- PTAB · Dec 1, 2023 · PGR2021-00088 · APJ John G New · PGR · Remand
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–25 on all five grounds, finding the threshold met based on likely anticipation, obviousness, and lack of written-description support.
RulingsRemand decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 324, the Board “may not authorize a post-grant review to be instituted unless … the information presented in the petition … if such information is not rebutted would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” In conformance with the Director’s Decision, and for the reasons we explain herein, we institute post-grant review of the ’908 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“The Specification expressly teaches that, with respect to the clinical phase 2 trial described in Example 4, “Patients will have overnight [pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamics] PK/PD assessments performed at baseline, which include an [sic] pre-dose overnight assessment and a post-dose overnight assessment for PK/PD following administration of the first dose.” Ex. 1001, col.42, ll. 12–16. This is the same quotation and clinical trial relied upon by Dr. Barnes in his Declaration, and is the only definition of a “baseline” in the ’908 patent. See Ex. 1002, 36–37. We note that placebos were evidently not employed in the phase 2 clinical study of Example 4.3 Given the sole exemplary description of “baseline” in Example 4 of the Specification, we construe the claim term reciting “reduced by at least 10% from baseline” as meaning “a reduction of at least 10% in the level of ACTH (claim 1) or 17-OHP (claim 11) compared to measurements of ACTH or 17-OHP made prior to, and/or at the beginning of, administration of the drug.”” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would typically possess a medical degree or a Ph.D. in a field related to endocrinology, and would have knowledge of hormone regulation and disorders, as well as knowledge of the treatment regimens employed to treat such disorders. Pet. 60 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 34). Petitioner argues that such a person of ordinary skill would also have at least three years of experience conducting research concerning endocrine disorders, including CAH or other adrenal disorders. Id. Patent Owner does not expressly contest this definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response. For the purposes of this Decision, because we find Petitioner’s definition to be consistent with the demonstrable level of skill in the art (see, e.g., Exs. 1009, 1025, 2003, 2004,” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureInherency foundInstituted
“A claim is unpatentable as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 only when “every element and limitation of the claim was previously described in a single prior art reference, either expressly or inherently, so as to place a person of ordinary skill in possession of the invention.” Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 550 F.3d 1075, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2008). A reference may inherently anticipate if a claim limitation that is not expressly disclosed “is necessarily present, or inherent, in the single anticipating reference.” Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Cox Fibernet Va., Inc., 602 F.3d 1325, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Thus, the “very essence of inherency is that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a reference unavoidably teaches the property in question.” Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., 567 F.3d 1366, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,849,908 - PTAB · Oct 19, 2021 · IPR2020-00847 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 10, and 14 are unpatentable as obvious over Kurganov-262 and Chakrabarti; the Board did not reach the alternative grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“Turning now to obviousness, Petitioner identified disclosure within Kurgonov-262 and Chakrabarti which teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1. Pet. 11–21. Furthermore, Petitioner identified multiple reasons that would have prompted the skilled artisan to combine the teachings of Kurganov-262 and Chakrabarti to arrive at the subject matter of claim 1. Id. at 21–22. Because Patent Owner focused its arguments solely on the issue of whether Kurganov-262 is prior art, Petitioner’s assertions regarding the substantive teachings of Kurganov-262 and Chakrabarti remain unrebutted on the complete record. PO Resp. 31–34; Sur-reply 1–3. Patent Owner likewise failed to substantively address Petitioner’s proffered reasons why the skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine these teachings. PO Resp. 31–34; Sur-reply 1–3. We have reviewed the disclosures of Kurganov-262 and Chakrabarti relied on by Petitioner, as well as the explanations provided by Mr. Lipoff, and are persuaded that the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed in the prior art. Pet. 11–21; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 103–109; Ex. 1004; Ex. 1008. Petitioner also persuades us that the skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply Chakrabarti’s techniques for web crawling to Kurganov-262’s system, and would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully doing so, thus arriving at the subject matter of claim 1 of the ʼ084 patent. Pet. 21–23; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 110–114. Therefore, Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of claim 1 of the ʼ084 patent would have been obvious over the combined disclosures of Kurganov-262 and Chakrabarti.” slip op. at 24
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner describes a person having ordinary skill in the art as having “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science or a related field, and at least two years of experience with voice interfaces and information processing. More education could substitute for less experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 41–47). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition of the skilled artisan. See generally, PO Resp. Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.’”); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (finding that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not err in concluding that the level of ordinary skill in the art was best determined by the references of record). Thus, on the complete record, we accept Petitioner’s assessment of the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. C. Asserted Obviousness based on Kurganov-262 and Chakrabarti” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Rather, on the complete record, Patent Owner makes inadequately supported assertions regarding what the skilled artisan “would understand” based on the ʼ084 patent’s disclosure. See PO Resp. 33–34. For example, Patent Owner asserts that “[a] POSITA would understand that” polling or pinging “describes a process where by existing and new devices and/or websites are discovered,” and that “‘polling’ includes asking for information from a website, including a listing of URLs or asking a website of a search engine to provide new website information.” Id. at 34 (citing Ex. 2059 ¶¶ 154–155). We reject this line of argument because we afford minimal weight to Patent Owner’s reliance on paragraphs 153–155 of Exhibit 2059. PO Resp. 33–34. These declaration paragraphs provide little detail beyond what is argued in the Patent Owner Response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65 (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 22
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable
“We are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that sufficient written description support does not exist in the ʼ996 application for “limitation 1.i” which requires the computing device to be “configured to periodically search via the one or more networks to identify new web sites and to add the new web sites to the plurality of web sites.” Pet. 6–11. Thus, we determine that Kurganov-262 is available as prior art against the challenged claims. On the complete record, Patent Owner fails to direct us to specific disclosure within the ʼ996 application that evinces written description for limitation 1.i. Rather, Patent Owner’s citations to the ʼ084 patent fail to describe with adequate precision a computing device configured to periodically search the network(s) to identify new web sites and add such new web sites to the plurality of web sites that are accessed. See PO Resp. 31–34.” slip op. at 20
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,451,084 - PTAB · Jan 10, 2018 · IPR2016-01404 · APJ Kamran Jivani · IPR · Final written decision
The Board found claims 1, 2, 13, 14, 33, 34, 39, 46, and 48 not shown unpatentable: Bensimon did not disclose the claimed restricted-access mode, and Takahashi did not cure that deficiency.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner states––and Patent Owner does not dispute––that “a person having ordinary skill in the art of secure computer data storage devices (i.e. in the art for the ’459 patent) would have had (i) a B.S. degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and (ii) approximately two years of experience in the design or research of secure computer data storage devices.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 32). We agree with Petitioner’s statement of the level skill of an ordinary artisan at the time and adopt it as our own. Although Patent Owner does not directly address an ordinary artisan’s level of skill, Petitioner’s description of the level of skill accords with that of Patent Owner’s witness Dr. Goldschlag. Compare id., with Ex. 2004 ¶ 21 (opining that “one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, or equivalent training, as well as two to three years of technical experience in the field of computer security and storage devices.”). We further find the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau,” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“within an electronic circuit embedded within the storage device.” Ex. 1001, 9:58–59, 10:34–35. Although these claims are not at issue in this case, they evince the patentee’s desire to employ each of the terms “unique” and “specific” where each is intended. It is well established that ordinarily different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings. Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 448 F.3d 1324, 1333 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]he use of two terms in a claim requires that they connote different meanings. . . .”); CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH, 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of these different terms in the claims connotes different meanings.”). Further, the Specification describes that, depending on the selected security level, a cryptographic key can be generated using in part “device-specific security information derived from the unique format information of the removable storage device.” Ex. 1001, 3:66–4:1. The Specification thus describes the format information of the removable storage device as “unique” but describes the security information of the device merely as “specific,” not “unique.” Finally, the Specification discloses “for exemplary purposes only” an embodiment wherein “a unique, device-specific security information can be generated from the unique characteristics of the underlying storage medium.” Id. at 7:43–47 (emphasis added). The Specification thus describes device-specific security information as unique in a particular, non-limiting example and explicitly indicates that the device-specific security information derived in that example is “unique.” See id. In light of the foregoing description, we disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments that “specific” in the context of the claim term “device-specific security information” means unique. Construing “specific” to mean “unique” as Patent Owner urges would render meaningless the subsequent use of “unique” in claims 9 and 17, without a clear indication in the Specification of such an intent. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480. Instead, we accord the word “specific” its ordinary and customary meaning and construe “device-specific security information” as meaning “information particular to, but not necessarily unique to, a storage device and used to secure access to the storage device.” Although we construe the disputed term “device-specific security information,” our determination that Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the Instituted Claims are unpatentable is not dependent upon our construction, as detailed below.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner has not identified in Bensimon explicit or inherent disclosure of the claimed restricted-access mode. Claim 1 requires operating in restrictedaccess mode “when the storage device does not have the device-specific security information.” Ex. 1001, 9:24–26. Petitioner identifies Bensimon’s read/write password, either alone or in combination with the password-enabling flag, as meeting the claimed device-specific security information. Reply 13; Pet. 22. Thus, in order to meet the requirements of claim 1, Petitioner is required to show that Bensimon discloses operating in restricted-access mode when the storage device does not have the read/write password, or alternatively does not have the combination of the read/write password and password-enabling flag. See, e.g., In re Bond, 910 F.2d at 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (holding that in order to show anticipation, claimed elements must be arranged as required by the claim). Petitioner does not make the required showing. As Petitioner argues: “these claims recite operating in one mode if ‘the device-specific security information’ (i.e., that instance of device-specific security information) is present, and operating in another mode if ‘the device-specific security information’ (i.e., that instance of device-specific security information) is not present.” Reply 16. Petitioner identifies Bensimon’s read/write password, alone or in combination with the password-enabling flag, as the device-specific security information, yet Petitioner does not identify in Bensimon an explicit disclosure that Bensimon’s storage device operates in the claimed restricted-access mode when the read/write password is absent from the device. See id. at 16–22. Rather, Bensimon describes two different possible modes of operation when the read/write password is absent from the storage device, namely either no protection or write protection. Ex. 1004, 5:33–39, 6:3–4, 6:13–29. Contrary to the claim language, operation in Bensimon’s write protection mode depends upon the presence of the write protection password, not upon the absence of the read/write password and password-enabling flag (i.e. the claimed device-specific security information). Ex. 1004, 6:13–23; see also Reply 16 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 18) (asserting the claimed restricted-access mode is met “when Bensimon’s storage device 100 only has the write-protection (read-only) password”). This disclosure is insufficient to establish anticipation because claim 1 requires operating in restricted access mode when the storage device does not have the device-specific storage information, which Petitioner asserts is the read/write password and password-enabling flag. “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claims is found.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil. Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). We similarly are not persuaded that Bensimon inherently anticipates claim 1. “Under the principles of inherency, if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the claimed limitations, it anticipates.” In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the cited disclosure identifies two possible modes of operation when the read/write password and password-enabling flag are absent from Bensimon’s storage device, neither of which necessarily must occur.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“E. Obviousness of Claims 2 and 34 based on Bensimon in combination with Takahashi Petitioner asserts dependent claims 2 and 34 would have been obvious in light of Bensimon and Takahashi. Pet. 36–40 (analysis of claim 2) and 42–43 (analysis of claim 34). Petitioner’s analysis of these claims does not repair the deficiencies described above with regard to the claimed restrictedaccess mode. See id.; see also Reply 25. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above in the context of claim 1 and based on the full trial record, we determine that Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 2 and 34 would have been obvious in light of Bensimon and Takahashi. See supra Section III.D.2.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,968,459 - PTAB · Sep 25, 2017 · IPR2016-00788 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held that claims 15, 18, and 20 were not shown unpatentable over Johnson or Hitt because neither reference disclosed containment walls standing on the floor.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“broadest reasonable interpretation of the disputed claim language requires that the containment walls stand “on” the floor. In the recitation “containment walls standing upwardly from said floor,” the word “from” indicates that the containment walls are disposed “on” the floor. Consistent with this, all of the various embodiments of the invention disclosed by the ’611 patent consistently show sidewalls of a rail car that stand or rest on underlying floor of the car, as Patent Owner notes. See, e.g., PO Resp. 7–12; Ex. 1001, Figs. 1–10. Patent Owner also relies on the testimony of Mr. Long, in discussing the meaning of “standing upwardly from.” See, e.g., PO Resp. 17–21 (citing Ex. 2118 ¶¶ 101–102, 144–161). Specifically, Mr. Long testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that in the ’611 patent, the term “standing” is used in “its positional sense,” citing, for instance, to a dictionary definition of “standing” as “to rest or remain upright on a base or lower end.” Ex. 2118 ¶ 145 (citing Ex. 2112, 7). Mr. Long’s testimony and the underlying support for that testimony shed favorable light on the meaning of “standing upwardly from” that is urged by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“containment walls standing upwardly from said floor.” Pet. 24–28. The Petition notes that Johnson discloses floor 26 and side sheet 16. Id. at 24– 25. The Petition contends that “[b]ased on the vertical direction of the ‘side frame assembly,’ . . . , a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood Johnson to teach that the containment walls stand ‘upwardly from said floor.’” Id. at 25. Showing the uncorrected versions of Figures 1 and 2 of Johnson, the Petition elaborates that “[t]his is further shown, e.g., in Fig. 2, where wall 16 is generally perpendicular with respect to the floor 26.” Id. at 25–26 (citing Ex. 1106, Fig. 2; Ex. 1103 ¶ 132). These statements do not indicate, much less prove, that Johnson discloses a containment wall that stands on a floor. Observing the vertical direction of side frame 12 and the perpendicular orientation of side sheet 16 to floor 26 does not establish that side frame 12 or side sheet 16 is disposed on floor 26. The cited testimony of Mr. Miller notes that Figure 2 shows “side sheet 16 is shown as standing normal to the floor.” Ex. 1103 ¶ 132. This too facially does not indicate, much less prove, that side sheet 16 is disposed on floor 26. slip op. at 13
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDenied
“Petitioner’s citation of Johnson’s Figure 5 in the Reply is unavailing. When addressing the claim limitations “containment walls standing upwardly from said floor,” the Petition does not cite Figure 5 of Johnson. See Pet. 24–28. This section of the Petition cites paragraphs 54–56, 130– 132, 134, and 135 of Mr. Miller’s testimony (id.), and none of this testimony cites to or addresses Figure 5 of Johnson, either (see Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 54–56, 130–132, 134–135). Furthermore, it is not apparent that Figure 5 of Johnson shows the same embodiment as Figure 2; Johnson identifies Figure 5 as a cross-section of Figure 4, which Johnson introduces as “a partial side elevation view of a gondola railcar having a bolster.” Ex. 1106, 3:7–8. We determine that Petitioner’s citation of Johnson’s Figure 5 in the Reply is unavailing because it constitutes an improper new argument. In that respect, we do not regard Petitioner’s new reliance on Johnson’s Figure 5 in an attempt to address a deficiency raised by Patent Owner in its Patent Owner Response as constituting a proper response envisioned by our rules. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Furthermore, even if Petitioner’s citation of Figure 5 were a proper response, it would not demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Johnson discloses the claimed relationship. We are persuaded that, without any other supporting evidence, Figure 5 of Johnson does not show the relationship between containment walls and a floor clearly enough to support, by a preponderance of the evidence, Petitioner’s contention that Johnson discloses containment walls that stand on a floor.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not persuaded us that Johnson discloses containment walls that stand on the floor, as required by independent claim 15. Additionally, Petitioner has not asserted that it would have been obvious to modify Johnson’s railcar to have such a configuration, much less provided evidence and reasoning persuading us that it would have been obvious to do so. See, e.g., Pet. 24–28. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 15, 18, and 20 are unpatentable over Johnson.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,757,611 - PTAB · Jun 9, 2015 · IPR2014-00245 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–24 were canceled; substitute claims 25–48 were denied because Patent Owner did not show patentability over the prior art, and claims 39–45 and 48 also failed § 101.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“establish that it is entitled to the relief requested. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). Entry of proposed amendments is not automatic, but occurs only upon the patent owner having met the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.121 and demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, the patentability of the proposed substitute claims. See Idle Free Sys., Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., Case IPR2012-00027, slip op. at 7–8 (PTAB June 11, 2013) (Paper 26, “Idle Free”) (informative); Toyota Motor Corp. v. American Vehicular Scis. LLC, Case IPR2013-00419, slip. op. at 4–5 (PTAB Mar. 7, 2014) (Paper 32, “Toyota”). For the reasons explained below, we conclude that Patent Owner has not met its burden with respect to claims 25–48.” slip op. at 10
- ScopeDecided for patent owner
“As discussed above, the claims do not require encrypting data before transmitting that data as part of the store instruction. Accordingly, we decline to import into the claims a limitation based on a specific embodiment in the Specification. See, e.g., SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[A] particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.”). We decline to read the exemplary disclosure of encrypting the data before transmitting it with the store instruction into the broadest reasonable interpretation of “data.”” slip op. at 13
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner
“3. Written Description Support Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(b), a motion to amend in an inter partes review must set forth “[t]he support in the original disclosure of the patent for each claim that is added or amended” and “[t]he support in an earlier-filed disclosure for each claim for which benefit of the filing date of the earlier filed disclosure is sought.”” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“appliance to generate encrypted received data” and “store the encrypted received data in the second memory device,” recited in proposed substitute claim 25 and similarly recited in the other proposed substitute independent claims. See Reply 4–5. We agree with Patent Owner that McCanne does not disclose explicitly that its receiving TA is configured to “encrypt the original data received with the store instruction . . . to generate encrypted received data” and “store the encrypted received data in the second memory device.” See id. at 5. Thus, we are not persuaded that McCanne anticipates the proposed substitute claims, as asserted by Petitioner, because McCanne fails to describe each and every element as set forth in the proposed substitute claims, either expressly or inherently. See Opp. 8–12; Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).” slip op. at 26
§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,392,684 - PTAB · May 12, 2015 · IPR2014-00242 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Final written decision
The Board canceled claims 1–3, 5, and 6 and denied substitute claims 7–11 because the Patent Owner failed to establish written-description support for claim 10 and patentability over prior art for claims 7–9 and 11.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“Unlike examination, entry of the proposed substitute claims in an inter partes review is not automatic. As the moving party, Patent Owner must establish that it is entitled to the requested relief. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). In its Motion to Amend, Patent Owner bears the burden to show, inter alia, that a reasonable number of substitute claims is proposed, there is no broadening of scope, the proposed claims are supported adequately by the written description of the application as filed originally, and the proposed claims are patentable over the prior art. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.121; Idle Free Sys. Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., Case IPR2012-00027, slip op. at 5–6 (PTAB June 11, 2013) (Paper 26) (“Idle Free”). We address each of these requirements in turn.” slip op. at 10
- 112 supportDenied
“its Motion to Amend to set forth “[t]he support in the original disclosure of the patent for each claim that is added or amended,” and “[t]he support in an earlier-filed disclosure for each claim for which benefit of the filing date of the earlier filed disclosure is sought.” The test for written description support is “whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The purpose of the written description requirement is to convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, applicant was in possession of the invention as now claimed. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991).” slip op. at 12
- ScopeDecided for patent owner
“2. No Broadening of Scope Proposed substitute claims in an inter partes review “may not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(3); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(ii). In its Motion to Amend, Patent Owner proposes claim 7 as a substitute for claim 1, claim 8 as a substitute for claim 2, claim 9 as a substitute for claim 3, claim 10 as a substitute for claim 5, and claim 11 as a substitute for claim 6. Mot. 1–5. Each claim includes all of the limitations of the corresponding challenged claim for which it is a substitute, and adds additional limitations. Id. No limitations from the challenged claims were deleted in the proposed substitute claims. Patent Owner asserts that the proposed substitute claims do not enlarge the scope of the claims of the ’047 patent. See Mot. 1. Petitioner does not dispute this assertion (“patent owner’s proposed substitute claims . . . add ancillary features”). Opp. 1. We are persuaded that each of the proposed substitute claims does not enlarge the scope of each of the challenged patent claims it intends to replace.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In the Decision to Institute, we determined that no explicit construction was necessary for any of the claim terms beyond their ordinary and customary meanings. Dec. to Inst. 8–9. Neither party has challenged that determination, and based on the record adduced during trial, we see no reason to provide an express construction for any term. For the proposed substitute claims, Patent Owner states that: Like the terms in the original claims, all of [the newly added claim terms in the proposed substitute claims] are simple [claim terms] whose ordinary meaning applies and for which no construction is required, with the possible exception of “member” and “group.” As explained in the specification (Ex. 1) at 3:2–4, “The present invention comprises a method . . . for allowing on-line communications with members of a group of recipients for whom the invention has been implemented.” In the context of proposed independent claim [7], the claimed invention requires that “said first computer system storing information about said plurality of members in a database.” Thus, in the context of the proposed amended claims[,] a “group” is a group of a plurality of members for whom the first computer system has stored information in a database. Mot. 7. Petitioner does not propose alternative constructions for the claim terms “member” or “group.” We cannot discern how the constructions proffered by Patent Owner add any clarity to the terms “member” and “group,” which are simple and commonly understood terms. We decline to provide an express construction for either “member” or “group.”” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites AlicePatents in suitUS 8,499,047 - PTAB · Apr 24, 2014 · IPR2014-00107 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–7 were unpatentable over Goda or the asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We are persuaded that Petitioner’s arguments and supporting evidence do not demonstrate sufficiently that Goda describes a contact hole dimensioned along the major axis so as to maintain focus of an image of the contact hole as the minor axis is reduced in size towards a DOF limit. To the extent that Petitioner asserts that a “DOF margin” is synonymous with a “DOF limit,” Petitioner’s arguments remain unavailing. Petitioner’s assertion that the DOF margin discussed in the ’922 Patent is a type of processing margin discussed in Goda (Pet. 18) (i.e., Goda’s processing margin describes a DOF margin) is not supported by a sufficient underlying factual basis. Ex. 1002 ¶ 48; 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Thus, on the record before us, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that Goda anticipates independent claim 1, and claims 6 and 7 dependent therefrom. 2. 35 U.S.C. § 103 Grounds of Unpatentability for Claims 1–7 We are persuaded that, as applied by Petitioner, none of the An, Kim, Toshiba, or Lee references remedies Goda’s deficiency in teaching “the contact hole is dimensioned along the major axis so as to maintain focus of an image of the contact hole as the minor axis is reduced in size towards a DOF limit.” Prelim. Resp. 30–31; see Pet. 30–58. Petitioner does not rely on any reference other than Goda for this limitation. Therefore, Petitioner does not establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertions that claim 1, and claims 2–7, dependent therefrom, would have been obvious over the following combinations of references: (1) Goda and An; (2) Goda, An, and/or Kim; (3) Goda, An, and/or Kim, and Lee; (4) Goda and Toshiba; and (5) Goda, Toshiba, and Lee.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s assertions that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “depth of focus” or “DOF” requires the exposed photoresist to generate line widths within specifications and adequate profiles, or otherwise requires maintaining focus throughout the entire depth of the photoresist. The ’922 Patent does not provide a sufficient factual basis to support Patent Owner’s assertions, because the ’922 Patent is silent regarding exposed photoresist and maintaining focus throughout the entire depth of the photoresist. We are persuaded that the definition in the Specification cited by Petitioner applies. Accordingly, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation, “depth of focus” and “DOF” means “the range of lens-wafer distances over which line widths are maintained within specifications and resist profiles are adequate.” Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 20–22.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“2. “DOF Limit” Petitioner and Patent Owner do not provide a proposed construction for “DOF limit,” as recited in claim 1. Consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of “depth of focus” and “DOF,” “DOF limit” means “a limit associated with the range of lens-wafer distances over which line widths are maintained within specifications and resist profiles are adequate.” See id.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We are persuaded that Petitioner’s arguments and supporting evidence do not demonstrate sufficiently that Goda describes a contact hole dimensioned along the major axis so as to maintain focus of an image of the contact hole as the minor axis is reduced in size towards a DOF limit. To the extent that Petitioner asserts that a “DOF margin” is synonymous with a “DOF limit,” Petitioner’s arguments remain unavailing. Petitioner’s assertion that the DOF margin discussed in the ’922 Patent is a type of processing margin discussed in Goda (Pet. 18) (i.e., Goda’s processing margin describes a DOF margin) is not supported by a sufficient underlying factual basis. Ex. 1002 ¶ 48; 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Thus, on the record before us, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that Goda anticipates independent claim 1, and claims 6 and 7 dependent therefrom.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,018,922 - PTAB · Mar 18, 2014 · IPR2013-00626 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Superior did not show a reasonable likelihood that the cited references taught layers permanently affixed together.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Based on the current record, we are not persuaded that Superior is reasonably likely to show that Seo teaches a flexible inner layer and an exterior hard layer permanently affixed together. As Speck points out, Seo teaches that it is “impossible” to apply a different material to the surface of the body base of the phone case. Ex. 1002, 2:7-9. Neither Superior nor Dr. Kazmer addresses this teaching or explains how it can be consistent with the notion that Seo teaches permanently affixing Seo’s soft silicone layer to the hard resin layer. On the contrary, this teaching suggests that a soft silicone layer would not adhere or bond to a hard resin layer, and thus must be attached to the hard layer in the mechanical manner that Seo teaches. Moreover, we are not persuaded that Seo’s mechanical attachment method is “permanently affixed,” such that the hard and soft layers cannot be separated without damaging the layers or the rivets that connect the layers. Superior relies on Seo’s teaching that the layers are “integrally formed” or “integrally attached” to support this contention. Pet. 10. But there is insufficient evidence in the record to persuade us that “integrally” attached necessarily means “permanently” attached. Moreover, the combination of the softness and flexibility of Seo’s inner silicone layer with the “impossibility” of applying that layer to the surface of Seo’s hard outer layer leaves open the possibility that the layers may be separated without damaging the layers or the rivets that connect the layers. Thus, we are not persuaded on the present record that Superior is reasonably likely to prevail in showing that any of the challenged claims is anticipated by Seo, would have been obvious over Seo, or would have been obvious over Seo and Cozip.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“the written description define the term. In the absence of an express definition, it is reasonable to consult a general dictionary definition of the word for guidance in determining the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim term as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “Permanent” is commonly understood to mean “continuing or enduring without fundamental or marked change; stable.” MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 922 (11th ed. 2005). To “affix” means “to attach physically.” Id. at 21. Based on these definitions, the ordinary meaning of the phrase permanently affixed would be “attached physically such that the attachment continues or endures without fundamental or marked change.” Thus, a flexible inner layer and an exterior hard layer are permanently affixed when they cannot be separated without “fundamental[ly] or marked[ly] chang[ing]” – i.e., damaging – the layers or the bond between the layers. For purposes of this decision, therefore, permanently affixed, in the context of claim 1, requires that the flexible inner layer and the outer hard layer cannot be separated without damaging the layers or the bond between the layers.1” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Based on the current record, we are not persuaded that Superior is reasonably likely to show that Seo teaches a flexible inner layer and an exterior hard layer permanently affixed together. As Speck points out, Seo teaches that it is “impossible” to apply a different material to the surface of the body base of the phone case. Ex. 1002, 2:7-9. Neither Superior nor Dr. Kazmer addresses this teaching or explains how it can be consistent with the notion that Seo teaches permanently affixing Seo’s soft silicone layer to the hard resin layer. On the contrary, this teaching suggests that a soft silicone layer would not adhere or bond to a hard resin layer, and thus must be attached to the hard layer in the mechanical manner that Seo teaches. Moreover, we are not persuaded that Seo’s mechanical attachment method is “permanently affixed,” such that the hard and soft layers cannot be separated without damaging the layers or the rivets that connect the layers. Superior relies on Seo’s teaching that the layers are “integrally formed” or “integrally attached” to support this contention. Pet. 10. But there is insufficient evidence in the record to persuade us that “integrally” attached necessarily means “permanently” attached. Moreover, the combination of the softness and flexibility of Seo’s inner silicone layer with the “impossibility” of applying that layer to the surface of Seo’s hard outer layer leaves open the possibility that the layers may be separated without damaging the layers or the rivets that connect the layers. Thus, we are not persuaded on the present record that Superior is reasonably likely to prevail in showing that any of the challenged claims is anticipated by Seo, would have been obvious over Seo, or would have been obvious over Seo and Cozip.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“The above images depict perspective and front views of the Cozip case. Ex. 1003 at 8, 10. Superior asserts that Cozip discloses a case with “an exterior hard layer ha[ving] four corner joints with cut-away portions.” Pet. 28. Superior argues that “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to fill the shell and corners of Cozip . . . with the flexible layer of Seo.” Id. at 33. Superior, therefore, is proposing that a person of ordinary skill would attach Seo’s soft silicone layer to Cozip’s polycarbonate case, with Cozip’s cut-away portions serving as the “dispensing portions” as taught by Seo. Superior reasons that it would be obvious to fill permanently the cut away portion of Cozip with the flexible inner layer 20 of Seo to attach tightly and integrally the inner layer 20 to Cozip’s outer layer as taught by Seo. Pet. 39 (citing Ex. 1002, 5:9-16). But Superior does not explain how attaching Seo’s inner silicone layer to Cozip’s case would result in “permanently affix[ing]” the two layers together, given that Seo teaches that it is “impossible to apply different material to the surface of the body case.” Ex. 1002, 2:7-9. Accordingly, as with the grounds based on Seo as the primary reference, we are not persuaded that Superior is reasonably likely to show that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would “permanently affix” Seo’s soft silicone layer to Cozip’s polycarbonate case. Therefore, we do not institute an inter partes review on any of the grounds based on Cozip as the primary reference.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,204,561
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.