- SAP America, Inc. v. Lakshmi ArunachalamAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 21, 2017 · CBM2016-00081 · APJ Kevin F Turner · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 20 and 21 are unpatentable under § 101 and § 103; the motion to amend proposing claims 22–49 is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that “[b]ased on the technologies disclosed in the ’506 patent, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would have had the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree or higher in computer science or computer engineering, as well as at least 3–5 years of academic or industry experience in the relevant field.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 22). Although Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in its Patent Owner’s Response, Patent Owner does opine about the same in its Motion to Amend. Therein, Patent Owner argues that: a person of ordinary skill in the art in 1995 would have been a person who had a degree in computer science, or the equivalent of that degree, and some substantive experience with Web technologies then being developed and considered by persons then working on internet systems. [Ex. 2006, 23] It would have been very rare to find anyone to have had a computer degree and as much as three to five years of experience in the area of Web technology as of November 1995. (Id.) Mot. Amend 5–6. Based on the positions of Petitioner and Patent Owner, we find mostly agreement as to the level of skill of such ordinarily skilled artisans and we are persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had the equivalent of a degree in computer science or computer engineering, as well as some substantive experience 29 with Web technologies then being developed and considered by persons then working on Internet systems. This level of skill is considered and applied in the grounds below.” slip op. at 29
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionNo construction neededOther
“networked object,” and that we “willfully left out ‘Individual’ and only construed ‘Network Object.’” PO Resp. 36. Patent Owner is correct that we did not construe “individual networked object.” The reason is that it is not a term recited in the challenged claims, nor claim 14, from which the challenged claims depend. We construed “networked object,” i.e., without “individual,” because it is a term recited in the claims. Patent Owner also argues that the proper construction of “networked object” is “the information entries and attributes in a DOLSIB [distributed on-line service information base].” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 8:50–54). We do not agree. Although the specification of the ’506 Patent details that “[t]he networked object identity 11 identifies the information entries and attributes in the DOLSIB as individual networked objects,” that is not a definition of “network objects.” We continue to find that the broadest reasonable construction, in view of the specification, of “networked object” is “an object that operates within a network or transmitted over a network.” We are not persuaded that “individual networked object” need be construed because it is not a claim term, and we are not persuaded that every recitation of “networked object” must refer to an “individual networked object.” Patent Owner argues that we did not construe the claim term “attributes,” which should be understood as “characteristics of an object.” Id. at 36–37 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:45–58, 23:19–25). Petitioner counters that the passages cited by Patent Owner do not support the proffered definition, because those passages do not contain the word “attribute.” Pet. Reply 4. Although Patent Owner’s construction is not unreasonable, claim 14 already recites that the step of “associating an object identity with information entries and attributes,” so that “attributes” need not be referred to as “characteristics of an object,” since such an association is already directly recited in the claims. As such, we are not persuaded that the claim term “attributes” needs explicit construction. Similarly, Patent Owner argues that “information entries” should be construed as “values of the characteristics of an object.” PO Resp. 37 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:45–58, 23:19–25). Again, we find it unnecessary to tie “information entries” to an object, since the association is already provided 12 in claim 14. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the claim term “information entries” needs explicit construction. With respect to the claim term “virtual information store,” we construed that term as “an information store in which information entries and attributes are associated with a networked object identity,” as discussed above. Patent Owner argues that we have not given proper effect to the word “virtual,” arguing that the proper construction is “a transient information store that is temporarily created and which contains information entries and attributes associated with a networked object identity.” PO Resp. 39–41. Patent Owner cites to the specification of the ’506 Patent (Ex. 1001, 3:1–5, 8:47–54), and “[t]he IBM Computer Dictionary” (id.), but, as Petitioner points out, Patent Owner has not “submitted this dictionary as an exhibit or provided any further information to locate the dictionary.” Further, the sections of the ’506 Patent cited by Patent Owner are not explicit about the store being “transient” or “temporarily created;” this is an inference drawn by Patent Owner. See PO Resp. 40. The introduction of the terms “transient” and “temporarily” to the construction adds more ambiguity to the claim term because the specification of the ’506 Patent does not discuss how long any “virtual information store” would be stored or maintained. In addition, we are not persuaded that Patent Owner’s provision of affirmatively containing the information entries and attributes is necessary because having a store in which the information entries and attributes are associated with a networked object identity would have been understood by ordinarily skilled artisans as being a store containing those elements. 13 Therefore, we are not persuaded that the claim term “virtual information store” requires a different construction and we maintain the construction provided in the Institution Decision, which is reproduced above.” slip op. at 11
- BurdenUnpatentable
“not have been obvious to make any changes to Lawlor’s system,” and that “the whole purpose of Lawlor is to establish a system built upon an existing software and infrastructure that would require no changes.” PO Resp. 80–81 (emphasis in original). We do not agree. We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner misinterprets Lawlor’s teachings, “improperly concluding that Lawlor teaches away from any combination or modification.” Pet. Reply 24 (emphasis in original). Lawlor explains that “[b]ecause the central computer interacts with the user's bank as a standard POS or ATM network node, no significant software changes are required at the banks’ computers,” demonstrating that Lawlor makes use of a standard ATM network and existing external systems without significant modification. Ex. 1004, Abstr. As explained by Dr. Sirbu, incorporation of techniques described in CORBA into Lawlor’s system would not require modification to the external systems of Lawlor or additional processing at the central computer of Lawlor. Ex. 1002 ¶ 72. Lawlor system does not restrict or disparage modification, and Patent Owner has not pointed out any portion that purportedly restricts or disparages modification. Patent Owner also argues that Lawlor does not disclose “an OSI Layer 7 application layer switch as is the VAN Switch in FIG. 5B.” PO Resp. 79. As discussed above, however, challenged claims 20 and 21 do not recite a VAN switch, and the only consideration of such a switch comes from Patent Owner’s claims constructions that we do not adopt. As such, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a 45 preponderance of the evidence that claim 20 is unpatentable over the combination of Lawlor and CORBA, and that the subject matter of claim 21 is unpatentable over the combination of Lawlor, CORBA and Billings.” slip op. at 45
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“2. 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(2)(i) Rule 221(a)(2)(i) requires that the amendments in a motion to amend must respond to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial. Patent Owner’s new claims do not respond to any ground of unpatentability in the trial. Those grounds are based on 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 103 and directed at claims 20 and 21. Pet. 28–73. Both claims 20 and 21 depend on claim 14 and the grounds of unpatentability consider all of the elements of claim 14. Thus, for example, new claim 25, which recites “[t]he apparatus of claim 14, wherein the user device is a multi-media device,” does not purport to demonstrate that such a claim brings the subject matter into the scope of § 101, nor that such a multi-media device would not be obvious over Lawlor, CORBA, and Billings. See Mot. Amend 9–17. Patent Owner’s analysis addresses claims 22–49 as a group and does not address all of the elements of the new claims. Id. Patent Owner also fails to indicate if any of the new claims include any feature of the challenged claims. For at least these reasons, we find that Patent Owner has not complied with the substantive requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(2)(i). 3. 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(2)(ii) and 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(3) Rule 221(a)(2)(i) requires that the amendment may not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent. We also note that this rule is fully supported by 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(3), which details that “[a]n amendment under this subsection may not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent.” Patent Owner appears to take this rule as merely requiring that “the new claims do not enlarge the scope of any of the old claims.” Mot. Amend 3. 52 The “old claims,” however, are the only two claims existing in the ’506 Patent, namely claims 20 and 21. They are the “scope of the claims of the patent,” and the scope cannot refer to any claim that might have existed during the prosecution of the ’506 Patent. See Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., 345 F.3d 1318, 1329–30 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Therefore, we look to the scope of claims 20 and 21 to determine the scope of the claims of a patent. Proposed new claims in the Motion to Amend improperly enlarge the scope of claims 20 and 21. For example, new claim 27 recites “[t]he apparatus of claim 14, wherein the service is configurable specific to the context of a Web merchant.” This proposed claim is broader, in at least one aspect, than claims 20 and 21, which also depend from claim 14, because it contains none of the elements of claims 20 and 21, although it adds an additional element, i.e., “the service is configurable specific to the context of a Web merchant.” For at least these reasons, we find that Patent Owner has not complied with the substantive requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(2)(ii) or 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(3). 4. § 42.221(a)(3) and 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(1)(B) Section (a)(3) of Rule 221 discusses that a patent owner must propose a reasonable number of substitute claims, and goes on to discuss that “[t]he presumption is that only one substitute claim would be needed to replace each challenged claim, and it may be rebutted by a demonstration of need.” The claims subject to the instant proceeding are claims 20 and 21, such that the normal presumption would be for the inclusion of two substitute claims. 53 Patent Owner does not address why the proposed 28 claims are a reasonable number of substitutes for the 2 challenged claims, so Patent Owner cannot be said to have rebutted the one for one presumption by any demonstration of need. We also note that this rule is fully supported by 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(1)(B), which details that for the amendment of a patent, for each challenged claim, “a reasonable number of substitute claims” must be proposed. Petitioner points out that the meaning of “reasonable number of substitute claims” has been previously addressed by the Board, providing “in the absence of special circumstance, a challenged claim can be replaced by only one claim, and a motion to amend should, for each proposed substitute claim, specifically identify the challenged claim which it is intended to replace.” Opp. 1–2 (citing Idle Free at 5). Furthermore, as Petitioner addresses, Patent Owner has failed to identify which of the challenged claims are intended to be replaced by the new claims. Id. Patent Owner’s response appears to be that “PO does not propose a reasonable number of substitute claims, because it is not necessary.” PO Reply 2. This, however, is not responsive. For at least these reasons, we find that Patent Owner has not complied with the substantive requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(3) or the statutory requirements of § 326(d)(1)(B). 5. 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(b)(1) Rule 221(b)(1) requires that a motion to amend must show the changes clearly and set for the support in the original disclosure of the patent for claim that is added. In the case of new claims 22–49, Patent Owner does 54 not indicate any changes from the claims subject to the present proceeding. The claims are indicated as being new, so that no changes from the pending claims are discussed at all. See Claim App’x. In addition, Patent Owner argues that written description support for the new claims can be found in a chart provided in a reexamination of the patent. Mot. Amend 3 (citing inter partes Reexamination Control No. 95/001,129). We note that such incorporation by reference is not permitted under our rules. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). As well, as Petitioner points out, Patent Owner has not demonstrated that the claims provided in the chart are the same as the new claims. Opp. 4. Given this deficit, Patent Owner cannot successfully meet the regulatory requirements under 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a) or (b)(1) regarding written description support, based on the present record. Additionally, Patent Owner has failed to provide any mapping of the new claims to those old claims, and, as Petitioner points out, the Board determined during the cited inter partes reexamination that no written description support was provided for a number of limitations identical to those recited in the new claims. Id. (citing Ex. 1007, 32–36). For at least these reasons, we find that Patent Owner has not complied with the substantive requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(b)(1). 6. Conclusion As discussed above, Patent Owner has not demonstrated compliance with 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.221(a), 42.221(a)(2)(i), 42.221(a)(2)(i), 42.221(a)(3), or 42.221(b)(1) or 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(1)(B) and (3). As such, Patent Owner has failed to meet the substantive requirements for a motion to amend.” slip op. at 52
Patent outcomesUS 7,340,506 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Enfish · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,340,506 - Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited / Globalfoundries U.S. Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 20, 2017 · IPR2016-01249 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5–7, and 9 and proposed claims 11–12 are unpatentable as obvious over Ding and Zhang; proposed claim 13 is patentable and allowed by amendment.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“essentially of” for “being composed of.” PO Resp. 11 (citing AFG Indus., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 239 F.3d 1239, 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). In AFG, the Court noted that, “[i]n 1942, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals [had] stated that ‘“composed of” should be regarded as synonymous with “consisting of.”’” AFG, 239 F.3d at 1245 (quoting In re Bertsch, 132 F.2d 1014, 1019 (CCPA 1942)). However, as further explained in AFG, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals had “qualified this statement . . . by remarking that ‘the words “composed of” may under certain circumstances be given, in patent law, a broader meaning than “consisting of.”’” Id. (quoting In re Bertsch, 132 F.2d at 1020). The Court in AFG ultimately construed “composed of” to mean “consisting essentially of.” Id. (“[W]e do agree based on the specification and other evidence before us that the term ‘composed of’ in this case is not completely closed. Rather, we think that ‘composed of’ in this case should be interpreted in the same manner as ‘consisting essentially of.’”). Thus, “composed of” means either “consisting of” or “consisting essentially of.” Id. The term “consisting of” prohibits any 4 <111> and <002> are indices that pertain to an orientation or direction of crystals. Ex. 1003 ¶51. unspecified components. Id. (citing PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). The term “consisting essentially of” prohibits only unspecified components that materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s) of a claimed invention. Id. (citing Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). By arguing that “being composed of” means “consisting essentially of” as opposed to “consisting of,” Patent Owner argues for broader claim scope. For purposes of this Decision, we construe “being composed of” to mean “consisting essentially of,” as Patent Owner argues.5 In conclusion, we construe “first film being composed of crystalline metal containing nitrogen therein,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 5, to mean “first film consisting essentially of crystalline metal containing nitrogen therein.”6” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“1. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The parties propose similar definitions of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “an equivalent of a Master of Science degree from an accredited institution in electrical engineering, materials science, or physics, or the equivalent, a working knowledge of semiconductor processing technologies for integrated circuits, and at least two years of experience in semiconductor processing analysis, design, and development.” Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶64). Patent Owner argues that such an individual would have had “at least a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical, Materials, Mechanical, or Chemical Engineering, or a related degree, and at least two years of experience working in semiconductor processing and fabrication, semiconductor equipment manufacturing, or semiconductor materials.” PO Resp. 18 (citing Ex. 2011 ¶24). Neither party explains in detail why its proposed level of ordinary skill in the art should be adopted nor how the different levels affect the parties’ analyses. Based on the evidence of record, including the testimony of the parties’ declarants, the subject matter at issue, and the prior art of record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentableUnpatentable
“As to Petitioner’s predictable-results assertion, Petitioner persuasively argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have added nitrogen to the crystalline tantalum layer of Ding for three independent reasons. First, Petitioner argues that the presence of nitrogen in Ding’s crystalline tantalum layer would make it more easily removable by chemical mechanical polishing (“CMP”), which removal by polishing both Zhang and Ding teach to do. Pet. 24–26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶140, 142, 143; Ex. 1004, 1:30–34, 4:34–37; Ex. 1005, 7:56–65; Ex. 1019, 12–13; Ex. 1021, 354–63). Second, Petitioner argues that the presence of nitrogen in Ding’s crystalline tantalum layer would inhibit, to some additional extent, copper diffusion. Id. at 26–29 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶144–146; Ex. 1023, 8). Third, Petitioner argues that adding a small amount of nitrogen to Ding’s crystalline tantalum layer would reduce its resistivity, which was known to help reduce a device’s power consumption and RC delays. Id. at 29–30 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶147; Ex. 1015, 81 (Table 1)). Patent Owner counters that none of these purportedly predictable results are realistic. PO Resp. 46–52. With respect to the first reason offered by Petitioner (to make the first film more susceptible to CMP), Patent Owner argues that: (A) adding only “[a] small amount of nitrogen” to Ding’s crystalline tantalum layer would not change its CMP characteristics; and (B) “[a]dding significant amounts of nitrogen” would result in Ding’s previously crystalline layer becoming amorphous. Id. at 48. Patent Owner does not disclose what it considers “small” and “significant” amounts of nitrogen. Id. As a result, we cannot apply Patent Owner’s argument (even if it were persuasive) to the facts before us. Also, Patent Owner’s argument is based exclusively on declaration testimony that does not cite to any underlying evidence, let alone documentary evidence. See id. at 47–49 (citing Ex. 2011 ¶¶190–98). In contrast, Petitioner’s argument is supported by declaration testimony, which, in turn, is based on underlying evidence, including documentary evidence. See Pet. 24–26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶140, 142, 143; Ex. 1004, 1:30–34, 4:34– 37; Ex. 1005, 7:56–65; Ex. 1019, 12–13; Ex. 1021, 354–63); see also Ex. 1003 ¶139. With respect to the second reason offered by Petitioner (to inhibit, to some additional extent, copper diffusion), Patent Owner argues that, in Petitioner’s asserted combination, “there would be no nitrogen to provide any copper diffusion benefit.” PO Resp. 49. Patent Owner’s argument is premised on Zhang teaching exclusively an upper surface of pure tantalum. Id. But, Zhang explicitly teaches that the upper surface may have a nitrogen content of, for example, 1%, 2%, 3%, or 4%. See Ex. 1004, 3:59–62 (“At the upper surface, the atomic percent tantalum may be at least 95% and the atomic percent nitrogen may be less than 5% if copper adhesion is particularly problematic.”). With respect to the third reason offered by Petitioner (to reduce resistivity), Patent Owner argues that adding nitrogen would actually increase resistivity. As pointed out by Petitioner, however, Patent Owner’s declarant, Harlan R. Harris, Ph.D., conceded that adding nitrogen does lower resistivity. Reply 17–18 (quoting Ex. 1036, 125:3–20). Dr. Harris testified as follows: Q. When the nitrogen flow ratio is zero in the ’324 patent, and the power is kept constant, wouldn’t that result in a film that could be pure tantalum? A. All three of those data points are at the exact same position on the graph. The N2 concentration, which is the numerator of the ratio, is set at zero. And in this particular position, the nitrogen concentration would be assumed to be zero in the film. Q. So is it within the scope of what’s taught in the ’324 patent to have a film that would have no nitrogen at all? A. It’s also apparent to anyone who is examining this of skill in the art that you can decrease from that number, which is favorable in terms of the value of resistivity by adding flow rate in the data points for all of the positions greater than zero. So you decrease resistivity by the addition of any amount of nitrogen, therefore, a person skilled in the art would not be motivated to not have nitrogen, based on this data. Q. You’re referring to the decrease in resistivity as nitrogen is added? A. Yes. Q. Which is desirable? A. You want the resistivity to go down. Ex. 1036, 124:15–125:20. We are satisfied by each of Petitioner’s proffered reasons for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have added nitrogen to Ding’s crystalline tantalum layer, as taught by Zhang. Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1 and 5 would have been obvious over Ding and Zhang.” slip op. at 24
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“obvious over Ding in view of Zhang. Patent Owner’s proposed claims 11 and 12 are unpatentable because they introduce limitations—nitrogen throughout the first film (claim 11) and nitrogen at the upper surface of the first film (claim 12)—that are met by the very references asserted in the ground of unpatentability involved in this inter partes review. Patent Owner’s Motion to substitute claims 11 and 12 is premised, incorrectly, on Zhang requiring pure tantalum (and, thus, no nitrogen) at the upper surface of its tantalum-rich tantalum nitride film. In fact, Zhang does not require any portion of the tantalum-rich tantalum nitride film to be pure tantalum. Ex. 1004, 3:53–54 (“The tantalum-rich tantalum nitride film has a range of approximately 0-30 atomic percent nitrogen.”). And, Zhang explicitly teaches that the upper surface may include nitrogen. Id. at 3:57– 62 (“A lower atomic percent nitrogen at the upper surface typically gives better adhesion to copper films. At the upper surface, the atomic percent tantalum may be at least 95% and the atomic percent nitrogen may be less than 5% if copper adhesion is particularly problematic.”); Ex. 1036, 40:1–6, 42:2–9, 42:15–21, 54:14–20 (Dr. Harris acknowledging that the upper surface of the film would contain some nitrogen). Accordingly, a preponderance of the evidence establishes that Patent Owner’s proposed claims 11 and 12 are not patentable over the art of record in this inter partes review. Put another way, and as Petitioner argues, claims 11 and 12 (like challenged claim 5) are unpatentable as they claim subject matter that would have been obvious over Ding in view of Zhang. See 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); Amend Opp. 6–7 (“The instituted obviousness ground[] based on Zhang and Ding already include[s] the newly-added limitations Patent Owner seeks to add in its Substitute Claims 11–13. Thus, the Substitute Claims 11–13 remain unpatentable over each of the instituted grounds.”).14 Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend is denied with respect to claims 11 and 12.” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 6,538,324 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,538,324 - Tricklestar LLC v. Embertec Pty Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 20, 2017 · IPR2016-01336 · APJ Stacy B Margolies · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 7, and 9 are unpatentable as anticipated by EP ’379; claims 5 and 6 are unpatentable as obvious over EP ’379 and EP ’752.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner and Petitioner’s declarant is consistent with the challenged patent and the asserted prior art, and we therefore adopt that definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below. See Ex. 1001, 1:14–15 (“The invention relates to aspects of the monitoring of electrical power supply to electrical equipment.”); Ex. 1002 ¶ 1 (“The present invention relates to a method and system to provide power saving for electronic devices while such devices are in the standby mode and are not in use, particularly for a setting accommodating multiple electronic devices especially in the end-user sector.”); Ex. 1003 ¶ 1 (“The present invention relates to an automatic means switch device used to disconnect a load from” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We determine that we do not need to expressly construe “input” (claim 1), “electrical input” (claim 9), “sensor” (claims 1 and 9), and “alert device” (claim 5) to determine whether Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–7 and 9 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“EP ’379 was published April 22, 2009. Ex. 1002, [43]. Because EP ’379 was published before the earliest possible invention date of record in this proceeding, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that EP ’379 is prior art to claims 1–4, 7, and 9 of the ’099 patent at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Pet. 16. As illustrated above, Petitioner adds red ovals around what it contends, and with which we agree, correspond to the claimed sensor and microprocessor: infrared receiver unit 10 and microprocessor 12. Id. EP ’379 discloses that infrared receiver unit 10 is coupled to microprocessor 12 and that the infrared receiver unit monitors wireless output signals from a remote control. Ex. 1002, Fig. 3, ¶¶ 24, 26. Specifically, EP ’379 discloses that “the signals of the remote controls of electronic devices connected to the subject controller [are] sensed, identified, and interpreted by the controller.” Id. ¶ 23; see also id. ¶ 26 (stating that “the remote control signals controlling the devices connected to the controller can also be sensed by the controller”). According to EP ’379, “[t]he controller unit identifies as to which electronic device’s remote control the user has depressed by means of the signal receiver (10) on itself.” Id. ¶ 24. EP ’379 also discloses that the microprocessor terminates power supplied to the external electrical device based upon the absence of detection of signals from the remote control. Id. ¶ 26. EP ’379 states the following: The controller can be set to a predetermined time period in order to save power, and if no signal is received within this time period from a remote control of any device connected to it, the controller can turn OFF such devices in turn or at the same time according to a predetermined power saving rule. Id. EP ’379 adds an example of a user setting the automatic turn-off period to three hours. Id. Under this example, according to EP ’379, “if the user does not depress any key on any remote control of any electronic device connected to the controller, or if no signal is sensed by the controller within three hours, the controller may power off the electronic devices connected to itself in sequence according to an automatic turning-off rule.” Id. In sum, Petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated by EP ’379.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 9,106,099 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,106,099 - LG Electronics, Inc. v. Broadcom CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 19, 2017 · IPR2017-01624 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Diaz did not disclose internally reprogrammable hardware accelerators, and the other grounds did not cure that deficiency.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“3. Construction of “configurable” In construing this term, we have considered the specification of the ’353 patent and its prosecution history. Microsoft Corp. v. Proxycinn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In accord with these portions of the ’844 patent specification and file history discussed supra, we conclude that a hardware accelerator is configurable only if its functionality can be internally reprogrammed. Thus, under our construction, an accelerator selected by an API or other instrumentality would not itself be “configurable.” This will be discussed further infra.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“However, as Patent Owner argues, Diaz ’353 does not explicitly or inherently disclose hardware accelerators that are configurable to perform decoding functions according to a plurality of decoding methods. In Diaz ’533 the overall decoder — as opposed to the constituent hardware accelerators — is configurable in that the processor controls which hardware accelerators are activated. Prelim. Resp. 2, 5–8. We see no meaningful distinction in this respect between Diaz ’353 and Sullivan ’021 which, as discussed above, discloses an API that is configurable to select various hardware accelerators, but which are not themselves configurable, to assist in the decoding process. See Prelim. Resp. 6. In sum, the functionality of the hardware accelerators of Diaz ’353 cannot be internally reprogrammed, but rather can only be bypassed or reused for various operations. Therefore, in accord with our claim construction set forth above, we determine that those hardware accelerators are not “configurable” as required by claim 1. Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of independent claim 1 as anticipated by Diaz ’353.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“C. Obviousness of Claims 8 and 14 over Diaz ’353 and Purcell ’483, and of Claim 12 over Diaz ’353 and Fandrianto ’459 or Kim As discussed above, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the issue of whether Diaz ’353 discloses the claim 1 requirement of configurable hardware accelerators. Claims 8, 12, and 14 depend from claim 1 and so also include this requirement by virtue of their dependency. Petitioner’s obviousness grounds directed to these claims is premised on Petitioner’s arguments with respect to claim 1 that Diaz ’353 discloses configurable hardware accelerators. Pet. 51–63. Petitioner does not provide argument or evidence — aside from the above-considered anticipation arguments based on Diaz ’353 alone — that the combination of Diaz ’353 with Purcell ’483, Fandrianto ’459 or Kim teaches or suggests “a hardware accelerator . . . configurable to perform the decoding function according to a plurality of decoding methods.” Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of claims 8 and 14 as obvious over Diaz ’353 and Purcell ’483, or of claim 12 as obvious over Diaz ’353 and Fandrianto ’459 or Kim.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of independent claim 1 as anticipated by Diaz ’353.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,284,844 - Sony Corporation v. Fujifilm CorporationRehearing grantedPTAB · Dec 18, 2017 · IPR2017-00618 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted rehearing and instituted review of claims 1–3 on anticipation by Hennecken and obviousness over Hennecken with Albrecht II, with or without Dugas, under Basis 1.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“believes we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, opposition, or reply. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Additionally, Petitioner, as the party challenging the Decision, has the burden of showing the Decision should be modified. Id. When rehearing a decision on a petition, the Board will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined “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.” Arnold Partnership v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“Albrecht Declaration that a POSA would have understood Hennecken to be disclosing “a plurality of servo bands on each of which is written a different servo signal for tracking control of the magnetic head” as required by independent claim 1, and Patent Owner provides evidence in the Messner Declaration that a POSA would have understood that Hennecken does not teach that a different servo signal is written on each servo band for tracking control. See, e.g., Pet. 22–25; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 105–113, 174–177; Prelim. Resp. 29–33; Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 88–98. This conflicting expert testimony creates a genuine issue of material fact regarding how a POSA would have understood Hennecken. For purposes of deciding whether to institute an inter partes review, we must view any issues of material fact created by testimonial evidence in the light most favorable to Petitioner. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). Thus, for purposes of this Decision, we must resolve the dispute between Dr. Albrecht and Dr. Messner regarding how a POSA would have understood Hennecken in Petitioner’s favor.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“reasons as to why a POSA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hennecken and Albrecht II. Pet. 39–41; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 231–237. In the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner argues that “a POSA would not have been motivated to use the techniques of embedding information in the low frequency transitions, as disclosed in Albrecht II, in order to embed a servo stripe number, as disclosed in Hennecken for the simple reason that Hennecken plainly teaches away from such a combination.” Prelim. Resp. 38. Patent Owner relies on Dr. Messner’s testimony to support its contentions. Id. at 38–41; Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 109–116. The conflicting expert testimony creates a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether a POSA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hennecken and Albrecht II as Petitioner proposes. For purposes of this Decision, we must resolve this dispute between Dr. Albrecht and Dr. Messner in Petitioner’s favor. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). The parties will have the opportunity to further develop these facts and” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayInstituted
“reasons as to why a POSA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hennecken and Albrecht II. Pet. 39–41; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 231–237. In the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner argues that “a POSA would not have been motivated to use the techniques of embedding information in the low frequency transitions, as disclosed in Albrecht II, in order to embed a servo stripe number, as disclosed in Hennecken for the simple reason that Hennecken plainly teaches away from such a combination.” Prelim. Resp. 38. Patent Owner relies on Dr. Messner’s testimony to support its contentions. Id. at 38–41; Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 109–116. The conflicting expert testimony creates a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether a POSA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hennecken and Albrecht II as Petitioner proposes. For purposes of this Decision, we must resolve this dispute between Dr. Albrecht and Dr. Messner in Petitioner’s favor. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). The parties will have the opportunity to further develop these facts and” slip op. at 9
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,355,805 - CSL Behring GmbH / CSL Behring LLC v. Shire Viropharma Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 7, 2017 · IPR2017-01512 · APJ Lora M Green · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied for claims 1-18: Schranz was not shown to be prior art, and the Jiang ground was denied under §325(d) because the same art and arguments were previously presented.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“may request to cancel . . . claims of a patent only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” Before considering the ground before us based on Schranz, we must address whether Petitioner has provided a sufficient threshold showing that Schranz constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102—a legal question based on underlying factual determinations. Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1568” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“As was the case in Dep’t of Justice, the use of a joint declaration “invites innumerable practical difficulties in cross-examining the witnesses, in assessing the reliability of the statements made, and in evaluating the weight to be accorded to the opinions expressed.” Dep’t of Justice 10. For example, Dr. Machnig and Mr. Waldhauser declare in “our recollection.” Ex. 1013-A ¶ 4. It is unclear how two different declarants can have the same “recollection.” In addition, the declarants state that “[h]andouts of the poster . . . [were] picked up by us.” Id. ¶ 5. It is unclear from the Joint Declaration, however, if both declarants were together when the hand-out was picked-up, or if each declarant picked up the handout at separate times. We, therefore, afford the Joint Declaration of Dr. Machnig and Mr. Waldhauser little weight. See Dep’t of Justice 11. As it is the primary evidence on which Petitioner relies to demonstrate that Schranz is prior art, we determine that Petitioner has not made a threshold showing that Schranz is prior art to the ’111 patent. As Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that Schranz is prior art to the ’111 patent, we determine that the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that challenged claims 1‒18 are rendered obvious by the combination of Schranz (as evidenced by Cinryze Label and Bock), Gatlin, Pharming, and Levi.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“In the instant proceeding, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner is essentially making the same arguments as to obviousness over Jiang that the Examiner already considered. The prosecution history demonstrates that the Examiner considered many of the same issues with respect to the Schranz Declaration as Petitioner is arguing here. Although the Examiner noted in allowing the claims that Applicant Shire had established the secondary consideration of long-felt need and failure of others, the Examiner also stated that the art did not suggest the claimed dosage. We determine, therefore, that the Examiner did address the Schranz Declaration, and the Examiner’s concerns are similar to those raised by Petitioner in the instant proceeding. That is, as the Examiner stated: The Examiner has considered the arguments found in Dr. Schranz’s declaration concerning difficulty in higher concentration formulation. However, Dr. Schranz’s declaration provides little more than an assertion that it is difficult to reach such a concentration formulation, as opposed to actual evidence establishing that this (1) was a recognized problem in the art and (2) was generally not achievable via other means. Ex. 1001-B, 3041. Thus, the Examiner did acknowledge the lack of supporting evidence in the Schranz Declaration demonstrating that it was difficult to reach the claimed concentration.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“As was the case in Dep’t of Justice, the use of a joint declaration “invites innumerable practical difficulties in cross-examining the witnesses, in assessing the reliability of the statements made, and in evaluating the weight to be accorded to the opinions expressed.” Dep’t of Justice 10. For example, Dr. Machnig and Mr. Waldhauser declare in “our recollection.” Ex. 1013-A ¶ 4. It is unclear how two different declarants can have the same “recollection.” In addition, the declarants state that “[h]andouts of the poster . . . [were] picked up by us.” Id. ¶ 5. It is unclear from the Joint Declaration, however, if both declarants were together when the hand-out was picked-up, or if each declarant picked up the handout at separate times. We, therefore, afford the Joint Declaration of Dr. Machnig and Mr. Waldhauser little weight. See Dep’t of Justice 11. As it is the primary evidence on which Petitioner relies to demonstrate that Schranz is prior art, we determine that Petitioner has not made a threshold showing that Schranz is prior art to the ’111 patent. As Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that Schranz is prior art to the ’111 patent, we determine that the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that challenged claims 1‒18 are rendered obvious by the combination of Schranz (as evidenced by Cinryze Label and Bock), Gatlin, Pharming, and Levi.” slip op. at 9
§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,616,111 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 4, 2017 · IPR2017-01465 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show Baldemair was entitled to its provisional's priority date, so it was not shown to be prior art for claims 3–5 and 9–11.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Based on the record before us, we find that Petitioner has not linked the Baldemair Provisional with any of the Baldemair claims in a manner sufficient to meet its burden. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that Baldemair is entitled to the benefit of priority to the filing date of the Baldemair Provisional. Therefore, Petitioner has not shown that Baldemair is prior art to the ’587 patent. Because each of Petitioner’s asserted grounds relies on Baldemair, Petitioner has not demonstrated on the record before us a reasonable likelihood of showing that claims 3–5 and 9–11 would have been obvious over (1) Baldemair; (2) Baldemair and TS 36.213; or (3) Damnjanovic and Baldemair.” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference not prior artDecided for patent owner
“To show that Baldemair is entitled to the benefit of priority to the filing date of the Baldemair Provisional, Petitioner must show that the claims of Baldemair are supported by the Baldemair Provisional. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“A reference patent is only entitled to claim the benefit of priority to the filing date of its provisional application if the disclosure of the provisional application provides support for the claims in the reference patent in compliance with § 112, ¶ 1.”). Recognizing this requirement (Pet. 18), Petitioner cites several passages from the Baldemair Provisional, and asserts that the cited passages “provide[] support for the relevant claims in Baldemair, such as claim 1.” Id. at 18–19.” slip op. at 5
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“Baldemair Provisional may disclose the limitations recited in claim 1 of Baldemair, Petitioner does not explain how those cited portions disclose the claim limitations. As Patent Owner points out, claim 1 of Baldemair has several limitations, none of which Petitioner specifically discusses with respect to any of the cited passages from the Baldemair Provisional. Prelim. Resp. 21–22. Petitioner should not expect the Board to cull the evidence necessary to support Petitioner’s arguments. Based on the record before us, we find that Petitioner has not linked the Baldemair Provisional with any of the Baldemair claims in a manner sufficient to meet its burden. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that Baldemair is entitled to the benefit of priority to the filing date of the Baldemair Provisional. Therefore, Petitioner has not shown that Baldemair is prior art to the ’587 patent. Because each of Petitioner’s asserted grounds relies on Baldemair, Petitioner has not demonstrated on the record before us a reasonable likelihood of showing that claims 3–5 and 9–11 would have been obvious over (1) Baldemair; (2) Baldemair and TS 36.213; or (3) Damnjanovic and Baldemair.” slip op. at 5
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 8,885,587 - Cree, Inc. v. Optolum, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 4, 2017 · IPR2017-01511 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable, chiefly because Begemann did not disclose the claimed heat-conduction-to-contained-fluid limitation.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“evidence. As explained below and given the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail on its assertions that Begemann anticipates either of claims 17 or 30. 1. Principles of Law” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the Board’s use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in Inter Partes Review proceedings). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, and absent any special definitions, claims terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definitions for claim terms or phrases must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a definition, limitations are not to be read from the specification into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Petitioner advances interpretations of the claim terms “elongate,” “thermally conductive member,” and “heat dissipation protrusions.” Pet. 17–18. In turn, Patent Owner advances interpretations of “thermally conductive member,” “heat dissipation protrusions,” and “configured to.” Prelim. Resp. 17–21. Having considered the evidence of record and as reflected in the discussion below, we determine that express construction of these terms is not necessary for purposes of this Decision. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”).” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“A claim is anticipated if each limitation of the claim is disclosed in a single prior art reference arranged as in the claim. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “The requirement that the prior art elements themselves be ‘arranged as in the claim’ means that claims cannot be ‘treated . . . as mere catalogs of separate parts, in disregard of the part-to-part relationships set forth in the claims and that give the claims their meaning.’” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). The Federal Circuit has also explained, however, that “a reference can anticipate a claim even if it ‘d[oes] not expressly spell out’ all the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination.” Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681 (CCPA 1962)).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“likewise require that the thermally conductive member includes the “configured to” limitation and “one or more heat dissipation protrusions, at least one of said heat dissipation protrusions being carried on said elongate member outer surface” limitations discussed above. Ex. 1001 at 4:47–50, 5:60–63. In addition to the anticipation arguments for claims 17 and 30, Petitioner argues in the alternative, “[s]hould it be determined that Begemann does not disclose the claimed heat dissipation protrusions, then claim 17 is obvious in view of Begemann in combination with English” (Pet. 28) and “claim 30 is obvious in view of Begemann in combination with English . . . for reasons previously explained . . . for claim 17” (Pet. 59). According to Petitioner, English expressly discloses the placement of cooling fins on an exterior of a hollow, metal base portion of an elongated, thermally conductive metal support to further enhance heat dissipation for cooling LEDs mounted on the metal support. Pet. 31. Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide the cooling fins of the lamp of English to the outer surface of Begemann’s gear column to enhance the performance and/or efficiency of cooling the LEDs by enhancing heat dissipation away from the gear column, substrate, and LEDs “to air circulating inside and at the outer surface of the gear column 1.” Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 93–94). Further, Petitioner presents the following annotated copy of Begemann’s Figure 1 to illustrate its proposed modification of Begemann’s gear column using English’s fins: Petitioner’s annotated version of Begemann Figure 1 with accompanying text that describes providing cooling fins to the outer surface of Begemann’s gear column 1. Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1003 at 4:6–9). As Patent Owner argues (Prelim. Resp. 39), Petitioner does not rely on English to meet the “configured to” limitation for either of claim 17 or 30 (see, e.g., Pet. 26–27, 55–56 (citing only Begemann for the “configure to” limitation)). Having determined above that Begemann fails to disclose the “configured to” limitation, Petitioner’s reliance on English to satisfy the heat dissipation protrusions limitation fails to cure the noted deficiencies in Begemann with regards to the “configured to” limitation of claims 17 and 30 of the ’028 Patent.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,242,028 - Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 30, 2017 · PGR2017-00024 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims, finding the § 103 and written-description challenges previously considered under § 325(d), and the remaining written-description and indefiniteness challenges insufficient.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“We agree with Patent Owner that we should exercise our discretion in denying institution of review based on Petitioner’s § 103 challenges because the same art and arguments were considered by the Examiner during the original prosecution. There is no dispute that Saggio and Lee were expressly considered by the Examiner and discussed in the Examiner’s Reasons for Allowance in the May 24, 2016 Notice for Allowance. See Ex. 1008, 86–88. In the Notice of Allowance, the Examiner considered expressly the teachings of Saggio and Lee, and explained in detail that neither one of these disclosed the claimed “elastic fastener.” Id. Moreover, the Examiner expressly also considered Donaldson and found that it was “cumulative with Lee [ ] in that both references disclose that moving mechanical components must be used to detach the balloons.” Id. at 17.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Based on our review of the record, including the claim language and the Specification of the ’779 patent, we agree with Patent Owner’s position. Here, the restriction of the claimed elastic ring is limited such that the balloon, if filled with a sufficient amount of water, is detachable by (1) gravity or (2) by gravity combined with a manually applied acceleration of the tube. Further, we agree with Patent Owner’s explanation that a person of ordinary skill in the art would know when the amount of water has reached a “sufficient amount,” because the elastic rings would allow detachment by gravity or by gravity and manually applied acceleration of the tube. See Prelim. Resp. 42. Indeed, the claim language itself provides the conditions” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the effective filing date of the ’779 patent (“POSA”) was a person having general knowledge about, and experience with, expandable containers, including, without limitation, balloons, and at least an associate’s degree in a technical science or engineering. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 10–14). For purposes of this Decision, we agree with Petitioner and determine that a POSA would have been a person having a general knowledge about, 2 Claims 38, 46, 54, and 60 issued as claims 4, 7, 10, and 13. and experience with, expandable containers, including, without limitation, balloons, and at least an associate’s degree in mechanical engineering, or the equivalent. This level of skill is consistent with the types of problems and solutions described in the ’779 patent and cited prior art.” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyOther
“Petitioner argues that the present record is different than the one before the Examiner. Pet. 80. In particular, Petitioner asserts that the testimony of Dr. Kamrin was not before the Examiner. Id. Petitioner contends that “one of the issues in this petition is inherency of the prior art references, which benefits from the consideration of expert testimony.” Id. at 81. Nonetheless, having reviewed the record, we disagree with Petitioner’s position. The technology here does not appear to be particularly complex, and the Examiner’s explanation shows that he expressly considered the issues of inherency, and offered detailed findings why the functional limitations related to the elastic fastener were not necessarily present in the art at issue. See Ex. 1008, 87–88. Although not referred to expressly in the Examiner’s explanation, the Information Disclosure Sheet considered by the Examiner includes the Petitions in PGR2016-00030 and PGR2016-00031, which contain similar explanations of inherency to those at issue in this case. See PGR2016-00031, Paper 2, 43–45 (Petition discussing inherency issue with respect to Lee). Although the Examiner’s explanation does not refer to those papers expressly, the fact that those papers were listed on an IDS is, nevertheless, circumstantial evidence that Petitioner’s inherency arguments were considered when the Examiner provided his explanation concerning inherency. See Ex. 1008, 87 (“Because it is not true that all elastic bands have the same elastic force as an inherent property, it cannot be presumed that all elastic bands would function the same way.”). Moreover, as Patent Owner notes, Dr. Kamrin fails to even address Donaldson’s use of a mechanical means, i.e., a spring, to release the balloon. Prelim. Resp. 32. Thus, we are not persuaded that Dr. Kamrin’s testimony meaningfully distinguishes the record that is before us from the record that was before the Examiner.” slip op. at 12
§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,533,779 - Microsoft Corporation v. Smart Skins LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 21, 2017 · IPR2016-00404 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Microsoft's rehearing request, maintaining that claims 1, 12, 13, 15, 23, and 24 are entitled to the July 17, 2001 priority date and that Janik and Kehoe are not prior art.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS When considering a request for rehearing, the Board reviews its decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“part of U.S. Patent Application No. 10/087,098 (Ex. 1014, “the ’098 application”), which was filed on March 1, 2002, and that the ’864 patent and the ’098 application claim priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/306,326 (Ex. 1015, “the ’326 provisional”), which was filed on July 17, 2001. Dec. 14–15 (citing Paper 1 (“Pet.”), 10; Paper 14 (“PO Resp.”), 8; Ex. 1001; Ex. 1014, 2). We determined that Smart Skins LLC (“Patent Owner”) had shown sufficiently that the challenged claims of the ’864 patent are entitled to a filing date of July 17, 2001, because the disclosures of the ’098 application and the ’326 provisional (collectively, “the priority applications”) provide written description support for the challenged claims of the ’864 patent. Dec. 14–21.” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference not prior artPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner
“established by Patent Owner for the challenged claims (July 17, 2001) predates the earliest filing dates of Janik and Kehoe established by Petitioner (September 4, 2001, and October 24, 2001, respectively). Dec. 22. We determined that, as a result, Petitioner had not shown sufficiently that either Janik or Kehoe qualifies as prior art to the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Dec. 22. Therefore, we concluded that Petitioner had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 12, 13, 15, 23, and 24 would have been obvious over Janik and Kehoe. Id. at 23. Petitioner argues that, because we erred in determining that the challenged claims of the ’864 patent are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the priority applications, we should reconsider our determination that Janik and Kehoe are not prior art. Req. Reh’g 15. For the reasons discussed above, we maintain our determination that the challenged claims are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the priority applications. Thus, we also maintain our determination that Petitioner had not shown sufficiently that either Janik or Kehoe qualifies as prior art to the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached
“challenged claims of the ’864 patent are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the priority applications, we should reconsider our determination that Janik and Kehoe are not prior art. Req. Reh’g 15. For the reasons discussed above, we maintain our determination that the challenged claims are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the priority applications. Thus, we also maintain our determination that Petitioner had not shown sufficiently that either Janik or Kehoe qualifies as prior art to the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Petitioner requests that we address the asserted ground of unpatentability based on Janik and Kehoe “conditionally,” even if we do not change our determination regarding the priority date of the challenged claims. Req. Reh’g 15. We are not persuaded, though, that it would be an efficient use of resources to address all of the parties’ arguments and evidence regarding the asserted ground of unpatentability based on Janik and Kehoe when Petitioner has not met its burden to show that Janik and Kehoe are prior art to the challenged claims. Therefore, we decline to “conditionally” address any remaining issues regarding the asserted ground of unpatentability based on Janik and Kehoe.” slip op. at 15
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 7,079,864
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.