• Valve Corporation v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 26, 2023 · IPR2017-01928 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Remand

  Claims 1, 2, 9, 11–17, and 21–24 are unpatentable over Burns with Uy or AlphaGrip; claim 10 was not shown unpatentable because Burns does not teach detachable paddles.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “rendered claims 3–8 and 18–20 unpatentable. Valve, 8 F.4th at 1381. The Federal Circuit reversed our determination that Burns was not prior art. Id. at 1381. The Federal Circuit also vacated our determination that Valve had failed to prove that collectively claims 1, 2, 9–17, and 21–24 were unpatentable as obvious in view of Burns in combination with either Uy or AlphaGrip. Id. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit remanded the case to us to consider Valve’s challenges to the patentability of claims 1, 2, 9–17, and 21–24 of the ’229 patent as obvious based on the combinations of prior art listed in the table below. Claims6 35 U.S.C. § References 1, 2, 9, 10, 14–17, 21–24 103 Burns, Uy 1, 2, 9–17, 21, 22 103 Burns, AlphaGrip Id. C. Remand Background On remand, we authorized the parties to concurrently file an opening brief and then concurrently file responsive reply briefs. Paper 44, 4. The parties agreed, and we concurred, that no new evidence would be submitted during the remand proceeding. Id. at 3. Accordingly, we decide the issues on remand based on the record that was submitted during the original trial.” slip op. at 4

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. Valve contends that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have: a bachelor’s degree in an industrial design or engineering field, and approximately two years of relevant experience, for example. Alternatively, the same or an equivalent level of skill in the art could be obtained by end users or hobbyists who have substantial experience modifying or creating customized game controllers that include features to better suit their needs, even without any college education. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 11). Ironburg, without expressly defining the level of ordinary skill, contends that a college degree of the type identified by Valve is not required. See Supp. PO Resp. 4–6. Ironburg notes that the level of ordinary skill is “relatively low” and the technology involved “is simple and straightforward.” Id. at 4 (citing Ex. 2016 ¶ 21). Ironburg’s contentions regarding the level of ordinary skill are consistent with Valve’s position, id. at 6, which we apply in our analysis. D. Whether AlphaGrip Is a Prior Art Printed Publication” slip op. at 11

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

    “We find Ironburg’s critique of Mr. Willner’s testimony unavailing. Valve persuasively responds that Mr. Willner testifies that he personally recalls reviewing AlphaGrip on the internet during 2006, which significantly predates the filing of the oldest application in the priority chain of the ’229 patent, May 22, 2013, by at least six years. Compare Ex. 1009 ¶ 3 (testifying that online publication of AlphaGrip happened in 2006), with Ex. 1001, code (60) (identifying provisional application filed May 22, 2013, as earliest-filed priority application). Mr. Willner testifies that he is the inventor and designer of the controller that is reviewed in AlphaGrip, which we find to qualify him as an ordinarily skilled artisan. Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 1–3. Besides expressly testifying that he viewed AlphaGrip online during 2006, Mr. Willner also testifies in some detail about his recollection of his interactions with the author of AlphaGrip, Ryan Paul, and the events surrounding the publication of Mr. Paul’s review on Arstechnica’s website. Id. ¶¶ 4–5. Mr. Willner also reviews the version of AlphaGrip that Valve submitted as prior art and testifies that it is a true and correct copy of the review that he remembers seeing online during 2006. Id. ¶¶ 6–7. We find Mr. Willner’s testimony to be reliable in part because he recalls being “delighted” by the praise Mr. Paul lavished on the AlphaGrip controller. Id. ¶ 8. The publication of AlphaGrip marked an important event for Mr. Willner’s company. Mr. Willner states that he immediately posted a link on his own company’s website to Arstechnica’s AlphaGrip review in 2006, and his company maintains the link to Arstechnica’s review of AlphaGrip “to this day.” Id. We find that all these facts increase the probative value of Mr. Willner’s testimony on the issue of whether AlphaGrip was published and could easily have been found by interested persons during 2006. Although Mr. Willner may not have been a webpage manager for Arstechnica or be able to testify about precisely how many people accessed AlphaGrip in 2006, we find his testimony, as one of skill in the art himself to be compelling. Not only has Ironburg failed to refute any of Mr. Willner’s testimony with countervailing evidence, Ironburg did not cross-examine Mr. Willner to test his memory of the specific events set forth in his testimony. See PO Resp. 16–18 (failing to provide countervailing evidence or cite cross examination testimony).” slip op. at 12

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “We also disagree with Ironburg that we should exclude as hearsay or irrelevant Dr. Rempel’s testimony on how flexible the Burns’ paddles were or the extensive body of objective evidence cited and relied upon by him to support his testimony.9 Mot. 12–13. To the contrary, we agree with Valve that Dr. Rempel may properly rely upon the cited exhibits even if they would otherwise be inadmissible hearsay because they constitute the types of information upon which an expert would reasonably rely under Fed. R. Evid. 703. Opp. 10. Accordingly, we deny-in-part the Motion to the extent that it seeks to strike or exclude testimony in Dr. Rempel’s second declaration or Exhibits 1020, 1025, 1026, 1031, 1036, 1042 cited by Dr. Rempel in support of his analysis.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 9,352,229 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,352,229
• Vizio, Inc. v. Polaris Powerled Technologies, LLCRehearing granted
  PTAB · Sep 15, 2020 · IPR2020-00043 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board granted rehearing but denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedRehearing, deniedGranted in part

    “We have considered Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing and, for the reasons set forth below, we grant Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing, but we are not persuaded to change our ultimate conclusion to deny institution of inter partes review. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed.” Id. When rehearing a decision on petition, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus.” slip op. at 3

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied

    “III. DISCUSSION OF THE REQUEST FOR REHEARING On May 4, 2020, we issued our Decision denying institution of inter partes review based upon: (1) the advanced stage of the California District Court proceeding; (2) the investment of time and resources by the District Court and the parties in the California District Court proceeding; (3) overlap in the invalidity theories that Petitioner is pursuing here and in the California District Court proceeding; and (4) overlap in the claims challenged in the California District Court proceeding. Inst. Dec. 6–12. In the Decision, we did not reach any of the ten substantive grounds for patentability. See generally Inst. Dec. Rather, the denial of institution was solely based on our findings under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Id.” slip op. at 4

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

    “review under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) and 37 C.F.R. §42.4. Institution of an inter partes review is authorized when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2012); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2019) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”) For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the arguments and evidence of record, we are not persuaded to change our ultimate conclusion to deny institution of inter partes review.7” slip op. at 5

  • BurdenDenied

    “The petition must identify with particularity each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim. 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a) (content of petitions); 37 C.F.R. 42.104 (content of petition). Petitioner’s conclusory statements, without more, are irreparably lacking in detail. Petitioner does not provide any analysis to support the assertion of obviousness over Oki. In fact, Petitioner instead asserts that Oki discloses all of the limitations in each of claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9, 15, 16, and 18, so it is unclear what modification, if any, is required to Oki, or even the basis of Petitioner’s obviousness grounds. E.g., Pet. 28– 33. Petitioner does not clearly point out the differences between the claimed invention and Oki. Nor does Petitioner explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found the claimed subject matter obvious in spite of those differences. Petitioner has not provided sufficient reasoning or facts on which to base a conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious, in light of Oki’s disclosure, to modify Oki to meet the claim limitations. Accordingly, Petitioner fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on this ground of unpatentability.” slip op. at 28

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,223,117
• Valve Corporation v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Oct 30, 2019 · IPR2017-01928 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Valve’s rehearing request, leaving claims 1–24 not shown unpatentable because Valve did not establish that Burns was a prior art printed publication.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Therefore, Valve must demonstrate that we misapprehended or overlooked matters previously argued and specifically identify the location in its papers at which it made the argument that we misapprehended or overlooked in order to justify modifying our Final Decision. It has failed to do so. Instead, Valve asks us to reconsider and reweigh evidence and” slip op. at 3

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable

    “As explained in detail, in our Final Decision, we do not consider Exhibit 1003 to be the same as the document accessible using the 1 The cited pages of Exhibit 1040 (pp. 171–179) refer to a copy of the Burns article provided by the Examiner during prosecution of an unrelated but commonly owned patent that appears to have been retrieved from the “Wayback Machine” web archive. See Ex. 1040, 172 (referring to “WAYBACK MACHINE”). However, neither the cited pages nor the Examiner’s Notice of References Cited lists the Webarchive URL. See id. at 165, 171–179 (listing only URL to xboxer360.com domain as source of Burns article). Webarchive URL. Final Dec. 17–29. The URL listed on Exhibit 1003 refers to a URL on the xboxer360.com domain, not the Webarchive URL on the web.archive.org domain. Ex. 1003, 1–10. Contrary to Valve’s contentions otherwise, URLs are not prior art materials themselves, but merely addresses that might permit a user to access information via the internet. Valve also wholly fails to identify any specific argument or evidence that it advanced during the trial that we misapprehended or overlooked in reaching our decision on the issue of whether Valve had proven that Exhibit 1003 was a prior art printed publication.” slip op. at 4

  • ExcludeNot reached

    “Ironburg filed a Motion to Exclude Evidence (Paper 30, “Mot.” or “Motion”). Valve opposed the Motion (Paper 31, “Opp.” or “Opposition”). Ironburg filed a Reply in support of the Motion (Paper 32, “Mot. Reply”).” slip op. at 3

  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 9,352,229
• Kranos Corporation v. Riddell, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 11, 2019 · IPR2016-01646 · APJ James J Mayberry · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board found claims 1–7, 11, 13, 25–28, 30, 32–37 not shown unpatentable on the added grounds; it also denied Riddell’s motion to exclude as moot.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “motion to terminate the appeal in IPR2016-01646 and remand the proceeding, in light of SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018), and the Director’s Guidance on the Impact of SAS on AIA Trial Proceedings, for us to address claims and grounds that we had not instituted.3 In response, we modified our Decision on Institution to institute trial for all challenged claims and all grounds. Paper 32, 3 (the “November 9, 2018, Order”). We ordered briefing on those claims and grounds added to the trial in the November 9, 2018, Order. See Paper 32, 3–7.” slip op. at 3

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsAdverse judgmentGranted

    “certain claims and grounds added to the trial in our November 9, 2018, Order. Paper 33. In the motion, Kranos “requests adverse judgment as to . . . [c]laims 3, 4, 7, 13, and 36.” Id. at 2. The motion continues that claims 6 and 26 remain in this proceeding for the grounds of “[o]bviousness over each of Sears or Rappleyea in combination with Ispas.” Id. As to claims 3, 4, 7, 13, and 36, Kranos’s motion is granted. Accordingly, we will enter the following judgment as to those claims: (1) claim 13 is not proven unpatentable as anticipated by Sears; (2) claim 13 is not proven unpatentable as anticipated by Rappleyea; (3) claim 13 is not proven unpatentable as anticipated by Zeller; (4) claim 36 is not proven unpatentable as obvious over Sears, Rappleyea, or Monica and Halstead; and (5) claims 3, 4, and 7 are not proven unpatentable over Sears or Rappleyea and Ispas.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “record before us, and ultimately found that a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the ’118 patent pertains would have at least a Bachelor’s degree in engineering or physics and at least one year of experience in designing protective equipment, protective helmets, or plastic parts including the design of protective or structural plastic elements. Final Wrtn. Dec. 9–10. We also found that additional experience (at least three years) may be substituted for a formal engineering degree. Id. at 10. We found that the prior art of record reflects this level of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 10–11. We noted that our patentability analysis presented below would reach the same findings and determinations under Kranos’s or Mr. Shewchenko’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 11. In the supplemental briefing, neither party argued for a different definition of the level of ordinary skill than the definition adopted in our Final Written Decision, nor do we discern any reason, based on the supplemental record, to change this definition.” slip op. at 12

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

    “The term “aligned along” does not appear in any claim addressed in this Supplemental Final Written Decision. See, e.g., Final Wrtn. Dec. 11 (indicating that the term “aligned along” appears in independent claim 34). In the Final Written Decision, we determined that we did not need to expressly construe the term “integrally formed” to resolve the parties’ dispute. See id. at 16. As will be apparent from our analysis below, we need not address this term further here.” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 8,528,118 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,528,118
• Nike Inc. v. Jezign Licensing, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 29, 2018 · IPR2017-00246 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable over Shkalim and Chiaramonte; claim 3 is unpatentable over Shkalim and Powell, Chien and Powell, and Chiaramonte and Powell.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Patent Owner misapprehends Petitioner’s proposed construction for “sole,” and the Board’s initial adoption thereof. Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, we understand that Petitioner does not assert “sole” to mean “heel,” or is otherwise synonymous with “heel.” See Pet. 12–14. Also contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, the Board merely stated: “[t]he ’590 patent does not define the term ‘sole’ or disavow the heel portion of the athletic shoe as being part of the sole,” and that “Patent Owner fails to address the disclosures in the ’590 patent or explain why the record as a whole, including the intrinsic evidence, requires a narrower construction of the term ‘sole.’” Dec. 9–10. We reiterate that the ’590 Patent (to include the incorporated ’586 Patent) does not include a lexicographical definition that specifies that the heel is distinct from the sole. Further, as detailed below, the ordinary meaning of the heel being a portion of the sole is consistent with the Specification.” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “time it was made, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. “The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.” Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Petitioner asserts “[a] person of skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’590 patent would have had a bachelor’s degree in footwear, apparel, or industrial design or an equivalent field and 1–3 years of work experience in footwear, apparel, or industrial design, or a high school education with 2-4 years of work experience in footwear, apparel, or industrial design.” Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 28). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. 1–23. We adopt Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 17

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

    “b. Analysis of Claims 1 and 2 Petitioner contends that Shkalim discloses “[a]n illuminated shoe comprising: an upper; a sole attached to said upper, the sole including a translucent perimeter surface,” as recited in claim 1. See Pet. 21–23. Petitioner bases it contention on Shkalim’s disclosures in Figures 1, 2, and 7 of a sole attached to the upper, Shkalim’s disclosure of a transparent housing or cover 3 containing lighting elements inserted into channel 15 that runs along substantially the whole sole of the shoe, and Shkalim’s disclosure that the connection between the cover and the material of heel and sole can be effected by incorporating the plastic material of cover 3 into the material of the heel. See id. (citing Ex. 1003, [57], 1:1–2, 1:5–10, 1:40–53, 3:6–34; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 62, 63, 65). We find that Shkalim discloses “a light source disposed within said sole,” as recited in claim 1, based on Shkalim’s disclosure of lighting elements 4 in transparent housing or cover 3, and channel 15 in the sole or heel to which housing or cover 3 may be inserted.7 See Pet. 23–24; Ex. 1003, 3:6–50, 4:5–9, Figs. 1(b), 2, 2(a), (b), 3, 5; Ex. 1002 ¶ 66. Petitioner contends Shkalim discloses “a push-button switch coupled to the light source to activate the light source such that the light source provides continuous illumination across a substantial portion of the perimeter surface, regardless of whether the wearer is standing still or walking,” as recited in claim 1. See Pet. 24–26. Petitioner bases its contention on Shkalim’s disclosure in Figure 1 of on-off switch 2 that lights lighting elements 4 contained in transparent housing or cover 3, and rechargeable battery 8 connected to lighting elements 4 and switch 2. See id. (citing Ex. 1003, Figs. 2(a), 2(b), 3, 4, 2:24–26, 3:6–10, 3:34–40, 3:55–4:4; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 67–68). We agree with Petitioner and find that Shkalim’s disclosures of transparent cover 3 containing lighting elements 4 in the channel 15 of sole, which runs along substantially the whole sole of the 7 Here, and through our analysis, we note that our Scheduling Order cautions Patent Owner “that any arguments for patentability not raised in the [Patent Owner’s Response] will be deemed waived.” See Paper 13, 5; see also See In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2016). shoe, meets the claims limitation of “the lighting elements provide illumination across a substantial portion of the perimeter surface” of the sole. See Pet. 25; Ex. 1003, 2:24–30, 3:15–25, 3:41–45, Fig. 3. Petitioner further contends Shkalim’s switch 2 allows the user to turn” slip op. at 19

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

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to combine the illuminated nameplate on the sole of the Powell shoe with the illuminated sole of the Shkalim shoe” to arrive at the sole required by claim 3. Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 85). More specifically, Petitioner asserts combining the features of Shkalim and Powell “would have required nothing more than the application of ordinary skill, and would have been the simple substitution of one known element (a sole with a continuously illuminated translucent region) with another (a sole with translucent regions arranged to spell a word) with nothing more than predictable results.” Id. at 34 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 89). Petitioner further contends “[i]t would have been simple to modify the translucent portion of Shkalim so as to create translucent letters to form a word.” Id. at 34–35 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 89; Ex. 1006, 2:24–27). Petitioner asserts that it was known in the prior art, including Shkalim and Powell, to add lights to shoes to enhance aesthetic appeal and appearance. Pet. 35–36 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:1–5, Ex. 1006, 1:31–35; Ex. 1014, 2:10–15; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 90–92). Petitioner relies on Mr. Rake to support its position. Mr. Rake generally testifies that during the late 1990s, ordinary artisans in the field of apparel design recognized the rise in consumer demand for personalized apparel and that this era of increased attention on personalization would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporated Powell’s name plate into the light-up athletic shoes disclosed by Shkalim. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 93–95 (citing Exs. 1015, 1016). Petitioner then argues, [g]iven the similarities in the structure and function between Powell and Shkalim, as well as their aesthetic objectives and the robust consumer demand for personalized goods, a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to incorporate into Shkalim the translucent regions being formed in the shape of alpha numeric characters and being arranged to spell a word of Powell. Pet. 35; Ex. 1002 ¶ 89 (Petitioner’s declarant Mr. Rake stating the same). On the foregoing bases, we agree with Petitioner that the combination” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 6,837,590 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,837,590
• Valve Corporation v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 22, 2017 · IPR2016-00949 · APJ Phillip J Kauffman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12 and 15–18, and 20 are unpatentable: claims 1, 3–12, 15–17, 19, and 20 as anticipated by Tosaki; claims 1–12, 15–18, and 20 as obvious over Enright and Tosaki.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “This Motion has no meaningful distinction from the Motion filed in IPR2016-00948, and we incorporate that analysis here. Consequently, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion.” slip op. at 4

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

    “Patent Owner’s argument is that the ’770 patent expresses a clear intent to disavow controllers having a recessed portion that does not receive a user’s fingers. See PO Resp. 17–22. Stated in a positive sense, Patent Owner argues that the ’770 patent expresses a clear intent to cover only recessed portions that receive a user’s fingers. Patent Owner does not identify, nor do we discern, any explicit disclosure in the ’770 patent that the invention includes only recessed portions that receive a user’s fingers. The description that “preferably” each elongate member is mounted in a recess such that a user’s fingers may be received in the recess is an exemplary disclosure of a preferred embodiment. See Ex. 1011, 1:62–67. Likewise, the disclosures that the elongate members (e.g., paddles 11) are mounted within recesses so that a user may engage the elongate members with the tips of the fingers are exemplary. See Ex. 1011, 2:21–25, 3:39–44, Fig. 3. Consequently, the ’770 patent does not express a clear intent to limit the claimed invention to recessed portions that receive a user’s fingers. See e.g., SciMed Life Sys. Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed.Cir. 2001); see also Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed.Cir. 1988) (“Although the specification may aid the court in interpreting the meaning of disputed claim language, particular embodiments and examples appearing in the specification will not generally be read into the claims.”). In light of the disclosures above, the ordinary meaning that a recessed portion is an indentation is consistent with the Specification.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We agree with Petitioner (Pet. Reply 9–10) that nothing in claim 1 precludes the back of Tosaki’s steering wheel 14 from corresponding to the back of the controller as claimed. Claim 1 is an open-ended claim, so that additional components like base casing 10 with its bottom plate 11 are not precluded. Patent Owner’s assertion is not persuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with the claims. c) Conclusion Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Tosaki anticipates independent claim 1.” slip op. at 23

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We accept Patent Owner’s uncontested assertions regarding the education level of the inventors; however, this information provides an incomplete picture because other factors are involved. See e.g. Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (enumerating a non-exhaustive list of six factors that are a guide to determining the level of skill in the art). For example, one concern is the type of problems encountered in the art, and the problem solved by the ’770 patent is but one type of problem encountered. Tosaki describes that removing a hand from the controller to manipulate switches makes prompt reaction difficult and degrades usability, and describing that repositioning the user’s hands can affect comfort. Ex. 1002, 1:54–67, 2:19–23. Tosaki describes an apparatus that permits manipulation of a plurality of switches while holding the controller. Id. at 3:20–23. Tosaki’s solution also includes switches on the back of the controller (shift levers) that are accessible to a user’s fingers. Id. at 3:36–4:8. Enright describes that controller had become more complex in that the number of functions and user input devices increased to the point that user’s had difficulty moving a finger to a desired button. Ex. 1003 ¶ 2. Enright describes that movement between input devices can be difficult. Id. at ¶¶ 3–4. As a solution, Enright disclosed a device that permits selection of discrete button commands without looking at or moving fingers from buttons. Id. ¶ 5. Enright’s solution includes switches (mode switches 32, 34) added to the underside (back) of the controller to reside near a user’s fingers for easy operation. Id. at ¶ 32. Enright also discloses that these switches may be located elsewhere is ergonomically desired. Id. In light of this, the prior art of record demonstrates that switch position on the controller, usability, and comfort were known problems in the art. Further, prior solutions included placing switches to be easily accessible to a user’s finger or thumb, and placing switches so that those switches are accessible without removing a finger or thumb from another switch. In particular, these solutions placed controls on the back of the controller to be accessible to a user’s fingers. The technology involved was placement of switches in ergonomically desired locations that permit usability.” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 9,089,770 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,089,770
• Valve Corporation v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 22, 2017 · IPR2016-00948 · APJ Phillip J Kauffman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 6, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are unpatentable: Tosaki anticipates them, and Enright with Tosaki also renders claim 20 obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “In our Decision to Institute, we explained that a preliminary response cannot serve as an effective objection for two reasons.2 Dec. 4–5 (entered on September 27, 2016). First, objections must be made after institution of trial. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) (objections are due ten days from institution of trial). Second, an objection and a preliminary response may not be combined into a single document. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (prohibiting combined documents).” slip op. at 5

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “The Petition fails to address a claimed characteristic of the elongate members (flexibility). See PO Resp. 39–41 (arguing that Enright does not disclose elongate members that are flexible as claimed). This cannot be corrected in Petitioner’s Reply. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012) (a reply may not raise a new issue or belatedly present evidence); 35 U.S.C. § 312 (a)(3) (requiring petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) (a petition for inter partes review must identify how the construed claim is unpatentable under the statutory grounds on which the petitioner challenges the claim and must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon); Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Paper 39, 2 (pointing out that Petitioner is making a new argument).20 Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Enright and Tosaki. The same is true of claims 2–11, 13, 16, and 17 by virtue of their dependence from claim 1. 20 Petitioner argues that Patent Owner’s contention could not have been addressed earlier because the Board did not explicitly construe this claim limitation. Petitioner’s burden is not alleviated by the lack of a claim construction by the Board.” slip op. at 38

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedMixed

    “In our Institution Decision, we observed that the Petition does not explain persuasively how observations from a UK patent examiner, which presumably are based on UK law and not United States law, are of use in our proceeding. Dec. 4. Petitioner asserts that Mr. Donohoe must be a person of ordinary skill because the level of ordinary skill is low, and because the UK Intellectual Property Office employed Mr. Donohoe to examine the video game controller art. Pet. Reply 16–17. Petitioner chose not to address our concern regarding the distinctions between United States and UK law. Because of those distinctions, Petitioner’s assertions and evidence with regard to Mr. Donohoe are entitled to little or no weight. This shortcoming is not fatal to this ground of unpatentability because, as explained below, the prior art of record is reflective of the level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 39

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner contends that the level of skill in the art is relatively low and that “less than a year of experience or other training in controller assembly or tooling is required.” PO Resp. 34; Ex. 2002 ¶ 30 (Patent Owner’s expert opining that the level of skill is “no more than a year of experience or other training in controller assembly or tooling”). Patent Owner bases this level of skill on the education level of the inventor and the type of problems encountered in the art. PO Resp. 35. Regarding the education level of the inventors, Patent Owner provides evidence that the named inventors have degrees in unrelated fields. Id. (citing Ex. 2008, 3; Ex. 2009, 4). Patent Owner asserts the problem solved was that users of conventional game controllers were at risk of hand strain or injury from having to operate many different controls on the front of the controller with only a user’s thumbs. Id. at 35–36 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶ 10; Ex. 1001, 1:33–40, 3:56–61). Petitioner does not contest the education level of the inventors or the problem solved by the ’525 patent. Pet. Reply 15–16. Rather, Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner has taken the illogical position that the qualifications of a person of ordinary skill in the art are maximum levels of experience or training rather than minimums. Id. To the extent that Patent Owner’s assertion suggests that the level of skill may not exceed a year of experience or other training in controller assembly or tooling, we disagree. Patent Owner does not cite, nor are we aware, of any legal precedent supporting the assertion that education and experience levels are maximums that must not be exceeded. Regarding the problem solved by the ’525 patent, the portions cited by” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 8,641,525 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,641,525
• Dynamic Air Inc. v. M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 23, 2017 · IPR2016-00263 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 and 12–49 are unpatentable as obvious over the Dietzen-led grounds; claim 11 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “1. “adapted to” This term appears in claims 11, 17–19, and 30–49. Petitioner proposes “adapted to” means “capable of.” Pet. ’262, 10; Pet. ’263, 10. We agree, insofar as these limitations require structure to have qualities or features allowing it to meet the claim language. For example, claim 17 would require a vessel that actually can “withstand a pressure of about 4 bar to about 8 bar.” In other words, the “adapted to” language distinguishes from those structures that are not physically capable of meeting the limitation. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s construction is overly broad. PO Resp. ’262, 17–19; PO Resp. ’263, 16–19. Reviewing Patent Owner’s arguments, however, is not clear to us what Patent Owner disputes to be the effective difference. We determine that no explicit construction of “adapted to” is necessary.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Reviewing the arguments and evidence before us, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s initial construction, now abandoned, was too broad. Specifically, Petitioner’s abandoned construction did not account for the fact that the mixture comes from a particular origin (drilling of an oil well) and that the “some resistance to flow” aspect was also too broad given the particular materials involved. However, Patent Owner’s proposed construction, which would require a gravity test, is not supported by the ’062 patent. Instead, we effectively adopt a combination of Patent Owner’s proposed construction and Petitioner’s, for the reasons explained below.” slip op. at 12

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

    “3. “means for transporting” This term appears in claims 39, 40, 46, and 47. Petitioner proposes the term is a means-plus-function limitation having a function of “transporting [the] pressure vessel to a discharge station” and corresponding structure of “a ship, crane, and road vehicle.” Pet. ’263, 12 (citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 1, Fig. 6, 5:8–11, 5:59–63, 6:17–31). Patent Owner proposes a similar construction. PO Resp. ’263, 20 (using the term “boat” instead of “ship”). The constructions are effectively identical. Our Decision does not turn on which proposed construction we choose; we adopt the Patent Owner’s proposed construction. 4. “means for transferring” This term appears in claims 44 and 45. Petitioner proposes the term is a means-plus-function limitation having a function of “transferring the nonfree flowing drill cuttings from a second vessel to a third vessel” and corresponding structure of “a conduit, pipe, or flexible hose.” Pet. ’263, 12– 13 (citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 1, Fig. 6, 5:8–11, 5:59–63, 6:17–31). Patent Owner proposes a similar construction, but with more exemplary corresponding structures. PO Resp. ’263, 21 (also including “compressed gas[/air],” “a connector,” and “a hose”). Petitioner’s Reply does not discuss the construction of “means for transferring.” Our Decision does not turn on which proposed construction we choose; we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction because it is a slightly broader reasonable interpretation.” slip op. at 18

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer foundDecided for patent owner

    “The original claims of the ’217 patent were rejected as anticipated by Curtis, which had pulsed-jet aerators in the cone of the pressure vessel. Ex. 2017, 232, 3:7–11, 6:59–64. After a telephone interview, during which the Examiner and Patent Owner “[d]iscussed [a] proposed amendment” (id. at 284), the Examiner proposed an Examiner’s Amendment adding that the conveyance gas was “the sole means for inducing movement [of the material]” (see, e.g., id. at 322). The Examiner set forth the scope of the “sole means” limitation: “heat addition, aerating action (i.e. chopping up of material, applying a screw conveyor, etc.), or the addition of a fluidizing agent are precluded. The conveyance gas is not a fluidizing agent.” Id. Amending the claims to include the “sole means” limitation, along with the Examiner’s accompanying explanation of its scope, are clearly and unmistakably the reasons for issuance of the ’217 patent. See Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc., 582 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (prosecution history “provides evidence of how the [PTO] and the inventor understood the patent” (quoting Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (alteration in original)).” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 7,186,062 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 7,186,062
• Dynamic Air Inc. v. M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 23, 2017 · IPR2016-00262 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 and 12–49 are unpatentable as obvious; claim 11 is not unpatentable because the obviousness grounds did not establish its ISO-frame limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “1. “adapted to” This term appears in claims 11, 17–19, and 30–49. Petitioner proposes “adapted to” means “capable of.” Pet. ’262, 10; Pet. ’263, 10. We agree, insofar as these limitations require structure to have qualities or features allowing it to meet the claim language. For example, claim 17 would require a vessel that actually can “withstand a pressure of about 4 bar to about 8 bar.” In other words, the “adapted to” language distinguishes from those structures that are not physically capable of meeting the limitation. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s construction is overly broad. PO Resp. ’262, 17–19; PO Resp. ’263, 16–19. Reviewing Patent Owner’s arguments, however, is not clear to us what Patent Owner disputes to be the effective difference. We determine that no explicit construction of “adapted to” is necessary.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Reviewing the arguments and evidence before us, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s initial construction, now abandoned, was too broad. Specifically, Petitioner’s abandoned construction did not account for the fact that the mixture comes from a particular origin (drilling of an oil well) and that the “some resistance to flow” aspect was also too broad given the particular materials involved. However, Patent Owner’s proposed construction, which would require a gravity test, is not supported by the ’062 patent. Instead, we effectively adopt a combination of Patent Owner’s proposed construction and Petitioner’s, for the reasons explained below. The ’062 patent describes the material conveyed therein in several different ways, but it is always referring to the same material. The labels that the ’062 patent gives to this material are: “thick heavy paste” (Ex. 1004, 1:29, 1:46–47, 1:64, 2:1, 3:11), “drill cuttings” (id. at 1:65, 2:12; see also id. at 1:45 (simply, “cuttings”)), “non-free flowing paste” (id. at 2:7–8, 11), and “thick and/or heavy paste or clay like material” (id. at 2:11–12). These labels are often equated to one another: “cuttings . . . in the form of a very thick heavy paste” (id. at 1:45–47), “thick heavy paste . . . e.g. drill cuttings” (id. at 1:64–65), “non-free flowing paste . . . e.g. oil rig drill cuttings” (id. at 2:11–12). As such, the ’062 patent considers screened drill cuttings to be a thick heavy paste as well as a non-free flowing paste and, thus, considers a thick heavy paste to be a non-free flowing paste. The ’062 patent does not discuss “non-free flowing drill cuttings,” or relate it to gravity. However, given that the ’062 patent considers “drill cuttings” to be “non-free flowing paste,” the “drill cuttings” are already “non-free flowing” according to the ’062 patent. Thus, when the claims add “non-free flowing” to “drill cuttings,” we find that they do not provide a further limitation, but rather just provide an extra description that a person of ordinary skill in the art would already understand is present if they were to read the specification. The ’062 patent is simply providing many ways to describe the same thing. There is no persuasive evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand “non-free flowing” to otherwise be a term of art. Indeed, Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Brown, points to the exact same physical material samples to provide examples of “drill cuttings,” “non-free flowing paste,” and “non-free flowing drill cuttings.” Compare Ex. 2014 ¶ 53 with Ex. 2056 ¶ 53 with Ex. 2059 ¶ 53 with Ex. 2060 ¶ 53 (each using the same picture to describe the material).18” slip op. at 12

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

    “3. “means for transporting” This term appears in claims 39, 40, 46, and 47. Petitioner proposes the term is a means-plus-function limitation having a function of “transporting [the] pressure vessel to a discharge station” and corresponding structure of “a ship, crane, and road vehicle.” Pet. ’263, 12 (citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 1, Fig. 6, 5:8–11, 5:59–63, 6:17–31). Patent Owner proposes a similar construction. PO Resp. ’263, 20 (using the term “boat” instead of “ship”). The constructions are effectively identical. Our Decision does not turn on which proposed construction we choose; we adopt the Patent Owner’s proposed construction. 4. “means for transferring” This term appears in claims 44 and 45. Petitioner proposes the term is a means-plus-function limitation having a function of “transferring the nonfree flowing drill cuttings from a second vessel to a third vessel” and corresponding structure of “a conduit, pipe, or flexible hose.” Pet. ’263, 12– 13 (citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 1, Fig. 6, 5:8–11, 5:59–63, 6:17–31). Patent Owner proposes a similar construction, but with more exemplary corresponding structures. PO Resp. ’263, 21 (also including “compressed gas[/air],” “a connector,” and “a hose”). Petitioner’s Reply does not discuss the construction of “means for transferring.” Our Decision does not turn on which proposed construction we choose; we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction because it is a slightly broader reasonable interpretation.” slip op. at 18

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer foundDecided for patent owner

    “The original claims of the ’217 patent were rejected as anticipated by Curtis, which had pulsed-jet aerators in the cone of the pressure vessel. Ex. 2017, 232, 3:7–11, 6:59–64. After a telephone interview, during which the Examiner and Patent Owner “[d]iscussed [a] proposed amendment” (id. at 284), the Examiner proposed an Examiner’s Amendment adding that the conveyance gas was “the sole means for inducing movement [of the material]” (see, e.g., id. at 322). The Examiner set forth the scope of the “sole means” limitation: “heat addition, aerating action (i.e. chopping up of material, applying a screw conveyor, etc.), or the addition of a fluidizing agent are precluded. The conveyance gas is not a fluidizing agent.” Id. Amending the claims to include the “sole means” limitation, along with the Examiner’s accompanying explanation of its scope, are clearly and unmistakably the reasons for issuance of the ’217 patent. See Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc., 582 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (prosecution history “provides evidence of how the [PTO] and the inventor understood the patent” (quoting Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (alteration in original)). The application that was issued as the ’062 patent is a direct continuation of the application that issued as the ’217 patent. The claims in the ’062 patent application did not have the “sole means” limitation required by the Examiner for allowance of the ’217 patent. Instead, the claims included the “without employing non-pneumatic means” limitation. The ’062 patent application received an obviousness-type double patenting rejection in the first Office Action, where the Examiner stated “[a]lthough the [claims in the ’217 patent and the present application] are not identical, they are not patently distinct from each other because the instant apparatus claim(s) are too close in scope with the patented method claim(s).” Ex. 2019, 629. Patent Owner did not traverse that rejection and filed a terminal disclaimer; the claims were thereafter allowed. Our understanding of the prosecution history of the ’062 patent is that the Examiner did not consider the “without employing” limitation to be meaningfully broader than the “sole means” limitation, or the Examiner would have re-instated the Curtis rejection. Instead, the Examiner stated the claims were “not patently distinct.” Ex. 2019, 629. In other words, the Examiner considered the claims in the ’062 patent to also have “precluded” “heat addition, aerating action (i.e. chopping up of material, applying a screw conveyor, etc.), or the addition of a fluidizing agent.” Ex. 2017, 322. Patent Owner acquiesced to the Examiner’s statement that the claims are not patentably distinct by not traversing the double patenting rejection and filing a terminal disclaimer to secure allowance of the claims. Ex. 2019, 651 (“please find enclosed a TERMINAL DISCLAIMER in response to the double patenting rejection”). See Biogen Idec, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 713 F.3d 1090, 1097 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (disclaimer arose where the applicants “let[ ] stand an examiner’s narrow characterization of a claim term” and “adopt[ed] ... that characterization to overcome the examiner’s ... rejection”); TorPharm Inc. v. Ranbaxy Pharm., Inc., 336 F.3d 1322, 1330 (Fed.Cir.2003) (“Whether the patentee chooses to dispute the examiner’s view of matters is relevant to claim interpretation, for there a court may need to ascertain exactly what subject matter was actually examined and allowed by the PTO.”). Thus, the prosecution history of the ’062 patent simply continues the prosecution history of the ’217 patent, and leaves intact the Examiner’s and Patent Owner’s understanding regarding the scope of the amendment responsible for allowance. Accordingly, we construe the “without employing” limitation the same as the “sole means” limitation of the ’217 patent: heat addition, aerating action (i.e. chopping up of material, applying a screw conveyor, etc.), or the addition of a fluidizing agent are precluded. The conveyance gas is not a fluidizing agent.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 7,186,062 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 7,186,062
• Dynamic Air Inc. v. M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 23, 2017 · IPR2016-00260 · APJ Richard E Rice · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Dietzen I, Dietzen II, Ciaffone, Laster, and Pneumatic Conveying.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We do not agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art is unreasonably high, and we adopt Petitioner’s definition for purposes of our Final Written Decision. While Petitioner’s definition requires five years of design experience at the bachelor’s degree level of education, Patent Owner’s definition does not require any design experience at all. We agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art designs devices, and, thus, actively monitors the relevant technical literature, rather than is merely familiar with devices (e.g., an operator or a manufacturer), as proposed by Patent Owner. See Ex. 1032 ¶ 28; Ex. 1003, 2:59–61 (indicating that those skilled in the art would understand “that the critical cone angle will vary depending upon the material being conveyed”). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 16

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “1. Claim Preambles The preambles of independent claims 1 and 12 recite, respectively, “[a]n apparatus adapted for use on an oil well drilling rig for conveying nonfree flowing drill cuttings” and “[a] system for conveying non-free flowing oil well drill cuttings.” In the Institution Decision, we determined preliminarily that the preambles are limiting. Inst. Dec. 8. As neither party proposes any change to our interpretation, and our review of the full record developed at trial does not indicate that any change is necessary, we maintain that interpretation.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We agree with aspects of both parties’ proposed claim constructions. We agree with Petitioner that the term “non-free flowing drill cuttings” refers to the resultant mixture of cuttings and drilling mud after screening (which we understand to include similar processing to separate drill cuttings from drilling mud, such as centrifuging). See Ex. 1003, 1:42–46, 62–64; 6:15–16; cf. Ex. 2053 ¶10; Ex. 2058 ¶ 86. We agree with Patent Owner that the source of the resultant mixture is the drilling of an oil well, and that the mixture includes earth (drill cuttings) and drilling fluid or oil.12 See Ex. 1003, 1:31–46; Ex. 2058 ¶¶ 85–88. We do not agree with Patent Owner’s proposal to construe “non-free flowing drill cuttings” as drill cuttings that do not generally flow freely by gravitational force. There is insufficient support in the Specification for that proposal. The Specification does not distinguish between different types of screened drill cuttings, for example, screened drill cuttings that generally flow freely by gravitational force and those that do not. While the Specification describes screened drill cuttings in various ways, it is always referring to the same material. For example, the Specification refers explicitly to “thick, heavy pastes which are normally difficult to move and handle” (Ex. 1003, 1:28–29), “[screened] cuttings . . . transported ashore in the form of a very thick heavy paste” (id. at 1:42–46), “thick heavy paste material (e.g., drill cuttings)” (id. at 1:63–64), “a thick heavy paste” (id. at 1:67), “a non-free flowing paste” (id. at 2:6–7), “[t]he non-free flowing 12 See Ex 1003, 1:35–38 (calling drilling fluid a special type of oil used as a lubricant”). paste may be a thick and/or heavy paste or clay like material, e.g. oil rig drill cuttings” (id. at 2:10–11), and “a thick heavy paste” (id. at 3:9–10). As such, the Specification characterizes screened drill cuttings as a thick heavy paste as well as a non-free flowing paste and, thus, considers a thick heavy paste to be a non-free flowing paste. We determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification of “non-free flowing drill cuttings” is “screened drill cuttings, i.e., screened material, generated by the drilling of an oil well, including a mixture of earth and drilling fluid or oil.”” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Conventional terms ('about', 'substantially', 'a'/'an', 'configured to')Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “We disagree. The disclosure in the Specification that the pressure vessel for conveying non-free flowing drill cuttings may be “similar to” the Clyde vessel indicates that the vessels have characteristics in common, but does not indicate clearly that the Clyde vessel could be used, without modification, to convey non-free flowing drill cuttings. For the reasons given above and in the Institution Decision, we maintain our interpretation that “adapted [for/to]” as used in the claims means “made [for/to]” or “designed [for/to].” See Inst. Dec. 9.” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 7,033,124 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,033,124

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.