IPR2020-01062 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision
The Board granted cancellation of claims 1–15, 19–20, and 22–24; allowed substitute claims 26–29, 31–38, and 40–44; and denied substitute claims 30 and 39 for lack of written-description support.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 78–79; see Pet. 10. In the Institution Decision, we adopted Mr. Fischer’s definition for purposes of that decision. Institution Decision (Paper 7) 9–10. Patent Owner states that it “accepts that definition for the purposes of this proceeding.” Rev’d MTA 24. Mr. Fischer’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Mr. Fischer’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner proposes constructions for “code” and “Electronic Product Code (EPC).” Opp. to Rev’d MTA 6. Patent Owner asserts that “the limitations of the substitute claims do not require construction and should, instead, be construed in accordance with their ordinary meaning.” Rev’d MTA 24. According to Patent Owner, the addition of certain features of the proposed substitute claims renders moot Petitioner’s arguments concerning the meaning of the term “code.” Id. Additionally, Petitioner argues that the content of the recited codes— an EPC and a code different from the EPC—constitutes “printed matter” (non-functional descriptive material) and, therefore, are not entitled to patentable weight. Opp. to Rev’d MTA 7–10; Pet. Sur-reply 5–6. We need not reach this issue. Even if we construed the specifically recited codes as being non-functional descriptive material, Petitioner, for reasons discussed below, has not shown that the claimed subject matter is unpatentable. Also, the parties do not identify any other issue in this case that turns on whether the two recited codes are non-functional descriptive material. See, e.g., Opp. to Rev’d MTA 11–12 (Petitioner arguing that the relied-on prior art discloses codes in the form of an EPC and a TID (i.e. a code other than the EPC)). On this record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“A patent claim is indefinite when that claim, “viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, [does not] inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, Inc. v. BioSig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 910 (2014).” slip op. at 12
- ScopeDecided for patent owner
“Motion to Amend, that “[c]onstruing ‘a first and second memory bank’ to mean, for example, two memories instead of ‘a memory’ also impermissibly broadens the claims.” Opp. to Rev’d MTA 4 n.1 (citing Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 3024– 3027); see also Pet. Sur-reply 1–2 (“the scope of the proposed claims is impermissibly broadened to encompass logical memory banks storing codes in more than one memory.”); Tr. 7:12–13 (“That’s improper because it enlarges the scope of claims to include two memories instead of just one.”). Petitioner’s argument appears to assume that the proposed substitute claims require two memories (as opposed to the recited “memory bank[s]”) and that, because two memories are quantitatively more than one memory, the claims have been broadened. We disagree with Petitioner’s arguments. The arguments are contingent upon a construction of two memory banks being the same scope as two memories. See Opp. to Rev’d MTA 4 n.1 (“Construing . . . impermissibly broadens the claims.”). Petitioner has not offered any persuasive argument or evidence that the two different terms—“memory” and “memory bank” are coextensive or that the more general term “memory” can encompass two of the more specific “memory bank[s].” Further, even if the proposed substitute claims required two memories rather than two memory banks, adding the requirement of a second memory (or, as written in the proposed claims, two memory banks rather than “a memory” as in the issued claim) is further limiting the claims and, therefore, is not broadening the scope. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc., 183 F.3d at 1374. We agree with Patent Owner that the amended language regarding two memory banks does not impermissibly broaden the scope relative to the original claims.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 8,134,451 - PTAB · Jun 28, 2018 · IPR2017-00414 · APJ James T Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over either Cohen and Martin or Holmes and Martin because the combinations did not establish the claimed separate shaping before mixing.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“As used herein, the term “hearing aid profile” refers to a collection of acoustic configuration settings for hearing aid 102, which are used by a processor 110 to shape electrical signals related to sounds to compensate for the user's hearing loss. Ex. 1001, 3:11–15. Petitioner states that Patent Owner defined this term in the ’538 patent as “a collection of acoustic configuration settings for hearing aid 102, which are used by processor 110 to shape electrical signals related to sounds to compensate for the user’s hearing loss.” Pet. 15. According to Petitioner, this construction is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term, relying upon the testimony of its witness Dr. Les Atlas. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 38).10 Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed construction. Resp. 10–11. 10 Dr. Les Atlas is the Petitioner’s witness in this matter. We find him qualified to testify as to the subject matter of this proceeding, by virtue of his education and experience. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 4, and Appendix A thereto. We are cognizant of Patent Owner’s suggestion that we give his testimony “little, if any, weight” because of the similarity of the testimony with Petitioner’s arguments and discrepancies between it and his deposition testimony. Resp. 31–34. We give Dr. Atlas’ testimony appropriate contextual weight herein based upon the content of the testimony itself, and any contrary testimony in Exhibit 2005. We decline to assign generally no weight to his testimony, however. supports, and is consistent with, Petitioner’s proposal. Ex. 1001, 3:12–16. Accordingly, we determine that the broadest reasonable construction, in light of the specification of the ’538 patent, of the term “hearing aid profile” is a “collection of acoustic configuration settings for hearing aid, which are used by a processor to shape electrical signals related to sounds to compensate for a user’s hearing loss.”” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“For the purposes of our decision, we determine that no other claim terms need explicit construction. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (citation omitted).” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“11 Petitioner defines the level of ordinary skill in the art as someone with a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and at least two years of experience in the field of audio engineering. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 25). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s definition. Resp. passim. The references in the record support a finding that this is the appropriate level. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of skill in the art). 12 The record contains no allegations or evidence of secondary considerations.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed
“We find the testimony of Dr. Atlas on the key point of obviousness of pre-mixing processing to be less persuasive than that of Mr. Brown. We also find Dr. Atlas’ testimony falls short of adequately explaining how the combination of Cohen and Martin teaches a nexus (i.e., the “based on both the first [shaped] output signal and the second [shaped] output signal” (emphasis added) (hereinafter, “based on both limitation”) limitation recited in claim 1) between the claim 1 requirements of: (1) a condition precedent of shaping both a first output signal and a second output signal; and (2) a subsequent result of using both the first shaped output signal and the second shaped output signal if the hearing aid is in a third mode. Dr. Atlas assumes that one of ordinary skill in the art would process separately each signal and then mix them. Ex. 1003 ¶ 66. We find Dr. Atlas’ assumption is flawed. Specifically, in making this assumption, Dr. Atlas does not address adequately how the combination of Cohen and Martin opines “it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art” (emphasis added), his later sentences appears to base his opinion principally on the reason one of ordinary skill in the art could do it. Id. In particular, he testifies: Because Cohen’s hearing aid applies different hearing aid profiles to different input sources, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art to add the functionality of the combination mode as taught by Martin to Cohen’s hearing aid such that the speaker would produce an audible sound based on the output signals of the processor. Combining two signals such that both signals are sent to a speaker to an audible combination of sounds, that is where each signal is sufficiently perceived, was well within the technical ability of a person of ordinary skill in the art. To accomplish this would require that each one of the two signals is passed through an appropriate hearing aid profile. For example, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that a different hearing aid profiles could be used for an audio coil inputs and that of a neighboring conversation and environmental sounds through a microphone. Namely, it is commonly known that the different frequency sensitivity of an audio telecoil versus a microphone can be beneficially compensated for. (Rodriquez, Ex. 1011, Abstract)” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,649,538 - PTAB · Dec 19, 2017 · IPR2016-01107 · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 21 was not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Neilson, Kelly, and Miller because the references did not teach the nozzle limitations without hindsight, and secondary considerations weighed against obviousness.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownNo construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Based on the record before us, we determine that the phrase, “a nozzle oriented towards the splash shield,” means “a nozzle pre-positioned such that it points at the splash shield,” and the phrase, “directing rinsing fluid onto the splash shield using the nozzle,” means “spraying rinsing fluid onto the splash shield from the pre-positioned nozzle.” Our claim constructions are supported by the claim language for at least two reasons: First, the phrase, “a nozzle oriented towards the splash shield,” describes a component of a mixing machine. Claim 21 recites: “providing a mixing machine having . . . a nozzle oriented towards the splash shield.” Ex. 1001, 7:1–5. This limitation describes the structure of a mixing machine that is used to perform the claimed method. As Petitioner explains, “[c]laim 21 is a method claim that separately recites attributes of the provided mixing machine and a step of directing rinsing fluid.” Pet. Reply 4. “Oriented” describes the position of the nozzle in the machine. The nozzle is oriented before it is used to direct rinsing fluid onto the splash shield. In other words, the nozzle is pre-positioned. Second, the claim drafter used the term, “positionable,” rather than” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“3. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We accept Dr. Slocum’s definition of a person having ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”) as an engineer with at least an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or related discipline and at least three years of professional or research experience in the design of consumer or medical products that utilize fluid systems. Ex. 1010 ¶ 20. Dr. Maynes states that he does not necessarily agree with Dr. Slocum’s definition, but does not provide and alternative definition or no persuasive reasoning as to why Dr, Slocum’s definition is incorrect. Ex. 2023 ¶ 6. We also rely on Petitioner’s references as reflecting the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“limited to automatic rinsing, Miller discloses an electronically controlled nozzle 129. Pet. Reply 12. Petitioner argues that it would have been a simple substitution to modify Kelly’s spray device 56 with Miller’s electronically controlled nozzle 129 and that the teachings of Kelly and Miller would have led a skilled artisan to orient Miller’s electronically controlled nozzle 129 toward Neilson’s lid 16 and direct rinsing fluid thereon. Id. at 12–13 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 69, 82–85; Ex. 2027, 169–72). We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument for two reasons. First, Petitioner’s reply argument relies on impermissible hindsight. The combination of Neilson, Kelly, and Miller does not teach or suggest the nozzle limitations of claim 21 without relying on the claim as a roadmap for selecting and modifying the teachings. Miller teaches nozzle 129 for spraying cleaning fluid onto a blender spindle after each use. Ex. 1004 ¶ 55, Figs. 17, 18. Miller also discloses a splash shield in the form of a tubular sleeve inserted into a mixing container during blending. Id. ¶ 42; Ex. 1005, 4:1–4, 4:33–36. Like Neilson’s lid 16, Miller’s splash shield is manually removed for cleaning. Ex. 1003, 5:65–66; Ex. 1004 ¶ 45; Ex. 1005, 5:4–10. Although Miller’s nozzle 129 is pre-positioned, it is not pointed at a splash shield. See Ex. 1004 ¶ 55, Fig. 18 (showing nozzle 129 for dispensing cleaning fluid onto spindle 114). To meet the nozzle limitations of claim 21, Kelly’s nozzle would need to be modified from a manually positionable nozzle to one that is pre-positioned such that it points at a splash shield. Such a modification is not suggested by Miller, which does not teach or suggest a nozzle pointed at a splash shield and instead teaches that the splash shield is manually removed for cleaning. Ex. 1004 ¶ 45; Ex. 1005, 5:4–10. Thus, even if combined, Neilson, Kelly, and Miller do not, absent hindsight, teach or suggest a method of rinsing a splash shield in which a nozzle is pre-positioned such that it points at the splash shield and rinsing fluid is sprayed onto the splash shield from the pre-positioned nozzle.” slip op. at 20
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Dr. Slocum that is not supported by Miller, and we, thus, decline to afford it substantial weight. Pet. Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 69, 84, 85); see also Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 77).8 In paragraph 69, Dr. Slocum testifies that, “in the case of Miller,” the angle of the nozzle is adjusted “to clean . . . the splash shield.” Ex. 1010 ¶ 69. In paragraph 85, Dr. Slocum testifies that Miller teaches “the rinsing fluid [is] used for the splash shield.” Id. ¶ 85. In paragraph 77, Dr. Slocum testifies that Miller discloses using a nozzle oriented towards a splash shield for directing rinsing fluid onto the splash shield. Id. ¶ 77. Dr. Slocum’s testimony is inconsistent with Miller, which teaches that the splash shield is manually removed for cleaning. Ex. 1004 ¶ 45; Ex. 1005, 5:4–10. In fact, on cross-examination, Dr. Slocum conceded that Miller does not disclose automatic cleaning of the sleeve (splash shield) 8 See supra note 7. and that Miller’s nozzle is not pointed at the sleeve. Ex. 2027, 189:8– 190:11. Petitioner also relies on Dr. Slocum’s testimony that a PHOSITA reading Kelly would have substituted an electronic valve for Kelly’s manual valve and would have “put a bunch of them in at a bunch of different angles,” so when the valves are actuated, the whole thing is cleaned. Ex. 2027, 169:5–172:9; see Pet. Reply 13. In our view, the cited testimony is not credibly based on the teachings of the prior art references, as opposed to the teachings of the ’662 patent. Whereas Dr. Slocum opines that it would have been obvious to clean a splash shield using electronically operated nozzles (id.), Neilson, Kelly, and Miller all teach manual cleaning of a splash shield. Ex. 1002, 4:13–20; Ex. 1003, 5:65–66; Ex. 1004 ¶ 45; Ex. 1005, 5:4–10. In view of the inconsistencies between Dr. Slocum’s testimony and the teachings of Miller, we do not give substantial weight to his opinion that the method of claim 21 would have been obvious to a PHOSITA in view of Neilson, Kelly, and Miller.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,520,662 - PTAB · Jul 25, 2014 · IPR2013-00128 · APJ Richard M Lebovitz · IPR · Final written decision
The Board granted cancellation of claims 1–8 but denied entry of substitute claims 9–12 because Illumina did not show they were patentable over the prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“[l]abeling moieties are favorably in communication with or coupled to nucleotides via a linker of sufficient length to ensure that the presence of said labeling moieties on said nucleotides will not interfere with the action of a polymerase enzyme on said nucleotides.” Ex. 2015, p. 32, ll. 10-13. Rabani specifically mentions disulfide linkages as useful when a cleavable linker is desired: Linkages comprising disulfide bonds within their length have been developed to provide for cleavability24; reagents comprising such linkages are commercially available25 and have been used to modify nucleotides26 in a manner which may be conveniently reversed by treatment with mild reducing agents such as dithiothreitol. Id. at p. 32, ll. 29-33. Footnotes 24 and 26 of the above quoted passage cite to Ruby, S.W. et al. (1990), Methods in Enzymology, 181:97, which is Exhibit 2016. Id. at 49. Footnote 25 references “for example, from Pierce Chemical Co., [ ] of Rockford, IL., U.S.A.” Id. Rabani, therefore, would have given a skilled worker reason to have used a cleavable linker with a disulfide bond to ensure that the labeling moieties on the nucleotides will not interfere with the action of a polymerase enzyme during the synthesis reaction. Church IBS cited Church as evidence of the obviousness of using a disulfide linker in a sequencing reaction. Paper 53, 2. Church provides another example of the use of a disulfide linker to attach a label to base of a nucleotide, further establishing its conventionality at the time of the invention. Ex. 1031, 17:10-18, 68:12-21. Church describes a working example in which a label was attached to a nucleotide base using a disulfide linker and then cleaving it off with DTT. Id. at 86:6-30. slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Unexpected resultsDecided for petitioner
“Secondly, the cleavage agents are different. The cleavage agent used in Ruby is DTT (Ex. 2016, 10, “Elution buffer” A and B) and in Herman, the cleavage agent is described as “a reducing agent such as DTT” (Ex. 2017, col. 7, ll. 47-48) with DTT being used in its example (id. at col. 10, ll. 47-54, col. 11, ll. 11-22; col. 12, ll. 3-8). Mr. Vermaas describes an experiment that utilized another cleavage agent, 2 mM tris- (hydroxymethyl)phosphine. Ex. 2028 ¶ 10. Illumina did not offer an explanation as to why the phosphine compound was used instead of DTT as used by both Ruby and Herman. Indeed, Church used DTT in a DNA sequencing reaction, similar to the sequencing carried out in the Vermaas experiments, providing an additional reason to have used DTT in Dr. Varmaas’s comparison to the prior art. Ex. 1031, Fig. 5; 68, ll. 12-13; 86, ll. 20-23. There is no testimony that the stated results were due to the claimed nucleotide rather than the reducing agent. Dr. Romesberg testified: “Therefore, the disulfide cleavage yield achieved by Illumina was essentially 100%. This is a significant and unexpected improvement over the disulfide cleavages of Ruby (~86%) and Herman (87%).” Ex. 2009 ¶ 74. Dr. Romesberg refers to the “disulfide cleavage yield” as being unexpected, but he did not testify that this yield was attributable to the claimed nucleotide configuration, rather than the reducing agent which performs the disulfide bond cleavage. Illumina has not distinguished the Vermaas results from the prior art by showing that the nucleotide is responsible for the disulfide yield, rather than it being a property of the disulfide bond and the yield being “the mere recognition” of the bond’s “latent properties,” which “does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention.” Baxter, 952 F.2d at 392; In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Absent such evidence, Illumina has not shown that the claimed subject matter possesses “unexpected results relative to the prior art.” Galderma Labs., LP v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir, 2013).” slip op. at 28
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“Patent Owner bears the burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to the relief requested in the Motion to Amend. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). Patent Owner, therefore, bears the burden of showing the patentability of the amended claims. Patent Owner must show that the conditions for novelty and non- obviousness are met for the prior art available to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, not just the prior art cited in the Petition. See Idle Free Sys., Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., Case IPR 2012-00027, slip op. at 7 (PTAB June 11, 2013) (Paper 26). Also, a motion to amend “must include a claim listing, show the changes clearly, and set forth: (1) The support in the original disclosure of the patent for each claim that is added or amended.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(b)(1).” slip op. at 6
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“characterizations of Figure 6 from Ex. 1031, and all arguments based on it be excluded as evidence from this inter partes review. Illumina argues that the Figure should be excluded “because it includes poor quality black and white reproductions of images that do not accurately reflect the original underlying data.” Paper 70, 1. We agreed with Illumina that the figure of Church is of poor quality and gave it no weight. We, therefore, did not rely on Figure 6 of Church in reaching our decision. Accordingly, Illumina’s motion is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 29
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,057,026 - PTAB · May 20, 2014 · IPR2013-00124 · APJ Lora M Green · IPR · Final written decision
The Board granted cancellation of claims 1-26 and allowed substitute claims 27-44, but denied substitute claim 45 as unpatentable over Behan.
RulingsFinal written decision- ScopeMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“patent claims. 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(ii).” slip op. at 9
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner
“partes review must set forth “[t]he support in the original disclosure of the patent for each claim that is added or amended.”” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundMixed
“In order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness based on structural similarity, the prior art must provide a reason to make the claimed compound, and there must also be “„adequate support in the prior art‟ for the 7 P.E.A. Teal et al., (Z)-11-Hexadecen-1-ol: A Behavioral Modifying Chemical Present in the Pheromone Gland of Female Heliothis Zea (Lepidoptera:Noctuidae), 116 CAN. ENTOMOLOGY 777-79 (1984). Ex. 2003. 8 Yih-Shen Hwang et al., Structure-Activity Relationship of Unsaturated Fatty Acids as Mosquito Ovipositional Repellents, 10 J. OF CHEM. ECOLOGY 145-51 (1984). Ex. 2004. change in structure.” Takeda Chem. Indus., Ltd. v. Alphapharm Pty., Ltd., 492 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Grabiak, 769 F.2d 729, 731-32 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit noted that the test for obviousness of a compound based on structural similarity is in accordance with the legal principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), specifically, that it is important to identify “„a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does‟ in an obviousness determination.” Takeda, 492 F.3d at 1356-57 (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Thus, “in cases involving new chemical compounds, it remains necessary to identify some reason that would have led a chemist to modify a known compound in a particular manner to establish prima facie obviousness of a new claimed compound.” Takeda, 492 F.3d at 1357.” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureInherency foundDecided for petitioner
“We acknowledge that McMahon and the Zhang Declaration are evidence that the ordinary artisan would not have had a reasonable expectation that, because a compound is known to repel mosquitoes, such as Aedes aegypti, the compound would also repel ticks, such as Amblyomma variegatum. Claim 45, however, encompasses the use of isolongifolanone when R1 is a hydrogen atom and R2 is an oxygen atom, which is the same compound specifically taught by Behan. See Pet. 7-8 (showing the structure of isolongifolanone, and discussing how it is encompassed by the chemical formula set forth in claim 1). As discussed above, Behan teaches the use of isolongifolanone to repel mosquitoes or cockroaches. Patent Owner provides no evidence that ticks and mites would not be present on the same objects or areas where mosquitoes and cockroaches are found, which are the insects addressed by Behan. Thus, by applying the isolongifolanone taught by Behan to an object or airspace for the purpose of repelling mosquitoes or cockroaches, one would also inherently repel ticks and mites. “It is a general rule that merely discovering and claiming a new benefit of an old process cannot render the process again patentable.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1377-78 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (noting that the realization of a new benefit of an old process does not render that process patentable); Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (stating in the context of a claimed process that was drawn to the same use comprising the same steps of the prior art, “[n]ewly discovered results of known processes directed to the same purpose are not patentable because such results are inherent.”). We, therefore, conclude that the preponderance of the evidence does not support the patentability of proposed claim 45.” slip op. at 17
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,579,016
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.