• Carrier Fire & Security Americas Corporation v. Sentrilock, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 14, 2022 · IPR2021-00665 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 6, and 10–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Mosgrove and Harold, and independently over Kniffin and Maloney.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art has “at least a Bachelor’s degree [in] Electronics, Electrical, or Mechanical Engineering or related discipline, [and/]or at least three years of experience 8 Patent Owner argues in its Response that Petitioner’s witness, Mr. Comerford, lacks credibility, improperly implies claim constructions, does not take the level of ordinary skill into account, relies on improper hindsight, and is biased in favor of Petitioner because of employment history, and, hence, we should give his testimony “no weight.” See Resp. 6– 16. We do not agree with Patent Owner’s positions. The evidence shows that Mr. Comerford is qualified to testify on the issues in this proceeding, and we find his opinions are based on his understanding of the perspective of the ordinarily skilled artisan, his experience, the ordinary meaning of claim terms, and the disclosures of the prior art, are supported by evidence, and do not rely on the ’589 patent as a roadmap so as to infect his opinions with improper hindsight. See generally Ex. 1002; Ex. 1028; Ex. 1029. working with access control devices.”9 Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 19). Such a person of ordinary skill in the art could have both this level of education and experience without straying from Petitioner’s definition. Patent Owner neither contests Petitioner’s proposed definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan nor proposes an alternative. See generally Resp. Patent Owner’s witness, however, expressly adopts Petitioner’s definition. Ex. 2015 ¶ 20. We likewise adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art and apply it here. B.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner states that “[f]or purposes of this IPR, Petitioner does not believe any claim term requires a construction in order to resolve if the Challenged Claims are unpatentable.” Pet. 24. Patent Owner indicates it agrees with Petitioner “that the terms of the Challenged Claims should be understood as written.” See Resp. 4–5. 9 We understand Petitioner’s proposed definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan to be inclusive regarding education and experience because such is reflected in Mr. Comerford’s cited testimony. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 19 (“I am such a person” and identifying his education and experience). We agree with the parties and determine that no claim term requires express construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that only claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed and “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). C.” slip op. at 9

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

    “In order to gain the benefit of the filing date of an earlier application under 35 U.S.C. § 120, each application in the chain leading back to the earlier application must comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also 35 U.S.C. § 119(e)(1) (benefit of provisional application’s filing date requires disclosure of claimed invention “in the manner provided by the first paragraph of section 112”); Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1381–82 (“A reference patent is only entitled to claim the benefit of the filing date of its provisional application if the disclosure of the provisional application provides support for the claims in the reference patent in compliance with § 112, ¶ 1.”). “Entitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed. It extends only to that which is disclosed.” Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1571–72. We agree with Petitioner that the ’773 provisional does not describe the key identification device required by the claims so as to satisfy § 112. Such a component is described by the ’400 patent as the RFID tag. See Ex. 1006, Fig. 5 (element 74). The ’773 provisional, on the other hand, describes nothing that could be considered the claimed key identification device “for attachment to [the] at least one key” as recited by claims 1 and 14. Ex. 1001, 21:41–43, 22:38–40. Nothing in the ’773 provisional hints that anything, be it a tag or generic device, is attached to its otherwise disclosed key; therefore, we cannot agree with Patent Owner’s arguments. See generally Ex. 1005. The ’773 provisional merely indicates that a key can be contained in, removed from, and replaced in a key container module that can somehow sense the key’s presence, but provides no description as to how this sensing is accomplished, and certainly does not describe that anything attached to the key allows this sensing. Id. ¶ 4. slip op. at 13

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

    “[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. This is the case here where Mosgrove’s wireless communication system exists already and is merely redirected. “[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” Id. at 417. Further, “any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements [of the prior art] in the manner claimed.” Id. at 420. This is the case here where the techniques of Harold illuminate an advantage to be had using Mosgrove’s existing system (or a slightly modified Mosgrove system). We find a reason existed to combine and modify the prior art: efficiency and streamlining. See Dystar Textilfarben Gmbh & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (making things stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient are universal motivators to combine/modify prior art). And, as Mosgrove’s disclosed key containers have wireless communication capability, simply specifying that the communications will be between the key container and the computer rather than between the key container and keypad is no technological leap. It would have required only the use of known components and techniques to yield predictable results, and we find there would have been a reasonable expectation for success. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 79; KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (to be nonobvious, an improvement must more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions). slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 8,606,589 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,606,589
• Carrier Fire & Security Americas Corporation v. Sentrilock, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 14, 2022 · IPR2021-00664 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 23, 24, 28, 29, 35, 37, and 39–47 are unpatentable as obvious over Mosgrove, Harold, and Imran; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been “a person with at least a Bachelor’s degree in Electronics, Electrical, or Mechanical Engineering or related discipline, [and/]or at least three years of experience working with access control devices.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 19).10 Such a person of ordinary skill in the art could have both this level of education and experience without straying from Petitioner’s definition. Patent Owner neither contests Petitioner’s proposed definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan nor proposes an alternative. See generally Resp. Patent Owner’s witness, however, expressly adopts Petitioner’s definition. Ex. 2015 ¶ 20. We likewise adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art and apply it here.11 hindsight, and is biased in favor of Petitioner because of employment history, and, hence, we should give his testimony “no weight.” See Resp. 9– 19. We do not agree with Patent Owner’s positions. The evidence shows that Mr. Comerford is qualified to testify on the issues in this proceeding, and we find his opinions are based on his understanding of the perspective of the ordinarily skilled artisan, his experience, the ordinary meaning of claim terms, and the disclosures of the prior art, are supported by evidence, and do not rely on the ’541 patent as a roadmap so as to infect his opinions with improper hindsight. See generally Ex. 1002; Ex. 1028; Ex. 1029. 10 We understand Petitioner’s proposed definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan to be inclusive regarding education and experience because such is reflected in Mr. Comerford’s cited testimony. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 19 (“I am such a person.”). 11 The parties use the acronym POSA to refer to the person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Pet.; Resp.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner states that “[f]or purposes of this IPR, Petitioner does not believe any claim term requires a construction in order to resolve if the Challenged Claims are unpatentable based on the prior art presented.” Pet. 21. Patent Owner indicates it agrees with Petitioner “that the terms of the Challenged Claims should be understood as written.” See Resp. 6–7. We agree with the parties and determine that no claim term requires express construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that only claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed and “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). C.” slip op. at 13

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

    “In order to gain the benefit of the filing date of an earlier application under 35 U.S.C. § 120, each application in the chain leading back to the earlier application must comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also 35 U.S.C. § 119(e)(1) (benefit of provisional application’s filing date requires disclosure of claimed invention “in the manner provided by the first paragraph of section 112”); Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1381–82 (“A reference patent is only entitled to claim the benefit of the filing date of its provisional application if the disclosure of the provisional application provides support for the claims in the reference patent in compliance with § 112, ¶ 1.”). “Entitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed. It extends only to that which is disclosed.” Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1571–72. We agree with Petitioner that the ’773 provisional does not describe the key identification tag/device required by all claims so as to satisfy § 112. Such a component is described by the ’400 patent as the RFID tag. See Ex. 1006, Fig. 5 (element 74). The ’773 provisional, on the other hand, describes nothing that could be considered the claimed key identification tag or device “for attachment to the at least one key” as recited by claim 23 or “attaching a key identification device to a key” as recited by claim 45. Ex. 1002, 23:1–5, 24:32–35. Nothing in the ’773 provisional hints that anything, be it a tag or generic device, is attached to its otherwise disclosed key; therefore, we cannot agree with Patent Owner’s arguments. See generally Ex. 1005. The ’773 provisional merely indicates that a key can be contained in, removed from, and replaced in a key container module that can somehow sense the key’s presence, but provides no description as to how this sensing is accomplished, and certainly does not describe that anything attached to the key allows this sensing. Id. ¶ 4. slip op. at 16

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “In our Trial Practice Guide we explain that a “[p]etitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in [a] reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g.[,] to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 73 (Nov. 2019)14 (“CTPG” or “Trial Practice Guide”) (citing Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1077–78 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). The Trial Practice Guide further explains that “‘[r]espond,’ in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing,” and “[w]hile replies and sur-replies can help crystalize issues for decision, a reply or sur-reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence may not be considered.” Id. at 74. “In most cases, the Board is capable of identifying new issues or belatedly presented evidence when weighing the evidence at the close of trial, and disregarding any new issues or belatedly presented evidence that exceeds the proper scope of reply or sur-reply.” CTPG 80 (Nov. 2019). The Board has regularly shown this capability. See Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (The Board refusing to consider reply brief arguments advocating a “new theory” of unpatentability under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)); Apple Inc. v. e-Watch, Inc., IPR2015-00412, Paper 50, 44 (PTAB May 6, 2016) (“Accepting . . . 14 Available at www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. belatedly presented new arguments would be unjust to the Patent Owner and we decline to do so.”). Thus, we find any suggestion by Petitioner that Mosgrove’s entire key container or key compartment is the conductive container of Diaferia is a new and late argument, which we will not consider. Likewise, we find any suggestion by Petitioner that some sort of wire or cable (or something of that nature) might be used to connect a key put inside a conductive container to a key tag that is outside that conductive container so that the tag might be inserted into a key-sensing circuit is also a new and late argument, which we will not consider.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 7,949,541 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,949,541
• Intel Corporation v. Acqis LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jan 18, 2022 · IPR2021-01114 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 17–19, 26–31, 35, and 36 because substantially the same arguments were previously presented and Petitioner did not show material Office error.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) based on the framework set forth in Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GMBH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). In Advanced Bionics, the Board applied a two-part framework in considering whether to exercise discretion to deny institution under § 325(d): “(1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of [the] first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8. Only if the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office do we then consider whether petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office. Id. at 10. “At bottom, this framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9.” slip op. at 10

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner

    “For the foregoing reasons, the ’882 application identified the ’886 provisional with particularity and would have directly led an ordinarily skilled artisan to the document intended to be incorporated. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner fails to show that the Examiner erred in determining that the ’882 application (Chu ’330) incorporated the ’886 provisional by reference.” slip op. at 23

  • Skill levelOther
  § 112 disclosureDiscretionary denial
• Offshore Technical Compliance, LLC v. Innovative Pressure Testing, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 28, 2021 · IPR2020-00923 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 were held unpatentable as obvious over BOP California, Wodjenski, and Winters; the revised motion to amend proposing claims 19–35 was denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther

    “1 The Petition requested review of claims 1–18, but Patent Owner filed a statutory disclaimer of claim 18. Pet. 3; Ex. 2001; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e) (“The patent owner may file a statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. 253(a) in compliance with § 1.321(a) of this chapter, disclaiming one or more claims in the patent. No inter partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.”); Nobel Biocare Servs. AG v. Instradent USA, Inc., 903 F.3d 1365, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2018). claims on which we instituted trial. Based on the record before us, Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) claims 1–17 of the ’143 patent are unpatentable; and (2) Patent Owner’s proposed substitute claims 19–35 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “B. Testimony of Mr. Anderson Patent Owner contends that the testimony provided by Petitioner’s” slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining whether an invention would have been obvious at the” slip op. at 18

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other

    “D. Claim Construction The Board uses “the same claim construction standard that would be” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 9,207,143 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,207,143
• BJ Energy Solutions, LLC v. Yantai Jereh Petroleum Equipment & Technologies Co., Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 7, 2021 · PGR2021-00060 · APJ Ryan H Flax · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show claims 1–7 likely unpatentable, and a possible § 112(a) issue for claims 8–9 did not justify instituting on all claims and grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “not demonstrated with particularity that it is more likely than not that most claims challenged in the petition are unpatentable under the asserted grounds. Although there is a reasonable argument that claims 8 and 9 may be unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as discussed above, this analysis is applicable to only these two dependent claims under a single ground for unpatentability, leaving Petitioner’s other ten grounds insufficient regarding independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2–7. As discussed above, instituting trial under these circumstances would not be an efficient use of the Board’s or the parties’ time and resources. See Chevron, IPR2018- 00923, Paper 9, 10–11; Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR2018-01310, Paper 7, 41–43 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (informative). Our decision at this stage derives from our review of the record presented. In accordance with the Court’s decision in SAS (138 S. Ct. at 1359– 60) and Office guidance, we deny institution of a post-grant review of the challenged claims of the ’631 patent on any grounds alleged by Petitioner. This decision does not reflect a final determination on the patentability of any claim.” slip op. at 66

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied

    “Even when a petitioner satisfies the minimum statutory institution standard (e.g., demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to one or more claims in an inter partes review or that it is more likely than not that at least one claim is unpatentable in a post-grant review), institution of review remains discretionary. SAS Inst. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (2018); Harmonic, Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“First of all, the PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding.”). Under such circumstances, the Board takes into account other considerations, including efficiency and fundamental fairness for all parties. See Adaptics Limited v. Perfect Co., IPR2018-01596, Paper 20 at 17 (PTAB Mar. 6, 2019) (informative); Chevron Oronite Co. LLC v. Infineum USA L.P., IPR2018-00923, Paper 9 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2018) (informative); see also Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 84 FR 64280, 53– 63 (2019) (addressing various considerations at institution phase, including efficiency and fundamental fairness for all parties).1 We conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated in the petition that it is more likely than not that challenged claims 1–7 are unpatentable under any asserted grounds for unpatentability. Although it is a closer question as to whether Petitioner has demonstrated it is more likely than not that dependent claims 8 and 9 are unpatentable based on a single asserted unpatentability ground under § 112, we determine based on the record here that instituting a trial with respect to all challenged claims under all eleven asserted grounds for unpatentability is not an efficient use of the Board’s or the parties’ time and resources. Therefore, we do not institute post-grant review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324. See SAS, 138 S. Ct. at 1359–60 (requiring institution on all claims, if any); see also Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 55 (providing guidance in view of SAS).” slip op. at 2

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

    “to read the concept of “flush with” into the claims. We agree with Petitioner’s position that such an interpretation is not supported by the ’631 patent’s written description, which illustrates and describes two embodiments, each having a turbine engine and reduction gearbox configured to be flush with one another, but refers to only the configuration of Embodiment 1 as being “directly connected” and refers to the configuration of Embodiment 2 as being merely “connected.” See Ex. 1001, 5:27–28, 5:62–6:2, Figs. 2, 3; see also Ex. 2001 ¶ 63 (Patent Owner’s expert witness confirming there is a difference between merely “connected” and “directly connected”). Thus, the intrinsic record supports a conclusion that the concept of “directly connected” is not related to whether one component is “flush with” another component. This disclosure of the ’631 patent also illuminates the meaning of “directly connected.” As shown in Embodiment 2, something may be connected with another thing even if there are intervening components, e.g., a transmission shaft or coupling; however, as shown in Embodiment 1, the ’631 patent uses the term “directly connected” only where no such intervening components are disclosed. Ex. 1001, 5:15– 6:19, Figs. 2, 3. Besides the guidance provided with respect to the embodiments discussed above, the ’631 patent does not otherwise expressly define the term “directly connected.” See generally Ex. 1001. Thus, we consider what the ordinarily skilled artisan would consider to be its ordinary and customary meaning. In this respect, Patent Owner also uses the word “uninterrupted” to describe “directly connected.” See Prelim. Resp. 6; see also Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 61–71. We conclude based on this record that the concept of “uninterrupted” is more apt than the concept of “flush with,” and find it to be a better description for the ordinary and customary meaning of “directly connected.” For example, the ’631 patent describes, in Embodiment 1, “the turbine engine 19 is connected to the plunger pump 18.” Ex. 1001, 5:26–27 (emphasis added). However, it is without question that Embodiment 1 positions a reduction gearbox between the turbine engine and plunger pump; thus, the engine and pump may be connected, but they are not directly connected. See, e.g., Fig. 2. On the other hand, regarding this same Embodiment 1, the ’631 patent describes that “the turbine engine 19 is directly connected to an input end of the reduction gearbox 24,” and there are no components illustrated or described as being between the turbine engine and reduction gearbox. Id. at 5:28–30 (emphasis added), Fig. 3. The connection between the turbine engine and reduction gearbox shown in Embodiment 1 is more aptly described as being uninterrupted. Thus, this illuminates the meaning of “directly connected.” In view of the above, we ascribe to the term “directly connected” its ordinary and customary meaning as it would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, and we find that ordinary and customary meaning to require that the turbine engine and reduction gearbox are connected with nothing intervening there-between so that their connection is uninterrupted.” slip op. at 29

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

    “Petitioner’s evidence shows that the Apollo 1 apparatus has two gearboxes and a clutch between its turbine engine and plunger pump, thus the Apollo 1 does not meet the claim limitation “the plunger pump is a plunger pump integrated with a reduction gearbox, the turbine engine is directly connected to an input end of the reduction gearbox integrated on the plunger pump.” Ex. 1001, 6:51–54. Petitioner’s Exhibit 1017 is explained by Mr. Zhang11 as having these two gearboxes and clutch, where at least one of the gearboxes and the clutch forecloses the system from having a single reduction gearbox that is both integrated on a pump and directly connected to a turbine engine. Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 8–12. Petitioner presents no evidence contradicting Mr. Zhang’s understanding of the Apollo 1 configuration and, notably never attempted to explain exactly what is shown in the above-reproduced photograph from its own Exhibit 1017, even when given the opportunity to address Mr. Zhang’s testimony in its Reply. See generally Reply.” slip op. at 50

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,865,631
• ROKU, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · May 13, 2021 · IPR2019-01595 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing of its decision denying institution on claims 1 and 2, finding no abuse of discretion on priority entitlement or motivation to combine Darbee and Golender.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. STANDARD OF REVIEW “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision,” and the challenging party “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed” in a 1 Petitioner also filed a request for the Precedential Opinion Panel (“POP”) to review the Decision (Paper 13 (Notification of Receipt of POP Request)), which the POP denied (Paper 14 (Order)). paper of record. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Because Petitioner seeks rehearing of our Decision denying institution of trial based on the Petition, it must show an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) (“When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.”). 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., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Thus, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity merely to disagree with the Board’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence, or to present new arguments or evidence that could have been presented in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

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

    “issue upon which the priority determination turns—what the priority applications reasonably would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art—because Dr. Medvidovic did not provide any testimony on that issue. And we did not overlook or misapprehend any testimony of Dr. Medvidovic regarding what the priority applications reasonably would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art because we could not have overlooked or misapprehended any testimony that was not presented in the Medvidovic Declaration. As discussed above, Dr. Medvidovic’s testimony based on what is expressly disclosed in or necessarily follows from the disclosures of the priority applications was insufficient because Dr. Medvidovic did not explain adequately why the disclosures in the priority applications would not reasonably have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art the subject matter of the User Action Limitation. Thus, Dr. Medvidovic’s testimony was insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of what the priority applications reasonably would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Although Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Bear, provided detailed testimony and explanations regarding how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the priority applications to describe the subject matter recited in the User Action Limitation (see Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 111–122, 126–127), Dr. Medvidovic did not provide adequate testimony or explanations to the contrary on the issue (see Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 53–63).” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “misapprehend or overlook 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). The mere fact that Dr. Medvidovic provided testimony different from the testimony of Mr. Bear does not by itself raise a genuine issue of material fact. See Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1325–26 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The mere existence in the record of dueling expert testimony does not necessarily raise a genuine issue of material fact.”). As the Request acknowledges, Dr. Medvidovic in his Declaration (Ex. 1010, “Medvidovic Declaration”) testified that the subject matter of the User Action Limitation is “neither expressly disclosed [in] nor necessarily follows from” the descriptions in the priority applications about event journal data. Req. 3 (emphases added) (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 57–62). As discussed above, however, the test for determining compliance with the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112 is whether the original disclosure of the earlier-filed application reasonably would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of the earlier-filed application. Ariad Pharm., 598 F.3d at 1351. The record shows that Dr. Medvidovic did not provide any testimony in his Declaration as to what the disclosures in the priority applications reasonably would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 53–63. Nor did Dr. Medvidovic explain adequately in his Declaration why the disclosures in the priority applications would not reasonably have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art the subject matter of the User Action Limitation. See id.” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Under Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, however, “less education can be remedied with additional work experience (e.g., 5–6 years).” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 64–67). As stated in the Bear Declaration, Mr. Bear’s work experience includes at least 9 years of computer software programming using a variety of coding languages, such as BASIC, Pascal, C, C++, and 68000 Assembly Language. See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 10–12. Thus, Mr. Bear is qualified to testify from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art under Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. As discussed in the Decision, although we did not find the parties’ proposals for the level of ordinary skill in the art to be materially different, to the extent the testimony from the parties’ declarants on the level of ordinary skill in the art raised a genuine issue of material fact, we adopted and applied Petitioner’s definition for purposes of the Decision, being mindful of the rule that “a genuine issue of material fact created by such testimonial evidence will be viewed in the light most favorable to the petitioner solely for purposes of deciding whether to institute an inter partes review.” Dec. 9 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c)). Thus, the record shows that, under Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted in consideration of § 42.108(c), the Decision appropriately credited Mr. Bear’s testimony on what the priority applications reasonably would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11

  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 8,015,446
• Flex Logix Technologies Inc. v. Venkat KondaAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 16, 2021 · PGR2019-00042 · APJ Norman H Beamer · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 9–15, and 17–19 are unpatentable under §§ 102(a)(1) and 103; the revised motion to amend and motion to exclude are denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Therefore, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 16

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

    “Because only those claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy, we do not expressly construe any claim term for purposes of this Decision. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).” slip op. at 17

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

    “Ex. 1001, 49:9–18. Petitioner argues, and we agree, that this language is non-limiting as reciting optional features that “may or may not” be present, and therefore irrelevant to the issue of anticipation.9 Pet. 54–57.” slip op. at 23

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

    “In light of these and other disclosures in Wong ’308, Petitioner argues that a POSITA would have been motivated to implement the switches of the ’756 PCT application using multiplexers. Pet. 102; Ex. 1002 ¶ 182. Patent Owner does not challenge this fact — the references to multiplexers (also referred to a “muxes”) in the ’342 patent suggest that Patent Owner would concede this point. E.g., Ex. 1001, 9:67, 14:33. Upon review of the record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of the ’724 provisional application and Wong ’308 renders claims 1–7, 9–15, and 17–19 obvious.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 10,003,553 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,003,553
• BMW Of North America, LLC v. Stragent, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 13, 2018 · IPR2017-00677 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 51–59 are unpatentable: claims 51–59 over Staiger and Millsap, and claims 51 and 54–57 over each OSEK-based obviousness ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “We have reviewed the relevant deposition testimony, in which Dr. Miller was asked to identify the standard he used when construing claim terms in his Declaration. Ex. 1025, 27:1–34:14. We agree with Petitioner that Dr. Miller did not provide responses sufficient to conclude that he was aware of and/or applied the correct claim-construction standard. See id. at 27:5–6 (“I used what is generally accepted in the field.”), 27:9–11 (“So to – for construing the claim terms is providing a definition of what the term is. So I provided a general definition for the terms.”), 30:3–6 (“Well, that’s the standard that I used for construing the claim terms in this Declaration. I don’t know if that’s the legal qualification for construing claim terms.”), 32:18–23 (“broadest reasonable interpretation” would mean “when you’re defining a term that you would define it in a way that is, first of all, reasonable, that it makes sense and that it’s broad, meaning general and that it’s interpreting the phrase or the term”). Nevertheless, we are not persuaded that the appropriate remedy is exclusion of Dr. Miller’s testimony. As Patent Owner asserts, “[t]he role of the expert witness under the Federal Rules of Evidence is to ‘help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.’” Paper 24, 2–3 (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 702) (emphasis by Patent Owner). As Patent Owner further asserts, Petitioner does not “impugn[]” Dr. Miller’s credibility as an expert in the subject matter at issue. Id. at 3–4. We agree with Patent Owner that “Petitioner’s attack on the sufficiency of the evidence is improper in a motion to exclude.” Id. at 4 (citing Microsoft Corp. v. Surfcast, Inc., Case IPR2013-00292 at 52–53 (Paper 93) (PTAB Oct. 14, 2014)). We accordingly deny Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedOther

    “Petitioner alternatively argues in its Reply that “Because Dr. Miller did not apply the correct claim construction standard, his opinions on claim construction (Ex. 2001, §§16-21) should be afforded no weight.” Reply 2. Although we agree that the weight to be accorded to Dr. Miller’s testimony on claim construction is impacted by the uncertainty of the analytical procedure he followed, we are not persuaded that his testimony should be discounted wholesale. Dr. Miller provides relevant opinions on a number of issues, particularly including how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand certain terms in light of the Specification, that are helpful to us as the trier of fact. “There is no more certain test for determining when experts may be used than the common sense inquiry whether the untrained layman would be qualified to determine intelligently and to the best possible degree the particular issue without enlightenment from those having a specialized understanding of the subject involved in the dispute.” Ladd, Expert Testimony, 5 Vand. L. Rev. 414, 418 (1952).” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “shared “in real time utilizing a second network protocol . . . ,” and dependent claim 59 recites that information is processed “to create, in real-time, messages in at least two other message formats . . . .” Petitioner argues that the Specification of the ’843 patent expressly defines “real-time”: “In the context of the present description, real-time may include any response time that may be measured in milli- or microseconds, and/or is less than 1 second.” Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 35–38. Accordingly, Petitioner proposes that “‘real-time’ should be construed as responses that occur in less than one second.” Pet. 13. Patent Owner contends that the definition from the Specification should be adopted. PO Resp. 15. We construe “real-time” as Petitioner proposes, i.e., as including responses that occur in less than one second. The first part of the quote cited above provided in the Specification (“may be measured in milli- or microseconds”) is not limiting because any response time, no matter how large or small, may be measured in milli- or microseconds.” slip op. at 16

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

    “been reached in association with the storage request.” Petitioner proposes that “threshold” be construed consistent with a dictionary definition it provides, as a “value above which something is true or will take place and below which it is not or will not.” Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1016, 5). Observing that the Specification of the ’843 patent uses “threshold” in the context of an elapsed time, Petitioner further proposes that this construction “include the maximum value (i.e., time-out) of a timer.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, col. 8, ll. 21–25, col. 8, ll. 47–51). We agree, and accordingly construe “threshold” as Petitioner proposes.3 3. “heterogeneous networks” Dependent claim 55 recites that the “apparatus is operable such that the first network and the second network are heterogeneous networks.” The Specification of the ’843 patent defines “heterogeneous networks”: “In the context of the present description, heterogeneous networks may refer to any different communication networks with at least one aspect that is different.” Ex. 1001, col. 7, ll. 26–29. In light of this explicit definition, for purposes of this Decision, we construe “heterogeneous networks” as Petitioner proposes, i.e., as “networks having at least one aspect that is different.” Pet. 14 (citing 3 Patent Owner advocates for the same construction advanced by Petitioner, but omits inclusion of the maximum value of a timer. PO Resp. 15. Although Patent Owner asserts that the construction is otherwise “the definition provided by the ‘843 Patent,” it does not cite to the ’843 patent to support its assertion, and we are unable to identify such a definition in the patent. Nevertheless, we agree with Petitioner that any distinction between the constructions is not material to any grounds. See Reply 6.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 8,566,843 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,566,843
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Mar 23, 2016 · IPR2015-02000 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied for claims 1–22 because the claims were entitled to the November 6, 1997 priority date, so the asserted references were not prior art.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “B. The Applicable Legal Standard Under 35 U.S.C. § 120 Under 35 U.S.C § 120, to claim the benefit of the filing date from an earlier application, each application in the chain leading back to the earlier application must comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Zenon Envtl., Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp., 506 F.3d 1370, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also In re Hogan, 559 F.2d 595, 609 (CCPA 1977) (“[T]here has to be a continuous chain of co-pending applications each of which satisfies the requirements of § 112 with respect to the subject matter presently claimed.”). If any application in the priority chain fails to include the requisite disclosure, the later-filed application is not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of applications preceding the break in the priority chain. Lockwood v. Am. Airlines Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1997).” slip op. at 10

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

    “the ʼ194 or ʼ780 patents. Pet. 12. However, as Patent Owner points out, that is not the proper test. Prelim. Resp. 13–14. The claimed subject matter need not be described “in haec verba” in the original specification in order to satisfy the written description requirement. In re Wright, 866 F.2d 422, 425 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Rather, “the test . . . is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the applicant possessed what is claimed in the later filed application as of the filing date of the earlier filed application.” Noelle v. Lederman, 355 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We are persuaded that, on the record presented, this test has been met. We are persuaded that the disclosure in the ʼ194 patent of a security database storing “known Downloadables” provides written description support for the file cache recitation in the ʼ731 patent claims. Prelim. Resp. 17–19. Petitioner does not dispute that known Downloadables are files. Pet. 26 (“Touboul discloses generating and using a Downloadable ID (file identifier) to identify each Downloadable (file).”). Moreover, Petitioner specifically refers to components of the security database as caches: “Claim 1 [of the ʼ731 patent] is the obvious combination of a cache such as the cache taught by Tso with the scanner, security profile cache, and security policy cache in Touboul’s gateway as detailed below.” Pet. 20 (emphasis added). We see no basis to distinguish these descriptions of caches from the storage of Downloadables in the security database. Moreover, we are persuaded that a security database providing temporary storage of known Downloadables meets the requirements of a cache as “a memory for holding a file, at least temporarily.” See supra.” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner

    “E. Conclusion We agree with Patent Owner that the ʼ731 patent claims are entitled to the benefit of the grandparent application filed on November 6, 1997. Accordingly, Touboul and the other art asserted by Petitioner does not qualify as prior art to the ʼ731 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), as asserted by Petitioner.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We are not persuaded, either, by Petitioner’s position, unsupported by any citation of authority, that Patent Owner’s decision not to claim the benefit of the earlier filing date during prosecution of the ʼ731 patent is an admission. Nor are we persuaded by the conclusory testimony of Petitioner’s expert on the filing date issue. See Rubin Decl. ¶ 69. Under our rules, expert testimony that does not have a proper basis is entitled to little or no weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 13

  § 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 7,418,731
• Mitchell International, Inc. v. Audatex North America, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 19, 2016 · CBM2014-00174 · APJ Lora M Green · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–31 are unpatentable under § 101 and anticipated by or obvious over Reimel; the motion to amend with substitute claims 32–62 is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We have carefully considered Patent Owner’s arguments, but we do not agree that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “insurance claim,” when read in light of the Specification, is a “request to recover market value or repair cost in association with an insurance policy.” The portion of the Specification Petitioner is relying upon is only describing the state of the art at the time of invention. Moreover, it uses terms such as “may” and “typically,” and, thus, does not explicitly define “insurance claim” as Patent Owner would have us do. Thus, we see no reason to deviate from the construction of the claim term “data relating to an insurance claim for a damaged vehicle” that we adopted in the Decision on Institution; that is, as encompassing, but not being limited to, any data that would be used in making an insurance claim. Dec. 12. Moreover, even if we were to adopt Patent Owner’s more limited construction of “insurance claim,” Patent Owner does not explain how that would further limit the data that would be entered, and in fact, Patent Owner notes (PO Resp. 1) that it does not disagree with the interpretation of “data” we adopted in the Decision on Institution.” slip op. at 10

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable

    “Here, we observe that each challenged claim is directed to the fundamental concept of providing a vehicle valuation using information about the vehicle. Patent Owner contends that, unlike the claims in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), the claims at issue in the instant proceeding are not drawn to an algorithm. PO Resp. 12–14. When the claims are analyzed as a whole, as urged by Patent Owner (PO Resp. 10), however, the claims recite nothing more than the collection of information to generate a valuation report for a damaged vehicle. Moreover, all the steps could be performed without the use of a computer. Specifically, the steps and calculations covered by the claims essentially require determining the value of a damaged vehicle by entering data related to an insurance claim, such as mileage and vehicle condition, and processing the data to generate a valuation report for the damaged vehicle; a calculation that can be performed by the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. See, e.g., Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., No. 2015-1415, 2016 WL 362415, at *7 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 20, 2016) (noting that the steps of the claims could be performed by a human without the use of a computer in concluding that the claims at issue were drawn to an abstract idea). The fact that the claims at issue are not per se drawn to an algorithm does not insulate them from being found an abstract idea. The claims in Alice were drawn to “a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating ‘settlement risk’ . . . by using a third-party intermediary.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2351–52. The claims at issue in Mortgage Grader were drawn to a computer-implemented system that allowed borrowers to shop anonymously for loan packages from a plurality of lenders. Mortgage Grader, 2016 WL 362415, at *1. Thus, the fact that the claims in those cases were not specifically drawn to an algorithm did not prevent them from being drawn to an abstract idea. We are persuaded that, similar to the concept of intermediated settlement in Alice, the concept of risk hedging in Bilski, and the concept of shopping anonymously for loan packages in Mortgage Grader¸ the concept at issue here—obtaining a vehicle valuation report for a damaged vehicle— is “a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce,” and “squarely within the realm of ‘abstract ideas.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356–57; Bilski, 130 S. Ct. 3231. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that the challenged claims are directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea.” slip op. at 16

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

  Patent outcomesUS 8,200,513 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,200,513

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.