• Therabody, Inc. v. Hyperice IP Subco, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 11, 2026 · PGR2025-00013 · APJ Alyssa A Finamore · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–16 and 18 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted prior art did not establish the claimed quick-connect system during reciprocation, and Clark was not analogous art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The level of ordinary skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The prior art may reflect the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id.” slip op. at 8

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

    “During oral argument, Petitioner confirmed it would not object to the Board adopting the construction that Petitioner proposes in the district court litigation. JUDGE MARSCHALL: I think the Petitioner wouldn’t object if we adopted the construction that Petitioner proposed in the district court, especially the “designed to” construction, correct? MR. BERG: No. We wouldn’t object to that. And we think that our Petition is on all fours with that construction. Tr. 81:12–16. As Petitioner does not object to adopting its construction from the district court litigation, we construe claim element 1[e] in accordance with Petitioner’s construction from the district court litigation.” slip op. at 11

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable

    “The invention, a reciprocating massage device, is in a predictable field, namely the electro-mechanical arts. Also, there is no evidence that the recited quick-connect system is complex, even considering Patent Owner’s alleged understanding of it. Rather, Dr. Pratt testifies that many different types of connectors, whether they require alignment or not, were known. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 54–58. Given the predictability of the electro-mechanical arts and lack of complexity of the recited quick-connect system, a low level of detail is required to satisfy the written description requirement. See RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. Philip Morris Prods. S.A., 92 F.4th 1085, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (“Given the predictability of electro-mechanical inventions such as the one at issue here, and the lack of complexity of the particular claim limitation at issue—i.e., reciting the length of a heating member—‘a lower level of detail is required to satisfy the written description requirement than for unpredictable arts.’” (quoting Hologic, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 884 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). In view of the low level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement, Petitioner has not persuaded us that the Specification’s example of a quick-connect system configured to secure the massaging head as the piston reciprocates fails to provide sufficient written description support for the “quick-connect system” recited in independent claims 1 and 18.” slip op. at 14

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteNot shown unpatentable

    “Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, the Specification provides guidance as to what amount of deviation from a perfect cylinder is still “substantially cylindrical.” The Specification describes: Quick-connect system 600 includes a piston 602 that has a hollow-end bore 608 for receiving the shaft 621 of a massaging head 620. Located within the bore 608 of piston 602 is a cylindrical seat 604. Cylindrical seat 604 retains a magnet 606. Magnet 606 is illustrated with its north pole located flush with the seat and facing toward the opening in bore 608. Massaging head 620 includes a shaft 621 having a cylindrical pocket 622 at the distal end. Located within the cylindrical pocket 622 is a magnet 624. Magnet 624 is positioned so that its south pole is located at the distal end of shaft 621. Accordingly, when the shaft 621 of massaging head 620 is slid into opening in bore 608, the magnets 606 and 624 are attracted to one another and magnetically hold massaging head 620 firmly in place. Ex. 1001, 6:57–7:3. In view of the description of quick-connect system 600, the Specification sets forth a standard for ascertaining whether the bore and the seat located within the bore are “substantially cylindrical.” To wit, the bore and the seat within the bore are “substantially cylindrical” when the massaging head and magnet are respectively received therein so that the magnet in the seat and the magnet in the pocket of the massaging head can magnetically hold the massaging head firmly in place. Furthermore, Dr. Pratt testifies that “[m]agnetic connectors comprise a magnet on at least one of the two objects to be joined. These types of connectors are ubiquitous even today for driving threaded fasteners.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 56. Dr. Pratt also testifies that a POSITA would understand how to take into account certain variances, like runout. Ex. 2033, 25:3–17. Dr. Pratt’s testimony shows that magnetic connectors are well known and that a POSITA would be able to determine whether the bore and the seat within the bore were “substantially cylindrical” for a secure connection of the massaging head. In view of the foregoing, Petitioner has not persuaded us that the claim term “substantially cylindrical” recited in claims 13–16 fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, the shapes of the bore and the structure within the bore. Petitioner has not proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that any of claims 13–16 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 11,938,082 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 11,938,082
• LG Electronics, Inc. v. Constellation Designs, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 10, 2024 · IPR2023-00319 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 5, 15, and 25 were not shown unpatentable because Barsoum supports their priority date, and neither Barsoum nor ATSC327 qualifies as prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Petitioner does not sufficiently explain why claim 5 requires this type of optimization, or why this would be required in order for Barsoum to provide written description support for the claim. Claim 5 does not expressly require optimization of phase considerations and Petitioner does not argue for a claim construction that would include such a requirement.” slip op. at 17

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

    “(3) Conclusion – Written Description In view of the above, we find that either disclosure in Barsoum identified by Patent Owner satisfies the written description requirement. 2. 35 U.S.C. § 103 As noted previously, Petitioner argues that dependent claims 5, 15, and 25 are obvious over the combination of Barsoum and ATSC327. Pet. 67–79. Having determined the Barsoum provides written description support for claims 5, 15, and 25, Barsoum cannot be prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as asserted by Petitioner. Pet. 2; 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) (requiring that “the claimed invention was patented . . . before the effective filing date of the claimed invention). Furthermore, having determined that the ’700 patent is entitled to an effective filing date of Barsoum ’777, which is June 5, 2008, the asserted March 2019 date of ATSC327 does not qualify it as prior art to the ’700 patent. Thus, the Petition does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 5, 15, and 25 are obvious over the combination of Barsoum and ATSC327.” slip op. at 22

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther

    “1 Claims 2, 3, 12, 13, 22, and 23, though challenged by Petitioner, were disclaimed by Patent Owner after trial was instituted. Ex. 2024. 2 The Petitioner Sur-reply was authorized in view of our authorization for Patent Owner to file declarant testimony with the Patent Owner Sur-reply.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’700 patent and prior art of record. We also find that Dr. Caire’s statement of a “Ph.D.,” “and possibly some years of work after Ph.D.” is consistent with Petitioner’s statement that the level of skill includes “[s]uperior education” to “compensate for a deficiency in work experience.” The complexity of the evidence of record emphasizes the importance of “at least two years of experience . . . including the use of constellations in transmitting signals between devices” or “[s]uperior education” in the same area. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill as discussed above.” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 10,693,700 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,693,700
• Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., Hoffman-La Roche AG, And Abbvie Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 16, 2024 · IPR2023-00052 · APJ Jeffrey N Fredman · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–4, 8–14, and 18–26 not shown unpatentable because they were entitled to priority before the November 2018 Venclexta Label, which therefore was not prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “We do not discern a substantive difference between the parties’ respective definitions for the level of ordinary skill in the art. Although Petitioner did not expressly recite hematological malignancies, Petitioner did refer to expertise in clinical oncology, which would encompass the blood cancers recited in the claims. Neither party identifies a difference in the analysis or conclusions that would be based on differences in the ordinary skill in the art analysis. Accordingly, we find the parties’ respective definitions to be equivalent and consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art as reflected by the prior art in this proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 7

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

    “The parties do not identify any issue relating to the preamble that would impact our analysis. We recognize that Patent Owner is suggesting that Petitioner’s expert, at least, is reading the word “clinical” into the treatment language of claim 1. However, the plain language of the claim 1 preamble states “treating lymphoma or leukemia in a human patient” and is supported by a straightforward definition in the Specification of the ’087 patent, expressly limiting the invention to treatment of human patients. See Ex. 1001, 16:25–38. We therefore find that the preamble terms do not need claim construction because there is no actual dispute suggesting that, for example, claim 1 implicitly recites the term “clinical.” See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 5

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)EnabledEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “d. Analysis Considering the Wands factors as a whole, we find that the limited breadth of the claims, presence of several working examples, significant amount of direction and guidance provided by the ’087 patent, predictability in treating blood cancers with Bcl-2 inhibitors like GDC-0199, and high level of skill in the art are balanced against a large quantity of experimentation. Based on our consideration of the entirety of the evidence, we find that a preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that undue experimentation would not have been required to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with the claims of the ’087 patent. One underlying theme of Petitioner’s contentions and Petitioner’s expert testimony is the repeated contention that clinical trials were not completed by Patent Owner. See, e.g., Pet. 48 (“venetoclax (GDC-0199) was not FDA-approved”); Ex. 1020 ¶ 193. We find these arguments unpersuasive as we agree with Patent Owner that “[i]t is well established that a patent may be secured, and typically is secured, before the conclusion of clinical trials.” In re Montgomery, 67 F.3d 1375, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Particularly as to the dependent claims, a preponderance of the evidence of record does not support a finding that undue experimentation would have been required to administer three different doses of GDC-0199 starting with 100 mg, to use multiple daily dosing cycles of one day, to continue until disease progression occurs, or to combine with other treatment compounds. We find that a preponderance of the evidence does not support Petitioner’s position that any of the dependent claims fail to comply with the enablement requirement.” slip op. at 23

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

    “Applying Rai and Wertheim to the instant facts, we agree with Patent Owner that, factually and legally, in the ’087 patent “the claimed dosages of 100 mg, 200 mg, and/or 400 mg of GDC-0199 are adequately supported.” PO Second Suppl. Brief 2 (citing PO Resp. 11, 27–29; PO Sur-reply 19, 21– 22; Ex. 1001, 24:20–29.) In particular, the ’087 patent describes all three specific dosage values 100 mg, 200 mg, and 400 mg in the context of an escalating drug dosage series and Petitioner points to no persuasive statements in the specification that dispute either the effectiveness or the operability of GDC-0199 at any of these dosages.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 11,110,087 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 11,110,087
• Dynaenergetics Europe GmbH / Dynaenergetics US, Inc. v. Qinetiq LimitedNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 11, 2024 · PGR2023-00003 · APJ William A Capp · PGR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–5 not unpatentable; Petitioner failed to prove its asserted §101, §102, §103, and §112 grounds, including indefiniteness and written-description challenges.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “prevail, Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate that the challenged claims are unpatentable. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat'l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). The standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 326(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A. Level of Ordinary Skill Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Serra testifies that he is familiar with the” slip op. at 45

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

    “process of claim 1. The first principal decision is the selection of a known liner design from a library that is made at the beginning of the design process. The second principal decision is made at the conclusion of the design process where a “final liner design” emerges after hole shapes produced by modified liners converge toward the desired hole shape. A person of ordinary skill in the art, having read claim 1 in context, would understand that the term “optimized” in the claim refers to the hole shape of the known liner design that is selected from among the known liner designs in the library during the selection step of the claim. A person of ordinary skill in the art would similarly understand that the design that is chosen in the initial selection process is “optimized” with respect to the population of known liner designs in the library as opposed to being “optimized” relative to liner designs produced during the later varying and modelling steps of the design process.” slip op. at 26

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteNot shown unpatentable

    “Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that claims 1–5 of the ’039” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 11,215,039 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Bilski · Phillips · Markman · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 11,215,039
• Lti Flexible Products, Inc. D/B/A Boyd Corporation v. The Regents Of The University Of CaliforniaNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 9, 2023 · IPR2021-01189 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 were not shown unpatentable because MacDonald was not prior art and the petition failed to establish anticipation or obviousness; the contingent motion to amend was dismissed as moot.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “The full record makes clear that the parties do not dispute the portion of Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill regarding education and years of experience. Compare Pet. 14–15, with PO Resp. 3. Patent Owner acknowledges that the analysis does not depend on whether Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill or Patent Owner’s proposal is adopted. See PO Resp. 3–4; Ex. 2003 ¶ 34 (testifying that Patent Owner’s declarant has an understanding of the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art irrespective of which proposed skill level is adopted), ¶ 35. The parties’ proposals are consistent with the factors of GPAC, the disclosure of the ’728 patent, and the prior art of record. Ex. 1012 ¶ 71 (testifying that Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill is based on considering the factors of GPAC); Ex. 2003 ¶ 32 (testifying that Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill is based on the ’728 patent); GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579. In view of the above, we see no reason to disturb our preliminary determination regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had “(1) a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or a similar field that includes thermal sciences; and (2) at least two years of industrial experience on the design and evaluation of thermal management of electronic systems and heat pipes/TGPs.” Pet. 14–15; Ex. 1012 ¶ 71; Ex. 2003 ¶ 35. We agree with Patent Owner that the analysis would not be affected by adopting Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 3–4; Ex. 2003 ¶ 35.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Petitioner contends that “the ordinary and customary meaning of the term ‘pitch’ in [c]laim 9 encompasses the definition of ‘pitch’ given in [c]laim 1—‘a distance from a center of one microfabricated structure to a center of a next neighboring microfabricated structure.’” Pet. 15. No claim term was interpreted expressly for our Institution Decision. Inst. Dec. 10. Patent Owner does not propose expressly any interpretation for any claim term. See generally PO Resp. Patent Owner, however, states that “claim 1 of the ’728 Patent expressly defines the claimed ‘pitch’ of the microfabricated structures as being ‘a distance from a center of one microfabricated structure to a center of a next neighboring microstructure.’” Id. at 12 (citing Ex. 1001, 14:45–48). Patent Owner notes that “[c]laim 9 does not include this particular definition, but the Board apparently applied the definition of the ‘pitch’ limitation in claim 1 to claim 9, as did Petitioner.” Id. “Patent Owner does not dispute or disagree with this.” Id. Based on the full record and because the parties do not dispute it, we apply the definition of pitch in claim 1 to the recited pitch of claim 9. Also, based on the full record, we determine that no other claim term requires express interpretation. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 14

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable

    “Petitioner appears to be seeking verbatim support, when, as argued by Patent Owner, the Specification does not need to provide exact or verbatim support to meet the written description requirement. See Pet. 20; PO Resp. 32. One of ordinary skill in the art would have immediately discerned that 5–500 microns is well within 2–1500 microns calculated by Petitioner using the parent applications’ claim 2. See Pet. 21–22; PO Resp. 16–17; Ex. 2003 ¶ 47. The numerical differences between the derived and claimed ranges do not address sufficiently why one of ordinary skill in the art would not discern the claimed range. See Pet. 20. As determined above, the disclosure would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the claimed “distance from a center of one microfabricated structure to a center of a next neighboring microfabricated structure” has a range of values, such as the 2– 1500 microns calculated by Petitioner. See id. at 22. The numerical differences between the calculated ranges and the claimed ranges alone fail to show that the ordinarily skilled artisan would not have discerned the claimed range of 5–500 microns from the range of 2–1500 microns.” slip op. at 42

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

    “Patent Owner responds that “[b]ecause MacDonald does not qualify as prior art against the claims of the ‘728 Patent, Petitioner has failed to show that the challenged claims of the ‘728 Patent . . . would have been obvious over MacDonald in view of Ding.” PO Resp. 40. No reply arguments are presented specifically for the obviousness challenge. See generally Pet. Reply; PO Sur-reply. For the reasons given above, we agree with Patent Owner that MacDonald is not prior art to the ’728 patent. PO Resp. 39. Accordingly, based on the full record, Petitioner fails to show by a preponderance of the evidence that MacDonald and Ding would have rendered obvious claims 2, 3, and 7.” slip op. at 51

  Patent outcomesUS 10,309,728 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,309,728
• BASF Corporation v. Ingevity South Carolina, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 9, 2021 · PGR2020-00037 · APJ Julia Heaney · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10, 14–28, 32–38, 51, 52, 55–57, 59, 64–72, and 76–82 were not shown unpatentable for indefiniteness or obviousness over Hiltzik, Clontz WIPO, and Clontz SAE.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “art include “(1) educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of workers active in the field.” Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696–697 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Not all such factors may be present in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case. Id. Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would possess at least a B.S. in chemistry or chemical or mechanical engineering and would have at least one year of experience working on control of automotive evaporative emissions,” and “would also understand the chemistry and physics associated with the phenomena of fuel vapor adsorption, desorption, and diffusion.” Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 17). Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the ’553 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner and Dr. Rockstraw present peer-reviewed scientific literature demonstrating that gravimetric and volumetric measurement techniques were known to measure equivalent adsorption capacities and were viewed as compatible with each other. See Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 95–107 (addressing Anson7 (Ex. 2007), Belmabkhout8 (Ex. 1021), Zielinski9 (Ex. 2069)). For example, Belmabkhout reported similar results between measurements by gravimetric and volumetric instruments, except at very high pressures. Ex. 1021, 856–57. Zielinski reported “excellent agreement” between volumetric and gravimetric adsorption capacity measurements (Ex. 2069, 5–6); Dr. Zielinski (who oversaw the testing reported by Intertek 7 Anson, A., et al., “Hydrogen adsorption on a single-walled carbon nanotube material: a comparative study of three different adsorption techniques,” Nanotechnology 15 (2004), 1503. 8 Belmabkhout, Y., et al., “High-pressure adsorption measurements. A comparative study of the volumetric and gravimetric methods,” Measurement Science and Technology 15 (2004) 848. 9 Zielinski, J. et al., “High pressure sorption isotherms via differential pressure measurements,” Adsorption 13 (2007), 1–7. in Ex. 1020) also testified that he would expect capacity measurements for either a gravimetric or volumetric technique to yield the same results, or be “superimposable” under ideal conditions, because they represent “the same experimental measured quantities.” Ex. 2026, 52:11–53:7, 54:13–22, 69:12– 70:3, 139:8–19. Petitioner’s argument that these papers are not relevant because they do not address measurements on the adsorption capacity of n-butane (see Pet. Reply 26) is not persuasive, because Petitioner does not direct us to sufficient evidence showing a reason why measurements of n-butane’s adsorption capacity would have been subject to different measurement inconsistencies. Further, Petitioner’s argument about a 3% deviation in results between the measurement techniques reported in Anson and Belmabkhout is not persuasive because the papers’ conclusions suggest a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have seen such a deviation as significant (e.g., Ex. 1021, 849: “we have not observed important discrepancies” between gravimetric and volumetric measurements). Dr. Rockstraw also testifies as to numerous additional texts and standards that confirm persons of ordinary skill in the art understood that gravimetric and volumetric measurement techniques would provide consistent results when proper experimental protocols are followed and the instruments’ accuracy and precision are taken into consideration. See Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 88–91, 119–127. This evidence is essentially unrebutted by Petitioner. We find that the evidence submitted by Patent Owner as to the gravimetric and volumetric measurement techniques demonstrates that they were well established in the art as comparable methods of measuring adsorption capacity, and accordingly, not a basis for determining claim” slip op. at 16

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted in part

    “Exhibit 2027. Paper 57 (“Pet. Mot.”). We do not discuss or cite Exhibit 2080 or paragraph 39 of Exhibit 2027 in this Decision, and consideration of them played no part in our determinations set forth herein. Because their presence in the record would not affect our analysis in this Decision, we dismiss as moot Petitioner’s motion with respect to these exhibits. B. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Patent Owner filed a motion to exclude Exhibits 1015–1016, 1023– 1025, 1032, 1038–1039, 1042 (certain paragraphs), 1044, 1046–1049, and 1052–1054. Paper 56 (“PO Mot.”). Patent Owner groups these exhibits into four categories, which we apply in discussing the motion below. 1. Patent Owner moves to exclude Exhibits 1015 and 1046 as “irrelevant determinations from other adjudicative bodies regarding different patents.” PO Mot. 1. We do not discuss or cite these exhibits in this Decision, and have not considered them in reaching our decision herein. Because the presence of these exhibits in the record would not affect our analysis in this Decision, we dismiss as moot Patent Owner’s motion with respect to these exhibits. 2. Patent Owner moves to exclude Exhibits 1023, 1024, 1025,” slip op. at 46

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable

    “Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the gravimetric and volumetric methods provide fundamentally different measurements of adsorption capacity. Patent Owner and Dr. Rockstraw present peer-reviewed scientific literature demonstrating that gravimetric and volumetric measurement techniques were known to measure equivalent adsorption capacities and were viewed as compatible with each other. See Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 95–107 (addressing Anson7 (Ex. 2007), Belmabkhout8 (Ex. 1021), Zielinski9 (Ex. 2069)). For example, Belmabkhout reported similar results between measurements by gravimetric and volumetric instruments, except at very high pressures. Ex. 1021, 856–57. Zielinski reported “excellent agreement” between volumetric and gravimetric adsorption capacity measurements (Ex. 2069, 5–6); Dr. Zielinski (who oversaw the testing reported by Intertek 7 Anson, A., et al., “Hydrogen adsorption on a single-walled carbon nanotube material: a comparative study of three different adsorption techniques,” Nanotechnology 15 (2004), 1503. 8 Belmabkhout, Y., et al., “High-pressure adsorption measurements. A comparative study of the volumetric and gravimetric methods,” Measurement Science and Technology 15 (2004) 848. 9 Zielinski, J. et al., “High pressure sorption isotherms via differential pressure measurements,” Adsorption 13 (2007), 1–7. in Ex. 1020) also testified that he would expect capacity measurements for either a gravimetric or volumetric technique to yield the same results, or be “superimposable” under ideal conditions, because they represent “the same experimental measured quantities.” Ex. 2026, 52:11–53:7, 54:13–22, 69:12– 70:3, 139:8–19. Petitioner’s argument that these papers are not relevant because they do not address measurements on the adsorption capacity of n-butane (see Pet. Reply 26) is not persuasive, because Petitioner does not direct us to sufficient evidence showing a reason why measurements of n-butane’s adsorption capacity would have been subject to different measurement inconsistencies. Further, Petitioner’s argument about a 3% deviation in results between the measurement techniques reported in Anson and Belmabkhout is not persuasive because the papers’ conclusions suggest a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have seen such a deviation as significant (e.g., Ex. 1021, 849: “we have not observed important discrepancies” between gravimetric and volumetric measurements). Dr. Rockstraw also testifies as to numerous additional texts and” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 10,323,553 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,323,553
• Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 7, 2020 · IPR2019-00026 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 15, and 41 were not shown unpatentable: Abadi did not identify suspicious code in its annotations, and the Abadi and Gryaznov combination did not cure that deficiency.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; 2 Abadi et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,253,370 B1, issued June 26, 2001 (filed Dec. 1, 1997) (Ex. 1008, “Abadi”). 3 Dmitry O. Gryaznov, Scanners of the Year 2000: Heuristics, Virus Bull. Conf. 225 (Sept. 1995) (Ex. 1009, 2–11, “Gryaznov”). (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective evidence of nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). “To satisfy its burden of proving obviousness, a petitioner cannot employ mere conclusory statements. The petitioner must instead articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We analyze the asserted grounds with the principles stated above in mind.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Having considered the parties’ arguments, we see no reason to disturb their agreed construction of “Downloadable” as “an executable application program, which is downloaded from a source computer and run on the destination computer,” with which the parties state their express agreement. We clarify in Section II.D.2. below that we agree with Patent Owner that the executable application program that is to be run on the destination computer must be the same executable application program that is downloaded from the source computer within the agreed construction. Sur-reply 1–2. This interpretation is not a question of the construction of the term “Downloadable” itself, but rather flows from the express language of the challenged claims, in which “the Downloadable” that is “ma[de] . . . available to web clients” in the final step of each of independent claims 1 and 41 has its antecedent basis in the first claim step, “receiving . . . a Downloadable.” Likewise, the antecedent in claim 15 for “the Downloadable” that is made available to web clients is the Downloadable in which suspicious code is identified by the content inspection engine. We also agree with Patent Owner that the claimed “linking” of a DSP “to the Downloadable” does not compel a different understanding because we are not persuaded that the linking contemplated in the ’844 patent requires modification of the code of the Downloadable itself. Sur-reply 2–3.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “Having considered the full record developed during trial, we agree with Patent Owner that the replacement of the word “profile” with “information” does not add any clarity to the meaning of this phrase and that the proper construction of “Downloadable security profile that identifies suspicious code in [the received / a] Downloadable” in the context of the ’844 patent is “profile that must at least include, but is not necessarily limited only to, an identification of hostile, potentially hostile, undesirable, or potentially undesirable code in the corresponding Downloadable.” PO Resp. 7–8. Regardless, we do not discern that the difference between the parties’ positions with respect to these phrases is dispositive of any issues in this proceeding.” slip op. at 14

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

    “generate an ID for the Downloadable.” PO Resp. 21 (emphasis added) (quoting Ex. 2015, 15), 23 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 2015, 20). Based on Patent Owner’s arguments, we are not persuaded that the ’639 provisional demonstrates possession by the inventors of linking a DSP to the Downloadable “before a web server makes the Downloadable available to web clients.” Rather, by the time that the DSP has been linked to the Downloadable (e.g., by code scanner 325, in Patent Owner’s mapping), we understand that the Downloadable has already been received—and hence “made available”—by the web server. Notably, this conclusion does not depend on where the “linking” occurs—particularly, whether it may occur at a network gateway, a focus of the parties’ claim construction arguments (see, e.g., Pet. 25–27; PO Resp. 10–12; Section II.B.5, supra)—but instead on when it occurs relative to the Downloadable being made available to clients. Further, having considered the alleged Appendix to the ’639 provisional (Ex. 2015, 37–45), including portions cited by Dr. Butler in related litigation (see Ex. 2047), we are not persuaded that anything in the Appendix demonstrates possession of linking “before a web server makes the Downloadable available to web clients.” In conclusion, therefore, we are not persuaded that the inventors were in possession of the subject matter of the challenged claims at any time prior to the December 22, 1997, filing date of the ’648 application.” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 6,154,844 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,154,844
• SPTS Technologies Ltd. v. Plasma-Therm LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 26, 2019 · IPR2018-00618 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 2 were not shown unpatentable because Singh was not shown to be prior art; the Board did not reach the obviousness ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Petitioner proposes constructions for six claim terms. Pet. 32–38. Patent Owner contends that no claim term requires construction. PO Resp. 6–7. We determine that no claim term requires express construction for purposes of resolving the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). B.” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In the Institution Decision, we adopted Patent Owner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”). Dec. 13. According to Patent Owner, a POSITA would have at least a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree in electrical engineering, chemical engineering, materials science, physics or chemistry, or a similar field, and at least three to four years of experience in process development or process engineering related to plasma etching. Alternatively, this person would have a Ph.D. in physics, chemistry, electrical engineering, materials science or a similar field. Prelim. Resp. 9. In the Institution Decision, we rejected Petitioner’s description of the field in which a POSITA would have had work experience as inconsistent with scope of technology described in the ’332 patent. Pet. 31; Dec. 12–13. Neither party challenges our determinations regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, as set forth in the Institution Decision. Accordingly, in this final written decision, we continue to apply Patent Owner’s definition of a POSITA quoted above.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “to a POSITA that the invention possessed by the inventors includes “the frame of the work piece having an exposed lower surface,” as recited in claim 1. Ex. 1001, 16:8–9. Our finding is supported by the following disclosures of the ’450 application and the corresponding disclosures of the ’119 parent application. Ex. 1008, 14 (“As is shown in Figure 3, the thinned substrate is then adhered to a thin tape (5) which in turn is mounted to a rigid frame (6).”); id. at 17 (“The transfer arm may support both the tape and frame or the frame alone.”); id. at 18 (“The lift mechanism touches the frame area and provides no point contact to the substrate.”); id. (“Figure 13 shows the lift mechanism contacting the frame from the underside.”); Ex. 1009, 18, 22, 24. Our finding is supported by the testimony of both parties’ experts concerning how a POSITA would have understood the disclosures of the priority applications. Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 53, 54; Ex. 2010, 41:24–42:20, 49:18– 50:4, 51:8–15, 59:21–61:2. Our finding is supported by Petitioner’s contentions and the testimony of both parties’ experts concerning conventional techniques for joining a tape to a frame known to a POSITA at the time the ’450 provisional application was filed. Pet. 65–66; Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 32, 125–127; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 54, 55; Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 11–15; Ex. 2010, 13:13– 20, 16:1–6, 17:9–17, 23:8–24:16. Our finding is also supported by Dr. Spencer’s declaration testimony concerning the meaning of “a portion of the work piece overlapped by the frame” (Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 82, 83) and his admission that “the frame area” in the ’450 provisional application has the same meaning (Ex. 1028 ¶ 10). It is true that the drawings of the priority applications do not show the frame of the work piece as having an exposed lower surface. Nor do they show the frame as having flat edges or notches such that conventional methods for cutting the tape would leave portions exposed, i.e., not covered by tape. Nevertheless, in view of the record as a whole, including the parties’ and experts’ agreement that the frame of the work piece having an exposed lower surface is conventional, we are persuaded that the priority applications reasonably convey to a POSITA that this feature is part of the invention possessed by the inventors. Tr. 19:1–4; Pet. Reply 6; PO Resp. 14–17; Pet. 65–66; Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 125–127; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 54, 55; Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 11–15; Ex. 2010, 23:8–24:16. See Hologic, 884 F.3d at 1362 (“The written description does not require that every claimed element be illustrated in the figures, particularly in predictable arts and where the element not depicted is conventional and not ‘necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented.’” (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 113)).” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 8,785,332 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,785,332
• Yamaha Golf Car Company v. Club Car, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 2, 2019 · IPR2017-02144 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board found claims 11 and 17–19 not shown unpatentable: claim 11 was entitled to priority over the ’918 Publication, and the obviousness challenge to claims 17–19 was unsupported.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “slows the speed of the golf car until it returns to the course—“[Y]our cart has been slowed down because you are outside the boundaries of the course. Your car will continue to slow down until you return to the course.” Ex. 1004, 30 (emphases added) (also showing that “Reduce Maximum Speed” may be adjusted to a select speed as similarly set forth in Figure 3 of the ’569 patent). The ’894 Provisional specifies that the Curtis 1510 controller includes a configuration setting for “REVERSE SPEED,” and we find persuasive Mr. Andrews’ testimony that this control setting is separate from the maximum forward speed settings, “M1 MAX SPEED,” “M2 MAX SPEED,” “M3 MAX SPEED,” and “M4 (HIGH) MAX SPEED.” Ex. 1004, 12; Ex. 2009 ¶ 58 (“‘REVERSE SPEED’ is a separate configuration setting that the controller can configure based on GPS location.”). We find that these disclosures in the ’894 Provisional—slowing or stopping the car until it reverses course and separate configurable settings for reverse speed in the motor controller—establish affirmative support for a configuration as claimed where the car’s forward movement is disabled, but the car may still move in a reverse direction, as required by claim 11. Because the maximum forward speed can be set to zero to stop the vehicle from further movement towards the restricted area, but setting the maximum speed to zero leaves the separate “REVERSE SPEED” configuration setting in the motor controller unchanged, Patent Owner has shown how the vehicle is capable of operation only in a reverse direction. See Ex. 1004, 10, 12, 16, 30. From a functional capability, there is simply no difference between the descriptions found in the ’894 Provisional and the claimed limitations. See Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 49–60. Thus, Patent Owner has met its burden of showing adequate written description support for claim 11 in the earlier ’894 Provisional. Accordingly, the ’918 Publication does not qualify as prior art against claim 11. Based on the final trial record before us, Petitioner does not present sufficient arguments and credible evidence to support a finding that claim 11 is anticipated by the ’918 Publication.” slip op. at 17

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedReference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “slows the speed of the golf car until it returns to the course—“[Y]our cart has been slowed down because you are outside the boundaries of the course. Your car will continue to slow down until you return to the course.” Ex. 1004, 30 (emphases added) (also showing that “Reduce Maximum Speed” may be adjusted to a select speed as similarly set forth in Figure 3 of the ’569 patent). The ’894 Provisional specifies that the Curtis 1510 controller includes a configuration setting for “REVERSE SPEED,” and we find persuasive Mr. Andrews’ testimony that this control setting is separate from the maximum forward speed settings, “M1 MAX SPEED,” “M2 MAX SPEED,” “M3 MAX SPEED,” and “M4 (HIGH) MAX SPEED.” Ex. 1004, 12; Ex. 2009 ¶ 58 (“‘REVERSE SPEED’ is a separate configuration setting that the controller can configure based on GPS location.”). We find that these disclosures in the ’894 Provisional—slowing or stopping the car until it reverses course and separate configurable settings for reverse speed in the motor controller—establish affirmative support for a configuration as claimed where the car’s forward movement is disabled, but the car may still move in a reverse direction, as required by claim 11. Because the maximum forward speed can be set to zero to stop the vehicle from further movement towards the restricted area, but setting the maximum speed to zero leaves the separate “REVERSE SPEED” configuration setting in the motor controller unchanged, Patent Owner has shown how the vehicle is capable of operation only in a reverse direction. See Ex. 1004, 10, 12, 16, 30. From a functional capability, there is simply no difference between the descriptions found in the ’894 Provisional and the claimed limitations. See Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 49–60. Thus, Patent Owner has met its burden of showing adequate written description support for claim 11 in the earlier ’894 Provisional. Accordingly, the ’918 Publication does not qualify as prior art against claim 11. Based on the final trial record before us, Petitioner does not present sufficient arguments and credible evidence to support a finding that claim 11 is anticipated by the ’918 Publication.” slip op. at 17

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

    “slows the speed of the golf car until it returns to the course—“[Y]our cart has been slowed down because you are outside the boundaries of the course. Your car will continue to slow down until you return to the course.” Ex. 1004, 30 (emphases added) (also showing that “Reduce Maximum Speed” may be adjusted to a select speed as similarly set forth in Figure 3 of the ’569 patent). The ’894 Provisional specifies that the Curtis 1510 controller includes a configuration setting for “REVERSE SPEED,” and we find persuasive Mr. Andrews’ testimony that this control setting is separate from the maximum forward speed settings, “M1 MAX SPEED,” “M2 MAX SPEED,” “M3 MAX SPEED,” and “M4 (HIGH) MAX SPEED.” Ex. 1004, 12; Ex. 2009 ¶ 58 (“‘REVERSE SPEED’ is a separate configuration setting that the controller can configure based on GPS location.”). We find that these disclosures in the ’894 Provisional—slowing or stopping the car until it reverses course and separate configurable settings for reverse speed in the motor controller—establish affirmative support for a configuration as claimed where the car’s forward movement is disabled, but the car may still move in a reverse direction, as required by claim 11. Because the maximum forward speed can be set to zero to stop the vehicle from further movement towards the restricted area, but setting the maximum speed to zero leaves the separate “REVERSE SPEED” configuration setting in the motor controller unchanged, Patent Owner has shown how the vehicle is capable of operation only in a reverse direction. See Ex. 1004, 10, 12, 16, 30. From a functional capability, there is simply no difference between the descriptions found in the ’894 Provisional and the claimed limitations. See Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 49–60. Thus, Patent Owner has met its burden of showing adequate written description support for claim 11 in the earlier ’894 Provisional. Accordingly, the ’918 Publication does not qualify as prior art against claim 11. Based on the final trial record before us, Petitioner does not present sufficient arguments and credible evidence to support a finding that claim 11 is anticipated by the ’918 Publication.” slip op. at 17

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

    “sufficiently how the ’918 Publication’s disclosure of a “signal . . . of the violation” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 68) also teaches or suggests the additional claim requirements of “the driver interface unit . . . operable to communicate an alarm to the base station of a controller limiting the performance of a driver command” as required by claim 17. Petitioner recognizes the distinction by arguing “that the system could also provide a message to the course personnel . . . of any remedial corrective measures taken in response.” Pet. 25 (emphasis added). Based on the evidence cited, the ’918 Publication does not provide any such notification. Petitioner cannot suggest that a reference could have a feature that it does not have without some rational basis as to why such a feature would have been suggested by the reference. Mr. Breen’s explanation mirrors Petitioner’s contention (Ex. 1001 ¶ 277) and likewise states “that the system could also provide a message to the course personnel” (emphasis added) but no further explanation is provided as to how this unsupported conclusion was reached. Petitioner has also failed to lay the necessary foundation to establish that “common sense” could fill the gap for the missing limitation, or provide a basis for modifying the ’918 Publication to teach the claim 17 limitation. We recognize that in certain instances “common sense” can be used to supply the missing claim limitation, but only if the art is “unusually simple and the [patented] technology particularly straightforward.” Arendi Sarl v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In this proceeding, we have no testimony or evidence to establish either condition is met. Neither Petitioner nor Mr. Breen explain adequately why the limitations of claim 17” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 7,480,569 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,480,569
• Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 10, 2018 · PGR2017-00015 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · PGR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–4 not unpatentable: the obviousness grounds failed to establish the claimed elastic fastener limitation, and claim 3 was not shown indefinite or lacking written-description support.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner and determine that a POSA would have been a person having a general knowledge about, and experience with, expandable containers, including, without limitation, balloons, and at least an associate’s degree in mechanical engineering, or the equivalent. This level of skill is consistent with the types of problems and solutions described in the ’612 patent and cited prior art. For example, the ’612 patent describes a fluid inflatable system that uses elastic valve 20A (e.g., mechanical gasket, O-ring, etc.) for sealing fluid inside multiple containers (e.g., water balloons). See Ex. 1001, 1:22–24, 3:10–16. In any event, none of the issues in this case turn on the definition of a POSA, and the prior art of record provides ample evidence of the level of skill in the art. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (finding that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not err in concluding that the level of ordinary skill was best determined by the references of record); see also Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”’) (internal citation omitted).” slip op. at 13

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

    “1. Terms Construed in the Institution Decision We construed the term “elastic fastener” in our Decision on Institution, which is set forth in the following table. Inst. Dec. 14. Claim Term Construction in Institution Decision elastic fastener “an elastic element for attaching things together” Neither party disputes the language of this construction. See generally Prelim Resp. 17; Reply. We adopt them for this Final Written Decision. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting Rodale Press, Inc. v. FTC, 407 F.2d 1252, 1256–57 (D.C. Cir. 1968)) (“‘an agency may not change theories in midstream without giving respondents reasonable notice of the change’ and ‘the opportunity to present argument under the new theory.’”)” slip op. at 14

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteNot shown unpatentable

    “While the terms “unfilled state” and “filled state” describe the fullness for a container, we do not agree with Petitioner that the claim language requires determining the precise amount of fluid for each state. Section 112(b) requires that we read claim terms in the context of the surrounding claim language, not in isolation. Telebrands, 733 F. App’x at 1020. When we look at the entire claim phrase—“regardless whether the first and second ones of the plurality of containers are in a filled state or an unfilled state”— the plain language is clear that regardless of whether the balloons are in either state, the “at least first and second ones of the plurality of containers are disposed sufficiently close to each other such that they press against each other.” In other words, the exact volume of fluid or water needed to reach a “filled state” does not need to be determined in order to understand the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement. We are further persuaded because this is consistent with the district court’s construction of this term. See Ex. 1023, 19–20.” slip op. at 17

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable

    “Based upon our review of the specification, and consideration of the arguments and evidence presented, Petitioner’s position is not persuasive. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to show that the ’612 patent does not provide such adequate guidance to a person of ordinary skill in the art. On its face, Figure 1 of the ’612 patent (reproduced below) shows containers 18 in contact or pressing against one another with the reasonable clarity required by Vas–Cath Inc. Figure 1 of the ’612 patent is reproduced above. Although the ’612 patent describes, as Petitioner notes, that tubes 16 can be different lengths, we are not persuaded that the ’612 patent’s disclosure of an embodiment with different tube lengths detracts from the concurrent disclosure in Figure 1 of an embodiment, where it is difficult to describe containers 18 as being not in contact with each other. Additionally, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to show adequately that a person of ordinary skill would not have understood the ’612 patent as describing the containers in Figure 1 as pressing against one another in an unfilled state. The ’612 patent indicates Figure 1 shows elastic valve 20A in an open configuration when container 18A is attached to tube 16A to allow container 18A to fill with fluid. Ex. 1001, 3:14–18. In this open configuration, container 18A is to be filled with fluid, after which, “it may be removed from tube 16A, whereupon elastic valve 20A closes, thereby closing the neck of container 18A and sealing the fluid inside.” Id. at 3:18–21 (emphasis omitted). The ’612 patent refers to Figure 1 to describe an embodiment where elastic valve 20A is in an open configuration to fill a container that has not been filled (i.e., unfilled) and removed from tube 16A. Thus, we are persuaded that, at least, Figure 1 and this accompanying description of Figure 1 in the ’612 patent provides sufficient written description for the recited limitation that “at least first and second ones of the plurality of containers are disposed sufficiently close to each other such that they press against each other . . . in a filled state or an unfilled state.”” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 9,527,612 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,527,612

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.