- Wombat Security Technologies v. Phishme, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jul 20, 2017 · PGR2017-00009 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · PGR · Rehearing
The Board denied Wombat’s rehearing request, leaving institution of PGR denied because the petition did not show the patent was eligible for PGR.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“DISCUSSION The applicable standard for granting a request for rehearing is abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The requirements of a request for rehearing are set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides in relevant part: A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the 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.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“sufficiently shown that the ’038 patent was eligible for post-grant review. Inst. Dec. 8–13. Specifically, we found deficient Petitioner’s contention that the challenged claims were not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of Application No. 13/785,252 (“the ’252 application”) to which the ’038 patent claims priority as a continuation-in-part. Inst. Dec. 8–13. This finding was based on the following deficiencies of the Petition: (1) the Petition did not discuss the relevant disclosure of the application to which the ’038 patent claims priority—Application No. 13/785,282 (“the ’252 application”)—as originally filed, citing instead to the ’940 patent, which issued from the ’252 application; (2) the Petition did not address the Examiner’s statements in the Notice of Allowability that “[t]he present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions”; and (3) Petitioner did not satisfy its burden to show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood the inventor to have possession of “providing feedback to the individual confirming that the identified email was a simulated phishing attack” (“the feedback limitation”). Id. For the third deficiency, we found the feedback limitation supported by at least paragraphs 5 and 18 of the ’252 application, which discuss training individuals who receive simulated phishing attacks such that users are better able to recognize and thwart a real phishing attack. Id. at 11–12.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“being recited expressly in the ’252 application it “satisf[ied] its burden to establish that it was more likely than not that the ’038 patent was not entitled to the filing date of the [’252 application].” Reh’g Req. 3. In Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., however, the Federal Circuit explicitly found that identifying a limitation as not being recited expressly in the specification at issue was not enough to support a finding of lack of written description. 815 F.3d 1331, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit explained that it was “troubled by the fact that the Board did not cite any evidence other than the fact that the terms were not present in the specification to support its finding,” concluding this placed “undue weight on the absence of the [exact] terms appearing in the specification.” Id. at 1345–46. Petitioner’s burden, therefore, is not established simply by pointing out that the ’252 application does not explicitly state the feedback limitation.” slip op. at 4
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not reached
“being recited expressly in the ’252 application it “satisf[ied] its burden to establish that it was more likely than not that the ’038 patent was not entitled to the filing date of the [’252 application].” Reh’g Req. 3. In Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., however, the Federal Circuit explicitly found that identifying a limitation as not being recited expressly in the specification at issue was not enough to support a finding of lack of written description. 815 F.3d 1331, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit explained that it was “troubled by the fact that the Board did not cite any evidence other than the fact that the terms were not present in the specification to support its finding,” concluding this placed “undue weight on the absence of the [exact] terms appearing in the specification.” Id. at 1345–46. Petitioner’s burden, therefore, is not established simply by pointing out that the ’252 application does not explicitly state the feedback limitation.” slip op. at 4
§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 9,398,038 - L’Oréal USA, Inc. v. Liqwd, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jul 19, 2017 · PGR2017-00011 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution of PGR on claims 1–10 because Petitioner did not show that any claim was more likely than not unpatentable under § 112.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 324(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting a post-grant review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), which provides that a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.”” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Moreover, “[a]pplicants can define . . . claim scope during prosecution,” just as they can in a patent specification. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 789 F.3d 1335, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Here, during prosecution of the ’419 patent, the applicant stated that “[t]he term ‘hair coloring agent’ refers to a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.” Ex. 1005, 7. To define specific terms used to describe an invention, the applicant need only set out the definition “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision,” “so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change” in meaning. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). On the present record, the definition of the term “hair coloring agent” set out in the prosecution history of the ’419 patent is sufficiently clear, deliberate, and precise to give a person of ordinary skill in the art notice that the term is used in the ’419 patent in a manner that does not include substances other than “colorant[s] or pigment[s] that [are] customarily used in hair care products,” even if those other substances might be described as “hair coloring agents” outside the context of the ’419 patent. Ex. 1005, 7. Accordingly, we should give effect to that definition. Because Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” gives effect to the prosecution history’s definition of “hair coloring agent,” we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction for purposes of the present decision. Thus, on the present record, and for purposes of the present decision, we construe “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” as “wherein the mixture applied to the hair does not have a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.”” slip op. at 6
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)Not shown unpatentable
“to determine the scope of the claims. As discussed above, however, we interpret “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” as “wherein the mixture applied to the hair does not have a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.” We have not been directed to evidence of record that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered a bleaching agent to be “a colorant or pigment.” Pet. 7 (describing bleaching as a “process[] that destroy[s] pigment to change hair color,” as opposed to a “process[] that deposit[s] dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair to change hair color”); Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 14–15 (contrasting “dyeing,” meaning “processes that alter or change hair color by depositing dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair,” with “bleaching,” meaning “the application of an oxidizing agent to hair to destroy the natural or artificial pigment”). Accordingly, on the present record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown that it is more likely than not that claims 1–10 of the ’419 patent are indefinite.” slip op. at 10
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not shown unpatentable
“wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent.” Pet. 36–39; Prelim. Resp. 39–40. If “a hair coloring agent” encompasses bleaching agents, then the claims all require a bleaching formulation and simultaneously exclude a bleaching agent, a scope that Petitioner argues is not described in the specification of the ’419 patent. As discussed above, however, we interpret “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” as “wherein the mixture applied to the hair does not have a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.” We have not been directed to evidence of record that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered a bleaching agent to be “a colorant or pigment.” Pet. 7 (describing bleaching as a “process[] that destroy[s] pigment to change hair color,” as opposed to a “process[] that deposit[s] dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair to change hair color”); Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 14–15 (contrasting “dyeing,” meaning “processes that alter or change hair color by depositing dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair,” with “bleaching,” meaning “the application of an oxidizing agent to hair to destroy the natural or artificial pigment”). Accordingly, on the present record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown it is more likely than not that claims 1–10 of the ’419 patent lack written description support. slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 9,498,419 - E-Loan, Inc. v. Imx, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 16, 2016 · CBM2015-00012 · APJ James P Calve · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 7, 8, 26, and 27 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim the abstract idea of loan processing implemented with generic computers.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“I. BACKGROUND Petitioner E-Loan, Inc. (“E-Loan”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) seeking a covered business method patent review of claims 7, 8, 26, and 27 of U.S. Patent No. 5,995,947 (Ex. 1001, “the ’947 patent”). Patent Owner IMX, Inc. (“IMX”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 324. Based on these submissions, we instituted trial as to claims 7, 8, 26, and 27 of the ’947 patent. Paper 7 (“Dec. to Inst.”). IMX filed a Response. Paper 11 (“PO Resp.”). E-Loan then filed a Reply. Paper 12 (“Pet. Reply”).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Decided for petitioner
“unconstitutional. PO Resp. 14–16. IMX argues that issued patents are no longer under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and may be set aside, annulled, or corrected only by the courts of the United States, not by the USPTO or PTAB. Id. at 14–15. IMX argues that post-grant proceedings to invalidate patents deprive patent owners of due process and invade the province of Article III courts. Id. at 16. IMX’s arguments are not persuasive in view of the recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. 2015-1091, 2015 WL 7755665 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 2, 2015), which held that Congress can grant authority to the USPTO to correct or cancel issued patents. MCM Portfolio, 2015 WL 7755665, at *5. Congress has done so by creating inter partes reexamination proceedings, ex parte reexamination proceedings, inter partes review, post-grant review, and covered business method patent review. Id. (citations omitted). As stated with regard to the inter partes review provisions at issue in MCM Portfolio, “Supreme Court precedent demonstrates that these statutes, and particularly the inter partes review provisions, do not violate Article III.” Id.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“We interpret “can bid on loan applications” in claim 7 and “capable of submitting bids on loan applications” in claim 26 as “can offer to make loans on loan applications that are pending in the database.” This interpretation is consistent with the claims. Claim 1 recites a method for processing loan applications including “maintaining a database of pending loan applications and their statuses at a database server.” Dependent claim 7 recites “said lender can search the database for particular desired types of loans, and can bid on loan applications.” Ex. 1001, 15:26–27 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 10
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“E-Loan has established, by a preponderance of evidence, that each of the challenged claims is directed to a fundamental economic or longstanding commercial practice of loan processing. The ’947 patent describes the conventional loan processes as involving large amounts of information that must be collected, compared, evaluated, and disseminated among parties to a transaction so lenders can offer loans at competitive rates. Ex. 1001, 1:9–17. Parties include lenders, borrowers, mortgage brokers, appraisers, regulatory agencies, and mortgage insurance companies. Id. at 1:17–21. Conventional processes required parties to collect nearly all loan application information by hand, transmit it on paper applications, and compare loan information by hand, according to each party’s role of loan evaluation, property appraisal, financial market evaluation, and setting lending rates with rate sheets. Id. at 1:22–27. Thus, parties to a conventional loan transaction monitor loan status and search and modify information in loan applications and loan processes. Claim 1 automates this known method and system of processing loan applications by maintaining a database of pending loan applications and their statuses at a database server where each party to a loan can search and modify that database consistent with their role in the transaction by requests to the server from client devices. Claim 19 recites a system for processing loan applications with a database of pending loan applications including status information and a transaction server for responding to requests of parties to the loan applications to search and modify the database consistent with their roles in the transaction. Whereas conventional loan processing required human beings to collect, compare, evaluate, and disseminate loan applications and loan information by hand, claims 1 and 19 recite the use of a database and transaction server to maintain loan applications so parties can search and modify the loan applications using those computer components instead of using pen and paper to perform these processes.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 5,995,947 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites AlicePatents in suitUS 5,995,947 - Schott Gemtron Corporation v. SSW Holding Company, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · May 26, 2015 · IPR2014-00367 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision
Petitioner did not prove claims 2–4, 7–10, 14–18, 22, 23, 26, 27, 29, 30, 33–40, 42–45, 48–51, 54–59, 63, and 64 unpatentable under either instituted §103 ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNon analogous artNot shown unpatentable
“We find that regardless of the construction of the term “spill,” Petitioner has not carried its burden to show that Angros is analogous art, because Petitioner has not shown Angros to be pertinent to the entire problem faced by the inventors of the ’561 patent.” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Furthermore, a patent claim “is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 401. “Rather, obviousness requires the additional showing that a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention would have selected and combined those prior art elements in the normal course of research and development to yield the claimed invention.” Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 421). For an obviousness analysis, “it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 419. In that regard, Mr. Schechter, witness for Petitioner, testified that Angros and Picken were known in the art and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art so as to make a design that (i) was more simple or clean or aesthetically pleasing and (ii) had a less obtrusive hydrophobic barrier. Ex. 1121, 180:12–183:23; Ex. 1109 ¶ 31; Ex. 1010 ¶ 28. He then concluded that one of ordinary skill would know how to substitute the spill-contain border in Angros for the plastic guard in Picken. Ex. 1109 ¶ 36. Mr. Schechter, however, does not explain sufficiently why a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to the field of microscope slides to find a hydrophobic coating to act as a less obtrusive spill containment border in place of the plastic rim in Picken. Mr. Schechter’s testimony is impermissible hindsight; he opined that all of the elements of the claims disparately existed in the prior art, but fails to provide sufficient reason for why one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have combined these references. See, e.g., InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1348–49 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding expert testimony to be impermissible hindsight for failing to explaining what reason or motivation one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had to place the prior art together). In an obviousness determination, we must avoid analyzing the prior art through the prism of hindsight. Instead, we must “cast the mind back to the time the invention was made (often as here many years), to occupy the mind of one skilled in the art who is presented only with the references, and who is normally guided by the then–accepted wisdom in the art.” W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Petitioner attempts to imbue one of ordinary skill in the art with knowledge of the claimed invention, when no prior art reference or references of record convey or suggest that knowledge. Rather, Petitioner’s argument that Angros is analogous art and that Angros is combinable with Picken appears to be premised on Petitioner’s knowledge of the ’561 patent disclosure. Petitioner bears the burden of showing by a preponderance of evidence that the asserted prior art references are analogous art and otherwise combinable. On the record before us, we find that Petitioner has not shown that Angros qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103 or that, even if it did, it renders the claims unpatentable in combination with Picken. Therefore, we conclude Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that claims 2–4, 7–10, 23, 33–40, 42–45, 48–51, and 64 of the ’561 patent would have been obvious in view of Angros and Picken.” slip op. at 27
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“Based on our review of the ’561 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’561 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of the parties’ declarants, we conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention (i.e., as of June 27, 2008, as discussed above in Section II.C.1) would have had a degree in mechanical engineering or a similar discipline, and at least three years of work experience with refrigerator shelf assemblies. See, e.g., Ex. 1101, 1:16–62 (stating that the ’561 patent relates to “shelving which may be adapted for use with refrigerators,” and describing conventional refrigerator shelf assemblies that use plastic molded parts to encapsulate shelves and silicone sealants to form physical spill containment barriers around the perimeter of the refrigerator shelving); Ex. 1109 ¶¶ 1–3 (describing the background of Mr. Schechter); Ex. 2121 ¶¶ 5–7 (describing the background of Mr. Mills). Given the stated qualifications of Mr. Mills (Ex. 2121 ¶¶ 5–7 and Ex. 1110, 13:9–24:18), Patent Owner’s declarant meets the requirements of this definition. Petitioner’s witness, Mr. Schechter, however, does not qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art. Although Mr. Schechter now testifies that he has a Master’s of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering and became a Product Development Engineer for Petitioner in December 2010, his prior declaration states that he began in his position in December 2011, compare Ex. 1109 ¶ 1, with IPR2013-00358, Ex. 1010 ¶ 1, thus indicating that Mr. Schechter may have had less than two years of experience when he signed his prior declaration on June 14, 2013, IPR2013-00358, Ex. 1010 ¶ 36.3 Furthermore, Mr. Schechter was not a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’561 patent (i.e., June 27, 2008). Indeed, at his deposition, Mr. Schechter testified that he does not qualify as one of ordinary skill in the art under the definition in his declaration. Ex. 1121, 26:2–13. Therefore, for these reasons, we accord the testimony of Mr. Schechter regarding the alleged obviousness of the claims less weight. 3 Petitioner argues that the Board “misapprehended” Mr. Schecter’s qualifications, and “committed four errors” in doing so, in the final written decision in IPR2013-00358. Reply 9–10. These arguments are improper, as they are directed to facts and determinations made in a different proceeding, and a “reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response” under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Regardless, though, we disagree with Petitioner’s assertions for the reasons stated herein.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Given the stated qualifications of Mr. Mills (Ex. 2121 ¶¶ 5–7 and Ex. 1110, 13:9–24:18), Patent Owner’s declarant meets the requirements of this definition. Petitioner’s witness, Mr. Schechter, however, does not qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art. Although Mr. Schechter now testifies that he has a Master’s of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering and became a Product Development Engineer for Petitioner in December 2010, his prior declaration states that he began in his position in December 2011, compare Ex. 1109 ¶ 1, with IPR2013-00358, Ex. 1010 ¶ 1, thus indicating that Mr. Schechter may have had less than two years of experience when he signed his prior declaration on June 14, 2013, IPR2013-00358, Ex. 1010 ¶ 36.3 Furthermore, Mr. Schechter was not a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’561 patent (i.e., June 27, 2008). Indeed, at his deposition, Mr. Schechter testified that he does not qualify as one of ordinary skill in the art under the definition in his declaration. Ex. 1121, 26:2–13. Therefore, for these reasons, we accord the testimony of Mr. Schechter regarding the alleged obviousness of the claims less weight. 3 Petitioner argues that the Board “misapprehended” Mr. Schecter’s qualifications, and “committed four errors” in doing so, in the final written decision in IPR2013-00358. Reply 9–10. These arguments are improper, as they are directed to facts and determinations made in a different proceeding, and a “reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response” under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Regardless, though, we disagree with Petitioner’s assertions for the reasons stated herein.” slip op. at 13
Patent outcomesUS 8,286,561 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,286,561 - Schott Gemtron Corporation v. SSW Holding Company, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 20, 2014 · IPR2013-00358 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1, 13, and 25 not shown unpatentable: Angros was not shown to be analogous art, and the proposed combinations did not establish obviousness.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownPetitioner expert discountedOther
“Mr. Schechter testified that a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’561 patent “would have at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering and at least four years of experience designing and manufacturing shelf assemblies or equivalent education and training.” Ex. 1010 ¶ 4. Patent Owner’s witness, Mr. Richard Bruce Mills, defined a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’561 patent to be a person with at least an associate’s or bachelor’s degree and three years of experience working with shelf assemblies, and having familiarity with “encapsulated spill containing refrigerator shelves.” Ex. 2022 ¶ 8. Based on our review of the ’561 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’561 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of the parties’ declarants, we conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention (i.e., as of June 27, 2008, as discussed above in Section II.B.3.a.) would have had a degree in mechanical engineering or a similar discipline, and at least three years of work experience with refrigerator shelf assemblies. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 16–62 (stating that the ’561 patent relates to “shelving which may be adapted for use with refrigerators,” and describing conventional refrigerator shelf assemblies that use plastic molded parts to encapsulate shelves and silicone sealants to form physical spill containment barriers around the perimeter of the refrigerator shelving); Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 1–2 (describing the background of Mr. Schechter); Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 3–5 (describing the background of Mr. Mills). We note that under this standard, Petitioner’s witness, Mr. Schechter, does not qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art. Although Mr. Schechter has a Master’s of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering, he has only worked as an engineer designing and manufacturing shelf assemblies since December 2011. Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 1-2. Thus, Mr. Schechter had less than two years of experience when he signed his declaration on June 14, 2013. Id. ¶ 36. Furthermore, Mr. Schechter was not a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’561 patent (i.e., June 27, 2008). Indeed, at his deposition, Mr. Schechter testified that he does not qualify as one of ordinary skill in the art under the definition in his declaration. Ex. 1011, 26:2–13. In this case, we accord the testimony of Mr. Schechter regarding the alleged obviousness of the claims less weight because he was not a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention disclosed in the ’561 patent.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner’s position is unpersuasive. Contrary to Petitioner’s characterization, Example 1 in the ’561 patent discloses only a demonstration of water retention by a shelf with a hydrophobic border. See Ex. 1001, col. 20, ll. 1–9. The patent recounts, in Example 1, a test to determine the amount of water retainable on a shelf, within a hydrophobic border, without leakage. Id. Thus, Example 1 does not show that the term “spill” merely means liquid placed on a surface. Therefore, we construe “spill,” in accordance with its plain meaning and consistent with the specification of the ’561 patent, to mean “an accidental or unintentional release of liquid.” See Ex. 2003; Ex. 1001, col. 11, ll. 28–49 (describing Figure 3 as illustrating “the concept that the hydrophobic surface 1030 will form a spill containment barrier,” and using soda can 1026 turned on its side as an example for “spilled liquid”).” slip op. at 7
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“entions. A As discusse ed in detail l below, we e conclude e that the ’2 273 prov visional app plication, w which is th he earlier fi iled of the two provis sional appl ications, su upports the e claim ele ements reci ited in clai ms 1, 13, a and 25. Ther refore, the ’561 paten nt is entitle ed to the Ju une 27, 200 08 filing da ate of the ’273” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNon analogous artNot shown unpatentable
“A reference is considered analogous prior art: (1) if the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed subjected matter, regardless of the problem addressed, or (2) if “the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved,” even though the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor. Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325. The “field of endeavor” test asks if the structure and function of the prior art is such that it would be considered by a person of ordinary skill in the art, because of the similarity to the structure and function of the claimed invention as disclosed in the application. Id. at 1325-27. It is necessary to apply “common sense” in “deciding in which fields a person of ordinary skill would reasonably be expected to look for a solution to the problem facing the inventor.” Id. at 1326 (citations and quotation marks omitted). As to the “reasonably pertinent” test: A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem. Thus, the purposes of both the invention and the prior art are important in determining whether the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem the invention attempts to solve. If a reference disclosure has the same purpose as the claimed invention, the reference relates to the same problem, and that fact supports use of that reference in an obviousness rejection. An inventor may well have been motivated to consider the reference when making his invention. If it is directed to a different purpose, the inventor would accordingly have had less motivation or occasion to consider it. In re Clay, 966 F.2d at 659.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 8,286,561 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,286,561
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.