• Bizlink Technology, Inc. v. Anderson Power Products, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 7, 2025 · IPR2024-00687 · APJ Lisa L Tsang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 and 7–12 are unpatentable; claim 4 is not shown unpatentable because Winkler does not establish that its insulating barriers press against each other when partially disconnected.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner’s first argument that a level of ordinary skill in the art that encompasses an individual having experience with electrical circuits but not electrical connectors is not consistent with the technology and descriptions in the ’017 patent. See PO Resp. 7. The field of the invention of the ’017 patent is “electrical connectors, and more particularly, . . . an electrical connector that suppresses arcing if connected or disconnected while current is flowing.” Ex. 1001, 1:7–9. Consistent therewith, the challenged claims are directed to “[a]n electrical connector pair” and recite structural features of the electrical connector pair. Id. at 4:20–56, 5:1–20.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We find that the intrinsic evidence supports maintaining our construction in the Institution Decision that “insulating” means “electrically insulating.” See Dec. 11–12. In particular, we agree with Patent Owner’s argument that the insulating barriers would be unable to be configured to “block[] substantially all through-air arcing paths between the first and second electrical contacts,” as claimed, unless they were electrically insulating. See Ex. 1001, 4:36–44. Moreover, as Patent Owner avers, our interpretation of “insulating” as it applies to the first and second insulating barriers should be the same as for the first and second housings. See Digital Biometrics, 149 F.3d at 1345 (“whatever interpretation we assign [to a word used in a claim] should encompass both uses because the same word appearing in the same claim should be interpreted consistently” (citation omitted)).” slip op. at 15

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

    “Ex. 2001 ¶ 102. Accordingly, we find Dr. Eldering’s testimony persuasive as to this issue and determine that the diagram shows what an ordinarily skilled artisan would have reasonably inferred Winkler to disclose when the connectors are partially disconnected. Compare Ex. 1004, Fig. 2, with Pet. 33; see also Ex. 1004, 3:14–27 (discussing the process by which the connectors are engaged with each other).” slip op. at 44

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

    “Id. at 3:27–37 (emphasis added). These wall portions 58 are located between the distal ends of the terminals and where Petitioner proposes to add a printed circuit board or wiring board to Winkler. See id. at Fig. 2; Pet. 44–46 (diagrams showing Winkler as modified to have a printed circuit board or wiring board). As such, movement of Winkler’s terminals appears to be mostly limited to within their respective receiving pockets. Given the above teachings, we fail to see how Petitioner’s proposed modification would have meaningfully interfered with the degree of freedom of movement required by Winkler’s terminals. Notably, Mr. Locati’s testimony regarding this issue is conclusory. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 120. Because movement of Winkler’s terminals occurs primarily in the receiving pockets, we also do not discern how the solder joint of Petitioner’s proposed modification would experience undue stress or risk breaking due to that movement. See Ex. 1004, 1:47–55, 3:14–37, Fig. 2; Pet. 44–46. This is particularly true in view of Winkler’s teaching that each cylindrical end portion may be soldered to a cable. See id. at 2:6–10; see also Pet. 43 (arguing that Winkler teaches soldering to a cable but not specifically to a printed circuit or wiring board). Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 8 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Winkler and Handbook.” slip op. at 55

  Patent outcomesUS 8,808,017 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,808,017
• Lululemon USA Inc. v. Nike, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 6, 2025 · IPR2024-00460 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–21 are unpatentable: claims 1–21 under Nishida grounds and claims 11 and 21 also over Nishida with Zuckerman; Zuckerman-only grounds fail for lack of a surrounding structure.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that: A hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in textile engineering, mechanical engineering, or similar technical degree and at least 3 years of experience working with knitted textiles for use in fabric-based articles, including apparel such as footwear. Ex.1003, ¶¶34-37. For individuals with different educational backgrounds, a person could still be of ordinary skill in the art provided that person’s additional experience compensates for any differences in that person’s education as stated above. Id., ¶37. Pet. 14–15. Patent Owner states that, “[f]or purposes of this proceeding, Nike applies lululemon’s proposed level of skill in the art.” PO Resp. 13. Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Id. at 99:12–25. Dr. Brookstein stated during his deposition that he has “49 years of experience of teaching textile engineering.” Id. at 97:6–8. We credit Dr. Brookstein’s testimony over that of Dr. Pastore’s because it is consistent with the reference and based on decades of experience in the textile field. Nishida’s claim 1 states that, “during the production of the material web (1), [shoe patterns] . . . are produced by . . . a textile production method within the material web.” Ex. 1005, 9. We find that Nishida’s claim language discloses the recited, “simultaneously knitting a textile element with a surrounding textile structure.”” slip op. at 22

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

    “We find the District Court’s reasoning persuasive, and we, like the District Court, decline to adopt Petitioner’s overly broad proposed construction. However, for purposes of deciding the dispositive fact issue before us, we need not determine the precise boundaries of “surrounding textile structure,” for example whether it completely or mostly encircles the textile element, and if “mostly,” what percentage of encircling is required. See Pet. Reply 2 (Petitioner characterizing Patent Owner’s position as “mostly” means over 50%); id. at 4 (Petitioner impliedly arguing that the “surrounding” need not be complete, i.e., 100%); PO Sur-reply 3–4 (Patent Owner arguing that “Zuckerman’s textile structures . . . each abut only about 25% of the periphery of Zuckerman’s blank.”). We find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the portion of Zuckerman’s strip 13 in purple to surround the green blank 11 (textile element) under any reasonable construction of “surrounding textile structure.” Dr. Pastore testifies that “Zuckerman discloses two separate textile structures adjacent the blank—one on each side . . . they abut only two sides of Zuckerman’s blank, with each structure abutting only about a quarter of the blank’s periphery,” and opines that “a POSITA would not have understood these two separate structures, designated by purple in the figure above, to be a textile structure ‘surrounding’ the blank [shown in green].” Ex. 2003 ¶ 54. We find Dr. Pastore’s tesimony credible as it is consistent with Zuckerman’s Figure and with the plain and ordinary meaning of “surrounding” and with the Specification of the ’749 patent (particularly Figure 9). Dr. Brookstein’s testimony, on the other hand, is based on Petitioner’s overly broad proposed construction—that any part of a textile area that is not a textile element is “surrounding textile structure”—” slip op. at 44

  Patent outcomesUS 8,266,749 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,266,749
• Alivecor, Inc. v. Apple Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 7, 2025 · IPR2023-00949 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 11–14 and 16–20 are unpatentable over Kim; claim 15 was not shown unpatentable over Chang.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s asserted level of ordinary skill in the art is essentially the same as Petitioner’s, for example requiring a bachelor’s degree in science or engineering and “at least two years of relevant work experience with capture and processing of data or information, including but not limited to physiological information.” Id.; Pet. 9. In view of the similarity, our record now before us, and as we did in our Institution Decision, we rely on Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art as it is essentially the same as that proposed by Patent Owner. Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’619 patent and the asserted prior art references. Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 10

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

    “C. Claim Construction We interpret a claim “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Under this standard, we construe the claim “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id. Furthermore, “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Neither Patent Owner nor Petitioner indicate that any claim terms require construction. See generally Petition; PO Resp. For purposes of this Decision where no claim terms are in dispute, we need not explicitly construe any claim terms.” slip op. at 11

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

    “What these cases and examples clearly articulate, is that whether there is sufficient description in an anticipation reference for linking different disclosures, elements, and embodiments, is particularly case and fact dependent. Moreover, a finding of anticipation resting upon a reference’s disclosures of elements in different embodiments turns on whether an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that the reference suggests arranging the elements of the embodiments to one another in the same way as the challenged claims. For the reasons that follow, we determine that there is sufficient description and teaching in Kim such that the “combined button” disclosed by Kim, for example in Figure 10(b), can be the same “combined button” as discussed in the embodiment of Figure 18.” slip op. at 28

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

    “As to Patent Owner’s first and second arguments, as we discussed in detail above with respect to anticipation, we find that there is sufficient evidence in Kim itself of contextual and even express links between the various combined button embodiments and Figure 18. Section II.D.2.b)(1)– (4). We have already determined “that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand Kim to disclose the ‘combined button’ structure and function that could be implemented on the face or sidewall of a device.” Id. We likewise determine, based on the same evidence, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Kim to suggest that the combined button structure and function, for example in the embodiment of Figure 10(b), could be implemented in an opening on the face or sidewall of a device. Obviousness does not require an instruction manual on how to physically incorporate or combine the disclosures of two embodiments in a reference. As KSR informs us, “in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420. Moreover, in this case we have only one prior art patent, Kim, so at least the pieces of the puzzle are all in the same box. The persuasive testimony of Dr. Berger that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been familiar with electronic devices with sealed and/or insulated button assemblies, and would understand that those assemblies were not limited to the front face of a device,” is unrebutted in this case. Ex. 1003 ¶ 110. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. Given the background knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art in conjunction with the motivation and teachings in Kim itself for placing sufficient motivation to support the combination of Kim’s Figure 10(b) embodiment with the sidewall placement of the combined button taught in Figure 18 for obviousness purposes. It is well-settled that a single prior art obviousness reference itself can provide motivation for the combination. See General Elec. Co. v. Raytheon Techs. Corp., 983 F.3d 1334, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (Reversing the Board’s finding of nonobviousness over a single prior art reference, the Court explained that “the Board’s approach would require a motivation to combine each element of the claim—even those present together in a reference. This analysis unduly dissects prior art references into collections of individual elements, requiring a party showing obviousness to re-do the work already done in the prior art reference.”). Patent Owner’s third argument is unavailing because although Dr. Anthony testifies that “implementing the fingerprint sensor assembly of Kim’s Figure 10 embodiment in the ‘lateral surface’ of Kim’s Figure 18 embodiment would have complicated the manufacturing process for the resulting mobile device,” Dr. Anthony does not provide testimony or evidence that implementing the combined button on the sidewall would have been difficult or beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 2009 ¶ 73. We credit Dr. Berger who explains persuasively that “[p]rior to the ’619 patent’s earliest alleged priority date of June 19, 2017, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known that a mobile electronic device could include one or more button assemblies in a sidewall.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 47 (citing Ex. 1013, 4:40, 19:42–20:4, Figs. 13B, 17, 19A, 19B). It is well-settled that a person of ordinary skill can use his or her ordinary skill, creativity, and common sense to make the necessary adjustments and further modifications to result in a properly functioning device. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”).” slip op. at 43

  Patent outcomesUS 10,866,619 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,866,619
• Alivecor, Inc. v. Apple Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 7, 2025 · IPR2023-00948 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 are unpatentable: claim 1 is anticipated by Kim and claims 1–10 are obvious over Kim; the Board did not reach the Jung and Meyers or Chang grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “one hand that “[a] ‘biometric characteristic’ or a ‘biometric identifier,’ as used herein, may refer to a human characteristic that is so distinctive and measureable that a particular human individual may be identified.” Ex. 1001, 5:9–14 (emphasis added). On the other hand, the ’619 patent also explains that “[t]he sensed human physical characteristic may vary widely, but may include fingerprint, palm veins, DNA, heart rate, and blood pressure.” Ex. 1001, 4:57–59. And, according to Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Anthony, heart rate and blood pressure, for instance, are biometric characteristics that do not necessarily “identify” a particular human being. See Ex. 2009 ¶ 28 (Dr. Anthony testifying that “[i]n my opinion, ‘heart rate’ and ‘blood pressure’ are embodiments of biometric characteristics that . . . are not sufficiently distinctive to enable identification of a particular human individual.”). Considering the written description as a whole, along with Patent Owner’s argument and Dr. Anthony’s testimony, we agree that “biometric characteristic” does not need a specific construction in this proceeding. We disagree with Petitioner that there is an actual dispute as to this term because, apart from an express construction, Kim discloses a fingerprint sensor. Pet. Reply 2. Regardless, our Decision does not turn on a specific construction of “biometric characteristic.” At least Kim discloses a fingerprint sensor which satisfies the biometric characteristic limitation in the challenged claims under either a plain and ordinary meaning of this term or under Petitioner’s proposed construction. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, 14:22–24” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner’s asserted level of ordinary skill in the art is essentially the same as Petitioner’s, for example requiring a bachelor’s degree in science or engineering and “at least two years of relevant work experience with capture and processing of data or information, including but not limited to physiological information.” Id.; Pet. 9. In view of the similarity, our analysis is not affected by choosing one over the other. On the complete record now before us, and as we did in our Institution Decision, we rely on same as that proposed by Patent Owner. Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’619 patent and the asserted prior art references. Okajima 261 F.3d at 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “We credit Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Berger, in this case. Dr. Berger testifies that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a sealed and/or insulated button assembly from one location on a device can be constructed equally on a rear or sidewall of the device, as taught by at least Polany (Ex-1013).” Id. ¶ 110 (citing U.S. Patent No. 7,535,799 to further that “[p]rior to the ’619 patent’s earliest alleged priority date of June 19, 2017, a person of ordinary skill in the art would also have known that button assemblies in mobile electronic devices should be sealed in order to prevent ingress of potentially damaging moisture and dust.” Id. ¶ 48. Dr. Berger points to U.S. Patent No. 10,133,910 to Chang, explaining that “Chang discloses that ‘as users’ needs for portable terminals have been gradually diversified, a [home] key [button] used in the portable terminals includes a waterproof structure in order to prevent a fluid from infiltrating into the interior of the portable terminals.’” Id. (quoting Ex. 1015, 1:32–35). Dr. Berger maintains that sealing and attaching buttons to an electronic device was a common technique, testifying that Polany discloses that “[o]ne skilled the art would recognize many different methods of fastening a control feature into the housing, such as, but not limited to, screw, bolts, snap fit components, adhesives, press fits, co-molded components, overmolded components, ultrasonically welded components, rotational fits, wedge fits, and other manufacturing means of effecting the assembly of components” Id. ¶ 52 (quoting Ex. 1013, 21:5–11, 21:31–37). The fact that there would be certain design and structural differences between a combined button on the face of the electronic device, and a combined button on the side wall of the electronic device does not undermine Dr. Berger’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood how to implement a button in a sidewall of an electronic device. See id. ¶ 47 (testifying “[f]or example, Polany discloses that the buttons (1315-1318) along the sidewall of the device included structures and surfaces that could be manually pressed by a user” and citing Ex. 1013, 4:40, 19:42–20:4, Figs. 13B, 17, 19A, 19B).” slip op. at 38

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

    “What these cases and examples clearly articulate is that whether there is sufficient description in an anticipation reference for linking different disclosures, elements, and embodiments, is particularly case and fact dependent. Moreover, a finding of anticipation resting upon a reference’s disclosures of elements in different embodiments turns on whether an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that the reference suggests arranging the elements of the embodiments to one another in the same way as the challenged claims.. For the reasons that follow, we determine that there is sufficient description and teaching in Kim such a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the “combined button” disclosed by Kim, for example in Figure 10(b), can be the same “combined button” as discussed in the embodiment of Figure 18.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 10,866,619 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,866,619
• Abbott Diabetes Care Inc v. Dexcom, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 1, 2023 · IPR2022-00909 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 19, and 23 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 5 and 12 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner

    “including a “predictive glucose value,” nowhere do we find the written description or drawings to have delineated such a second function expressly as “the present invention.” See, generally, Ex. 1001; see also Evolusion Concepts, Inc. v. HOC Events, Inc., 22 F.4th 1361, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“We have repeatedly held that ‘it is not enough that the only embodiments, or all of the embodiments, contain a particular limitation to limit claims beyond their plain meaning.’”) (citation omitted). And, regardless of the exact wording, the concern we have is that without a persuasive, express, indication in the specification that the “second function” is specifically limited to “predicting glucose values,” it is a disfavored path to read limitations into the claims. Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import limitations into a claim that are not expressly part of may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The facts and written description here appear to fall more squarely into the category of cases where it is not enough to simply point to embodiments in the specification including the unrecited claim limitation. See Rambus Inc. v. Infineon Techs. Ag, 318 F.3d 1081, 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Even in cases where a “present invention” statement is provided, the Federal Circuit has explained that ‘[w]hile clear language characterizing ‘the present invention’ may limit the ordinary meaning of claim terms, . . . such language must be read in context of the entire specification and the prosecution history.”) (citation omitted); see also In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Absent claim language carrying a narrow meaning, the PTO should only limit the claim based on the specification or prosecution history when those sources expressly disclaim the broader definition.”).” slip op. at 15

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “is any disagreement about the meaning of “a second function” apart from the argument by Patent Owner that the second function should be understood to include “a predictive glucose value.” We are not apprised of any reason for Petitioner to provide an express construction for “second function” in this case. The plain and ordinary reading of limitation 1b is a method step of “evaluating sensor data using a second function to determine whether a parameter indicative of glucose value meets one or more non user settable second criteria.” Ex. 1001, 48:39–41. As far as “second function” goes, the claim language is clear on its face that the second function “determine[s] whether a parameter indicative of glucose value meets one or more non user settable second criteria.” Id. Patent Owner has not offered any construction, nor apart from criticizing Petitioner, indicated in any manner that the “second function” as recited in claims 1 and 19 requires a construction. Our understanding of “second function” is consistent with the specification of the ’215 patent. A plain reading of the specification reveals that the first criteria relates to the claimed “first function,” and the “second criteria” relates to the claimed “second function.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001 3:44–49 (The ’215 Patent describing “a processor configured to: evaluate sensor data using a first function to determine whether a real time glucose value meets one or more first criteria; evaluate sensor data using a second function to determine whether a predicted glucose value meets one or more second criteria.”). The specification description is therefore mostly consistent with the recitations in claim 1 with respect to the first and second functions and relative first and second criteria. Compare id., with Ex. 1001, 48:36–41.” slip op. at 35

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

    “second function.” PO Resp. 19. However, neither did Patent Owner provide an express construction. See generally id. is any disagreement about the meaning of “a second function” apart from the argument by Patent Owner that the second function should be understood to include “a predictive glucose value.” We are not apprised of any reason for Petitioner to provide an express construction for “second function” in this case. The plain and ordinary reading of limitation 1b is a method step of “evaluating sensor data using a second function to determine whether a parameter indicative of glucose value meets one or more non user settable second criteria.” Ex. 1001, 48:39–41. As far as “second function” goes, the claim language is clear on its face that the second function “determine[s] whether a parameter indicative of glucose value meets one or more non user settable second criteria.” Id. Patent Owner has not offered any construction, nor apart from criticizing Petitioner, indicated in any manner that the “second function” as recited in claims 1 and 19 requires a construction. Our understanding of “second function” is consistent with the specification of the ’215 patent. A plain reading of the specification reveals that the first criteria relates to the claimed “first function,” and the “second criteria” relates to the claimed “second function.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001 3:44–49 (The ’215 Patent describing “a processor configured to: evaluate sensor data using a first function to determine whether a real time glucose value meets one or more first criteria; evaluate sensor data using a second function to determine whether a predicted glucose value meets one or more second criteria.”). The specification description is therefore mostly consistent with the recitations in claim 1 with respect to the first and second functions and relative first and second criteria. Compare id., with Ex. 1001, 48:36–41. slip op. at 34

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Institution Decision we determined, in accordance with Petitioner’s proposal, that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’215 patent [w]ould have had a Bachelor’s degree in biomedical engineering, mathematics, statistics, or computer science (or a related or equivalent field), and two or more years of experience researching, developing, designing and/or evaluating (or supervising the same) medical devices for measuring analyte levels, e.g., analyte sensors, including at least some experience in researching, developing, designing and/or evaluating (or supervising the same) methods, systems, or algorithms for providing indicators (e.g., alerts, alarms or other indicators) of analyte levels to users, or equivalent experience. A person with less or different education but more relevant practical experience, or vice versa, may also meet this standard. Inst. Dec. 8; Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 24–26). Patent Owner states that “DexCom does not challenge Petitioner’s POSA definition (Petition, 9-10) because the Petition fails even if it is adopted.” PO Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 20–23). ordinary skill in the art, and because Petitioner’s assessment is consistent with the ’215 patent and the asserted prior art, we continue to rely on Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 10,702,215 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,702,215
• Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Dexcom, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 27, 2023 · IPR2022-00908 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 and 11–13 are unpatentable as obvious over Feldman; the Board did not reach the anticipation and other obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Pet. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 77–79). Patent Owner proposes a similar level of ordinary skill in the art including the same educational requirements but with 2–4 years of experience with medical devices for measuring analyte levels. PO Resp. 17 (citing Ex. 2011 ¶ 26). Because there is no material dispute as to Petitioner’s suggested level of ordinary skill in the art, and because Petitioner’s assessment is consistent with the ’193 patent, Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, and the asserted prior art, we continue our reliance on Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Having considered the complete record before us, we find the evidence does not support the premise that Dr. Smith lacks appropriate knowledge and experience with in vivo sensors or that his testimony is compromised by his analysis of Dobson. Dr. Smith easily has sufficient experience with blood glucose monitoring and the electrochemical instruments and systems used to measure a patient’s blood glucose level in vivo. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 5–9. By way of background and education, Dr. Smith holds a Bachelor of Science degree in chemistry from Butler University and a Ph.D. in analytical chemistry from the University of Illinois. Id. ¶ 5. Dr. Smith testified that he has worked for 34 years specifically in the blood glucose monitoring field, explaining that his “work includes development of novel electrochemical instrumentation, development of automated clinical laboratory instrumentation, research and development of blood glucose meters and test strips, development of transcutaneous intravascular glucose measurement systems, and development of noninvasive glucose measurement systems.” Id. ¶ 6 (emphasis added). Among his positions, for 12 years Dr. Smith was Vice President of Research, Development, and Engineering Worldwide and Chief Scientific Officer at LifeScan, Inc., a division of Johnson & Johnson. Id. ¶ 8. Dr. Smith testifies that he is an inventor on eleven “issued patents relat[ing] to glucose monitoring, four” slip op. at 25

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

    “Assuming that the challenged claims are entitled to a priority date as early as April 15, 2005, and we are not entirely persuaded that they are, Feldman predates the earliest possible priority date to which the claims of the ’193 patent are entitled because Feldman was filed on December 7, 2004, more than 4 months prior to the asserted April 15, 2005 priority date. Feldman is a U.S. Application Publication, which published September 29, 2005, and was filed in the U.S. on December 7, 2004. Ex. 1008, Codes (22) (43). As explained in the MPEP “[p]re-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) allows the use of certain international application publications and U.S. patent application publications, and certain U.S. patents as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as of their respective U.S. filing dates.” MPEP 2136 (emphases added). Patent Owner argues specifically that Feldman “is a September 29, 2005, publication that published after the ’193 Patent’s priority date.” PO Resp. 41. While true, Patent Owner incorrectly relies upon the publication date of Feldman, as opposed to Feldman’s filing date of December 7, 2004, which sets the effective date on which Feldman is prior art under 102(e).” slip op. at 32

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Figures 2A and 4A, that Petitioner and Dr. Smith have explained persuasively that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that “the three conductive layers associated with the electrodes are located overtop each other in a stacked fashion in a similar manner to that depicted in FIG. 2A with respect to the working electrode 29a and the Ag/AgCl counter/reference electrode 29b.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 205. For example, reproduced below are Dr. Smith’s annotated version of Feldman’s Figure 4A side-by-side with Dr. Tapsak’s alternative figure based on Say.” slip op. at 43

  Patent outcomesUS 10,702,193 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,702,193
• Unified Patents, LLC v. Intellectual Ventures II, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 9, 2023 · IPR2022-00429 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: claims 1–5, 7–12, and 14–20 over Chowdhary under §§ 102 and 103, and claims 1–20 over Chowdhary and Tobey under § 103.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for petitioner

    “On this record, we determine that we need not address whether Toyota was improperly excluded as an RPI because, “even if it were, it would not create a time bar or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315.” See SharkNinja, Paper 11 at 18. Other than asserting that “estoppel provisions are implicated by this case” (PO Sur-reply 2311), there is no allegation or evidence that Toyota or any other RPI is barred or estopped from this proceeding, or that 11 Patent Owner asserts without explaining that the ’475 patent “is currently being asserted by Patent Owner against Toyota, as well as GM (another paying Member of Unified similarly situated to Toyota.). PO Sur-reply 23. However, the record indicates that the Toyota case has been dismissed and the GM case stayed. See Paper 32, 1 (Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v. Toyota Motor Corp. et al., 2:21-cv00389 (E.D. Tex. October 19, 2021) stipulated dismissal without prejudice on March 20, 2023); see also id. at 2 (Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v. General Motors Company, 6:21- cv01088 (W.D. Tex. October 19, 2021) (stayed pending settlement on April 6, 2023)). And, upon further inquiry, PACER Case Locator indicates that the GM case was dismissed in an order granting joint motion to dismiss entered on June 20, 2023. See GM case, Document 116. Petitioner purposefully omitted any other RPI to gain some advantage in our forum. See Unified Patent, LLC v. MemoryWeb, LLC, IPR2021-01413, Paper 76 at 5 (PTAB May 22, 2023) (Director Review Decision) (“The Board can and should make a determination of the real parties in interest or privity in any proceeding in which that determination may impact the underlying proceeding, for example, but not limited to, a time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) or an estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) that might apply. That is not the situation here.”). Because we determine that neither the time bar nor estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315 are implicated in this case, “we need not address whether [Toyota] is an unnamed RPI.” See Unified Patent, Paper 76 at 5 (“The Board should not have determined whether [there were additional] RPIs in this proceeding given that determination was not necessary to resolve the proceeding.”).” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner asserts that at the time of the invention, one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, physics, or a related subject, and two to three years of work experience in vehicle telematics.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 37–40). Petitioner asserts that “[a] lack of experience can be remedied with additional education (e.g., a Master’s degree), and likewise, a lack of education can be remedied with additional work experience (e.g., 5–6 years).” Id. Patent Owner essentially agrees with Petitioner’s assertion, but contends that the work experience should more broadly be in “mobile communications.” PO Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2017 ¶ 27). In our Institution Decision, we determined that there was “not much difference between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s assertions, but noted that “we find that Patent Owner’s broader definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art is more consistent with the scope and content of the ’475 [p]atent.” Inst. Dec. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:53–54; Ex. 1003, 3:15–18, Fig. 1). In its Reply, “Petitioner accepts the level of skill definition adopted in the Institution Decision,” and notes that “[n]either party contends that the differences in the proposed definitions affect the patentability of the challenged claims.” Pet. Reply 7. Based on this record, we apply Patent Owner’s definition of the level of skill, which also was applied in our Institution Decision, because it is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “We begin our analysis by considering the language of the claims. At the outset, we note that none of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 require “actively notify[ing] the recipient soon after the violation,” as Patent Owner proposes. Independent claim 1 requires that if the computing device located within the vehicle determines that the vehicle committed a violation, the computing device located in the vehicle sends an indication of the violation to a remote computing system. Ex. 1001, 10:55–55. Independent claim 1 further recites “wherein the remote computing device is configured to notify a recipient about the violation committed by the vehicle.” Id. at 10:56–58. Independent claims 8 and 15 includes substantially similar limitations. Id. at 11:14–28, 12:11–25. Thus, the independent claims broadly recite “notify[ing] a recipient about the violation” without reference to any type, i.e., “active” or “passive,” or timing of the notification. Turning to dependent claims 4 and 5, claims 4 and 5 both begin by reciting “[t]he method of claim 1, wherein the remote computing device is configured to notify the recipient about the violation committed by the vehicle by.” Ex. 1001, 10:66–67:1, 11:3–5. Claim 4 further limits independent claim 1 “by permitting the recipient to view the indication of the violation via a browser” (id. at 10:67–11:2) and claim 5 further limits claim 1 “by sending a communication to the recipient in response to receiving the indication of the violation from the computing device” (id. at 11:4–6). Thus, we understand the recitation of “configured to notify a recipient” in claim 1 as being broad enough to cover both the notification recited in claim 4 that “permit[s] the recipient to view . . . via a browser” and the notification recited in claim 5 that “send[s] a communication to the recipient in response to receiving the indication of the violation from the computing device.” Id. at 10:66–11:7.” slip op. at 18

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

    “At the outset, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s arguments are all premised upon its proposed construction of the phrase “configured to notify a recipient,” which, we do not adopt. See § III.C.1. As discussed above, we are not persuaded that the phrase “configured to notify a recipient,” as it appears in the context of claim 1, requires any type of active notification, as Patent Owner proposes. Consequently, Patent Owner’s argument that Chowdhary fails to teach the limitation at issue because Chowdhary “is wholly silent with regard to anything that is configured to actively notify someone about a violation” is unavailing. PO Resp. 24 (citing Ex. 2017 ¶ 57); see also id. at 27 (“[N]either the shortcuts to the reports shown in Figure 10 . . . or any other disclosure in Chowd[h]ary, actively notifies the fleet manager that a violation has been committed by the driver of the vehicle.”). Notwithstanding, to address this limitation, Petitioner directs us to Chowdhary’s disclosure that its “VSM application server automatically generates reports when new event data is received based on previously set criteria.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 7, 47–51, 96–97, 102–103, 114, Figs. 10–30; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 84–87). Petitioner provides the following copy of Figure 10 of Chowdhary, annotated to identify, among several items, icon 1102 and icon 1104. Figure 10 illustrates “an example screen display for one embodiment of the VSM user interface” that includes “an ‘Alert/Notifications’ and ‘Messages’ screen.” Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 19, 97. Petitioner explains that Chowdhary discloses VSM application server receives speeding event data and prepares speeding reports based on the received event data. [Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 7, 47–51, 96–97, 114, Figs. 10–30]. An administrator sets alerts and/or notifications for reports that are of particular interest to the administrator so that an Alert/Notification is posted providing the title of the report (orange), the date/time the report was created (green), a link (via icon 1102, blue) to access the report each time a new speed limit violation report is created, and an icon 1104 (red) to remove reports so only new Alerts/Notifications are shown. [Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 97–98, 120, Fig. 10]. Pet. Reply 12–13. Relying on the deposition testimony of Mr. Wilson, Petitioner asserts that “Mr. Wilson testified that a clear notification would occur when a user logs in to a website, and there is an indication that a new message is available for the user to view.” Pet. Reply 13 (citing Ex. 2015,” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 9,291,475 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,291,475
• Dji Europe B.V. v. Textron Innovations Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 31, 2023 · IPR2022-00162 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 10, and 12 are unpatentable: Harding anticipates and renders claims 1–7 and 12 obvious; the listed combinations render claims 3, 4, 10, and 12 obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “1. “detent position” In its Petition, DJI argued that the claim term “detent position,” as recited in independent claim 1 of the ’752 patent, should be construed to mean “zero-force position.” Pet. 9. In its Patent Owner Response, Textron cited documentation from the parallel district court case that the parties “agree to construe ‘detent position’ to have its plain and ordinary meaning,” and stated that “there is no dispute between the parties as to the meaning of the term and . . . no explicit construction is necessary.” PO Resp. 8–9 (citing Ex. 2016, 5). Based on the fully developed trial record, there is no readily discernible controversy between the parties that requires us to construe this claim term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “Based on the fully developed trial record, we agree with DJI that the claim phrase “engaging . . . when both the longitudinal controller and the lateral controller are released” should not be limited to controllers on two separate control sticks. That is, we adopt the plain and ordinary meaning for the phrase “when both the longitudinal controller and the lateral controller are released” and construe this term as encompassing either single control stick or multi-stick control configurations. We begin with a review of the specification of the ’752 patent. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (stating that “the specification is ‘the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term’” (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). The “single stick” aspect of our construction finds support in the specification, which consistently reinforces that the lateral and longitudinal controllers may be embodied by a single control stick. Ex. 1001, 2:55–61, 3:18–29, 5:21–27, 8:27–30, 8:49–57, 9:6–10, 10:44–47. As two examples, the specification refers to when the “pilot moves the control stick,” and in another, the specification references where, “[i]n the preferred embodiment, the first 0.1– 0.2 inch of aircraft stick movement is used to determine whether the stick is in the detent position.” Ex. 1001, 8:49–57, 10:44–47 (emphases added). Textron does not identify explicitly, nor could we find a single instance, where the specification of the ’752 patent references using two control sticks. Furthermore, we agree with DJI that the word “both” recited in dependent claims 6 and 7 does not require two separate control sticks, but rather refers to releasing both the longitudinal and lateral controllers. The crux of Textron’s argument appears to be that, because dependent claims 6 and 7, unlike independent claim 1, require releasing both the longitudinal and lateral controllers to activate a state, they cannot be embodied by a single stick, stating “if the controllers were not separate, how could they be independently released?” PO Resp. 10. Textron’s argument, however, conflates “controllers” and “sticks.” As we discuss above, the specification of the ’752 patent repeatedly teaches having both the longitudinal and lateral controllers be actuated by a single control stick. Textron does not support its argument with evidence from the specification, nor does it support its position that, when dependent claim 6 and 7 refer to “the longitudinal controller” and “the lateral controller,” they are referring to the separate control sticks to actuate these two different controllers. Instead, dependent claims 6 and 7 are agnostic as to whether the longitudinal and lateral controllers are set up to actuate on a single control stick or on multiple control sticks. In summary, we accord the claim phrase “engaging . . . when both the” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Pet. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 61–62). In its Patent Owner Response, Textron agrees with the level of skill in the art as proposed by DJI, arguing the following: a person of ordinary skill in the art . . . at the time of the invention of the ’752 Patent would have been someone with at least the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, aerospace engineering, electrical engineering, robotics or similar discipline covering principles of the design or operation of flight controls for helicopters, drones, or other rotary aircraft, as well as one year of experience working on the design, development, implementation, or operation of such technologies. [Textron] also agrees that significant experience could substitute for formal education, and significant education could substitute for work experience. PO. Resp. 4–5. Based on the fully developed record, the level of ordinary skill in the art is not disputed and is consistent with our review of the technology and descriptions in the ’752 patent and the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that “the level of skill in the art is a prism or lens through which a judge, jury, or the Board views the prior art and the claimed invention”). For purposes of this Final Written decision, we adopt DJI’s proposed level skill in the art and apply it in our anticipation/obviousness analysis below.” slip op. at 18

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

    “h. Summary In summary, we have reviewed DJI’s arguments and supporting evidence as to how the teachings of Harding account for all the limitations of independent claim 1, and we agree with and adopt DJI’s analysis. See Pet. 16–28. Accordingly, DJI has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 1 is anticipated by and would have been obvious over the teachings of Harding. 5. Claims 2–5 and 12 DJI also contends that dependent claims 2–5 and 12 of the ’752 patent are unpatentable under §§ 102(b) or 103(a) as anticipated by or rendered obvious over the teachings of Harding. Pet. 28–38. DJI explains how the teachings of Harding account for the subject matter of each dependent claim, and provides reasoning as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to modify the teachings of this reference. Id. During trial, Textron does not address separately DJI’s arguments and supporting evidence as to how the teachings of Harding account for the additional limitations of dependent claims 2–5 and 12. See PO Resp. 10–32. As one example, claim 2 directly depends from independent claim 1, and further recites “maneuvering the rotary aircraft within the first envelope with a translational rate command, the translational rate command being adapted to control longitudinal flight of the rotary aircraft with movement of the longitudinal controller and lateral flight of the rotary aircraft with movement of the lateral controller.” Ex. 1001, 11:47–53. DJI contends that Harding teaches this limitation because it discloses a translational rate command where ground speed follows the cyclic stick, and that while in TRC, longitudinal movement of the cyclic stick controls longitudinal ground speed and lateral movement of the cyclic stick controls lateral ground speed. Pet. 28–30. DJI cites Harding’s Figure 6, reproduced below.” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 9,162,752 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,162,752
• Viken Detection Corp. v. American Science And Engineering, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 26, 2023 · IPR2022-00027 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12 are unpatentable: claims 1–3, 7–9, and 12 are anticipated or obvious; claims 4–6 and 10–11 are obvious on the grounds stated.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “Despite the lesser amount of experience, i.e. two years, as proposed by Patent Owner compared to 5 years as Petitioner proposes, Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s asserted levels of ordinary skill in the art are not terribly disparate. Both require at least a bachelor’s degree in an engineering or science field and experience with X-ray penetrating radiation to include radiation sources, detectors and imaging systems. To the extent there is a difference, it does not effect, nor do the parties argue that it should, our decision with respect to the challenged claims as either anticipated or obvious. See, e.g., PO Resp. 20 (Patent Owner describing that “Petitioner comparable additional education), Pet., 18, but even with that difference, the claims of the ’763 patent are not anticipated nor would they have been obvious to an ordinary artisan.”).” slip op. at 11

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

    “Given the relative consistency between the parties’ interpretations, the claims, and the specification of the ’763 patent, as well as to harmonize the record to the extent it is even necessary, we rely on Patent Owner’s interpretation, which is that “an ordinary artisan would have understood that an ‘inspection space’ is defined by the physical characteristics of a particular inspection system.” PO Resp. 25.” slip op. at 15

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “We credit Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Lanza, who persuasively explains that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that “Chalmers ’764 scanning beam 58 thus enters the inspection space at a first entry point, as shown in annotated Figure 1 of Chalmers ’764 below.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 131 (citing Ex. 1007, Figure 1). We reproduce Dr. Lanza’s annotated Figure 1 below. with objects (contents) 30 and 50 within an inspection space bounded by dashed red line as defined by a first entry point at top right of the inspection space where rotating pencil beam 58, highlighted purple, starts scanning. Id. We further credit Dr. Lanza’s testimony because it is consistent with Grodzins disclosure incorporated by reference into Chalmers. See Ex. 1007 1:6–10 (Chalmers stating that Grodzins, “as U.S. Pat. No. 6,151,381 . . . all of which applications and patents are herein incorporated by reference.”). Grodzins explains that it was “known to persons skilled in the art to provide for scanning of beam 70 across a region of space which may include the target container 10.” Ex. 1008, 5:24–26. By way of example, Grodzins Figure 3 is reproduced below. Grodzins Figure 3 illustrates a four spoke rotating wheel 74 and “X-ray beam 70, generated by an x-ray source 72 in the center of a rotating wheel is visually depicted here, that Grodzins’ X-ray beam 70, based on the collimator opening, will sweep the vertical length of backscatter detector 82. This results in scanning of the entire container 10, as Grodzins describes. Id. at 5:24–26. Dr. Lanza’s testimony, Chalmers, and Grodzins as incorporated by” slip op. at 33

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

    “must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements ‘arranged as in the claim.’” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). “A single prior art reference may anticipate without disclosing a feature of the claimed invention if such feature is necessarily present, or inherent, in that reference.” Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 754 F.3d 952, 958 (Fed. Cir. 2014).” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 8,300,763 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,300,763
• Early Warning Services, LLC / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Wepay Global Payments LLCAdverse judgment
  PTAB · Feb 9, 2023 · PGR2022-00045 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · PGR · Adverse judgment

  The Board entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner and cancelled claim 1 based on statutory disclaimers; alternatively, it held claim 1 unpatentable on every asserted ground.

  RulingsAdverse judgment

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted

    “first embodiment, including Figures 1 and 2. Ex. 1106; Paper 32, 2. On January 26, 2023, Patent Owner filed a statutory disclaimer of the second embodiment, including Figures 3, 4, and 5. Ex. 1107; Paper 32, 2. Patent Owner successfully paid the statutory disclaimer fees in connection with both disclaimers. Ex. 1106, 4; Ex. 1107, 4; Paper 32, 2–3. Based on the information presented, we find that Patent Owner, by disclaiming all figures and embodiments described in the ’702 patent, has disclaimed the entire scope of the sole design claim at issue, such that no challenged claim remains in this proceeding. Specifically, in that regard, the ’702 patent claims and describes two embodiments, where the first embodiment is depicted in Figures 1 and 2, and the second embodiment is depicted in Figures 3, 4, and 5. Ex. 1001, code (57). The statutory disclaimers, taken together, disclaim both embodiments and all five figures set forth in the ’702 patent. Exs. 1106, 1107. Accordingly, we determine that adverse judgment against Patent Owner based on the disclaimers is warranted. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.73(b)(1), 42.73(b)(2); Paper 32, 3.8” slip op. at 6

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

    “In particular, we find that Reddy discloses a design having substantially the same overall appearance as the claimed design, as shown in Petitioner’s comparison illustration reproduced below. Paper 22, 10 (citing Pet. 63). The above illustration compares the claimed design in the upper half to Reddy’s design in the lower half. Both designs include an image of a Three Square Arrangement9 followed by an image of “a $0.00 in practically identical style and font.” Id. at 10–11 (quoting Pet. 64). We determine that Petitioner proves by a preponderance of the evidence, moreover, “that ‘the overall visual effect of the claimed design,’ when compared to ‘the design disclosed in Reddy[,] would be substantially the same to an ordinary observer.’” Id. at 11 (alteration in original) (citation omitted); Pet. 64–67 (and evidence cited therein). Based on the full trial record, we agree with Petitioner and find that “there is no material difference” slip op. at 8

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

    “To the extent “any ‘slightly different spacing of the squares,’ as between the claimed and prior art designs,” is not de minimus, we find “that the ordinary designer would have modified Reddy’s design to mirror the claimed design” in order “to increase the amount of data” contained in the code. Paper 22, 13 (quoting Pet. 72 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 97)). The ordinary designer, considering Reddy alone, “would find the claimed ‘design as a whole has substantially the same overall visual appearance as the Reddy design,’ as so modified.” Id. (quoting Pet. 73 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 99)). Based on the full trial record, we determine that Reddy renders the challenged claim unpatentable as obvious.” slip op. at 9

  • BurdenUnpatentable

    “We conclude that Patent Owner has forfeited any arguments opposing the information advanced in the Petition with respect to the other asserted grounds of invalidity. We adopt the reasoning set forth in the Petition with respect to those grounds. See Pet. 23–45 (arguments and evidence directed to publication and accessibility of SGQR, GrabPay, Digital Debit Video, and Digital Debit Patent), 73–88 (arguments and evidence directed to the grounds that assert SGQR, GrabPay, Digital Debit Video, and Digital Debit Patent). On this record, Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of the challenged claim would have been obvious based on the other grounds asserted in the Petition. Id.” slip op. at 9

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness

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.