• Athena Automation Ltd. v. Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd.Rehearing granted
  PTAB · Feb 23, 2015 · IPR2013-00290 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Rehearing

  Rehearing was granted to reconsider the anticipation finding for claims 1–7, 12, and 17–20, but denied otherwise because Glaesener did not incorporate Choi with sufficient particularity.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedRehearing, deniedGranted in part

    “DISCUSSION The requirements for a request for rehearing are set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides in relevant part: A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a 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. The Petition, in this case, asserts that claims 1–7, 12, and 17–20 are” slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “and tooth. But then I guess Choi doesn’t actually use that particular term?” A: “Correct.”). And Petitioner does not explain persuasively that a person of reasonable skill in the art would have understood this language as describing, with sufficient particularity, any specific portion of Choi. See Adv. Display, 212 F.3d at 1282–83 (“To incorporate material by reference, the host document must identify with detailed particularity what specific material it incorporates and clearly indicate where that material is found in the various documents.”) (citing In re Seversky, 474 F.2d 671, 674 (CCPA 1973)).” slip op. at 6

  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 7,670,536

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.