- PTAB · Feb 25, 2025 · IPR2024-01294 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 12, 25, and 26 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is anticipated by Zwinkels.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“3. Conclusion Regarding Claim 1 Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to claim 1 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Zwinkels. D. Remaining Claims of Ground 1 and Grounds 2 and 3 The threshold for institution is a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing as to any single claim. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). “Once that single claim threshold is satisfied, it doesn’t matter whether the [P]etitioner is likely to prevail on any additional claims.” SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (2018). Thus, because we have decided to grant review of claim 1, we do the same for all claims challenged and all grounds raised. Id.; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”). III. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in establishing that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that the Petition is granted and inter partes review is hereby instituted as to claims 1, 12, 25, and 26 of U.S. Patent No. 10,434,394 B2 on the grounds presented; and” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“to move forwardly and rearwardly relative to the frame. Pet. 33–38. For example, paragraph 20, as cited by Petitioner, discloses that the rollers “are movably suspended in the frame in vertical direction, wherein the suspension of said roll or rollers is arranged to convert relative horizontal movements of the roll or rollers into vertical movements thereby compensating and/or attenuating said horizontal movements by gravity.” Ex. 1004 ¶20 (cited at Pet. 34). Further, Zwinkels attributes the forward and rearward movement to the use of the bicycle by the person exercising on it. See Ex. 1004 ¶27 (describing the “horizontal movements induced by the accelerations and decelerations of the training cyclist”) (cited at Pet. 35). Petitioner also cites multiple figures that illustrate forward and rearward movement. Pet. 35–37 (reproducing Ex. 1004, Figs. 3, 5, and 6). There is a reasonable likelihood Zwinkels teaches “wherein the movable interconnection of the upper member with the lower member is configured to enable the upper member to move forwardly and rearwardly in the fore-aft direction relative to the lower member in response to fore-aft forces that are transferred to the upper member from the item of exercise equipment in response to use of the item of exercise equipment,” as recited in claim 1. e) “wherein the movable interconnection of the upper member with the lower member is further configured to provide upward and downward movement of the upper member relative to the support surface during movement of the upper member forwardly and rearwardly in the fore-aft direction relative to the lower member.” Petitioner argues that Zwinkels’s pendulum arms 6 enable the rollers to move upward and downward relative to the frame while the rollers are also moving forwardly and rearwardly relative to the frame. Pet. 39–42. For example, paragraph 24, as cited by Petitioner, discloses that the pendulum arms connecting the rollers at fixed pivoting points on the frame “provides an easy and effective solution for absorbing and attenuating horizontal movements by converting these horizontal movements to vertical movements.” Ex. 1004 ¶24 (cited at Pet. 39). Petitioner also reproduces Figures 5 and 6, which illustrate the displacement of rollers in both the vertical and horizontal directions. Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1004, Figs. 5–6). Figure 5 is reproduced below. Figure 5, reproduced above, “shows the embodiment in which there are two rollers 4 for the bicycle back wheel.” Ex. 1004 ¶34. Figure 5 shows two configurations of the embodiment on left and right sides. Ex. 1004 ¶34, Fig. 5. The configuration “at the left of FIG. 5 shows the pendulum arms 6 in a resting position, whereas the [configuration] on the right shows the pendulum arms 6 after they have due to the connecting link 7 concertedly moved to the right due to a force FH, causing that the rollers 4 have moved vertically upwards.” Ex. 1004 ¶34. There is a reasonable likelihood Zwinkels teaches “wherein the movable interconnection of the upper member with the lower member is further configured to provide upward and downward movement of the upper member relative to the support surface during movement of the upper member forwardly and rearwardly in the fore-aft direction relative to the lower member,” as recited in claim 1. f) “wherein the upper member is oriented parallel to the support surface plane during movement of the upper member relative to the lower member in the fore-aft direction and during upward and downward movement of the upper member relative to the support surface” Petitioner argues that Zwinkels’s rollers are oriented parallel to the ground or floor at all times. Pet. 42–44. Petitioner argues that this is clearly shown in Figure 5, which we reproduced in the immediate section above. See Pet. 43 (citing and annotating Ex. 1004, Fig. 5). We agree. There is a reasonable likelihood Zwinkels teaches “wherein the upper member is oriented parallel to the support surface plane during movement of the upper member relative to the lower member in the fore-aft direction and during upward and downward movement of the upper member relative to the support surface,” as recited in claim 1. 3. Conclusion Regarding Claim 1 Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to claim 1 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Zwinkels.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“1. Zwinkels (Ex. 1004) Zwinkels was filed November 4, 2010, and published June 9, 2011. Ex. 1004, codes (22), (43). Petitioner argues that, based on its filing date, “Zwinkels is thus prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).” Pet. 15. On the record presented, we agree. In addition, the current record supports that, based on its publication date, Zwinkels is prior art also under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner does not propose an express construction of any term of claim 1. See Pet. 14 (“Petitioner submits that for the purposes of this proceeding, the terms of the challenged claims should be given their plain and ordinary meaning, and no terms require specific construction.”). At this stage of the proceeding, we discern no need to provide an express construction of any term of any claim.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 10,434,394 - Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2023-01363 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, and 10–13 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of Holmberg, Battey, Blankenship, and Cowen.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least 1 year of experience related to communication networks or the equivalent.” Pet. 7. Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–31). Dr. Eldering agrees that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least one year of experience related to communication networks or the equivalent.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 24. According to Dr. Eldering, “[a] person with less relevant practical experience but with additional experience would also qualify.” Id. Patent Owner contends that” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Although Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s construction, it contends “the Board need not resolve this claim construction dispute because Petitioner’s proposed grounds 1-5 are all insufficient under either construction.” PO Resp. 19. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and the prior art of record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). For example, we discuss below in Section III.G why we do not reach the claim construction issue presented by Petitioner.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We find that Holmberg expressly contemplates using its wall box within multi-dwelling units, notes that multi-dwelling wall boxes in the prior art were “typically provided” on every floor, and discloses that the multi-dwelling wall boxes would contain optical couplings for each resident on a given floor. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 7, 34; Pet. Reply 8–10. In view of these disclosures, we credit the testimony of Dr. Kiaei that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to use Holmberg’s wall box in multi-dwelling units and would have seen a need to access the area behind spice tray 230 to connect and disconnect subscribers. Ex. 1003 ¶ 92; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 7–8. Moreover, even if Holmberg were limited to mid-span locations and distributing drop cables, as opposed to distribution cables for individual subscribers, as asserted by Patent Owner, Patent Owner does not dispute that a technician would still need periodic access to the area behind splice tray 230 in these mid-span devices. Tr. 38:3–39:1 (counsel agreeing that one would need to access the area behind splice tray 230 in Holmberg, albeit in “rare occasions”); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 90–92; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 7–8. Thus, whether used in the manner contemplated by Petitioner or Patent Owner, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that access to the space behind splice tray 230 in Holmberg would be necessary. With access behind splice tray 230 required, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would have seen a benefit to replacing Holmberg’s fasteners or screws with a hinged connection, such as that disclosed in Battey, to allow easier access to the area behind the splice tray. Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 39 (disclosing that a rotatable splice tray or shelf would “provide[] full and convenient access to the splice tray”)). First, Petitioner and Dr. Kiaei persuasively demonstrate that once the fibers of Holmberg are routed from behind splice tray 230 and the distribution cables spooled on this tray, a technician could not reasonably access fiber optic cables stored behind splice tray 230 without releasing or opening splice tray 230. Pet. Reply 14–15 (citing Ex. 1023, 60:20–61:15); Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 31–32. Second, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that without a hinged connection, the technician would have to either hold the splice tray of Holmberg with one hand while performing the necessary routing and splicing steps, two screws would need to remain in place (essentially replicating a hinge), or the tray would have to be left to dangle, supported only by the routed and spliced fibers. Pet. Reply 19–20.” slip op. at 22
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“Allegedly New Arguments on Reply Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s arguments regarding the benefits of a hinged connection when performing the splicing and routing steps should be dismissed or ignored because they were improperly raised for the first time on reply. Sur-reply 19–20. We disagree. The Petition asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to add a hinged connection, such as that disclosed in Battey, in Holmberg and would have seen a benefit to so doing. Pet. 40–44. Petitioner did not change its proposed combination or its stated rationale in its Reply. Rather, in response to Patent Owner’s counter-arguments, Petitioner expands upon the benefits of its proposed combination, i.e., the substitution of a hinged connection in place of fasteners. Pet. Reply 15–21. This is permissible, as a reply may properly expand on or extend previously raised arguments relating to the motivation to make the proposed changes to the prior art. See Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., 76 F.4th 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (explaining that the reply arguments properly relied on the same legal ground, the same prior art references, and same legal argument—the motivation to make the proposed changes to the prior art reference).” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 9,008,483 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,008,483 - Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01350 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 5–10 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 11–14 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish the claimed capacity retention after 400 cycles.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have held a Bachelor’s degree in chemistry or chemical engineering, with at least 4 years of experience in cell design, electrochemical techniques, and battery materials development.” Pet. 4. Petitioner further contends that a “Master’s Degree can substitute[] for some of the relevant experience,” and “[e]quivalent training with battery specific experience can accommodate other degreed fields.” Id. 9 The parties here do not address objective evidence of nonobviousness. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan. PO Resp. 20. We adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the ’641 patent, the prior art of record, and the parties’ arguments.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The parties agree that the term “charge cut-off voltage” is “the maximum voltage to which the battery is configured to be charged.” PO Resp 21–22; Pet. Reply 1. The parties dispute, however, whether the “charge cut-off voltage” is a “battery property” or “the voltage applied to the battery during charging.” PO Resp. 21–24; Pet. Reply 1–6. We need not resolve the precise meaning of “charge cut-off voltage” because there is no dispute that Yamaki discloses this limitation under either party’s interpretation of the claim term. Upon review of the prior art and the parties’ arguments, we determine that no terms of the ’641 patent require express construction. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))); Pet. Reply 1 (asserting that the challenged claims are unpatentable under either parties’ construction of “charge cut-off voltage”).” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Patent Owner’s arguments do not persuasively undermine Petitioner’s position. Sakamoto expressly discloses setting the ratio of negative to positive electrode active material in the range of 1.05 to 1.30. Ex. 1005 ¶ 8. Sakamoto also explains why this range is preferable, i.e., if the ratio is roughly equal “the charge-discharge cycle performance is insufficient due to significant deterioration from charging and discharging,” and if the ratio is 10 Citations to the prosecution history of Yamaki are to the page numbers added to the lower right corner of the document. too high “too much of the compound does not participate in charging and discharging.” Id. ¶¶ 6, 8. These disclosures are sufficient to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the ratios disclosed in Sakamoto in Yamaki. Id. ¶ 8 (providing a secondary battery with a capacity ratio between 1.05 and 1.30 and noting that by setting the ratio within this range the resulting secondary lithium battery is “safe due to low risk of heat being generated and an explosion occurring”). We also disagree that Sakamoto teaches away from elevated voltages or from increasing the amount of lithium in circulation. See PO Resp. 29. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, Sakamoto provides no general teaching against using a charge cut-off voltage above 4.2 V, or against increasing the level of lithium in circulation. Nor does Sakamoto “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” the claimed invention. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Rather, Sakamoto warns against setting the reversible capacities of the positive and negative electrode substantially equal as this may result in excess lithium plating on the surface of the electrode. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 8. We agree with Petitioner that this disclosure would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to design a battery with a higher capacity in the negative electrode active material than the positive electrode active material. Pet. 11–12.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“We also disagree that Sakamoto teaches away from elevated voltages or from increasing the amount of lithium in circulation. See PO Resp. 29. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, Sakamoto provides no general teaching against using a charge cut-off voltage above 4.2 V, or against increasing the level of lithium in circulation. Nor does Sakamoto “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” the claimed invention. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Rather, Sakamoto warns against setting the reversible capacities of the positive and negative electrode substantially equal as this may result in excess lithium plating on the surface of the electrode. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 8. We agree with Petitioner that this disclosure would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to design a battery with a higher capacity in the negative electrode active material than the positive electrode active material. Pet. 11–12.” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,749,641 - PTAB · Feb 6, 2025 · IPR2024-01212 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–27 on all petitioned grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would be obvious over Racz, Fitz, and Lee.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“§ 314. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Further, a decision to institute may not do so on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the Petition, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’664 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to all the challenged claims of the ’664 patent on all the grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“According to Petitioner, the relevant technical field is “‘thermal ablation systems and methods,’ which includes ‘methods for performing Radio Frequency (RF) neurotomy.”’ Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:24–27). Relying on the testimony of Dr. Tucker, Petitioner contends that the ordinarily skilled artisan in this field would have had at least (i) a bachelor’s degree in biomedical engineering, or a related field, such as mechanical engineering, biomechanical engineering, or bioengineering, who also has at least 3 years of experience with thermal ablation system and methods; or (ii) an advanced degree in the same areas of academic study with at least 1 years of experience with thermal ablation systems and methods. Id. (citing Ex. 1034 ¶ 105) (paragraphing added). Absent evidence or argument to the contrary, we apply Petitioner’s proposed definition, as it appears consistent with the prior art and is supported by the presently unopposed testimony of Dr. Tucker. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355, (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected in the prior art itself). We note, however, that Petitioner’s open-ended language “at least” expands the ranges of education and experience indefinitely with no upper bound, thereby encompassing those of extraordinary skill. Therefore, we do not adopt this aspect of Petitioner’s formulation. B.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Claim Construction The Board interprets claim terms in an inter partes review using the same claim construction standard that is used to construe claims in a civil action in federal district court. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)). In construing claims, district courts give claims their ordinary and customary meaning, which is “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). With respect to the challenged claims, Petitioner contends that no claim term requires express construction. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1034 ¶ 106 (Dr. Tucker’s testimony that “the terms in the Challenged Claims would be understood by a POSA to have their plain and ordinary meaning and do not require a special construction or definition”)). On the presents record, we agree with Petitioner that no term requires express construction. C.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“through [1e]. Pet. 28–30. Petitioner further relies on “Racz as modified in view of Fitz and Lee,” with respect to elements [1e] through [1h]. See generally, id. at 30–47. Supported by the testimony of Dr. Tucker, Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Racz, Fitz, and Lee with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. Id. at 1–6, 21–27; Ex. 1034 ¶¶ 132–149. In short, Petitioner contends that “[m]ost of the recited RF needle features—including an elongate cannula, a removable RF probe, a conductive tip, and a monopolar configuration—are conventional features disclosed in . . . Racz,” whereas Fitz discloses that a single-tip device, such as disclosed in Racz, “would produce limited ablation volumes and would have motivated a POSA to solve this problem by adding deployable filaments,” as recited in claim elements [1e] and [1f]. Id. at 4–5, 21–22. In addition to its reliance on the multiple electrode tips disclosed in Fitz, Petitioner contends that Lee would have “motivate[ed] a POSA to implement deployable filaments on the tip of Racz’s device using channels within the cannula,” and “also shows how the filaments can extend outwardly around the needle’s tip to advantageously expand and control the ablation volume.” Id. at 5–6. Accordingly, Petitioner contends, one of ordinary skill in the art “would have found it obvious to modify Racz’s device to include the well-known deployable filaments described in Fitz and Lee,” and would have implemented this combination as “a matter of routine engineering.” Id. at 6, 27.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,925,664 - PTAB · Feb 6, 2025 · IPR2024-01211 · APJ John G New · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 18–47 and 53–74 and all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 18–25, 27, and 29–33 are obvious over Racz, Fitz, and Lee.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“§ 314. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition … and any response … shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Further, a decision to institute may not do so on fewer than all of the claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a); see also PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (interpreting the statute to require “a simple yesor-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Absent evidence or argument to the contrary, we apply Petitioner’s proposed definition, as it appears to be consistent with the level of skill of the prior art and is supported by the presently unopposed testimony of Dr. Tucker. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected in the prior art itself). We note, however, that the open-ended language ‘at least’ expands the ranges of education and experience indefinitely with no upper bound, thereby also encompassing those of extraordinary skill as well. Therefore, we do not adopt this aspect of Petitioner’s formulation.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“With respect to the challenged claims, Petitioner contends that no claim term requires express construction. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1033 ¶ 120 (Dr. Tucker’s testimony that “the terms in the Challenged Claims would be understood by a POSA to have their plain and ordinary meaning and do not require a special construction or definition”)). We agree with Petitioner that, on the record presently before us, no claim term requires express construction.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Petitioner argues that, in view of these teachings in Racz and Lee, a skilled artisan would have found implementing Lee’s perimeter filaments (22/1622) on Racz’s distal tip (14/38) to be a routine engineering task. Pet. 39 (citing Ex. 1033 ¶ 179). According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the arts would have recognized that it would be appropriate to implement Lee’s perimeter filaments (22/1622) without including Lee’s central filament. Id. Petitioner asserts that Lee discloses that any number and arrangement of filaments may be implemented to provide a desired ablation volume. Id. at 38 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 103, 105, 106). Additionally, Petitioner argues, because Racz’s tip (14/38) is already active, a skilled artisan would have recognized that Lee’s central filament would not be necessary. Id. (citing Ex. 1009, col. 3, ll. 60–63, col. 4, ll. 18–23; Ex. 1033 ¶ 179). Petitioner therefore argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement Lee’s perimeter deployable filaments (22/1622) on the distal tip (14/38) of Racz’s cannula (10/33) for the purpose of expanding and controlling the energy coverage area of Racz’s device. Pet. 40. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to implement Lee’s perimeter filaments (22/1622) around Racz’s tip (14/38) to provide a desired ablation volume (e.g., in a full or partial “cone” shape) and omit Lee’s central filament. Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 179, 73–75, 79–83). Petitioner contends that, as both Lee and Fitz confirm, this would improve Racz’s device by providing an expanded and controlled energy coverage area. Id. (citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 9–10, Abstr.; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 12, 84, 123–131; Ex. 1033 ¶ 179). Petitioner argues further that, in implementing Lee’s perimeter filaments (22/1622) on Racz’s distal tip (14/38), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Racz’s tip (14/38) to include internal deflection surfaces (12/1612) (e.g., channels and ramps as disclosed in Lee) to guide the perimeter filaments (22/1622) outwardly around Racz’s tip (14/38). Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 16, 18, 92, 102, claims 8, 10; Ex. 1033 ¶ 180). Petitioner asserts that it would have been obvious to provide openings in Racz’s distal tip (14/38) (e.g., in communication the internal deflection surfaces as disclosed in Lee) such that Lee’s perimeter filaments (22/1622) can, when deployed, exit Racz’s distal tip (14/38). Id. (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 92, 102; Ex. 1033 ¶ 180). Furthermore, argues Petitioner, and to preserve the functionality of Racz’s removable electrical probe (22/52) and active tip (14/38) (and consistent with Lee’s teachings) a skilled artisan would have arranged the perimeter filaments, channels, and ramps around the internal perimeter of Racz’s cannula (10/33). Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 91, 92, 98, 102; Ex. 1033 ¶ 181). Petitioner recapitulates that Racz’s probe (22/52) is configured to extend the full length of the cannula’s shaft (12/34) to supply RF energy to the tip (14/38) and measure tissue temperature. Pet. 42. According to Petitioner, by omitting Lee’s central filament and arranging the perimeter filaments, channels, and ramps around the inner perimeter of Racz’s cannula (10/33), a skilled artisan could have implemented Lee’s perimeter filaments (22/1622) without obstructing Racz’s cannula (10/33). Id. at 40. Petitioner contends that this modification would preserve the functionality of Racz’s electrical probe (22/52), which is needed to transmit RF energy. Id. (citing Ex. 1033 ¶ 181–182).” slip op. at 29
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,736,688 - PTAB · Feb 6, 2025 · IPR2024-01210 · APJ John G New · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–17 and 48–52 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim was obvious over Racz, Fitz, and Lee.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“§ 314. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition … and any response … shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Further, a decision to institute may not do so on fewer than all of the claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a); see also PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (interpreting the statute to require “a simple yesor-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Absent evidence or argument to the contrary, we apply Petitioner’s proposed definition, as it appears to be consistent with the level of skill of the prior art and is supported by the presently unopposed testimony of Dr. Tucker. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected in the prior art itself). We note, however, that the open-ended language ‘at least’ expands the ranges of education and experience indefinitely with no upper bound, thereby also encompassing those of extraordinary skill as well. Therefore, we do not adopt this aspect of Petitioner’s formulation.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“With respect to the challenged claims, Petitioner contends that no claim term requires express construction. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1032 ¶ 120 (Dr. Tucker’s testimony that “the terms in the Challenged Claims would be understood by a POSA to have their plain and ordinary meaning and do not require a special construction or definition”)). We agree with Petitioner that, on the record presently before us, no claim term requires express construction.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement Lee’s perimeter deployable filaments (22/1622) on the distal tip (14/38) of Racz’s cannula (10/33) for the purpose of expanding and controlling the energy coverage area of Racz’s device. Pet. 35. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to implement Lee’s perimeter filaments (22/1622) around Racz’s tip (14/38) to provide a desired ablation volume (e.g., in a full or partial “cone” shape) and omit Lee’s central filament. Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 179, 73–75, 79–83). Petitioner contends that, as both Lee and Fitz confirm, this would improve Racz’s device by providing an expanded and controlled energy coverage area. Id. (citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 9–10, Abstr.; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 12, 84, 123–131; Ex. 1032 ¶ 179). Petitioner argues further that, in implementing Lee’s perimeter filaments (22/1622) on Racz’s distal tip (14/38), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Racz’s tip (14/38) to include internal deflection surfaces (12/1612) (e.g., channels and ramps as disclosed in Lee) to guide the perimeter filaments (22/1622) outwardly around Racz’s tip (14/38). Pet. 39 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 16, 18, 92, 102, claims 8, 10; Ex. 1032 ¶ 180). Petitioner asserts that it would have been obvious to provide openings in Racz’s distal tip (14/38) (e.g., in communication the internal deflection surfaces as disclosed in Lee) such that Lee’s perimeter filaments (22/1622) can, when deployed, exit Racz’s distal tip (14/38). Id. (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 92, 102; Ex. 1032 ¶ 180).” slip op. at 29
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,736,688 - PTAB · Feb 6, 2025 · IPR2024-01209 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–27 and all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is obvious over Racz, Fitz, and Lee.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“314. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Further, a decision to institute may not do so on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Absent evidence or argument to the contrary, we apply Petitioner’s proposed definition, as it appears consistent with the prior art and is supported by the presently unopposed testimony of Dr. Tucker. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355, (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected in the prior art itself). We note, however, that Petitioner’s open-ended language “at least” expands the ranges of education and experience indefinitely with no upper bound, thereby encompassing those of extraordinary skill. Therefore, we do not adopt this aspect of Petitioner’s formulation. B.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“With respect to the challenged claims, Petitioner contends that no claim term requires express construction. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1031 ¶ 106 (Dr. Tucker’s testimony that “the terms in the Challenged Claims would be understood by a POSA to have their plain and ordinary meaning and do not require a special construction or definition”)). On the presents record, we agree with Petitioner that no term requires express construction.” slip op. at 12
Claim constructioncites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,966,782 - Parse Biosciences, Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 3, 2025 · IPR2023-00958 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–28 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 1–12 and 19–28 over Linnarsson, McCloskey, and ordinary skill; claims 13–18 over those references plus McCloskey II.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedGranted in part
“Clearly, the second Hall-Ellis declaration is offered to prove that McCloskey is a prior art printed publication. See, e.g., Ex. 1085 ¶50 (“In view of the foregoing, it is my opinion that [McCloskey] was publicly available no later than [January 3, 2008].”). Thus, the second Hall-Ellis declaration should have been served within ten business days of Patent Owner’s February 15, 2024, objection to the admissibility of McCloskey. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) (“The party relying on evidence to which an objection is timely served may respond to the objection by serving supplemental evidence within ten business days of service of the objection.”). In its Opposition to the Motion to Exclude, Petitioner argues that, under Hulu LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, No. IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential), it was allowed to wait until its Reply to file the second Hall-Ellis declaration. Paper 37, 2. The Board in Hulu does state that, “if the patent owner challenges a reference’s status as a printed publication, a petitioner may submit a supporting declaration with its reply to further support its argument that a reference qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu, at 15 (37 C.F.R. § 42.23). However, the Board’s statement was referring to the scope of permissible reply arguments under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). See Hulu at 14 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)’s requirement that “[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, or patent owner response”). The Board in Hulu does not purport to interpret 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 or even discuss supplemental evidence. Petitioner clearly missed the deadline imposed by 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2), which was triggered by Patent Owner’s February 15, 2024, objection to McCloskey (i.e., Ex. 1004). Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is granted with respect to the second Hall-Ellis declaration (i.e., Ex. 1085).” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner is correct that, under Sanofi-Aventis, a petitioner bears the burden of persuasion to establish that an asserted prior art reference is analogous art to the claimed invention. See Sanofi-Aventis, 66 F.4th at 1377 (“We agree with [the patent owner] that [the petitioner] did not carry its burden to argue that de Gennes is analogous to the [challenged] patent.”); id. (“In evaluating whether a reference is analogous, we have consistently held that a patent challenger must compare the reference to the challenged patent.”); id. at 1378–79 (“We have routinely held that the petitioner has the burden of proving unpatentability.”). However, as we noted when instituting this proceeding, “Sanofi-Aventis further held: ‘A petitioner is not required to anticipate and raise analogous art arguments in its petition; instead a petitioner can use its reply to “respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, patent owner response, or decision on institution.”’” Dec. on Reh’g 16 (quoting Sanofi- Aventis, 66 F.4th at 1379 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.23)).” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“Clearly, the second Hall-Ellis declaration is offered to prove that McCloskey is a prior art printed publication. See, e.g., Ex. 1085 ¶50 (“In view of the foregoing, it is my opinion that [McCloskey] was publicly available no later than [January 3, 2008].”). Thus, the second Hall-Ellis declaration should have been served within ten business days of Patent Owner’s February 15, 2024, objection to the admissibility of McCloskey. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) (“The party relying on evidence to which an objection is timely served may respond to the objection by serving supplemental evidence within ten business days of service of the objection.”). In its Opposition to the Motion to Exclude, Petitioner argues that, under Hulu LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, No. IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential), it was allowed to wait until its Reply to file the second Hall-Ellis declaration. Paper 37, 2. The Board in Hulu does state that, “if the patent owner challenges a reference’s status as a printed publication, a petitioner may submit a supporting declaration with its reply to further support its argument that a reference qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu, at 15 (37 C.F.R. § 42.23). However, the Board’s statement was referring to the scope of permissible reply arguments under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). See Hulu at 14 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)’s requirement that “[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, or patent owner response”). The Board in Hulu does not purport to interpret 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 or even discuss supplemental evidence. Petitioner clearly missed the deadline imposed by 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2), which was triggered by Patent Owner’s February 15, 2024, objection to McCloskey (i.e., Ex. 1004). Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is granted with respect to the second Hall-Ellis declaration (i.e., Ex. 1085). Despite the exclusion of the second Hall-Ellis declaration, there is ample evidence in the record demonstrating that McCloskey is a prior art printed publication. McCloskey itself states: “Received: 31 January 2007 / Accepted: 29 May 2007 / Published online: 23 October 2007.” Ex. 1004, 1. McCloskey additionally states that it was published in a 2007 print issue of “Biochem Genet,” with Petitioner adding that the full name of the journal is BIOCHEMICAL GENETICS and that McCloskey was published in a December 2007 volume of the journal. Id.; Pet. 22. McCloskey also includes a copyright notice by “Springer Science+Business Media, LLC” with a date of 2007. Ex. 1004, 1. Patent Owner argues that this is unreliable hearsay that should be excluded. PO Mot. To Exclude 4 (citing Neste Oil Oyj v. REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC, No. IPR2013-00578, Paper 53 at 5–7 (Mar. 12, 2015); Standard Innovation Corp. v. Lelo, Inc., No. IPR2014-00148, Paper 429 at 13–18, 21–22 (Apr. 23, 2015)). We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument or its reliance on these cases. The facts before us are different.” slip op. at 18
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner does not directly dispute Petitioner’s proposal but does offer its own proposal. PO Resp. 21. Patent Owner proposes that the skilled artisan “would have had a Ph.D. in molecular biology, molecular genetics, biochemistry, physics, mechanical engineering, or a related discipline, with 7 Exhibit 1002 is a declaration by Petitioner’s witness, Gregory Cooper, Ph.D. two years of academic, research, or industry experience in the field of genomic or transcriptome sequencing.” Id. (citing Ex. 2013 ¶¶25–268). Both of the parties’ proposals as to the level of ordinary skill in the art are consistent with the disclosure of the ’013 patent and the asserted prior art. The distinction between the parties’ proposals would not change the outcome of this Decision. Thus, we adopt and apply Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 9
Patent outcomesUS 10,697,013 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,697,013 - Parse Biosciences, Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 31, 2025 · IPR2023-00955 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–26 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 1–4, 6–11, 20, and 23–25 over Linnarsson and McCloskey; claims 5, 12, 21, 22, and 26 with ordinary-skill knowledge; claims 13–19 with McCloskey II.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted in part
“Clearly, the second Hall-Ellis declaration is offered to prove that McCloskey is a prior art printed publication. See, e.g., Ex. 1085 ¶50 (“In view of the foregoing, it is my opinion that [McCloskey] was publicly available no later than [January 3, 2008].”). Thus, the second Hall-Ellis declaration should have been served within ten business days of Patent Owner’s February 15, 2024, objection to the admissibility of McCloskey. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) (“The party relying on evidence to which an objection is timely served may respond to the objection by serving supplemental evidence within ten business days of service of the objection.”). In its Opposition to the Motion to Exclude, Petitioner argues that, under Hulu LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, No. IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential), it was allowed to wait until its Reply to file the second Hall-Ellis declaration. Paper 37, 2. The Board in Hulu does state that, “if the patent owner challenges a reference’s status as a printed publication, a petitioner may submit a supporting declaration with its reply to further support its argument that a reference qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu at 15 (37 C.F.R. § 42.23). However, the Board’s statement was referring to the scope of permissible reply arguments under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). See Hulu at 14 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)’s in the prior sentence and in the subtitle to the relevant portion of its Objection. Id. requirement that “[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, or patent owner response”). The Board in Hulu does not purport to interpret 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 or even discuss supplemental evidence. Petitioner clearly missed the deadline imposed by 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2), which was triggered by Patent Owner’s February 15, 2024, objection to McCloskey. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is granted with respect to the second Hall-Ellis declaration (i.e., Ex. 1085). Despite the exclusion of the second Hall-Ellis declaration, there is ample evidence in the record demonstrating that McCloskey is a prior art printed publication. McCloskey itself states: “Received: 31 January 2007 / Accepted: 29 May 2007 / Published online: 23 October 2007.” Ex. 1004, 1. McCloskey additionally states that it was published in a 2007 print issue of “Biochem Genet,” with Petitioner adding that the full name of the journal is BIOCHEMICAL GENETICS and that McCloskey was published in a December 2007 volume of the journal. Id.; Pet. 29. McCloskey also includes a copyright notice by “Springer Science+Business Media, LLC” with a date of date of 2007. Ex. 1004, 1. Patent Owner argues that this is unreliable hearsay that should be excluded. PO Mot. To Exclude 4 (citing Neste Oil Oyj v. REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC, No. IPR2013-00578, Paper 53 at 5–7 (Mar. 12, 2015); Standard Innovation Corp. v. Lelo, Inc., No. IPR2014- 00148, Paper 4210 at 13–18, 21–22 (Apr. 23, 2015)). We are not persuaded 10 Patent Owner actually cited to “Pap.41” of Standard Innovation. PO Mot. To Exclude 4. There is no Paper 41 in the record of that case. We presume Patent Owner intended to cite Paper 42, which is the final written decision in that case. by Patent Owner’s argument or its reliance on these cases. The facts before us are different. In Neste Oil, the Board “note[d] that the alleged ‘stamps’ of Exhibits 1125 and 1132 are actually handwritten dates, added to the documents by an unknown person at an unknown time.” Neste Oil, Paper 53 at 6. In contrast, the dates relied upon by Petitioner are printed, appear to have been included at the time of printing, and appear to have been printed by, or at the direction of, the journal and/or copyright holder, both of which are identified by McCloskey. Ex. 1004, 1. In Standard Innovation, the alleged prior art exhibits were “printouts of … webpages” bearing a copyright indication of “© 2003-2013,” which the petitioner argued was proof of subset of the webpages being disseminated publicly in 2003. Standard Innovation, Paper 42 at 13. This is a far cry from McCloskey, which is a journal article and which includes specific date information, not only of publishing, but also of when the journal received and accepted the article for publication as well as when it was copyrighted. Ex. 1004, 1.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner is correct that, under Sanofi-Aventis, a petitioner bears the burden of persuasion to establish that an asserted prior art reference is analogous art to the claimed invention. See Sanofi-Aventis, 66 F.4th at 1377 (“We agree with [the patent owner] that [the petitioner] did not carry its burden to argue that de Gennes is analogous to the [challenged] patent.”); id. (“In evaluating whether a reference is analogous, we have consistently held that a patent challenger must compare the reference to the challenged patent.”); id. at 1378–79 (“We have routinely held that the petitioner has the burden of proving unpatentability.”). However, as we noted when instituting this proceeding, “Sanofi-Aventis further held: ‘A petitioner is not required to anticipate and raise analogous art arguments in its petition; instead a petitioner can use its reply to “respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, patent owner response, or decision on institution.”’” Dec. on Reh’g 15 (quoting Sanofi- Aventis, 66 F.4th at 1379 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.23)).” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“by Patent Owner’s argument or its reliance on these cases. The facts before us are different. In Neste Oil, the Board “note[d] that the alleged ‘stamps’ of Exhibits 1125 and 1132 are actually handwritten dates, added to the documents by an unknown person at an unknown time.” Neste Oil, Paper 53 at 6. In contrast, the dates relied upon by Petitioner are printed, appear to have been included at the time of printing, and appear to have been printed by, or at the direction of, the journal and/or copyright holder, both of which are identified by McCloskey. Ex. 1004, 1. In Standard Innovation, the alleged prior art exhibits were “printouts of … webpages” bearing a copyright indication of “© 2003-2013,” which the petitioner argued was proof of subset of the webpages being disseminated publicly in 2003. Standard Innovation, Paper 42 at 13. This is a far cry from McCloskey, which is a journal article and which includes specific date information, not only of publishing, but also of when the journal received and accepted the article for publication as well as when it was copyrighted. Ex. 1004, 1. That McCloskey is what it purports to be (a journal article) and that it was published in 2007 are corroborated by multiple pieces of evidence.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“In sum, we find Petitioner’s rationale that a skilled artisan would have made the proposed combination to solve the problem of amplification bias persuasive.” slip op. at 44
Patent outcomesUS 10,240,197 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,240,197 - Opticis Co., Ltd. v. Inneos LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 29, 2025 · IPR2023-01256 · APJ Terry J Owens · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 9 are unpatentable as obvious over Kurita and Lemoff, with the Board declining to reach the remaining grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“We accept the level of ordinary skill in the art stated by Petitioner and agreed with by Patent Owner with the exception of the open-ended language appears consistent with the ’416 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“describe elements that are not affirmatively recited in the claims, and in view of the “bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent define the invention,” we conclude that none of the unrecited limitations identified by Patent Owner are required by the claims. See Thorner v. Sony Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (explaining that the standard for disavowal is “exacting,” and the use of “the present invention” is not necessarily sufficient to meet this standard).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“art would not have modified Kurita in view of Lemoff because Lemoff positions the signal emitters near the fiber to emulate WDM without the need for an external optical multiplexer or a similar device and discourages using optical wavelength multiplexers for short distances because the complexity of the design is often cost prohibitive (PO Resp. 47–48), Lemoff does not appear to limit the usefulness of the fiber connector to any particular optical signal transmission distance. Petitioner relies upon Lemoff for a suggestion to combine Lemoff’s fiber connector configuration teachings with Kurita’s multiplexer teachings to enable fibers to be plugged Fig. 2) (Pet 29, 31; Reply 17–18). Regarding Patent Owner’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Lemoff’s receptacle and ferrule with discrete components in Kurita because the fiber would need to be manually fixed and aligned with or without a ferrule and, therefore, would serve no purpose (PO Resp. 48), Lemoff’s fiber connector appears to fix and align the fiber adequately for wavelength division multiplexing without manual fixation or alignment being required (Ex. 1006, 5:65–6:2, Fig. 2; Reply 18). The challenged claims do not require any greater degree of fixing and alignment than that provided by Lemoff’s fiber connector. Regarding Patent Owner argument that Lemoff’s device is not physically combinable with Kurita’s WDM multiplexer due to Lemoff’s device’s small size (PO Resp. 47–48; Reply 17–18), “[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art” (In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument.” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“stopped single optical fiber because fixing it in place does not passively align it with the optical components (PO Resp. at 35–37) is not persuasive because fixing Kurita’s fiber (40) in place in accord with Lemoff’s teaching regarding the ferrule (255) inserted until being stopped by the receptacle (260) (Ex. 1006, 5:50–6:15, Fig. 2) would align Kurita’s optical array (20), and lens (30)) (Ex. 1004 Fig. 3) passively in the same manner that Lemoff’s ferrule (255), after being inserted until stopped by the receptacle (260), passively aligns the optical fiber (250) with the optical components (optical imaging element 220 and light emitters within emission apertures 120) (Ex. 1006, 5:50–6:15, Fig. 2; Reply 15–16). Regarding Patent Owner’s argument that the light from each of Kurita’s lasers (11) depicted in Figure 3 cannot pass through a separate focusing lens (30) pie shaped sector because the lasers (11) and collimating lenses (21) are arranged linearly rather than being arranged about a circular axis (PO Resp. at 37–42), we do not agree. Claim 1 requires “focusing means having n separate radial sectors on its surface, and each of said n collimated beams passes through a separate one of said n sectors of said focusing means” (Ex. 1001, 5:34–37), claim 2 requires “four lasers and four collimating lenses are each formed in a two-dimensional, two by two array [centered on the focal axis of lens 30], wherein said focusing means is a single focusing lens, and wherein each radial sector is a pie-shaped quadrant” (id. at 5:41–44), and claim 7 requires “focusing means having four separate quadrants on its surface, and each of said four collimated beams passes through a separate one of said quadrants of said focusing means” (id. at 6:35–38). Kurita meets those claim requirements. Kurita’s two by two array (10A) of lasers (11), collimating lens (21) array (20), and focusing lens (30) are shown in Kurita’s Figure 3 (cropped) as follows: The image is a portion of Kurita’s Figure 3 showing Kurita’s laser array, collimating lens array, and focusing lens (30). Relative to a point at the center of the laser array (10A) or the collimating lens array (20), each laser (11) and each collimating lens (21) is in a separate quadrant that can be a quadrant of a circle (pie-shape) on lens 30 (Reply 12– 13, Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85–91).” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 7,198,416 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,198,416
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.