• St. Jude Medical, LLC v. Snyders Heart Valve LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 2, 2019 · IPR2018-00109 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 18 and 20 were not shown unpatentable because Leonhardt did not disclose the claimed central frame structure and the proposed Leonhardt-Johnson combination lacked adequate motivation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Factual indicators of the level of ordinary skill in the art include “the various prior art approaches employed, the types of problems encountered in the art, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology involved, and the educational background of those actively working in the field.” Jacobson Bros., Inc. v. U.S., 512 F.2d 1065, 1071 (Ct. Cl. 1975); see also Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. U.S., 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting with approval Jacobson Bros.). We find, based on our review of the record before us, that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it is consistent with the record, including the asserted prior art and, for the purposes of this Final Written Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “written decision is issued shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2018); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S.Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (affirming that USPTO has statutory authority to construe claims according to Rule 42.100(b)). When applying that standard, we interpret the claim language as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the specification, and absent any special definition, we give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning. See In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The ordinary and customary meaning is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Claim 1 recites that the flexible valve element is attached to the “central portion of the frame.” Patent Owner argues that “central portion of the frame” means “central structural frame portion,” which cannot refer solely to an “empty space.” PO Resp. 3–7. Patent Owner explains that, during the related litigation, Petitioner agreed that the central portion of the frame must “actually be part of the structure of the frame.” Id. at 6 (quoting Ex. 2001, 119–20). Accordingly, we discern no dispute on the issue of whether “central portion of the frame” refers to a structural portion of the frame; it does.” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Petitioner’s argument that Leonhardt’s valve is attached to the central part of the frame of claim 1 fails. Leonhardt’s valve is undeniably attached to its frame because the valve is sutured or glued to stent 26. Claim 1 requires the valve element to be attached to a portion of the frame located along the radial centerline. Ex. 1001, 19:19–20. However, Leonhardt’s frame (stent 26 coupled via connecting bar 29) is a hollow cylinder devoid of structure located along its centerline. Ex. 1017, Figure 1C. Thus, regardless of how Leonhardt’s valve is attached to stent 26 and connecting bar 29, it is not attached to a structure “located along a centerline” as recited in claim 1 and thus claims 18 and 20. Therefore, we determine that Petitioner fails to establish by a preponderance of evidence that Leonhardt anticipates claims 18 and 20. 4. Summary For the reasons expressed above, we determine that Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that Leonhardt anticipates claims 18 and 20.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “F. CLAIMS 18 AND 20: OBVIOUSNESS BY LEONHARDT Petitioner argues that even if Leonhardt fails to describe elements as claimed, an ordinarily skilled artisan would consider that “variations” of Leonhardt to meet the claimed limitations would have been obvious “in view of the general knowledge in the art and the limited number of ways of using known elements to achieve expected results.” Pet. 42. Petitioner also argues that “[a]s these are method claims, and not device claims, even if the valve device were somehow unobviously different, which it is not, that difference should be given minimal weight in evaluating the obviousness of the method.” Id. at 44. Petitioner cites no authority for this proposition, and we are aware of none. Claims 18 and 20 are directed to a “transluminal method of inserting an artificial valve as set forth in claim 1.” Id. at 21:1–25 (claim 18), 21:31– 50 (claim 20). Each time claims 18 and 20 refer to an “artificial valve” steps of the recited methods, they refer to the valve set forth in claim 1. None of Petitioner’s arguments persuasively addresses Leonhardt’s failure to describe a flexible valve element attached to a central portion of the frame located along a centerline. See Part II.E. Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that Leonhardt alone renders claims 18 and 20 unpatentable as obvious.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 6,821,297 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,821,297
• Marker Volkl USA, Inc. v. Kneebinding, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 15, 2018 · IPR2017-01265 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 4–9 are unpatentable as anticipated by DE ’298 and obvious over Boussemart and DE ’298.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “Id. at 14.3 Petitioner disagrees with Patent Owner’s assertions, arguing that the ’867 patent’s claim language and Specification establish that the two elements “are inextricably linked.” Pet. Reply 1–9. Although we are not in complete agreement with either parties’ construction, we, nevertheless, agree generally with Petitioner, for the reasons set forth below, that the “lateral release assembly” and “upper heel housing” recited by claim 1 should not be construed as being separate functional parts of the upper heel assembly that separate and isolate lateral and vertical release forces, respectively. We begin our analysis with the express claim language. Specifically, claim 1 recites in part “a lower heel assembly attached to the ski” and “an upper heel assembly coupled to the lower heel assembly and having a lateral release assembly for applying lateral securing pressure to the ski boot, the upper heel assembly comprising an upper heel housing that is configured to compress the heel portion of the ski boot downward.” Ex. 1001, 11:36– 12:2. Thus, from the claim itself, we know that (1) the “upper heel assembly” is coupled to the “lower heel assembly” and, thus, attached to the ski; (2) this associated upper/lower heel assembly has a “lateral release assembly”; (3) the lateral release assembly is for “applying lateral securing pressure to the ski boot”; and (4) the upper heel assembly “is configured to compress the heel portion of the ski boot downward.” However, none of this claim language requires that the “lateral release assembly” and “upper heel housing” must be treated as separate functional parts of the upper heel assembly that separate and isolate lateral and vertical release forces,” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Regarding the level of skill in the art, Petitioner asserts: a POSA in the February 18, 2003 timeframe would be an individual with a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or related technology and three to five years of experience in either the design, fabrication, or manufacture of ski bindings and related equipment, research concerning ski bindings and related equipment, or the development of standards concerning ski bindings or related equipment, in addition to ten years or more of personal experience using ski bindings. Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 32). In response, “Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art (‘POSITA’) for purposes of the ’867 patent.” PO Resp. 3 (citing Pet. 14–15). Having considered the evidence, we find that Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill is correct. We also note that the cited references often reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention, and that the references cited here appear to reflect the level agreed to by the parties. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [can] reflect the appropriate level of skill in the art”).” slip op. at 11

  • BurdenUnpatentable

    “Patent Owner responds that DE ’298 does not disclose an “upper heel assembly” that compresses the heel portion of the ski boot downward. PO Resp. 25–30. Patent Owner argues that “the disclosure of DE ’298 makes clear that the hold-down member 13 and heel holder 25 only resist upward motion by the ski boot heel – they do not ‘compress the heel portion of the ski boot downward’ by providing downward force on the heel.” PO Resp. 26. To support its position, Patent Owner provides an annotated copy of the annotated copy of Figure 2, provided by Petitioner and designated “Fig. Q” in the Petition. See Pet. 41. More particularly, Patent Owner annotated Petitioner’s “Fig. Q,” to show “a gap (circled in purple) between the top edge of the ski boot sole (which Petitioner added; the original figure in DE ’298 does not show the boot) and the bottom edge of arms 26 of heel holder 25.” PO Resp. 27–30 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 62). Figure 2, annotated, depicts the DE ’298 releasing/retaining device of a releasing ski binding. And, because there is a “gap” between the ski boot, superimposed by Petitioner in Fig. Q (see, e.g., Pet. 41), and arms 26 of heel holder 25, Patent Owner argues that DE ’298 “cannot provide downward force as the arms 26 do not touch the ski boot heel.” PO Resp. 28 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 63).4 Therefore, although Patent Owner acknowledges that DE ’298 discloses that its hold-down member “hold[s] the shoe down ‘against upwardly pivoting’” (PO Resp. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1004, 4), Patent Owner argues that merely “[o]pposing upward motion does not compress the ski boot downward as required by the challenged claims.” 5 PO Resp. 28. 4 The cited portions of Dr. Dodge’s Declaration largely mirror the language set forth in the corresponding portion of the Patent Owner Response. 5 Patent Owner submits that “[t]he plain and ordinary meaning of the term ‘compress’ means ‘to squeeze or press together’, or ‘to make smaller as if by squeezing.’” PO Resp. 28 (citing Ex. 2003). Petitioner responds that Patent Owner’s reading of DE ’298 is strained, that other portions of the reference make clear that DE ’298 discloses an “upper heel assembly” that does in fact compress the heel downward, and that any purported “gap” in the drawing is a red herring that does not comport with basic physics. Pet. Reply 15–18.” slip op. at 16

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Patent Owner responds that DE ’298 does not disclose an “upper heel assembly” that compresses the heel portion of the ski boot downward. PO Resp. 25–30. Patent Owner argues that “the disclosure of DE ’298 makes clear that the hold-down member 13 and heel holder 25 only resist upward motion by the ski boot heel – they do not ‘compress the heel portion of the ski boot downward’ by providing downward force on the heel.” PO Resp. 26. To support its position, Patent Owner provides an annotated copy of the annotated copy of Figure 2, provided by Petitioner and designated “Fig. Q” in the Petition. See Pet. 41. More particularly, Patent Owner annotated Petitioner’s “Fig. Q,” to show “a gap (circled in purple) between the top edge of the ski boot sole (which Petitioner added; the original figure in DE ’298 does not show the boot) and the bottom edge of arms 26 of heel holder 25.” PO Resp. 27–30 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 62). Figure 2, annotated, depicts the DE ’298 releasing/retaining device of a releasing ski binding. And, because there is a “gap” between the ski boot, superimposed by Petitioner in Fig. Q (see, e.g., Pet. 41), and arms 26 of heel holder 25, Patent Owner argues that DE ’298 “cannot provide downward force as the arms 26 do not touch the ski boot heel.” PO Resp. 28 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 63).4 Therefore, although Patent Owner acknowledges that DE ’298 discloses that its hold-down member “hold[s] the shoe down ‘against upwardly pivoting’” (PO Resp. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1004, 4), Patent Owner argues that merely “[o]pposing upward motion does not compress the ski boot downward as required by the challenged claims.” 5 PO Resp. 28. 4 The cited portions of Dr. Dodge’s Declaration largely mirror the language set forth in the corresponding portion of the Patent Owner Response. 5 Patent Owner submits that “[t]he plain and ordinary meaning of the term ‘compress’ means ‘to squeeze or press together’, or ‘to make smaller as if by squeezing.’” PO Resp. 28 (citing Ex. 2003). Petitioner responds that Patent Owner’s reading of DE ’298 is strained, that other portions of the reference make clear that DE ’298 discloses an “upper heel assembly” that does in fact compress the heel downward, and that any purported “gap” in the drawing is a red herring that does not comport with basic physics. Pet. Reply 15–18.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 8,955,867 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,955,867
• Emerson Electric Co. v. Sipco, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 21, 2018 · IPR2016-01895 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 6, 8–11, 13–21, and 25 are unpatentable as obvious over Johnson, Mason/EIA-709.1/Shuey/C12.18, and anticipated by Johnson.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Ex. 2002 ¶ 76. Patent Owner asserts using its lower level of skill in the art “would diminish the motivation of a POSITA would have for combining references identified in the instituted grounds.” Id. at ¶ 82. We disagree that an understanding of how to design and build a wireless, multi-hop communications systems is a leap in knowledge that would create a motivation to combine that would not be there under Patent Owner’s articulation of the level of skill. See Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 9–11. Thus, we do not discern a difference between the two proposed levels of skill that affects the analysis in this IPR. However, for clarity we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of skill, which is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Here, the intrinsic evidence does not support limiting the challenged claims to sending “original” messages. Thus, sending sensed data acquired from another device is within the ambit of the challenged claims. In fact, dependent claims 2, 11, 15, 17, 21 specifically recite a sensor and/or actuator which suggests that the independent claims can be broader and may not require a remote device “including” a sensor and/or actuator. Additionally, the court in the related Amazon litigation did not construe “remote devices” to require actuators. Id. at 16, 74. For the reasons above, the broadest reasonable construction of the remote device terms does not require a sensor and/or actuator. Based on the 4 Sipco, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2-08-cv-00359 (E.D. Tex.) (“the related Amazon litigation”). 8 record before us, it is unnecessary to expressly construe the remote device terms further.” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “Based on Petitioner’s citations to specific prior art disclosures and supporting evidence, we are persuaded that Petitioner sets forth sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion that it also would have been obvious to modify the teachings of Mason, with EIA-709.1’s teachings, to include an address that varies in size. Pet. 50. For example, Petitioner contends: A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have been motivated to use the scalable destination address of EIA-709.1 in Mason’s system. The ‘492 patent uses scalable addresses in order to accommodate systems of different sizes and complexity. Ex. 1001 at 9:59-61. The scalable addresses of EIA-709.1 would also accommodate systems of different sizes and complexity in a more flexible manner. Mason expresses a desire to implement a large scale AMR system. Mason at 1:46-48, 5:25-57. Mason also recognizes the importance of uniquely identifying a large number of destination meters. Mason at 10:43-56. Using the scalable addresses of EIA-709.1 in Mason’s system would allow a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to effectively identify message destinations in networks with increasing sizes and complexity. Kinney, ¶¶116-117. Moreover, Mason explicitly discloses that the LonTalk protocol can be used with its system. Mason at 17:4-9. The LonTalk protocol ultimately was adopted as EIA-709.1. Exs. 1022, 1023, 1024. Indeed, the LonTalk protocol specification includes the same scalable addresses disclosed in EIA-709.1. Ex. 1020 at 14-16. A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would thus be motivated to combine Mason and EIA-709.1, with a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Kinney, ¶118.” slip op. at 44

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “configured to detect a condition and output a signal to the controller,” as recited in claim 15. In that regard, Petitioner contends each meter 12 of Mason includes a metering board for performing the metering function. Pet. 44; Ex. 1006, 5:59–63. Each meter also includes a set of analog transducers. Id.; Ex. 1006, 5:59–64. Thus, according to Petitioner a person of ordinary skill in the art “would appreciate that a sensor is a type of transducer, and that Mason’s transducers are sensors. Mason’s metering board and/or analog transducers correspond to the claimed ‘sensor.’” We agree and credit Petitioner’s declarant’s supporting testimony. Pet. 44; Ex. 1002 ¶ 101. Petitioner also asserts the metering board and/or analog transducers are operable to detect a condition related to, for example, electricity, gas, or water, and output meter information corresponding to the condition to the meter’s controller. Pet. 44; Ex. 1006, 5:32–41, 9:56–65, 15:37–47, 49–53; Ex. 1002 ¶ 101. c. Claims 17 Petitioner persuades us that Mason teaches “at least one actuator configured to implement an action corresponding to the command code,” as recited in claim 17. In that regard, Petitioner contends Mason discloses that each meter 12 includes a disconnect switch drive circuit. Pet. 45; Ex. 1006, 5:59–64. Thus, according to Petitioner a person of ordinary skill in the art 48 “would appreciate that a disconnect drive circuit implements an action, such as a disconnect function, in response to receiving a command to do so using the C12.18 protocol. This operation corresponds to the claimed actuator configured to implement an action corresponding to the command code.” Pet. 45; Ex. 1002 ¶ 101. We agree and credit Petitioner’s declarant’s supporting testimony. Ex. 1002 ¶ 101.” slip op. at 48

  Patent outcomesUS 7,697,492 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,697,492
• Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. / Globalfoundries U.S. Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2018 · IPR2016-01379 · APJ Jennifer Meyer Chagnon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 10 and 12 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over Grill, Aoyama, and Wetzel.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We note the parties’ proposals differ in the specific degree required (i.e., Master of Science vs. Bachelor’s of Science); however, neither party argues this distinction makes a difference in analyzing the asserted ground or other issues in this proceeding. For clarity of the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, as it is more specifically directed to the technology described in the ’696 patent. In addition, given the disclosures in the ’696 patent and cited prior art, we agree with Petitioner that a Master of Science degree (or equivalent) in the relevant area better reflects the level of education and training that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have possessed at the time than a Bachelor’s degree, as Patent Owner contends. Our findings and conclusions, however, would be the same under either party’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. The level of ordinary skill in the art in this case further is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 15

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “example, the first resist pattern [step g]/second resist pattern and the mask pattern [step i]/patterned fourth insulating film [step j]—“as a mask.” As shorthand, we refer to the various layers as “the designated layer.” define areas for etching.”8 Inst. Dec. 11–15. We further determined that “to meet the limitation ‘using the [designated layer] for etching,’ the designated layer ‘must actually be used to define areas for etching.’” Id. at 15 (quoting Prelim. Resp. 6 (emphasis Patent Owner’s)). Patent Owner agrees with this construction—namely, that “‘using’ something ‘as a mask’ during etching means using it to define areas for etching.” PO Resp. 8–9. Petitioner also applied this construction in this proceeding. See Tr. 6:7–18; see also id. at 19:10–16 (Petitioner’s counsel: “No, no, we did not present a construction and we did not contest the Board’s construction.”). The parties do not dispute that “using the [designated layer] as a mask” means “using the [designated layer] to define areas for etching,” and we discern no reason from the evidence presented to change this construction. We, therefore, maintain our preliminary construction for purposes of this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 16

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable

    “layer 358 as shown in Patent Owner’s modified Figure 16(a) from ever being a mask when etching layer 355, if it were in fact described as such. However, there is no such description in the Japanese priority application; instead, the corresponding discussion identifies only second resist pattern 359 as a mask for this etching step. See Ex. 1014 ¶ 96 (“If there is a concern that the second resist pattern 359 has been misaligned with the first resist pattern 357, then the mask pattern 358 should be dry-etched using the second resist pattern 359 as a mask before the second silicon dioxide film 355 is dry-etched using the second resist pattern 359 as a mask.” (emphasis added)). Further, as noted by Petitioner (Reply 10–11), the corresponding discussion is, at best, ambiguous as to whether mask pattern 358 is “used as a mask” for etching layer 355. Ex. 1014 ¶ 96 (“That is to say, if the mask pattern 358 is exposed to the openings of the second resist pattern 359 for the formation of contact holes because of the misalignment of the second resist pattern 359 with the first resist pattern 357, then the mask pattern 358 is dry-etched using the second resist pattern 359 as a mask. In this manner, the openings of the mask pattern 358 are expanded to include the openings for the formation of wiring grooves and contact holes.” (emphasis added)). This disclosure is not sufficient to provide support under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for step (i) of claim 10. See Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“For a claim in a later-filed application to be entitled to the filing date of an earlier application under 35 U.S.C. § 120 (1994), the earlier application must comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 (1994). . . . A disclosure in a parent application that merely renders the later-claimed invention obvious is not sufficient to meet the written description requirement; the disclosure must describe the claimed invention with all its limitations.” (citing Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1997))); see also K & K Jump Start, 13 F. App’x at 984 (“In order for claim 1 of the [U.S.] patent to be entitled to the priority date of the [foreign] application, the test set forth in [Tronzo, 156 F.3d at 1158] must be satisfied.”). 2. Conclusion as to Whether Grill Qualifies as Prior Art Having considered the evidence in this record, we determine that, at least, step (i) of claim 10 is not supported by the Japanese priority application.17 Accordingly, the effective filing date of the challenged claims is March 23, 1999, and Grill is available as prior art as to claims 10 and 12 of the ’696 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).” slip op. at 39

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “2. Conclusion as to Whether Grill Qualifies as Prior Art Having considered the evidence in this record, we determine that, at least, step (i) of claim 10 is not supported by the Japanese priority application.17 Accordingly, the effective filing date of the challenged claims is March 23, 1999, and Grill is available as prior art as to claims 10 and 12 of the ’696 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). 17 Because we find that claim 10 is not supported by the Japanese priority application, we need not discuss the parties’ arguments and evidence regarding whether or not Grill is entitled to the priority date of the Grill provisional application. Nor must we decide whether Petitioner’s corresponding arguments and evidence submitted in the Reply are proper.” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 6,197,696 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,197,696
• Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. / Globalfoundries U.S. Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2018 · IPR2016-01377 · APJ Jennifer Meyer Chagnon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 10–12 are unpatentable as obvious over Grill and Aoyama because the combination teaches the claimed steps and a skilled artisan had reason and a reasonable expectation of success to combine them.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We note the parties’ proposals differ in the specific degree required (i.e., Master of Science vs. Bachelor’s of Science); however, neither party argues this distinction makes a difference in analyzing the asserted ground or other issues in this proceeding. For clarity of the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, as it is more specifically directed to the technology described in the ’696 patent. In addition, given the disclosures in the ’696 patent and cited prior art, we agree with Petitioner that a Master of Science degree (or equivalent) in the relevant area better reflects the level of education and training that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have possessed at the time than a Bachelor’s degree, as Patent Owner contends. Our findings and conclusions, however, would be the same under either party’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. The level of ordinary skill in the art in this case further is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 15

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “define areas for etching.”7 Inst. Dec. 11–15. We further determined that “to meet the limitation ‘using the [designated layer] for etching,’ the designated layer ‘must actually be used to define areas for etching.’” Id. at 15 (quoting Prelim. Resp. 6 (emphasis Patent Owner’s)). Patent Owner agrees with this construction—namely, that “‘using’ something ‘as a mask’ during etching means using it to define areas for etching.” PO Resp. 8–9. Petitioner also applied this construction in this proceeding. See Tr. 6:7–18; see also id. at 19:10–16 (Petitioner’s counsel: “No, no, we did not present a construction and we did not contest the Board’s construction.”). The parties do not dispute that “using the [designated layer] as a mask” means “using the [designated layer] to define areas for etching,” and we discern no reason from the evidence presented to change this construction. We, therefore, maintain our preliminary construction for purposes of this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 17

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “that “using the [designated layer] as a mask” encompasses a situation in which the modified mask pattern 358, having “edges that are in line and flush” with second resist pattern 359, is therefore used as a mask. For the reasons discussed above, we do not agree with Patent Owner that “us[ed] . . . as a mask” necessarily encompasses such a situation. See supra Section II.C.2. We note that the application of our construction would not preclude layer 358 as shown in Patent Owner’s modified Figure 16(a) from ever being a mask when etching layer 355, if it were in fact described as such. However, there is no such description in the Japanese priority application; instead, the corresponding discussion identifies only second resist pattern 359 as a mask for this etching step. See Ex. 1014 ¶ 96 (“If there is a concern that the second resist pattern 359 has been misaligned with the first resist pattern 357, then the mask pattern 358 should be dry-etched using the second resist pattern 359 as a mask before the second silicon dioxide film 355 is dry-etched using the second resist pattern 359 as a mask.” (emphasis added)). Further, as noted by Petitioner (Reply 10–11), the corresponding discussion is, at best, ambiguous as to whether mask pattern 358 is “used as a mask” for etching layer 355. Ex. 1014 ¶ 96 (“That is to say, if the mask pattern 358 is exposed to the openings of the second resist pattern 359 for the formation of contact holes because of the misalignment of the second resist pattern 359 with the first resist pattern 357, then the mask pattern 358 is dry-etched using the second resist pattern 359 as a mask. In this manner, the openings of the mask pattern 358 are expanded to include the openings for the formation of wiring grooves and contact holes.” (emphasis added)). This disclosure is not sufficient to provide support under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for step (i) of claim 10. See Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“For a claim in a later-filed application to be entitled to the filing date of an earlier application under 35 U.S.C. § 120 (1994), the earlier application must comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 (1994). . . . A disclosure in a parent application that merely renders the later-claimed invention obvious is not sufficient to meet the written description requirement; the disclosure must describe the claimed invention with all its limitations.” (citing Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1997))); see also K & K Jump Start, 13 F. App’x at 984 (“In order for claim 1 of the [U.S.] patent to be entitled to the priority date of the [foreign] application, the test set forth in [Tronzo, 156 F.3d at 1158] must be satisfied.”). 2. Conclusion as to Whether Grill Qualifies as Prior Art Having considered the evidence in this record, we determine that, at least, step (i) of claim 10 is not supported by the Japanese priority application.16 Accordingly, the effective filing date of the challenged claims is March 23, 1999, and Grill is available as prior art as to claims 10–12 of the ’696 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).” slip op. at 39

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “2. Conclusion as to Whether Grill Qualifies as Prior Art Having considered the evidence in this record, we determine that, at least, step (i) of claim 10 is not supported by the Japanese priority application.16 Accordingly, the effective filing date of the challenged claims is March 23, 1999, and Grill is available as prior art as to claims 10–12 of the ’696 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). 16 Because we find that claim 10 is not supported by the Japanese priority application, we need not discuss the parties’ arguments and evidence regarding whether or not Grill is entitled to the priority date of the Grill provisional application. Nor must we decide whether Petitioner’s corresponding arguments and evidence submitted in the Reply are proper.” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 6,197,696 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,197,696
• Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. / Globalfoundries U.S. Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2018 · IPR2016-01376 · APJ Jennifer Meyer Chagnon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 13 and 15 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over Grill and Aoyama; the Board found a reason to combine and a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We note the parties’ proposals differ in the specific degree required (i.e., Master of Science vs. Bachelor’s of Science); however, neither party argues this distinction makes a difference in analyzing the asserted ground or other issues in this proceeding. For clarity of the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, as it is more specifically directed to the technology described in the ’696 patent. In addition, given the disclosures in the ’696 patent and cited prior art, we agree with Petitioner that a Master of Science degree (or equivalent) in the relevant area better reflects the level of education and training that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have possessed at the time than a Bachelor’s degree, as Patent Owner contends. Our findings and conclusions, however, would be the same under either party’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. The level of ordinary skill in the art in this case further is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 15

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “1. Construction of “using the [designated layer] as a mask” In the Institution Decision, we preliminarily construed the phrase “using the [designated layer] as a mask”6 as “using the [designated layer] to 6 Claim 13 recites several steps of etching “using” various layers—for example, the first resist pattern [step f]/second resist pattern and the mask pattern [step h]/patterned third insulating film [step i]—“as a mask.” As shorthand, we refer to the various layers as “the designated layer.” define areas for etching.”7 Inst. Dec. 11–15. We further determined that “to meet the limitation ‘using the [designated layer] for etching,’ the designated layer ‘must actually be used to define areas for etching.’” Id. at 15 (quoting Prelim. Resp. 6 (emphasis Patent Owner’s)). Patent Owner agrees with this construction—namely, that “‘using’ something ‘as a mask’ during etching means using it to define areas for etching.” PO Resp. 8–9. Petitioner also applied this construction in this proceeding. See Tr. 6:7–18; see also id. at 19:10–16 (Petitioner’s counsel: “No, no, we did not present a construction and we did not contest the Board’s construction.”). The parties do not dispute that “using the [designated layer] as a mask” means “using the [designated layer] to define areas for etching,” and we discern no reason from the evidence presented to change this construction. We, therefore, maintain our preliminary construction for purposes of this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 16

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “that “using the [designated layer] as a mask” encompasses a situation in which the modified mask pattern 358, having “edges that are in line and flush with” second resist pattern 359, is therefore used as a mask. For the reasons discussed above, we do not agree with Patent Owner that “us[ed] . . . as a mask” necessarily encompasses such a situation. See supra Section II.C.2. We note that the application of our construction would not preclude layer 358 as shown in Patent Owner’s modified Figure 16(a) from ever being a mask when etching layer 355, if it were in fact described as such. However, there is no such description in the Japanese priority application; instead, the corresponding discussion identifies only second resist pattern 359 as a mask for this etching step. See Ex. 1014 ¶ 96 (“If there is a concern that the second resist pattern 359 has been misaligned with the first resist pattern 357, then the mask pattern 358 should be dry-etched using the second resist pattern 359 as a mask before the second silicon dioxide film 355 is dry-etched using the second resist pattern 359 as a mask.” (emphasis added)). Further, as noted by Petitioner (Reply 10–11), the corresponding discussion is, at best, ambiguous as to whether mask pattern 358 is “used as a mask” for etching layer 355. Ex. 1014 ¶ 96 (“That is to say, if the mask pattern 358 is exposed to the openings of the second resist pattern 359 for the formation of contact holes because of the misalignment of the second resist pattern 359 with the first resist pattern 357, then the mask pattern 358 is dry-etched using the second resist pattern 359 as a mask. In this manner, the openings of the mask pattern 358 are expanded to include the openings for the formation of wiring grooves and contact holes.” (emphasis added)). This disclosure is not sufficient to provide support under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for step (h) of claim 13. See Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“For a claim in a later-filed application to be entitled to the filing date of an earlier application under 35 U.S.C. § 120 (1994), the earlier application must comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 (1994). . . . A disclosure in a parent application that merely renders the later-claimed invention obvious is not sufficient to meet the written description requirement; the disclosure must describe the claimed invention with all its limitations.” (citing Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1997))); see also K & K Jump Start, 13 F. App’x at 984 (“In order for claim 1 of the [U.S.] patent to be entitled to the priority date of the [foreign] application, the test set forth in [Tronzo, 156 F.3d at 1158] must be satisfied.”). 2. Conclusion as to Whether Grill Qualifies as Prior Art Having considered the evidence in this record, we determine that at least step (h) of claim 13 is not supported by the Japanese priority application.16 Accordingly, the effective filing date of the challenged claims is March 23, 1999, and Grill is available as prior art as to claims 13 and 15 of the ’696 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).” slip op. at 39

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “2. Conclusion as to Whether Grill Qualifies as Prior Art Having considered the evidence in this record, we determine that at least step (h) of claim 13 is not supported by the Japanese priority application.16 Accordingly, the effective filing date of the challenged claims is March 23, 1999, and Grill is available as prior art as to claims 13 and 15 of the ’696 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). 16 Because we find that claim 13 is not supported by the Japanese priority application, we need not discuss the parties’ arguments and evidence regarding whether or not Grill is entitled to the priority date of the Grill provisional application. Nor must we decide whether Petitioner’s corresponding arguments and evidence submitted in the Reply are proper.” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 6,197,696 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,197,696
• CSL Behring GmbH / CSL Behring LLC v. Shire Viropharma Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · 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 denial
  Patents in suitUS 9,616,111
• Incyte Corporation v. Concert Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 19, 2017 · IPR2017-01256 · APJ Tina E Hulse · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–15 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving anticipation by Rodgers or obviousness over either asserted combination.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314, 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (stating Director has delegated institution authority to Board). Upon considering the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of claims 1–15 of the ’149 patent. Accordingly, we decline to institute an inter partes review of those claims.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “15, 2012, would have had a “master’s degree or a Ph.D. in chemistry, biochemistry, pharmaceutics, pharmaceutical sciences, physical organic chemistry or a related discipline,” or a lesser degree with more experience.” slip op. at 6

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “unexpired patent according to the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016) (affirming applicability of broadest reasonable construction standard to inter partes review proceedings). Under that standard, and absent any special definitions, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definitions for claim terms must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We determine that it is unnecessary to expressly construe any claim terms for purposes of this Decision. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (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 unpatentable

    “2. Analysis Anticipation requires that “each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Anticipation may arise where a reference describes a “definite and limited class,” and a person of ordinary skill in the art would “at once envisage each member of this limited class.” In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681 (CCPA 1962).” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,249,149
• Globalfoundries U.S. Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 11, 2017 · IPR2017-00935 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “requesting inter partes review of claims 1, 4, 8–11, 13, 17–24, 26–28, 43, 46, 49, 50, and 52–62 of U.S. Patent No. 8,354,726 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’726 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311(a). Patent Owner Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 8, “Prelim. Resp.”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 313. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Director may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we have decided not to institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)

    “limitation of claim 1. Petitioner does not point to any express disclosure in the Intel 90 nm Report of the relevant distance and thicknesses, instead relying on averages of various measurements made by Dr. Fair. See Pet. 39–40; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 93–99. Petitioner and Dr. Fair, however, do not explain any basis for why it is appropriate to rely on averages of measurements of different components at different locations—as opposed to actual measurements of each component asserted to be the “first gate electrode,” “auxiliary pattern,” “first side-wall insulating film,” “second side-wall insulating film,” and “stress-containing insulating film” recited in the claim—for purposes of calculating the distance limitation. For example, Petitioner does not contend that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have calculated averages and understood the reference to disclose certain values based on such a methodology. “Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in issue be disclosed, either expressly or under principles of inherency, in a single prior art reference,” Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1255–56 (Fed. Cir. 1989), and that the claim limitations be “arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim[],” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Petitioner’s reliance on averages of various measurements, without any supporting explanation, is insufficient to show that the Intel 90 nm Report discloses the distance limitation of claim 1.” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “D. Other Asserted Grounds (Claims 20, 22, 54, and 56) Petitioner contends that claims 20 and 54 are unpatentable over the Intel 90 nm Report and the Intel IEEE Paper, claims 22 and 56 are unpatentable over the Intel 90 nm Report and Doris, and claims 22 and 56 are unpatentable over the Intel 65 nm Report and Doris, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Pet. 77–83. Claims 20 and 22 depend from claim 1, and claims 54 and 56 depend from claim 43. Petitioner does not argue that the distance limitation of claims 1 and 43 is taught by the Intel IEEE Paper or Doris, alone or in combination with the Intel reports. Id. We are not persuaded that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its asserted grounds for the reasons explained above with respect to parent claims 1 and 43. See supra Sections II.B, II.C.” slip op. at 18

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “E. Claim Interpretation The Board interprets claims using the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which [they] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard as the claim interpretation standard to be applied in inter partes reviews). The parties do not provide proposed interpretations for any claim terms, but Petitioner refers to a district court decision interpreting certain terms. See Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1008). For purposes of this Decision, we conclude that no claim terms require interpretation.” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,354,726
• Fitbit, Inc. v. Bodymedia, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 19, 2017 · IPR2016-00545 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 19, 23, and 24 are unpatentable as anticipated by Amano ’342.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “written decision is issued shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Pursuant to that standard, the claim language should be read in light of the specification, as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Thus, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The ordinary and customary meaning is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Neither party proposes an express construction for any limitation of claim 19, 23, or 24. See Pet. 12–13 (proffering express construction for only “life activities data” (claims 5, 6, and 10)); PO Resp. 7–8 (likewise proffering express construction for only “life activities data”). We do not adopt an express construction for any claim limitation.” slip op. at 8

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Patent Owner responds that it is not clear whether the “calculated results are equivalent to a derived parameter, data indicative of a first physiological parameter or a second physiological parameter.” PO Resp. 8– 9 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶49). But, the only evidence to which Patent Owner cites—Exhibit 2005 ¶49—has been expunged.8 Accordingly, Patent Owner has no evidence to support its argument that the relied-upon teaching in 8 Exhibit 2005 was a declaration by Thomas Blackadar that was expunged because Mr. Blackadar was not made available for cross-examination. See Paper 17 (expunging both of Mr. Blackadar’s declarations along with his curriculum vitae (i.e., Exhibits 2001, 2002, and 2005)). Amano ’342 is unclear. Second, Patent Owner’s interpretation of Amano ’342 is erroneous. Amano ’342 teaches notification to the user “of the calculated calorie expenditure . . . by means of a synthesized voice” and then immediately states that such notification alternatively could “rel[y] on the tactile sense by employing vibration in the notification” of the calculated expenditure. Ex. 1004, 34:27–32. The calculated calorie expenditure is a derived parameter of the individual. It is not measured directly; it is derived from data collected from the motion, temperature, and pressure sensors. Ex. 1004, 1:6–9, 6:57–7:56, 8:62–9:44, 12:21–30. Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Amano ’342 anticipates claim 19.” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached

    “As discussed above, we find—as the Examiner in the ’376 reexamination found—that Amano ’342 discloses all limitations of claim 1 including Limitation (b). As further discussed above, we also find that claims 19, 23, and 24—which were not subject to the ’376 reexamination— are unpatentable as anticipated by Amano ’342. In light of the forgoing, we discern no reason to determine whether claims 19, 23, and 24 also would be unpatentable when applying an alternative and erroneous construction of Limitation (b) of claim 1, which this Board and the Federal Circuit did not adopt previously, and which we do not adopt now.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,073,707 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,073,707

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.