- Haas Automation, Inc. v. Olati LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 13, 2022 · IPR2021-00146 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8 are unpatentable: claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 are anticipated by Oraby; claims 7 and 8 are obvious over Oraby and Edie, among other grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“In the Decision on Institution, we agreed with Patent Owner’s arguments and adopted Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, stating it was “consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art.” Dec. Inst. 10. Petitioner indicates that it does not challenge this determination for the purposes of this proceeding. Pet. Reply 1. Based on our review of the complete record, we continue to apply the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted in the Decision on Institution.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“1. “at least one controller . . . adjusts the power” In the Decision on Institution, we determined that there was no need to construe explicitly the phrase “at least one controller . . . adjusts the power.” Dec. Inst. 11–12 (citing Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Neither party disagrees with this determination. Pet. Reply 7 & n.4; PO Resp. 8–9. Thus, on the full record, there is no controversy between the parties regarding the construction of this phrase. Furthermore, explicitly construing this phrase would have no effect on the analysis below. Accordingly, we need not construe this phrase to resolve the issues in dispute in this proceeding. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017; see also 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)). After considering the parties’ arguments regarding Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction for the phrase “adjusts the power exerted by at least one of the spindle drive system and the feed drive system in real-time based on the real-time determinations,” we declined to adopt the proposed construction in the Decision on Institution. Dec. Inst. 13–16 (citing Prelim. Resp. 9–11; Paper 8, 2–4; Paper 9, 2–3). Neither party has addressed this proposed construction in their post-institution briefing. Therefore, on the complete trial record before us, we need not construe this phrase to resolve Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“d) Conclusion In summary, we construe “real-time” to mean “autonomously during a machining operation and performed quickly enough to achieve a desired machining system performance.”” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“Like the database in Lister, the University of Sheffield’s University Library database allowed members of the public, at least as early as 2004, to “electronically search[] the University Library index” via the internet or the library’s computer terminals, and using any of the author, department, date, and, most importantly, title. See Ex. 1010 ¶ 7. Indeed, Ms. Abbs states that, once a thesis such as Oraby is received by the library, “at least the title, author, related department, and date of completion are recorded in the University Library’s records.” Id. ¶ 3 (emphasis added). Furthermore, like the manuscript in Lister, Oraby has a title that is descriptive of its subject matter—“Mathematical Modelling and In-Process Monitoring Techniques for Cutting Tools” (Ex. 1004, 1)—as Oraby indeed covers “mathematical models which describe the cutting tool-workpiece interaction” and “accurate on-line monitoring of tool-state” (see id. at 3). Thus, a reasonably diligent researcher in the field of CNC machining interested in ways to improve the 11 The court ultimately held, however, that the manuscript did not qualify as prior art because there was insufficient evidence that the aforementioned “date that [the manuscript] was included in either [of the two] databases that permitted keyword searching of titles” had actually antedated the patent’s critical date. Lister, 583 F.3d at 1316–17. library’s database by title for references disclosing such improvements. Furthermore, given Oraby’s title that describes its subject matter covering particular improvements in the CNC machining process, Oraby would have been discovered through such an electronic search. As such, Ms. Abbs’ declaration is sufficient evidence to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Oraby was publicly available before the ’432 patent’s critical date and therefore qualifies as a printed publication.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 8,136,432 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,136,432 - Askeladden L.L.C. v. Aml IP LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 11, 2022 · IPR2022-00319 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all grounds and claims 1–13 because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that Armes, alone or with Steury or Maritzen, rendered the claims unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“to satisfy both the “bridge computer” and at least one “service provider computer,” we do not see how the method steps recited in limitations B, Ci, and Cii are satisfied. Petitioner’s attempt to satisfy these steps with Armes’s card provider 3 computer (i.e., as the “bridge computer”) raises multiple questions that persuade us Petitioner has not demonstrated by a reasonable likelihood that these limitations are satisfied. For example, to satisfy the recited “service providers,” Petitioner relies on “incentive rewards [or MR] companies.” Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 52, 59, 87); see also id. at 40 (relying on MR company to satisfy limitation B); see also id. at 41 (relying on MR company to satisfy limitation Ci); see also id. at 43 (relying on MR company to satisfy limitation Cii). Petitioner also cites to the testimony of Mr. Zatkovich. See, e.g., id. at 39– 41 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 120–124). The Petition does not clearly explain how Armes’s “bridge computer” (i.e., the card provider’s computer system) makes a “determin[ation] from among the plurality of service providers,” however, when the card provider itself is a service provider. The testimony of Mr. Zatkovich does not relieve our confusion. Mr. Zatkovich’s testimony merely parrots, verbatim, that which is in the Petition. Compare Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 120–124, with Pet. 39–41. Although Petitioner and Mr. Zatkovich cite to Armes, the citations are to disjointed disclosure whose relevance is not clearly apparent. See Fritch, 972 F.2d 1266 (“one cannot use hindsight reconstruction to pick and choose among isolated disclosures in the prior art”); see also Karsten, 242 F.3d at 1383 (“[To establish anticipation,] all of the elements and limitations of the claim must be shown in a single prior reference, arranged as in the claim.”). For instance, Mr. Zatkovich cites to both Armes’s back end application service 8 and STN system 18 for performing the step of “determining from among the plurality of service providers . . . whether the given vendor is associated with the same [or different] service provider.” See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 122, 124; see also Pet. 40; see also supra § I.D. It is not clear to us, however, how “STN system 18” and “backend application service 8”—both acting as the “bridge computer”—perform the step of “determining from among the plurality of service providers . . . whether the given vendor is associated with the same [or different] service provider,” as recited in claim 1. In support of his assertions, Mr. Zatkovich quotes Armes’s disclosure that “CAS 7 recognizes the transaction as involving a STN 15, and forwards the request to the STN system 18” (Ex. 1002 ¶ 122, citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 109)) and “backend application service 8, upon receiving a STN 15, recognizes the associated PPC originated with another card issuer 92” (Ex. 1002 ¶ 124 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 95)). Even if “CAS 7 recognizes the transaction as involving a STN 15,” for example, we do not see this as performing the step of “determining whether the given vendor is associated with the same service provider,” as Petitioner asserts. See Pet. 40. As explained above, Armes uses STNs to improve credit card security (supra § II.D.1), and the computer system’s mere recognition that “the transaction [] involve[es] a STN” is not a determination of “whether the given vendor is associated with the same service provider.”” slip op. at 36
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“We are not persuaded that a POSITA “would have at least one or two years of experience with payment or credit systems,” as Petitioner proposes (see Pet. 17), or “would have at least a Master of Science [] Degree . . . or equivalent work experience in the field of computer networks,” as Patent Owner proposes. See Prelim. Resp. 6. Rather, we adopt a hybrid of Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill. For purposes of this Decision, we find that a POSITA at the time of the invention would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related study along with knowledge of the general structure of payment or credit systems, its hardware and software components.” slip op. at 12
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Both parties acknowledge and agree with the final Claim Construction Order. See Pet. 14; see also Prelim. Resp. 4. We further note that the claims of the ’979 patent “shall be construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim[s] in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2021). For purposes of this Decision, we consider and adopt the District Court’s claim construction of “bridge computer” in our analysis. Id. (“Any prior claim construction determination concerning a term of the claim in a civil action, or a proceeding before the International Trade Commission, that is timely made of record in the inter partes review proceeding will be considered.”). 2. “service provider” In the Claim Construction Order, the court concluded that the term “service provider” shall mean “a business that provides internet-related services to customers.” Ex. 1017, 1. Petitioner does not propose a construction of this term. See Pet. 11– 16. Patent Owner, on the other hand, expounds upon the District Court’s claim construction, submitting that there are two different types of “service providers”: (1) “A service provider of [the] type may maintain a virtual presence on the web in the form of a web site”; and (2) one that “may offer on-line access to customers (e.g., broadband or dial-up Internet access using an Internet account associated with the service).” See Prelim. Resp. 4–5. Patent Owner does not dispute the District Court’s interpretation, however, and acknowledges that “[t]hese different types of service providers are referred to collectively herein as ‘service providers’ or ‘Internet service providers’.” Id. 5. For purposes of this Decision, we consider and adopt the District Court’s claim construction of “service provider” in our analysis. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Specifically, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner improperly uses hindsight “to pick and choose among isolated disclosures in [Armes] to deprecate the claimed invention.” Prelim. Resp. 28 (quoting In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (quoting In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1075 (Fed. Cir. 1988))); see also Karsten, 242 F.3d at 1383 (“[To establish anticipation,] all of the elements and limitations of the claim must be shown in a single prior reference, arranged as in the claim.”).” slip op. at 34
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,876,979 - Shenzhen Buxiang Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. Sun Pleasure Co. LimitedNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 11, 2022 · IPR2021-00080 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–9 were not shown unpatentable because Metzger lacked the claimed fluid passage, and Wu was not prior art based on the claims’ earlier reduction to practice.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Relying on the testimony of Mr. Kuchel, Petitioner submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have either (i) a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, or an equivalent field, or (ii) would have an associate degree in mechanical engineering, or an equivalent field, and two years of practical experience in inflatable product design.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 26). In the Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, stating it was “consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art.” Dec. Inst. 9. In its Response, Patent Owner makes arguments that rely on Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, but does not dispute Petitioner’s definition. See PO Resp. 35, 39–53 (citing Ex. 2014 ¶ 66). Based on our review of the complete record, we continue to apply the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted in the Decision on Institution.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner proposes claim constructions for the terms “substantially below” and “substantially inwardly” recited in claims 1 and 6. Pet. 40–41. In the Decision on Institution, we determined that it was not necessary to construe the terms at that stage of the proceeding. Dec. Inst. 9–10 (citing Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Patent Owner contends “the claim terms ‘substantially below’ and ‘substantially inwardly’ are sufficiently clear on their face to preclude any need for claim construction,” but proposes claim constructions that differ somewhat from Petitioner’s proposed constructions in the event the Board determines that these terms require claim construction. PO Resp. 13, 15–16. Patent Owner also proposes a claim construction for the term “upper tubular periphery” recited in claims 1 and 6 that Petitioner opposes. Id. at 17–19; Pet. Reply 7–10. Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017. Because the outcome of our decision does not depend on either parties’ construction of the terms “substantially below,” “substantially inwardly,” or “upper tubular periphery,” we need not construe these terms to resolve the issues in dispute in this proceeding.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that Metzger’s gaps define fluid passages located between adjacent side support beams 25 (i.e., “internal walls”) and are not formed in any of the side support beams. We are not directed to any written description in Metzger indicating that the gaps are formed in a side support beam.7 Instead, Figures 5 and 6 of Metzger depict the gaps as being defined between four distinct side support beams 25. Furthermore, as Patent Owner points out, Mr. Kuchel appears to agree that there are no passages formed through the side support beams 25 of Figures 5 and 6. Ex. 2003, 107:12–108:9, 108:17–108:21. For these reasons, we determine that Metzger’s gaps are not formed through an internal wall, as required by claim 1. In the Reply, Petitioner asserts that, even if Metzger discloses four discrete, spaced-apart beams or walls, “the gaps or slices between walls are apertures in a structure through which air can pass.” Pet. Reply 15 (emphasis added). This argument is not persuasive because claim 1 recites that the fluid passage is formed through the internal wall (which Petitioner asserts is met by Metzger’s side support beam 25), not just any structure. Petitioner’s general assertion that air passes through “a structure” fails to establish that the gaps are formed in a side support beam.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Specifically, Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from Metzger “that an air passage would be necessary to bypass the side support beam 25 and inflate the upper tubular periphery for the air mattress to function as intended.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 200). According to Petitioner, because Metzger discloses only a single air inlet valve, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that providing openings, or fluid passages, through the side support beam 25, in lieu of or in addition to the gaps between the side support beam 25, would have been a simple solution to adequately inflate the peripheral frame of the mattress defined by the side support beam(s) 25. Id. at 74–75 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 200). Petitioner thus presents two alternate theories for modifying Metzger: (1) providing fluid passages in at least one side support beam 25 in addition to the gaps, and (2) providing fluid passages in lieu of the gaps. In support of the first theory, Petitioner only argues that providing fluid passages in the side support beams, in addition to the gaps between the ends of the side support beams, would have allowed the peripheral frame to inflate more freely. Id. at 75 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 201). In its Response, Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner is just wrong.” PO Resp. 45 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 146–149). Dr. Letton testifies that pumps used to inflate air mattresses are low flow and low pressure and generally inflate an air mattress to a maximum pressure of around 1 psi. Ex. 2001 ¶ 147. Dr. Letton further testifies that, with Metzger’s design, the” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 7,353,555 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,353,555 - Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte Ges.M.B.H. v. Sonova AGAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 31, 2022 · IPR2021-00023 · APJ Avelyn M Ross · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, and 14 are unpatentable over Meier; claims 5, 10, and 11 are unpatentable over Meier and Kenigsberg.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“porous cover element for acoustic aperture SE, Meier’s disclosure is not so limited. Id. at 3:18–21. For example, Meier describes “cover elements for vents.” Id. at 4:66; see Ex. 2011, 73:1–5 (Dr. Giacomin’s similar testimony). Petitioner, relying on the testimony of Dr. Giacomin, explains that “[b]ased on the disclosure of Meier, the cover element covers the air vent in a manner similar to how the cover elements are shown covering the acoustic input or output apertures, e.g., the cover element is assembled with the housing such that crevices are formed between these two components.” Pet. 26–27; see also id. at 21 (same); Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 42, 44–46, 52, 60–61. Dr. Giacomin testifies that even when a nonporous cover element is used, the cover element needs to be coated with a hydrophobic coating to prevent water from entering the vents, i.e., crevices. Ex. 2011, 73:1–23. Dr. Giacomin’s testimony below illustrates Petitioner’s position.” slip op. at 30
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“materials science.” Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 20). Patent Owner does not propose its own definition or dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition except to assert that “other disciplines including electrical engineering should be included.” PO Resp. 8–9. In light of the record before us, we determine that Petitioner’s proposed definition is consistent with the prior art of record and apply it for this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings on ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). We also include disciplines, including electrical engineering, as Patent Owner proposes. Accordingly, the definition for a person of ordinary skill in the art, applied herein, “would have had, as of December 2003, the equivalent of a Bachelor of Science degree in chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, physics, or a related discipline and at least two years of related experience, preferably with a working understanding of plastics manufacturing, chemistry, and/or materials science.”” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We agree with Patent Owner that this term need not be expressly construed because, as explained below, Petitioner has sufficiently shown the cited art discloses a “coating” regardless of whether we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction.” slip op. at 11
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner has not persuasively explained why we should depart from the construction for “hydrophobic” adopted in the district court. Nor has Petitioner persuasively explained why here different constructions should apply in different forums. See Tr. 6:16–7:9, 32:3–9. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), we have considered the district court construction of the term “hydrophobic,” which is consistent with the record evidence, and adopt it as our own. Therefore, we construe “hydrophobic” to mean “having resistance to water penetration wherein the contact angle between the water droplet with the surface exceeds 90 degrees.”” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 7,267,847 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,267,847 - PTAB · Feb 8, 2022 · PGR2021-00103 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–28 and all petition grounds, finding the Luharuka, API 674, and Karassik challenge more likely than not to prevail on claim 1.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” After considering the Petition and Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, as well as all supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner has satisfied the burden under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) to show that it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“These arguments are not persuasive, however, because Patent Owner does not explain adequately how the disclosures of Oehring and Shampine are cumulative of the disclosure of Mu. In this case, the mere fact that 8 We note that Exhibit 2007 does not have ¶ 95 cited by Patent Owner. not mean necessarily that the references are cumulative of Mu. For instance, Petitioner relies on Mu for allegedly disclosing several claim limitations including “receiving a demand hydraulic horse power (HHP) signal,” “the first output power being in the range of approximately 70% to 100% of a maximum continuous power (MCP) level,” and “the second output power . . . being in the range of approximately 70% of the MCP level to approximately a maximum intermittent power (MIP) level.” Pet. 19–41. Patent Owner does not direct us to any disclosure in Oehring or Shampine that are cumulative of these alleged teachings in Mu. Accordingly, we do not agree with Patent Owner that either of Oehring or Shampine is cumulative of Mu. As such, we determine that Petitioner’s reliance on Mu does not involve the same or substantially the same art or arguments previously presented to the Office, and the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework is not satisfied with respect to Mu. And although Crowe is cited in the ’764 patent (see Ex. 1001, code (56)), Petitioner’s reliance on Crowe is minimal. The ground based on Mu and Crowe, thus, does not implicate § 325(d).” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelOther
“This dispute presents a factual issue best decided on a complete record. Accordingly, for purposes of the Decision, we determine that no express finding is necessary, and that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We note, however, that our obviousness analysis in this Decision would not differ if we adopted either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Lastly, on the current record, we disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that Mr. Marscher is not qualified to serve as an expert in this proceeding. See Prelim. Resp. 8. Mr. Marscher’s declaration and curriculum vitae show that he has extensive education and experience in relevant fields. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 8–17; Ex. 1004.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,815,764 - PTAB · Feb 8, 2022 · PGR2021-00102 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–28 on all asserted grounds, finding a sufficient likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” After considering the Petition and Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, as well as all supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner has satisfied the burden under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) to show that it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“These arguments are not persuasive, however, because Patent Owner does not explain adequately how the disclosures of Oehring and Shampine are cumulative of the disclosure of Mu. In this case, the mere fact that 8 We note that Exhibit 2007 does not have ¶ 95 cited by Patent Owner. not mean necessarily that the references are cumulative of Mu. For instance, Petitioner relies on Mu for allegedly disclosing several claim limitations including “receiving a demand hydraulic horse power (HHP) signal,” “the first output power being in a selected range of a maximum continuous power (MCP) level,” and “the second output power . . . being in a selected range of the MCP level to a maximum intermittent power (MIP) level.” Pet. 19–41. Patent Owner does not direct us to any disclosure in Oehring or Shampine that are cumulative of these alleged teachings in Mu. Accordingly, we do not agree with Patent Owner that either of Oehring or Shampine is cumulative of Mu. As such, we determine that Petitioner’s reliance on Mu does not involve the same or substantially the same art or arguments previously presented to the Office, and the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework is not satisfied with respect to Mu. And although Crowe is cited in the ’459 patent (see Ex. 1001, code (56)), Petitioner’s reliance on Crowe is minimal. The ground based on Mu and Crowe, thus, does not implicate § 325(d).” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelOther
“This dispute presents a factual issue best decided on a complete record. Accordingly, for purposes of the Decision, we determine that no express finding is necessary, and that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We note, however, that our obviousness analysis in this Decision would not differ if we adopted either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionTerm construed board ownOther
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not explained sufficiently what a “maximum power output value” means in the context of the ’459 patent. Nor has Petitioner explained sufficiently why “maximum intermittent power” should be tied to the “maximum power output value.” In contrast, Patent Owner’s proposed construction is supported by the Specification, although we do not agree with the last clause of the construction because the references to “typical” values do not assist in understanding the claim language. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we preliminarily construe “maximum intermittent power” to mean “an elevated operating output level that the pump unit may operate intermittently throughout its operating life without excessive damage to the pump unit.”” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,907,459 - Phillips 66 v. Magēmā Technology, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 21, 2022 · IPR2021-01173 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Weiss-based grounds teach or suggest the claimed residual marine fuel oil.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached
“D. Discretionary Denial Patent Owner argues that we should exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution under Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020- 00019, Paper 15 (PTAB May 13, 2020) (precedential). Prelim. Resp. 12–31. Petitioner disagrees. Pet. 6–12. Because we deny institution based on the merits of Petitioner’s unpatentability arguments, we need not decide whether to exercise discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We determine we need not expressly construe any terms of the challenged claims at this stage of the proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“feedstock HMFO and the product HMFO of the challenged claims, as Petitioner argues it does, Petitioner must show that Weiss ’974 teaches or suggests four facts: (1) the pre-hydrotreatment HSFO is a residual petroleum 10 Petitioner defines “HSFO” as being a “high-sulfur HMFO” and “LSFO” as being a “low-sulfur HMFO.” Pet. 1. product, (2) the pre-hydrotreatment HSFO is ISO-8217-compliant, (3) the post-hydrotreatment LSFO is a residual petroleum product, and (4) the posthydrotreatment LSFO is ISO-8217-compliant. Petitioner does not show all four of these facts sufficiently to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that the challenged claims are anticipated by Weiss ’974 or obvious over the combination of Weiss ’974 and Weiss ’515.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,584,287 - Tomofun, LLC v. Doggyphone LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 10, 2021 · IPR2021-00260 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and maintained its denial of institution because Petitioner did not show the Board overlooked or misapprehended its arguments or abused its discretion.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing, without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. We review our Decision under an abuse of discretion standard. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Substantial evidence is ‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” OSI Pharm., LLC v. Apotex” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Claim(s) Ground 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Challenged 1 7 102(b) Alasaarela1 2 8 103(a) Alasaarela 3 7–9 102(b) Beccaria2 4 7–9 103(a) Carelli,3 Beccaria 5 7–9 103(a) Bloksberg,4 Beccaria Pet. 4. Petitioner asserts that Alasaarela discloses the audio signal limitation for Grounds 1 and 2. Id. at 23–24, 31. Petitioner asserts that Beccaria discloses the audio signal limitation for Ground 3, and Carelli discloses the audio signal limitation for Ground 4. Id. at 36–37, 48. For Ground 5, Petitioner asserts that Bloksberg discloses the audio signal limitation. Id. at 60.” slip op. at 3
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“As such, the Petition does not indicate with sufficient particularity that Petitioner relies on the Examiner’s finding as a basis for asserting that Bloksberg discloses the audio signal limitation and, thus, does not satisfy Petitioner’s burden on this point. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)); see also Intelligent Bio- Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3))). Because the Petition did not indicate clearly that it was relying on the Examiner’s finding, we could not have misapprehended or overlooked such a position. In addition, Patent Owner was not afforded a fair opportunity to dispute any reliance on the Examiner’s finding or the reasoning underlying the finding.” slip op. at 5
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We disagree with Petitioner’s characterization of Ground 3 as being based on obviousness. Rather, the Petition clearly asserts for Ground 3 that “Claims 7-9 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Beccaria[].” Pet. 4; see also id. at 32 (“Ground 3 – Claims 7–9 Are Unpatentable As Anticipated By Beccaria[]”). Petitioner’s Ground 3 analysis of claim 7 relies on Beccaria disclosing each limitation, including the audio signal limitation. Id. at 32–40. Petitioner’s Rehearing Request does not direct us to any portion of the Petition for Ground 3 that asserts any claim limitation would have been obvious over Beccaria, alone or in combination with another reference. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that we misapprehended Petitioner’s argument with respect to Beccaria.” slip op. at 9
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,723,813 - Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte Ges.M.B.H. v. Advanced Bionics AGSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 2, 2021 · IPR2020-00190 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, and 4–7 are unpatentable as obvious over Dooley and von Ilberg 1999; claims 3 and 8 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In the Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, stating it was “consistent with the evidence at this stage of the proceeding, including the asserted prior art.” Dec. Inst. 21. In its Response, Patent Owner notes that “Dr. Zeng explains that he would particularly emphasize experience relating to designing or developing cochlear implants and hearing aids, or systems for fitting such prostheses to patients,” but indicates that it does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of this proceeding. PO Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2014 ¶ 66). Based on our review of the complete record, we continue to apply the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted in the Decision on Institution. We” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner asserts that the Specification of the ’747 patent defines the term “electric-acoustic processor.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1001, 10:65–67, 11:1–7). In the Decision on Institution, we determined that it was not necessary to construe “electric-acoustic processor” at that stage of the proceeding. Dec. Inst. 22 (citing Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Patent Owner agrees the term “electric-acoustic processor” does not require construction for purposes of this proceeding. PO Resp. 14. Accordingly, we do not expressly construe “electric-acoustic processor” for this Decision.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“that “configured to generate or apply . . . acoustic stimulation signals to the acoustic sensing organs of the ear” means more than simply being capable of applying acoustic stimulation signals. Dec. Inst. 28. In its Response, Patent Owner argues that the term should be given its plain meaning and does not require explicit construction. PO Resp. 15–16. Patent Owner adds that: To the extent there is a dispute, Patent Owner agrees with the Board’s reasoning that the “configured to” language does not merely reflect an intended use and requires more than a device that is simply “capable of” generating or applying the recited acoustic or electric stimulation in different or separate configurations. Id. at 16 (citing Dec. Inst. 28). Petitioner does not respond to Patent Owner’s assertion that “configured to generate or apply” should be given its plain meaning but does indicate that it disagrees with our “construction” of the term “configured to.” Pet. Reply 14–15 (citing Dec. Inst. 27–28). Petitioner, however, does not present any reasoning supporting its assertion the Board was wrong or offer any argument regarding how “configured to” should be construed. See generally Pet. Reply. We did not expressly construe “configured to” or “configured to generate or apply” in the Decision on Institution, but, as noted above, we did determine that that “configured to generate or apply . . . acoustic stimulation signals to the acoustic sensing organs of the ear” means more than simply being capable of applying acoustic stimulation signals. Dec. Inst. 28. Based on the complete record, we still are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that “configured to” should be construed as merely “capable of,” and for the reasons in the Decision on Institution, which we adopt here, we determine acoustic sensing organs of the ear” means more than simply being capable of applying acoustic stimulation signals.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Anderson discloses an embodiment (“the acoustic embodiment”) in which earpiece 10 includes speaker 15 that generates acoustic waves (i.e., acoustic signals) to stimulate the user’s ear. Ex. 1003, 3:58–60, 4:33–35, 5:18–21, 6:63–67, Figs. 1, 2. Anderson also discloses in Figure 10 a different embodiment (“the cochlear implant embodiment”) that combines earpieces 10’ and 10” with a cochlear implant system. Id. at 27:25–45, Fig. 10. In this embodiment, “[s]peakers 15 in the left and right earpieces serve no purpose in the cochlear implant application, as the user is profoundly deaf, and may be disconnected to conserve power.” Id. at 27:52– 55. Because Anderson discloses that the speakers serve no purpose in the cochlear implant embodiment and could be disconnected from power, we determine that the speakers are not used in this embodiment. In addition, Petitioner does not direct us to—nor are we aware of—any disclosure in Anderson indicating that speaker 15 of the cochlear implant embodiment receives a signal that causes the speaker to generate acoustic output. In contrast, Anderson discloses that earpiece headset 21 of Figure 2, which is functionally equivalent to speaker 15 of the acoustic embodiment, receives a modified speech signal and converts this signal to acoustic waves. Ex. 1003, 4:33–35, 5:18–21; see also id. at 6:63–67 (disclosing that speaker 15 produces a processed acoustic signal that corresponds to the ambient acoustic signal detected by microphone 12). embodiment cannot generate or apply acoustic stimulation signals. For these reasons, we determine that speakers 15 in the cochlear implant embodiment are not configured to generate or apply acoustic stimulation signals.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 8,155,747 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,155,747 - Microsoft Corporation v. Iron Oak Technologies, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 7, 2020 · IPR2019-00107 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated by Oberlander and obvious over Oberlander or Dutta and Oberlander; the remaining alternative grounds were not reached.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’658 patent would have a “Bachelor’s degree in computer 7 No evidence of objective indicia of non-obviousness is in the record. engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, physics or a similar discipline” and “at least two years of relevant experience including, for example, work related to computer and telecommunications networking.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 32). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. Based on the foregoing, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it appears reasonable and consistent with the disclosure of the ’658 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Based on all the evidence of record and the parties’ respective arguments, we determine that express construction of these claim terms is not necessary for the purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”). To the extent necessary, claim terms will be construed below when addressing the parties’ arguments.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s contention is based on an implicit construction of “associated with” which requires that communication attributes be present in the structure of the data base shown in Oberlander’s Figure 5. However, Patent Owner does not provide any arguments or intrinsic evidence in support of such a construction. See PO Resp. 2–3. Further, a plain and ordinary meaning of the word “associated” is “related, connected, or combined together.” See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ associated. Consequently, the relevant inquiry is not whether communication attributes are present in the same table as the Oberlander’s network lists but rather whether the network lists are related to, connected to, or combined with communication attributes.” slip op. at 21
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Patent Owner’s contention is based on an implicit construction of “associated with” which requires that communication attributes be present in the structure of the data base shown in Oberlander’s Figure 5. However, Patent Owner does not provide any arguments or intrinsic evidence in support of such a construction. See PO Resp. 2–3. Further, a plain and ordinary meaning of the word “associated” is “related, connected, or combined together.” See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ associated. Consequently, the relevant inquiry is not whether communication attributes are present in the same table as the Oberlander’s network lists but rather whether the network lists are related to, connected to, or combined with communication attributes. Oberlander’s message 300 contains attributes field 310 that includes various attributes of a message including “message priority,” as noted by Petitioner, and “message logical size.” Ex. 1005, 3:66–4:9; see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 125 (“attributes help determine which network . . . the message will be routed on.”) (citing Ex. 1005 4:62–5:1). Figure 7b of Oberlander, discloses “a graphical representation of a logic function that delimits messages based upon size.” Id. at 5:58–59, Fig. 7b. Oberlander further discloses in connection with Figure 9 that “the attribute 310 values of the received message 300 are applied to the logic function of the retrieved record at block 912 by NMM 115. At block 914 a check is performed by NMM 115 to determine whether the logic function is true or false” based on the message attribute value. Id. at 8:47–51, Fig. 9. If the logic function is true at step 914, “flow proceeds to block 918, where the network ID list stored in field 505 of the retrieved record is written by NMM 115 into Null field 308 of the message 300.” Id. at 8:61–64, Fig. 9. As discussed above, message 300 includes attributes field 310. Id. at Fig. 9. Patent Owner confirms that this is the process by which Oberlander’s logic functions are used. See Sur-reply 6, 8–10. As a result, in the case of the logic function shown in Figure 7b, the network ID list stored in field 505 is related to (i.e., “associated with”) the communication attribute of message size. See also Ex. 1003 ¶ 125. Based on the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner discussed above and after considering Patent Owner’s arguments, we determine that Petitioner establishes that Oberlander discloses the limitation “each ordered list associated with one of a plurality of communication attributes.”” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 5,966,658 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 5,966,658
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.