• Fluidmaster, Inc. v. Danco, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 5, 2026 · IPR2024-00634 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 8–13, 15, 16, and 19–24 are unpatentable over Brown and Ho, with claims 16 and 19 also relying on the Quick Connection Art; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner proposes that: A [person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)] in the field to which the ’105 Patent is directed would have had at least a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering or a related field or, as a substitute, at least two years of work or” slip op. at 9

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

    “of “integrally molded with” as “molded together as a single structure.” Paper 21, 15.” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Patent Owner responds that: a POSITA would not have been motivated to make the proposed modification, nor does the Petition include any analysis regarding why a POSITA would be motivated to move from a vertical extended portion to a radial extended portion. Indeed, a radial extended portion is directly counter to the stated goals of Brown (e.g., reducing noise caused by turbulence), at least insofar as it introduces another sudden directional change into the fluid flow system. PO Resp. 58–59 (citing Ex. 2013 ¶ 242).” slip op. at 32

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner argues that the ’105 patent claims were “fully supported as of the filing date of at least the ’606 Application . . . March 11, 2004” because the ’606 Application discloses regulating water flow and a POSITA would know that appropriate devices for regulating water flow includes nonadjustable waterflow restrictors. PO Resp. 63–65; PO Sur-reply 26–29. Patent Owner’s argument is persuasive. The ’606 Application discloses: [W]hen the toilet fill valve 100 is open and water flows from the water inlet 103 to the water outlets 106 and into a toilet tank, an amount of water is also supplied to the bowl fill valve inlet 113 that flows through the bowl fill valve 109 and out the bowl fill valve outlet 116. By virtue of the manual setting of handle 119 of the bowl fill valve 109, the flow of water through the bowl fill valve 109 is regulated. In this manner, the flow of water is regulated so that enough water flows out of the bowl fill valve 109 to fill a toilet bowl without wasting any water down a drain. seen from the passage above, the ’606 Application discloses regulating an amount of water supplied to a toilet bowl using a valve (i.e., a water flow regulator). Ex. 2013 ¶ 288. Further, the ’606 Application states: The bowl fill valve 109 may be, for example, a ball valve, a gate valve, a globe valve, a plug valve, a diaphragm valve, a butterfly valve, a needle valve, a sliding gate, a quick turn valve, a knife valve or any other appropriate type of valve as can be appreciated by those with ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 42

  Patent outcomesUS 9,103,105 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,103,105
• Nxtgen Toys, LLC v. Zipstring, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 20, 2026 · IPR2024-01213 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 12, and 15–17 are unpatentable; substitute claim 27 is allowed, while substitute claims 21–26 and 28 are denied as obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “was typically a person with a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, aerospace engineering, physics, or other science or 6 Patent Owner does not rely on any objective indicia of nonobviousness in this proceeding. engineering based degree that [was] familiar with general principles of mechanics and aerodynamics with at least two years of experience in product design and development in the field of toys or other amusement type devices.” Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 2–6, 22–26). Patent Owner states that it submitted the following proposal for a POSITA in the related district court litigation: “[a POSITA] would have had at least a B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Aerospace Engineering, Industrial Design, Product Design, or similar field, with at least two years industry experience in one of these fields, and such POSITA would have been familiar with general principles of mechanics, fluid mechanics and aerodynamics.” PO Resp. 4–5. We note that the parties’ proposals overlap considerably, and neither party argues the inadequacy of the other party’s proposal or that any patentability issue in this case turns on the resolution of this issue. We find Petitioner’s definition consistent with the problems and solutions disclosed in the ’774 patent and prior art of record, and adopt it as our own. See, e.g., GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579 (approving the determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art by appeal to the references of record). We would arrive at the same findings and conclusions in this Decision if we adopted Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Id. at 1312–13. Only terms in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See 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)). Petitioner contends that no “term requires construction to resolve the invalidity grounds presented in this Petition since the prior art renders claims 1–4, 12, and 15–17 unpatentable under any reasonable interpretation of the claims.” Pet. 7. Patent Owner argues that it “does not believe express claim constructions are necessary during this proceeding because the claims can readily be given their ordinary and customary meaning in the context of the patent at the time it was filed.” PO Resp. 5. Based on the parties’ positions and our view of the record, we need not expressly construe any claim limitations to resolve the issues in this Decision. To the extent that any implicit claim construction issues relate to the issues raised by the parties, we address them in the context of the parties’ patentability arguments below.” slip op. at 9

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

    “string, and that adding Scorch’s slot removes this arguably inconvenient process by allowing insertion and removal of a string without removing and reinstalling any aspects of the housing. See Pet 85–86 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 174–175; Ex. 1007, 3:30–3:53, 6:03; Ex. 1008, 3:46–4:45); Pet. Reply 18–20 (citing in part Ex. 2002 ¶ 187 (Dr. Janét’s testimony that Wagner’s removal and reinstallation of a cover “may be viewed as an inconvenient process”)). Making insertion and removal of the string easier and quicker provides a notable advantage over Wagner’s existing device. See id. Scorch itself supports this argument and the related expert testimony because it discusses insertion and removal of strings and stated that the slot allows a user to “swap them out really quick.” Ex. 1007, 3:30–53. Petitioner also persuasively argues that a POSITA would know how to add the slot while maintaining the proper operation of the device, such as allowing insertion and removal of the string and avoiding inadvertent exiting of the string from the device. See Pet. 86–87 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 175–176; Ex. 1007, 4:00–30, Ex. 1008, 2:49–52); Pet. Reply 19, 21 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 174–176). We find Petitioner’s arguments and reasoning in support of adding Scorch’s slot to Wagner’s housing straightforward and persuasive. Patent Owner’s arguments against the combination do not directly refute Petitioner’s reasoning or cast doubt on Scorch’s statement that its slot enables “quick” insertion and removal of a string—quicker than Wagner’s method that requires removal and replacement of a cover on its housing. See PO Resp. 16–22; PO Sur-reply 14–20; Ex. 2002 ¶ 187 (acknowledging inconvenience of Wagner’s existing process for insertion and removal of a string). Patent Owner suggests that Petitioner’s proposed combination fails to take into consideration certain drawbacks such as the risk of inadvertent string exit from the housing or slot, but Petitioner expressly addresses such concerns in the Petition. See PO Resp. 18 (stating that Scorch’s slotted funnel may allow the string to “shoot out the slot” and that Scorch addresses this by adding “a bent wire” to “prevent the string from coming out the side”); PO Sur-reply 16–17; Pet. 86–87 (arguing that Wagner’s flanges would help to trap the string in place, but if not, Scorch’s additional structures could be used to restring the string and “to further reduce the risk of a string inadvertently exiting” the device). We agree with Petitioner that a POSITA would understand how to incorporate Scorch’s slot without causing inadvertent removal of the string—using structures already present in Wagner and Scorch—and the need to add such unclaimed structurers does not teach away from the combination as Patent Owner suggests. See Pet. 86–87; PO Resp. 22. We also agree with Petitioner that a POSITA would understand how to make minor modifications, if necessary, to allow insertion and removal of the string around Wagner’s flanges. See Pet. Reply 21 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 174–176).” slip op. at 26

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “refute Petitioner’s reasoning or cast doubt on Scorch’s statement that its slot enables “quick” insertion and removal of a string—quicker than Wagner’s method that requires removal and replacement of a cover on its housing. See PO Resp. 16–22; PO Sur-reply 14–20; Ex. 2002 ¶ 187 (acknowledging inconvenience of Wagner’s existing process for insertion and removal of a string). Patent Owner suggests that Petitioner’s proposed combination fails to take into consideration certain drawbacks such as the risk of inadvertent string exit from the housing or slot, but Petitioner expressly addresses such concerns in the Petition. See PO Resp. 18 (stating that Scorch’s slotted funnel may allow the string to “shoot out the slot” and that Scorch addresses this by adding “a bent wire” to “prevent the string from coming out the side”); PO Sur-reply 16–17; Pet. 86–87 (arguing that Wagner’s flanges would help to trap the string in place, but if not, Scorch’s additional structures could be used to restring the string and “to further reduce the risk of a string inadvertently exiting” the device). We agree with Petitioner that a POSITA would understand how to incorporate Scorch’s slot without causing inadvertent removal of the string—using structures already present in Wagner and Scorch—and the need to add such unclaimed structurers does not teach away from the combination as Patent Owner suggests. See Pet. 86–87; PO Resp. 22. We also agree with Petitioner that a POSITA would understand how to make minor modifications, if necessary, to allow insertion and removal of the string around Wagner’s flanges. See Pet. Reply 21 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 174–176). At best, Patent Owner’s arguments on this issue establish potential drawbacks in Petitioner’s proposed combination, but drawbacks alone do not defeat Petitioner’s obviousness rationale that includes readily apparent benefits. See Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit . . . should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another.”); Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine “). In addition, even if Patent Owner were correct that Wagner’s existing design works as well as Petitioner’s proposed combination, given all of the tradeoffs involved, that would not fatally undermine Petitioner’s showing. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (obviousness does not require that the proposed combination “is the preferred, or most desirable, combination”). On this record, Petitioner’s (and Scorch’s) stated advantages that are achieved when adding Scorch’s slot to Wagner’s housing adequately support Petitioner’s motivation to combine rationale.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 11,674,774 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 11,674,774
• Boe Technology Group Co., Ltd. v. Optronic Sciences LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 17, 2026 · IPR2024-01132 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 are unpatentable: claims 1–3 and 5 are anticipated by Anzai, claim 4 is obvious over Anzai and Yamazaki, and claims 1–7 are obvious over Yamazaki and Anzai.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner describes a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA” or “ordinarily skilled artisan”) at the time of the invention as having “a Bachelors’ degree in electrical engineering or a comparable field of study, plus approximately two to three years of professional experience with electronic and optoelectronic device design” and notes that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1002, Neikirk Decl., ¶ 23). Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Bretschneider testifies that In my opinion, the field of “electronic and optoelectronic device design” is too broad. A POSITA of the ’121, had at least a Bachelors’ degree in a field of engineering or physics and at least two to three years of professional experience related to the design and manufacture of the relevant aspects of flat panel displays. Additional relevant graduate education related [sic] could reduce but not eliminate the time requirement for professional experience. While Dr. Neikirk proposes a different definition of a POSITA, the differences do not have material effect on my opinions rendered below. Regardless of which definition of a POSITA were used, my conclusions would remain the same Ex. 2005, Bretschneider Decl., ¶ 39. We agree with and will apply Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art. This level of ordinary skill is reflective of the education and experience that would have been required to understand the problems and solutions identified in the ’121 patent and the prior art. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We note that our conclusions would be the same even if we applied Patent Owner’s slightly narrower definition of a POSITA.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We find these definitions to be of some help in construing this term. We find that the common thread is that a “passivation layer” is an insulating layer that provides protection from the environment to the layers below it. See Ex. 1012, 140; Ex. 1013, 542, Ex. 1014, 798; Ex. 2010, 3; Ex. 2013, 1. We find this construction to be most consistent with the broad claim language and the disclosure in the Specification. Although “tying up dangling bonds,” may be a mechanism by which some materials provide such protection, nothing in the Specification or the extrinsic evidence provided appears to require that. Also, while chemical protection may be one kind of protection none of the evidence suggests that is the only protection that is provided. Moreover, nothing in the Specification supports reading a chemical protection requirement into the construction. Thus, we decline to adopt that portion of Patent Owner’s construction. Instead, we construe passivation layer as “an insulating layer that provides protection from the environment to the layers below it.” We need not construe the term any further to resolve the parties’ dispute over this claim language. See Realtime, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 19

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

    “constructions for “passivation layer” and “capping layer.” We find that Petitioner has presented sufficient evidence to show that Anzai discloses both a “passivation layer” and a “capping layer.” As we explained above, we have construed “passivation layer” to mean “an insulating layer that provides protection from the environment to the layers below it.” Petitioner has shown that “first planarization film 17” is an insulating layer. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 62–65. We further find that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that “first planarization film 17” is “formed over the entire surface for flattening, which will protect the semiconductor surface from the surrounding environment.” Id. ¶ 63. We have rejected Patent Owner’s contentions that the film must tie up “dangling bonds,” and instead determined that protecting the surface from the environment is sufficient. Thus, we find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Anzai discloses the “passivation layer” of claim 3. As we explained above, we have construed “capping layer” to be “an insulation layer covering (i.e., capping) an underlying layer or structure.” Here, Petitioner has shown that Anzai’s planarization film 19 meets the claimed “capping layer.” See Pet. 20. We find that Petitioner has shown that it is more likely than not that “planarization film 19” is made of insulating material. As Dr. Neikirk persuasively testifies, Anzai discloses that planarization layer 17 may be made of an organic resin for flattening the surface. EX1003, 4:20-24. While Anzai does not disclose the material for planarization layer 19, it must be made of an insulation material because in the embodiment of Fig. 3A, it is the sole layer between electrode layer 71 and cathode layer 65 forming the second capacitor. Id., 6:3–8; Fig. 3A. Moreover, Anzai discloses that the first planarization film 17 and the second planarization film 19 for the first embodiment “function as the capacitance insulating film for this configuration.” Id., 5:62–67. Ex. 1002, Neikirk Decl., ¶ 62. We find this testimony well-reasoned and entitled to substantial weight. We further agree with Dr. Neikirk that a “POSITA would further understand that the second planarization film 19 is then further disposed on the first planarization film 17 (capping the passivation layer).” Id. ¶ 63 (citing Ex. 1003, 5:3–13; Figs. 2A–B, 3A–B). Thus, we find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Anzai discloses the claimed “capping layer.” Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of” slip op. at 32

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

    “motivation to combine Anzai and Yamazaki. See Pet. 25–27; Ex. 1002, Neikirk Decl., ¶¶ 78–79. First, Patent Owner argues that essentially silicon nitride is an inferior material to use for Anzai’s planarization layer 17 compared with organic resin. PO Resp. 13–15. However, “[i]t’s not necessary to show that a combination is the best option, only that it be a suitable option.” Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 797, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (emphasis in original). Patent Owner does not argue that silicon nitride would not work, but rather that it would be more difficult and more expensive to use. See PO Resp. 14. But “the fact that the two disclosed apparatus[es] would not be combined by businessmen for economic reasons is not the same as saying that it could not be done because skilled persons in the art felt that there was some technological incompatibility that prevented their combination. Only the latter is telling on the issue of nonobviousness.” Grit Energy Solutions LLC v. Oren Techs., LLC, 957 F.3d 1309, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (quoting Orthopedic Equip. Co., Inc. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). “Likewise, a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Here, Petitioner explains that “a POSITA would have known that organic materials usually have lower dielectric constants than inorganic materials, such as SiN, and a higher dielectric constant is desirable for the insulator in a capacitor since that leads to higher capacitance per unit area.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1002, Neikirk Decl., ¶ 78). Petitioner further explains that this “then allows a reduced area storage capacitance element, one of the objectives of Anzai.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003, code (57)). Patent Owner’s focus mainly on planarization (PO Sur-reply 16–17) ignores that the Anzai’s planarization layers 17 and 19 also “function as the capacitance insulating film.” Ex. 1003, 5:65–67. Thus, although there are tradeoffs, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Yamazaki regarding potential materials for planarization layers 17 and 19. Second, Patent Owner argues that a Petitioner has failed to provide an adequate reason to select silicon nitride from Yamazaki’s list of potential materials. We disagree. Petitioner has explained the benefits of selecting a high dielectric inorganic material. Pet. 26. Yamazaki provides only three potential options—silicon oxide, silicon nitride, and silicon oxynitride. See Ex. 1004, 11:45–50. Moreover, Dr. Neikirk testified, supported by multiple references, that using silicon nitride was well known in the prior art at the time of the invention. See Ex. 1002, Neikirk Decl., ¶ 75 (citing Ex. 1007; Ex. 1008; Ex. 1009). “When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. Indeed, “[i]f a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. at 417. This is the case here. Petitioner has shown that a person of ordinary skill seeking to improve the capacitance of Anzai’s planarization layers 17 and 19, without increasing the size of the capacitor, would have looked at the inorganic materials identified in Yamazaki as suitable for the purpose, and it would have been would obvious to choose silicon nitride, a well-known, and predictable material for the application. Thus, we disagree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to show a sufficient reason for selecting silicon nitride from Yamazaki’s list of suitable materials. Third, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s contentions only support” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 7,586,121 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,586,121
• Boe Technology Group Co., Ltd. v. Optronic Sciences, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 26, 2026 · IPR2024-01133 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 are unpatentable: claims 1–5, 9, and 12–13 as anticipated by Weaver, and claims 6–8 and 10–11 as obvious over the stated combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that absent evidence to the contrary, “the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art). In general, we agree with the areas of agreement in the parties’ proposals. In particular, Patent Owner proposes “at least a Bachelors’ degree in a field of engineering or physics,” which includes “electrical engineering or a comparable field of study” as Petitioner proposes. Pet. 4 (emphasis added); PO Resp. 10. We agree with Petitioner that by defining the engineering field as “electrical” or “comparable,” we can exclude engineering fields “having nothing to do with displays, such as biomedical, civil, chemical or environmental engineering.” Pet. Reply 1. Petitioner also proposes approximately “one or more years of professional experience” which includes Patent Owner’s “at least two years of professional experience.” Pet. 4; PO Resp. 10. Furthermore, both parties agree that “[a]dditional graduate education could [reduce . . . the time requirement] for professional experience.” Id. Thus, we adopt both parties’ proposed POSITA of having a Bachelors’ degree in electrical engineering or a comparable field of study, plus at least two years of professional experience, wherein additional graduate education could reduce the time requirement for professional experience. Id. Such proposal comports with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record.” slip op. at 10

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

    “The plain language in claim 1 of “auxiliary electrode” does not preclude that the “electrode” may be a power line, bus line, or resistor. Ex. 1001, 8:47–52. Nothing in the Specification clearly precludes “auxiliary electrode” from being a “bus line” or “power line,” as Patent Owner proposes. PO Resp. 25–27. We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that the Specification discloses that “the power line ‘PL’ is shown in Figure 1, but the power line PL is not an electrode that is shown in Figure 2.” Id. at 26–27. Here, Patent Owner points to no portions in the Specification that provide the requisite “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision” to warrant interpreting the claim language at issue as supporting Patent Owner’s contention that an auxiliary electrode cannot be a power line, bus line, or resistor. Id.; In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1984). That is, although Patent Owner points to Figures 1 and 2 of the Specification for support of its contention, Figures 1 and 2 of the Specification merely show various examples of power line and an auxiliary electrode. PO Resp. 26–27. Thus, although the referenced portions of the Specification discuss various examples wherein an auxiliary electrode may be implemented, nothing in these referenced portions of the Specification clearly precludes the “auxiliary electrode” from being a power line or any electrode that is “the road to get to an end point,” as Patent Owner contends. Id. Patent Owner points to no special definition, implicit or explicit, for “auxiliary electrode” that is set forth in the Specification which supports Patent Owner’s construction with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480.” slip op. at 15

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

    “We find Patent Owner’s arguments unavailing. In particular, we find unavailing Patent Owner’s contention that “‘bus line 430’ is not an ‘auxiliary electrode’” (PO Resp. 28–33), because Patent Owner is relying on a claim construction of “auxiliary electrode” as precluding “essential” elements and requiring “more than the end structure of a conductor” (id.), that is not adopted by our construction discussed above. Here, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s reliance on Weaver’s bus line 430 for providing the claimed “electrode,” that is “supplemental to other electrodes in the structure.” Pet. 18; see also Ex. 1004 ¶ 26, Fig. 4; Ex. 1003 ¶ 92. We find availing Petitioner’s contention, supported by Dr. Baker’s testimony, that a POSITA would have understood that “anode 406 and bus line 430 are connected in parallel,” which means that “bus line 430 is a supplemental electrode that reduces the total resistance of the pixel structure.” Pet. 19; Ex. 1003 ¶ 94. Thus, we find availing Petitioner’s contention, supported by Dr. Baker’s testimony, that Weaver’s bus line 430 is an electrode supplemental to other electrodes in the structure that is electrically insulated from transistor 410 by passivation layer 409, wherein OLED 400, which includes cathode 422, organic layer 424, and anode 406, is disposed above bus line 430, and wherein anode 406 of OLED 400 is electrically connected to bus line 430 by via 428. Pet. 16–19; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 89–94. That is, we find availing Petitioner’s contention that, like the ’509 patent’s auxiliary electrode 120, bus line 430 is electrically insulated from transistor 410, wherein OLED 400 is disposed above bus line 430 and anode 406 electrically connected with bus line 430. Compare Pet. 2–3 (annotated” slip op. at 26

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

    “We also find unavailing Patent Owner’s contention that the proposed modifications to Weaver would involve changing the process. PO Resp. 33– 34. We agree with Petitioner, whose contentions are supported by Dr. Baker’s testimony, that “to provide additional components from the same layer is a layout change that a POSITA would have been able to perform without changing the process.” Pet. Reply 17–18 (citing Ex 1003 ¶ 157; Ex. 1020 ¶ 45). Further, contrary to Patent Owner’s contention that POSITA would not have combined Weaver with Lee ’053, Song, Lee ’149, or Bae without the use of hindsight (PO Resp. 33–45), as Petitioner points out, Lee ’149, for example, “explicitly teaches that ‘the electrode pattern 45 serves to lower the resistance of the first electrode 41.” Pet. Reply 58 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 38). Similarly, Bae “explicitly teaches that the “auxiliary electrodes 139 contact the first electrode 132 to commonly apply a voltage to the sub-pixels” and “reduces the resistance of the first electrode.” Id. at 66 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 37, 59). As such, Petitioner’s proposed combinations are supported by at least by Lee ’149’s and Bae’s teachings of applying a second electrode to lower the resistance and voltage drop between anode 406 and the VDD line of Weaver. See, e.g., Ex. 1011 ¶ 38; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 37, 59. We are persuaded by Dr. Baker’s testimony that a POSITA would have understood that higher resistance between the power or ground line to the light emitting device would consume more power and require higher operating voltages, and thus, would have been motivated to implement the solutions of Lee ’053, Song, Lee ’149, or Bae to lower the resistance between anode 406 and voltage source VDD in Weaver. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 145, 158, 184, 203. We agree with Petitioner, supported by Dr. Baker’s testimony, that a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success the combining the references as suggested, wherein such modification “involves modifications of only routine skill in the art,” which “involve known method,” and “would have yielded predictable results. Pet. 42, 48–49, 59, 67–68; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 145, 158, 184, 203. That is, we determine that Petitioner has set forth reasoning with rational underpinning explaining why it would have been obvious to combine the teachings with a reasonable expectation of success. Based on the complete record presented, we determine Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 6–8 would have been obvious over the combination of Weaver and Lee ’053 or alternatively over the combination of Weaver and Song, and that claims 10 and 11 would have been obvious over the combination of Weaver and Lee ’149 or alternatively over the combination of Weaver and Bae.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 9,263,509 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,263,509
• Fluidmaster, Inc. v. Danco, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 15, 2025 · IPR2024-00633 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 7–15, 19, and 20 are unpatentable over Brown and Ho; claims 2–6 and 16–18 were not shown unpatentable on the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Brown’s adapter tube 23 (i.e., the extended portion) does not extend radially from a longitudinal axis of valve assembly 13 (i.e., the toilet fill valve). Ex. 1021, Fig. 1. Mr. Jobin testifies that a POSITA would not be motivated to move adapter tube 23 from a vertical position to a radial position because “a radial extended portion is directly counter to the stated goals of Brown (e.g., reducing noise caused by turbulence), at least insofar system.” Ex. 2013 ¶ 251; see Ex. 1021, 1:9–62. Patent Owner’s argument is persuasive. Petitioner’s analysis and Dr. Cameron’s testimony is conclusory and does not sufficiently explain why a POSITA would be motivated to make the proposed modification to Brown. For example, Petitioner does not sufficiently explain how such a modification would result in a more compact toilet fill valve system that could be adapted to fit in more toilet tank designs. Further, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Cameron sufficiently address Mr. Jobin’s testimony regarding Brown’s desire for a quieter toilet. See Pet. Reply 23; Ex. 1036 ¶ 84. Petitioner fails to meet its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 2 is unpatentable over Brown and Ho.” slip op. at 35

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “description is an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a POSA. Using this test, the invention must be described in a manner sufficient to demonstrate that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “One shows that one is ‘in possession’ of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Written description is a question of fact judged as of the relevant filing date. Falko–Gunter Falkner v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2006). An ipsis verbis disclosure, however, is not necessary to satisfy the written description requirement. Vas–Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The disclosure need only reasonably convey to a POSA that the inventor had possession of the subject matter in question, even if every nuance of the claims is not explicitly described in the specification. Id.; see Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351. Patent Owner argues that the ’993 patent claims were “fully supported as of the filing date of at least the ’606 Application . . . March 11, 2004” because the ’606 Application discloses regulating water flow and a POSITA would know that appropriate devices for regulating water flow includes nonadjustable waterflow restrictors. PO Resp. 68; PO Sur-reply 28–30. Patent Owner’s argument is persuasive. The ’606 Application discloses: [W]hen the toilet fill valve 100 is open and water flows from the water inlet 103 to the water outlets 106 and into a toilet tank, an amount of water is also supplied to the bowl fill valve inlet 113 that flows through the bowl fill valve 109 and out the bowl fill valve outlet 116. By virtue of the manual setting of handle 119 valve 109 is regulated. In this manner, the flow of water is regulated so that enough water flows out of the bowl fill valve 109 to fill a toilet bowl without wasting any water down a drain. Ex. 1012, 47, ¶ 8 (emphasis added); see also Ex. 1001, 2:28–39. As can be seen from the passage above, the ’606 Application discloses regulating an amount of water supplied to a toilet bowl using a valve (i.e., a water flow regulator). Ex. 2013 ¶ 288.” slip op. at 48

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

    “1. Analysis of Claims 1–18 Schuster is available as prior art if the ’993 patent is only entitled to its January 27, 2014, filing date and not entitled to claim priority to earlier filing dates of the parent applications. On its face, the ’993 patent claims priority to a number of earlier parent applications, including Application No. 12/786,904 (the ’904 Application) filed May 25, 2010, and the Application code 63. Petitioner contends that the ’993 patent is not entitled to claim priority to the filing date of the earlier parent applications, and, thus, Schuster, a parent application of the ’993 patent, is available as prior art.15 Pet. 91–92. Petitioner alleges that the earlier parent applications, specifically Application No. 12/786,904 (the ’904 Application), do not provide written description support for the ’993 patent’s claim term “water flow regulator.” According to Petitioner, “water flow regulator” encompasses both adjustable devices for restricting the flow of water (i.e., valves) and fixed devices for restricting the flow of water (i.e., restrictors). Pet. 15. Petitioner contends that the ’904 Application does not provide support for water flow restrictors and, thus, does not provide support for the broader claim term water flow regulators. Id. at 14–15, 91–92. Petitioner argues that only adjustable water flow devices (i.e., valves) are supported by the ’904 Application. Id. Petitioner, thus, asserts that earliest effective filing date of the ’993 patent’s claims is the filing date of its application, January 27, 2014. Id. at 92. To be entitled to claim the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. § 120 each application in the priority chain must comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See Hollmer v. 14 The parties do not dispute that the ’993 patent and the earlier parent applications, including the ’904 Application and the ’606 Application, have the same pertinent portions of their specifications. See PO Resp. 71, n.16; Ex. 1004 ¶ 324. 15 Schuster issued on January 31, 2012, from Application No. 12/786,904, filed on May 25, 2010. Ex. 1029, code (21), (22), (45). Schuster, thus, issued more than one year prior to January 27, 2014.” slip op. at 46

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

    “2. Analysis of Claims 19 and 20 Claim 19 depends from claim 14 and additionally recites, “wherein the waterflow regulator comprises an adjustable water flow regulator that is configured to adjust the flow rate of the second portion of the water based at least in part on a setting of the adjustable water flow regulator.” Ex. 1001, 12:16–20. Claim 20 depends from claim 14 and recites the same additional limitation. Id. at 12:21–24. Claims 19 and 20, thus, require the water flow regulator to be an adjustable water flow regulator. Petitioner indicates that the earlier parent applications provide written description support for an adjustable water flow regulator. Pet. 91 (“[T]he ’904 application specification makes it clear that the adjustability of the bowl fill valve is a desirable and essential feature of the invention”); PO Surreply 28. Accordingly, Petitioner fails to meet its burden to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 19 and 20 are unpatentable over Schuster.” slip op. at 50

  Patent outcomesUS 9,139,993 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,139,993
• BTL Industries, Inc. v. Inmode Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 1, 2025 · IPR2024-00703 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–58 were not shown unpatentable: the Edwards, Ingle, and Mosher combination fails to establish key limitations, and Ollivier was not shown to be a prior art printed publication.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We apply Patent Owner’s proposed definition, as it appears consistent with the field of the ’511 patent and the prior art and is consistent with testimony of Dr. Poulos and the cross-examination testimony of Dr. Berenholz. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355, (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected in the prior art itself); Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 35–39; Ex. 2005, 55:5–17, 57:17–58:19. In our view, however, Petitioner’s proposed definition is not so different that our decision would change if we were to apply Petitioner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Patent Owner’s argument are persuasive. We agree with Patent Owner that a plain reading of the wherein clause requires the treating to begin at the introitus and extend at least the first centimeter into the vagina and up to 3.5 cm in from the introitus. This construction is consistent with the ’511 patent’s Specification, which states: In typical embodiments, the length of the energy delivery element is about 1 to about 3 cm in length, in other embodiments it may be as long as about 4 cm. This is a length well adapted to treating the lower aspects of the vagina, wherein treatment by the method comprises contacting the vaginal epithelium in a region that extends from the introitus inward to a position about 3 to 4 cm inward from the introitus. In some embodiments of the invention, the method can b[e] practiced with a single row of parallel contract sites immediately inside the introitus. In other embodiments, the method may include deeper rows, or rows that overlap an initial row, while keeping the contact sites within the lower portion of the vagina. Ex. 1001, 3:28–40 (emphasis added); see also id. at 14:47–57. The ’511 patent Specification also states: “the portion of the vagina to be treated is a region between the introitus and a position located no further than about 3 to about 4 cm inward from the introitus.” Id. at 11:48–51 (emphasis added). Given the plain language of claim 1, consistent with the ’511 patent’s Specification, we construe “heating a portion of the vagina extending from the introitus inwardly to a location from 1 cm to 3.5 cm in from the introitus” to require heating a portion of the vagina beginning at the introitus and extending at least the first centimeter into the vagina and up to 3.5 cm in from the introitus.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Patent Owner’s arguments is persuasive. The cited portion of Mosher does not explicitly state the location of the treatment area. Ex. 1006 ¶ 74. In it Reply, Petitioner additionally points to paragraph 54 of Mosher, which states: “Preferably, the location of the treatment volume of endopelvic fascia will be disposed along a length of the urethra between the bladder neck and the external meatus so as to avoid injuring nerves.” Pet. Reply 14 (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 54). Petitioner argues that “[t]reating the vaginal wall adjacent to the mid-urethral region is within the claimed region of ‘from 1 cm to 3.5 cm in from the introitus.’” Pet. Reply 14–16. This, however, does not teach the claimed area beginning at the introitus and extending at least the first centimeter into the vagina and up to 3.5 cm in from the introitus. The Petition fails to show that either Edwards or Mosher discloses heating a portion of the vagina beginning at the introitus and extending at least the first centimeter into the vagina and up to 3.5 cm in from the introitus. In its Reply, Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to modify Edwards to treat the area beginning at the introitus and extending at least the first centimeter into the vagina and up to 3.5 cm in from the introitus. See, e.g., Pet. Reply 2–4, 16–17 (citing Pet. 35). The Petition’s argument is unpersuasive because it is conclusory and does not adequately address Edwards’s use of a speculum. Pet. 35. The Petition includes no” slip op. at 26

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “In its Reply, Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to modify Edwards to treat the area beginning at the introitus and extending at least the first centimeter into the vagina and up to 3.5 cm in from the introitus. See, e.g., Pet. Reply 2–4, 16–17 (citing Pet. 35). The Petition’s argument is unpersuasive because it is conclusory and does not adequately address Edwards’s use of a speculum. Pet. 35. The Petition includes no persuasive explanation as to why it would have been obvious to modify Edwards to use the treatment blade without the speculum. See Pet. 22–24, 35–36. We determine that Petitioner fails to meet its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is unpatentable over Edwards, Ingle, and Mosher.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 8,961,511 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,961,511
• Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. v. Downing Wellhead Equipment, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 9, 2025 · IPR2024-00300 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–38 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish Krupa as prior art and failed to show the claimed fluid-triggered valve sequence in Carr or Tolman.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Although we agree with Petitioner that the plain meaning of limitation 1.2 does not require the recited determination to occur at the first well, it does require the determination to be about the condition(s) of the fluid communicated to the first well by the manifold, regardless of where or how the information is gathered to make that determination. Limitation 1.2 recites plainly that the “determining” step is specifically about whether “the fluid communicated via the manifold has satisfied one or more conditions.” Ex. 1001, 22:38–39 (emphasis added). Considering the antecedents for “the fluid” and “the manifold”––i.e., “communicating fluid to a first well via a manifold” (id. at 22:35, limitation 1.1)––limitation 1.2 expressly identifies the fluid which “the manifold” has “communicated” to the first well to be exactly the fluid used for “determining” whether “one or more conditions” are “satisfied” to trigger the recited responses. Id. This is because “the fluid” refers to a fluid passing to a first well by way of a manifold and the past tense of “communicated via the manifold” indicates, more specifically, that it is the fluid passed by the manifold which must satisfy a condition(s). The Specification of ’770 patent illustrates this by checking the “frac rate” of the fluid discharged by a manifold to a first well to make the determination about whether to permit a regular swap or a continuous pumping swap (“CP swap”). Ex. 1001, 13:30–54, Fig. 12. Therefore, contrary to Petitioner’s representation that limitation 1.2 does not “requir[e] the fluid used for ‘determining’ to have been communicated to the first well” (Pet. Reply 3), the plain meaning of limitation 1.2 does require the fluid used” slip op. at 12

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

    “anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, Krupa necessarily requires Krupa to be first qualified as prior art. See Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (party’s burden to prove anticipation of a patent includes initial burden of going forward with evidence that there is anticipating prior art). Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2)— the subsection under which Petitioner contends Krupa qualifies as prior art—when the reference patent document’s actual filing date is before the challenged patent’s filing date, a petitioner need only refer to the filing dates appearing on the challenged patent and reference patent document to make prima facie showing that the reference is prior art. 35 U.S.C. § 102(d)(1) (“For purposes of determining whether a patent or application for patent is prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2), such patent or application shall be considered to have been effectively filed, with respect to any subject matter described in the patent or application—(1) if paragraph (2) does not apply, as of the actual filing date of the patent or the application for patent.”).” slip op. at 16

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “We determine that the Petition did not adequately present Petitioner’s contention that Tolman discloses or suggests a “master valve” that a skilled artisan would understand to be the claimed “first valve,” which is first introduced in the Reply. The issue is whether Petitioner’s identification of Tolman’s “tree valve” for the claimed first valve was particular enough to allow Petitioner to rely specifically on the “master valve” in the well tree to show Tolman discloses the first valve. We find that it is not. It is undisputed that a well tree include several different valves: (1) valves for communicating fluid to a well (e.g., for treatment or stimulation); (2) valves for communicating fluid from a well (e.g., for flowback); and (3) valves for communicating fluid both to and from a well (e.g., master valve). See Reply 19–20; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 542–545; Ex. 1044 ¶¶ 33–34, 38–42; Tr. 33:12–18, 34:3–12, 36:8–37:18, 39:4–17; Ex. 2013, 85:4–86:19, 87:1–12, 89:2–11. And the opening/closing of these different valves are controlled independently of the other valves based on different parameters. Id. identifying a tree valve, generally, does not provide the particularity necessary to provide notice that the master valve is the particular valve being relied upon. Further compounding this problem is the fact that the Petition repeatedly refers to a plurality of valves, rather than a singular “master valve.” The variability of possible valves suggested by simply referring to a tree valve fails to provide a level of particularity that clearly identifies which specific structure is being relied upon to perform which part of the recited procedure. Ultimately, we agree with Patent Owner that because the Petition does not specifically identify the master valve in the Petition, which the Petitioner’s Reply suggest was the intention all along, Patent Owner was put at a disadvantage because its ability to fully develop a response was impeded. Therefore, Petitioner’s reliance particularly on the “master valve” of the well tree, and the newly introduced evidence associated therewith, was improper and may not be considered. Nevertheless, as discussed below, even if Petitioner were allowed to rely on the master valve, we still find the Tolman Grounds to be deficient.” slip op. at 56

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “However, Carr does not disclose or suggest: relying on the condition(s) of the fluid communicated by first isolated manifold path 122 to first well 140 to be the determinative factor for causing first and second valves 470 and 472 to perform a sequenced response that includes–– (1) opening second valve 472, (2) communicating fluid to second well 142 through second valve 472, and (3) after opening second valve 472, closing first valve 150 from communicating fluid to first well 140. At the time of the invention, when a first well is being operated individually using high pressure pumping, we find that skilled artisans would have considered concurrent operation of the second well’s valves to be hazardous and activities that can not occur. See Ex. 1031, 4 (“specifically identified activities that were restricted from occurring at the same time (i.e., CAN NOT OCCUR activities). As an example, if the operations on a well involved high pressure pumping . . . then manipulating manifold well valves and wellhead trees valves on another well were not allowed to be performed concurrently”); Ex. 2012 ¶ 148. would have had a reasonable expectation of being able to successfully avoid the unacceptable hazards known to be associated with opening second valve 472 and communicating fluid to second well 142, while individually operating on first well 140 using high pressure pumping.10 Furthermore, Petitioner provides no persuasive evidence that a skilled artisan would have known that those unacceptable hazards could be avoided (or acceptably minimized) by using a condition(s) of the fluid communicated by first isolated manifold path 122 to first well 140 as a trigger for opening second valve 472 and communicating fluid to second well 142, while first well 140 is being individually operated.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 11,560,770 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,560,770
• Provisur Technologies, Inc. v. Weber Food Technology GmbHAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 28, 2025 · IPR2024-00235 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 8, 10, and 14–16 are unpatentable as anticipated by Young and obvious over Young and Norrie; the Johnson and Belk ground was not reached.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Provisur proposes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had: (1) a bachelor’s degree (or equivalent) in mechanical engineering (or a similar field) and at least two years of experience working as an engineer (or similar role) on food processing and/or packaging systems (or in a similar field); or (2) at least seven years of experience working as an engineer (or similar role) on food processing and/or packaging systems (or in a similar field). Pet. 12. Weber does not contest Provisur’s framing of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. There being no dispute, we adopt Provisur’s definition of the level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 5

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

    “Provisur construes the claim terms “according to their plain and ordinary meanings as understood by a [person of ordinary skill in the art] in view of the specification and prosecution history” and posits that “[n]o terms require an explicit construction to resolve the unpatentability controversy between the parties here.” Pet. 13. Weber appears to agree, stating in the related district court action that “most of [its] patent claims are plain and ordinary . . . [t]hey’re not difficult or complex claims or claim terms.” Ex. 3 US 5,514,032, issued May 7, 1996 (Ex. 1004, “Young”). 4 US 4,979,269, issued Dec. 25, 1990 (Ex. 1005, “Norrie”). 5 US 6,929,540 B2, issued Aug. 16, 2005 (Ex. 1006, “Johnson”). 6 US 6,198,834 B1, issued Mar. 6, 2001 (Ex. 1007, “Belk”). 1028, 5. This being the case, we do not find the need to expressly construe any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (confirming that the Board need not construe claim terms where their construction is not material to the dispute).” slip op. at 5

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

    “without first determining how much fat existed to begin with, i.e., prior to the side of meat being trimmed. But, as Provisur correctly notes, Weber ignores what one skilled in the art reasonably would have understood from reading Young’s disclosure as a whole. See Pet. 30–36 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 104–106, 109–112); Pet. Reply 2–12. When that is done, one skilled in the art would have understood that a necessary premise of Young’s determination of the thickness of fat to remain on the loin is knowing the thickness of the fat to begin with, which Young’s imaging system 190 and imaging processing routine 240 determine by first analyzing a series of “fat/lean separation lines” and “edge lines” in the side of meat being trimmed. Pet. 30–32 (citing Ex. 1004, 17:34–62, 18:33–56, 22:53–24:38, Figs. 2, 13); Pet. Reply 3–7 (citing portions of same evidence). More specifically, as described in Young (and articulated by Provisur), the side of meat is placed fat side down on a product support, i.e., platen 20. See Ex. 1004, 7:16–21, Figs. 1, 2. Using several cameras—top plan camera 196, end view camera 197, and fat line camera 198—Young’s imaging system 190 acquires multiple images of the side of meat from various angles and under various lighting conditions to “provide image data regarding each side of [meat].” See id. at 17:34–18:56. That image data is then used by Young’s image processing routine 240 to generate a series of demarcation lines on the side of meat, including: (1) fat/lean separation lines (representing the interface between the loin meat and the fat layer along top, side, and end views of the meat product; and (2) edge lines (representing lines along the outer surface of the meat product). See id. at 22:53–23:67, Figs. 10, 13 (Blocks 242, 246, 250, 254). In addition, “a plurality of points (preferably 20) are generated for each of the fat/lean separation and edge lines using known pattern matching routines.” Id. at 23:28–30, Fig. 13 (Blocks 244, 248, 252, 256); see also id. at 23:61–63 (essentially same). The fat/lean separation and edge lines (and points therein) generated by Young’s image processing routine 240 are then used to calculate certain dimensions and characteristics of the side of meat, such as height, length, and width. Id. at 24:10–22, Fig. 13 (Block 258). As Provisur’s expert credibly testifies, one skilled in the art would have understood that the dimension from the fat/lean separation line to the edge line along the outer surface represents the thickness of fat cover on the side of meat, i.e., before the fat is trimmed. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 106. Insofar as how that dimension is used, Young states that controller 172 uses “dynamic (real time) image data” of the fat/lean separation and edge lines “to dynamically modify the cutting profile of the loin knife assembly 100 so that the assembly follows a fixed distance from the separation line to provide the optimum fat cover for the loin.” Ex. 1004, 18:32–45; see also id. at 17:48–52 (describing “real time processor” for “image processing routines”). Notably, according to Young, the “fixed distance” represents the “desired” thickness of fat that remains on the loin, after trimming, and “sufficiently keeps the loin from drying out, but doesn’t make the loin look too fat,” although “[o]ther fat thicknesses may be desired in the alternative.” Id. at 20:60–66; see also id. at 10:39–42 (“Through control of the knife blade along several axes, assembly 100 preferably produces an optimum separation between loin and belly, with a desired fat covering left on the loin.” (emphases added)). Because the desired thickness of fat cover is what remains on the loin” slip op. at 9

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for patent owner

    “argument that Weber considers vital to its dispute of Provisur’s showing for the claimed fat thickness determination. During oral hearing, Weber repeatedly argued that Provisur changed theories midstream, i.e., between the time of the petition and the hearing. See Hrg. Tr. 22:18–24:47; see also id. at 31:14–22, 33:8–18, 34:16–20, 49:17–50:15, 54:16–56:25 (repeating same argument). More specifically, according to Weber, Provisur originally relied only on image data from Young’s “top view” camera as processed in “block 246” of Young’s image processing routine 240 when showing how Young meets the claimed fat thickness determination, whereas now Provisur relies on image data from Young’s “end view” cameras as processed in “Block 254.” Compare PO Sur-Reply 3–6 (focusing on Young’s “top view camera” in “block 246”), with Hrg. Tr. 27:4–16 (“[Block] 246, which is what they relied on, is processing images from the top-view camera in Young’s system. It is generating lines from the top-view camera in Young’s system. What they are newly trying to rely on today, for the first time, is Block 254 that is discussed toward the bottom of column 23 in Young, and that analyzes different images from a different camera. It is the end camera. It generates different lines. It demonstrates an end fat/lean line and an end edge line. Prior to today’s hearing, neither Petitioner, nor its expert, had ever discussed Block 254. You will not find a single reference to 254 in their papers, nor have they discussed the end edge line. It is completely new today. It finds absolutely no support in the record.” (emphases added)). We disagree with Weber’s contention. As shown and described in the petition, Provisur relies on more than simply Young’s “top view” camera and “block 246.” See Pet. 29–31. Rather, in its petition, Provisur annotates Young’s Figure 2 to show that image data from all three cameras of “imaging system 190”—“top plan camera 196, end view camera 197, [and] fat line camera 198”—play a role in the determination of fat thickness.8 Id. at 30. Moreover, Provisur cites the entire process depicted in “Figure 13” and described in columns “22:53–24:38” of Young as critical to the determination. Id. at 31. Those cited portions of Young involve not only the analysis of fat/lean and edge lines from “top view” images (block 246), but also the analysis of fat/lean and edge lines from “end view” images (blocks 250 and 254). See Ex. 1004, 23:12–24:13. In other words, Provisur’s showing for the claimed fat thickness determination is based on Young’s collective analysis of all those images. Indeed, Provisur’s expert confirms as much when confronted by Weber on cross-examination— Q. How does [Young] use the other cameras to identify that fat/lean separation line? A. Again, this is a -- this is a three-dimensional product that’s not regular, and all the views basically are needed to be able to describe that complex three-dimensional shape, so that the knife will be able to cut at that -- at that line, offset by whatever desired thickness there is, on that three-dimensional shape. Ex. 2006, 25:15–27:19 (emphasis added). 8 Indeed, contrary to Weber’s assertion, Provisur highlights “fat lean separation camera 198,” not top view camera 196, as most critical to the determination of fat thickness. Pet. 31. In the end, we reject the notion that Provisur changed theories” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 8,529,321 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,529,321
• Precision Planting LLC v. Maschio Gaspardo S.P.A.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00008 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 7–14, and 16 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds failed to establish the claimed thrust-bearing element and its required location.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner

    “We determine that the evidence of record overcomes the presumption that § 112, para. 6 does not apply because “thrust-bearing element” does not recite sufficiently definite structure in this case. See, e.g., Pet. 22 (the term is not used here according to its common meaning). First, the word “element” is a “[g]eneric term[]” or “verbal construct[]” often “used in a claim in a manner that is tantamount to using the word ‘means’” because it does not “connote sufficiently definite structure.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350. We find nothing in the ’121 patent or elsewhere in the record suggesting that “element” in the term “thrust-bearing element” should be considered other than a generic placeholder term. Second, although the term “thrust bearing” may connote certain structure, “thrust-bearing element” does not. A “thrust bearing” is “a well-known term of art in engineering and is ‘a bearing which sustains axial loads and prevents axial movement of a loaded shaft.’” Ex. 1003 ¶ 46 (citing Ex. 1017, 2147). “The balls of traditional thrust bearings are positioned inline with the axial force, as thrust bearings are designed specifically to transmit axial load.” Id. Here, however, “thrust-bearing” is hyphenated, and is therefore a phrasal adjective modifying “element” rather than the noun phrase “thrust bearing.”8 Further, there are “substantial differences”” slip op. at 15

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “We largely agree with Petitioner. “[S]tructure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” B. Braun Med. Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed.Cir.1997). The Specification of the ’121 patent “clearly links or associates” two components with the function of bearing axial thrust from the sowing disc: shaft 27 with flanging 30, and thrust-bearing plate 31. Ex. 1001, 3:25–35. Thrust-bearing plate 31 is expressly described as “bear[ing] on that surface of the disc which faces seal 24 . . . in order to withstand at least some of the axial load produced by the disc 16 on the seal 24. Ex. 1001, 3:28–31. Rotatably-mounted shaft 27 with flanging 30 is “fixed” to thrust-bearing plate 31 and therefore bears the axial load from the disc via the thrust-bearing plate. Id. at 3:25–28.10 10 Drive element 32 is described as part of thrust-bearing element 26 and permits thrust-bearing element 26 to be driven in rotation with sowing disc 16. Ex. 1001, 3:36–40. It is not described as bearing any axial load, however. Further, it is not necessary for the thrust-bearing element to rotate with the sowing disc for that element to bear axial load from the sowing disc. See id. at 3:58–59 (“Provision is also made for the thrust-bearing element 26 to be made idle and not driven in rotation by the [drive] shaft 20.”). Ultimately, however, whether drive element 32 is properly considered as part of the corresponding structure is not relevant to the outcome of this case. We disagree with Patent Owner that bearings 28 and seat 29 should be considered corresponding structure. The Specification does not associate these structures with any axial load-bearing function. Instead, bearings 28 and seat 29 are described as the means by which, and the location in which, shaft 27 is rotatably mounted. Ex. 1001, 3:25–27. Regardless, whether or not bearings 28 and seat 29 are considered corresponding structure does not affect the outcome of this case. In summary, we construe “thrust-bearing element” as a means-plus- function claim term under 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 6. Its recited function is to bear thrust, or more specifically to “withstand at least some of the axial load produced by the disc on the seal.” The structure described in the Specification as corresponding to this function is shaft 27 with flanging 30, and thrust-bearing plate 31. We construe the limitation as directed to this structure, and equivalent structures.” slip op. at 21

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

    “The question is not whether the patentee disclaimed coverage over structures in which the thrust-bearing element is not located entirely in the movable portion of the housing. Instead, we must simply ascertain what the patentee meant by “supported rotatably in the movable portion.” To answer this question, we look to the Specification, which “is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315. “The construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.” Id. at 1316. Here, it is undisputed that in the sole embodiment described by the ’121 patent, the thrust-bearing element is supported by and entirely within the movable portion of the housing. Ex. 1001, Figs. 1, 2; Pet Post-Hearing Resp. 1; PO Post-Hearing Resp. 2. Construing “in the movable portion” to require the thrust-bearing element to be entirely within the movable portion both “stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns” with the sole disclosed embodiment. Such a construction does not import the word “entirely” from the sole embodiment into the claims because the construction “arises from the claim language itself.” See SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp., 2024 WL 1132219, *2–*3 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (construing “primary brush assembly disposed within the round housing perimeter” to require that the primary brush assembly be “entirely within” the round housing perimeter is not an improper incorporation of “entirely” from embodiments into the claims because the construction “arises from the claim language itself”). Accordingly, having reviewed the complete record and the parties’ pre- and post-hearing briefing, we determine that “supported rotatably in the movable portion” means supported rotatably entirely in the space defined by the movable portion.” slip op. at 25

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

    “b. When “Thrust-Bearing Element” is Construed as a Means-Plus-Function Claim Limitation, there is Insufficient Evidence in the Record to Support a Finding that VenHuizen Discloses a Thrust- Bearing Element that is Supported Rotatably in the Movable Portion As noted above, Petitioner contends that VenHuizen’s shaft 55, retaining hub 56, and handle 58 together constitute the claimed thrust-bearing element “under a proper means-plus-function definition.” Pet. Reply 18–19.12 We do not discern sufficient evidence of record or persuasive technical reasoning from Petitioner to support a finding that these elements together are “supported rotatably in the movable portion” of the housing, as claim 1 requires. Ex. 1001, 4:38–39. We construed this limitation to require the thrust-bearing element to be supported rotatably entirely in the space defined by the movable portion (the space defined by VenHuizen’s second housing member 90). Petitioner does not contend, much less show, that these components are supported rotatably entirely in the movable second housing member 90. On the contrary, of the three components constituting VenHuizen’s thrust-bearing element, all of retaining hub 56 and most of shaft 55 are located in the fixed portion of the housing (first housing member 50), not the movable portion 90. See Ex. 1001, Fig. 6. Only handle 58 is ever located in the movable portion (when the fixed and movable portions are joined together). See id. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that VenHuizen discloses a thrust-bearing element rotatably supported in the movable portion.” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 8,770,121 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,770,121
• Nxtgen Toys, LLC v. Zipstring, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Feb 24, 2025 · IPR2024-01213 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–4, 12, and 15–17 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Yeany anticipates at least one challenged claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314. Under § 314, 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.” Id. at § 314(a). If the Board institutes a trial, “the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Because we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable, we institute an inter partes review of all claims as challenged in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “was typically a person with a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, aerospace engineering, physics, or other science or engineering based degree that [was] familiar with general principles of mechanics and aerodynamics with at least two years of experience in product design and development in the field of toys or other amusement type devices.” Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 2–6, 22–26). We find Petitioner’s definition to be consistent with the problems and solutions disclosed in the ’774 patent and prior art of record, and adopt it as our own for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579 (approving the determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art by appeal to the references of record).” slip op. at 6

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

    “Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), we apply the claim construction standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under that standard, we give the words of a claim their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by one skilled in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Id. at 1312–13. Only terms in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See 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)).” slip op. at 6

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “Because there are many ways in which a reference may be disseminated to the interested public, ‘public accessibility’ has been called the touchstone in determining whether a reference constitutes a ‘printed publication’ bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 898–99 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “To qualify as a printed publication, a reference ‘must have been sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art.’” Id. (quoting In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). “A reference will be considered publicly accessible if it was ‘disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.’” Id. (quoting Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,674,774

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.