- PTAB · Dec 16, 2024 · IPR2024-01011 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–5 under all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim and no basis for discretionary denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Having considered the arguments and evidence set forth by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that the information presented in the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’924 patent. We also determine that the arguments and evidence of record do not support discretionary denial of the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to all of the challenged claims of the ’924 patent on all of the grounds of unpatentability set forth therein.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“Although the parties appear to agree that this factor is neutral, we note that a district court denial of a motion to stay without prejudice, accompanied by an indication that the district court would consider a renewed motion, “suggests the district court may be willing to avoid duplicative efforts and await the PTAB’s final resolution of the patentability issues raised in the petition before proceeding with the parallel litigation.” Fintiv at 6–7. “This fact has usually weighed against exercising authority to deny institution.” Id. (also noting that factors 2 and 3 are relevant to how much weight to give to the court’s willingness to reconsider a stay); see also T-Mobile, Paper 16 at 12 (noting that a stay was unlikely in that case given the proximity of the trial date to the entry of the institution decision). In view of the forgoing, we determine that Fintiv factor 1 weighs against exercising our authority to deny institution.” slip op. at 39
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“had at least a Master’s degree in materials science, chemistry, chemical engineering, a field relevant to polymer science and engineering, or the equivalent, and at least three years of experience in nanomaterials, electrochemistry, batteries, or polymer related activities” and that “[a]dditional work experience can compensate for less formal education, and vice versa.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 11). For purposes of its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner “does not dispute the Petition’s definition of [the] level of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 2. On this record, we preliminarily adopt Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art because it appears consistent with the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner argues that “no formal claim constructions are necessary.” Pet. 9. Patent Owner contends that all claim terms should be interpreted “in accordance with their ordinary and customary meaning.” Prelim. Resp. 2. Upon review of the record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See 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 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,968,924 - Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v. Sfara, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 13, 2024 · IPR2024-00966 · APJ John F Horvath · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not explain whether the component limitations invoke § 112(f) or identify corresponding structure, as required by Rule 42.104(b)(3).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“The Consolidated Trial Practice Guide[1,2](“CTPG”) . . . instructs that “[w]here claim language may be construed according to 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), a petitioner must provide a construction.” CTPG 45 (emphases added) (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)). The CTPG advises that a party “may choose to elaborate why § 112(f) should or should not apply to the limitation at issue.” Id. Notably, the CTPG warns that “[a] petitioner who chooses not to address construction under § 112(f) risks failing to satisfy the requirement of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3).” Id.” slip op. at 6
- BurdenDenied
“Given these facts, we determine that rule 104(b)(3) mandates that the Petition either identify “the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function” recited in the “component” term limitations or explain why the “component” term limitations are not subject to a means-plus-function construction. This, it fails to do. To be clear, we note that our rules do not prohibit a petitioner from taking inconsistent claim construction positions before the Board and a district court. See 10x Genomics, Inc. v. Bio-Rad Labs, Inc., IPR2020- 00086, Paper 8 at 18 (PTAB Apr. 27, 2020). However, where, as here, a petitioner has proposed a claim term be construed solely as a means-plus-function limitation in a district court proceeding and emphasized that the issue is not only “most significant” but potentially “case . . . dispositive,” we determine the petition is obliged to either apply that construction in this proceeding or explain why that construction is not applicable. Accordingly, we find the Petition to be deficient under rule 104(b)(3).4” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Other
“connote a definite structure. See Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350 (identifying words such as “mechanism,” “element,” “device,” and others as verbal constructs that do not connote sufficiently definite structures). Indeed, the Specification discloses all of the “components” recited in claims 1, 8, and 15, including the “comparing component,” can be “implemented as a computer having tangible computer-readable media for carrying or having computer-executable instructions or data structures stored thereon.” Ex. 1001, 5:35–43. Thus, like the word “module,” a recognized nonce word, each of the recited “components” is nothing more than “a generic description for software or hardware that performs a specified function” and their recitation “operate[s] as a substitute for ‘means’ in the context of § 112, para. 6.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350. Accordingly, we construe the “comparing component” limitation recited in claims 1, 8, and 15 as a meansplus-function limitation whose function is “generating a comparison signal.”2” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelNot reached
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites MarkmanPatents in suitUS 9,333,946 - Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v. Sfara, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 13, 2024 · IPR2024-00952 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–18 because the Petition failed to satisfy 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) by omitting required claim-construction analysis.
RulingsInstitution decision- BurdenDenied
“Under these facts we determine that 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) mandates that the Petition “identify the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function.” The Petition failed to do so. At a minimum, the Petition should have explained why the plain and ordinary meaning of the “component” terms should apply in this proceeding (why the inconsistent positions are warranted) or set forth an alternative means-plus-function claim construction. CTPG 45.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Under these facts we determine that 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) mandates that the Petition “identify the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function.” The Petition failed to do so. At a minimum, the Petition should have explained why the plain and ordinary meaning of the “component” terms should apply in this proceeding (why the inconsistent positions are warranted) or set forth an alternative means-plus-function claim construction. CTPG 45.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Under these facts we determine that 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) mandates that the Petition “identify the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function.” The Petition failed to do so. At a minimum, the Petition should have explained why the plain and ordinary meaning of the “component” terms should apply in this proceeding (why the inconsistent positions are warranted) or set forth an alternative means-plus-function claim construction. CTPG 45.” slip op. at 8
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites MarkmanPatents in suitUS 8,989,952 - Intel Corporation v. Besang Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 11, 2024 · IPR2023-00991 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1 and 13–17 not unpatentable, finding the asserted obviousness grounds deficient in claim limitations or motivation to combine.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties proposed definitions differ in that Petitioner would permit a degree in “materials science” and require three years, as opposed to two years, of relevant experience. Compare Pet. 9 with PO Resp. 14. On this record, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed definition, as it is more consistent with the prior art of record and the disclosures of the ’702 patent. We note, however, that neither party contends that the outcome of this case depends on the slight differences in the proposed definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“1996) (“It is well-settled that, in interpreting an asserted claim, the court should look first to the intrinsic evidence of record, i.e., the patent itself, including the claims, the specification and, if in evidence, the prosecution history.”). Upon review of the parties’ arguments and the intrinsic record, we agree with Petitioner that the ’702 patent does not support a construction of “stackable add-on layer” that encompasses memory cells formed by sequential deposition on a substrate without being formed and then added to a separately formed substrate. Pet. 11–12. First, the plain language of the claim does not require merely a “layer” having a plurality of vertically oriented semiconductor memory cells, but rather “a stackable add-on layer” having a plurality of vertically oriented semiconductor memory cells; that plurality is bonded to the dielectric layer. Ex. 1001, 12:29–32. A construction that gives meaning to all words of the claim is preferred. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“A claim construction that gives meaning to all the terms of the claim is preferred over one that does not do so.”).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“As discussed above, we do not understand a “stackable add-on layer” to include memory cells that are formed by sequential deposition on or above a substrate without being added to a separately formed substrate. It is undisputed, and indeed it is Petitioner’s assertion, that Lee’s memory devices are formed by sequential deposition. Pet. 16, 29 n.11, 51 (“In Lee, each level 3104 is deposited on the underlying level of array 3101.”). Therefore, Petitioner has not shown that Lee discloses every limitation of independent claim 13 under our claim construction. Thus, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 13 would have been obvious in view of Lee. 3. Analysis: Claims 14–17 Claims 14–17 each depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 13. Petitioner’s arguments with respect to these claims do not remedy the deficiencies noted above with respect to claim 13. Pet. 31–41. Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 14–17 would have been obvious over Lee.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not demonstrated that Aspar would improve Lee, would solve a problem in Lee, and that Petitioner is proposing to use Aspar in a way that is not disclosed in the reference. PO Resp. 49–50 (citing Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 153–162); Tr. 57:24–58:12; Pet. 61; KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (asking whether a technique “would improve similar devices in the same way”), 420 (asking whether there was a known problem in the art), 421 (asking whether one of ordinary skill in the art had reason to “pursue the known options”); Intel, 61 F.4th at 1381 (explaining that obviousness may be demonstrated by showing that there was a known problem in the art (“cache coherency in multiprocessor systems”) and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that that the prior art solution to this problem (“global segmented secondary cache”) would improve the system of another prior art reference). Petitioner does not persuasively show that there was any known problem in the art with respect to Lee or its monolithic method of constructing memory arrays. Nor does Petitioner provide persuasive argument or evidence that Aspar’s wafer bonding would improve Lee’s memory device.10 For example, Petitioner states in a conclusory fashion that Aspar would address the known problem of “fabricating 3D structures,” but does not explain what those problems were or why Lee fails to solve them. Pet. 61. Dr. Sechen’s testimony merely parrots the Petition, providing no further analysis or explanation of what problem might exist in Lee when fabricating its 3D structures. Ex. 1003 ¶ 212. The Petition notes that Aspar transfers “thin layers of very good thickness homogeneity and with a high crystalline quality,” but the Petition never asserts that Lee’s direct deposition method fails to provide these same or similar qualities. Pet. 60–61.” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 7,378,702 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,378,702 - Maplebear Inc. D/B/A Instacart v. Consumeron, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 20, 2024 · IPR2023-00865 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 are unpatentable under § 103 over Carr and Lauka, with additional references for the dependent-claim grounds, because the challenged claims lack priority support in the ’848 application.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Instacart submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of experience working in the field of electronic commerce” and that “[l]ack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 22–25). Consumeron responds that one skilled in the art would have been “someone with a background in electrical engineering, computer science, or the like” and that “industry experience can make up for a lack of technical training, and more education can make up for a lack of industry experience.” PO Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 2016 ¶¶ 19–23). But, as Consumeron’s expert acknowledges, Consumeron’s proposed definition “is not materially different” from Instacart’s. See Ex. 2016 ¶ 22. Accordingly, while we adopt the level of skill in the art as defined by Instacart our findings and analysis would be the same under Consumeron’s proposal.” slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“8 Consumeron argues Dr. Houh’s testimony should be given little weight because he “admitted he did not evaluate what the ’848 Application reasonably conveys to a skilled artisan.” Resp. 26 (citing Ex. 2011, 74:8– 76:6, 83:4–84:1, 92:22–95:5). We disagree. Dr. Houh’s testimony indicates that he properly considered what the ’848 application reasonably conveys to a POSITA. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 52, 56, 58, 61, 65. The portions of his cross-examination testimony cited by Consumeron do not suggest otherwise. For the reasons explained below, we credit Dr. Houh’s testimony over the competing interpretations offered by Consumeron and Dr. Mitzenmacher. 9 The dissent criticizes the majority’s analysis as “overly narrow” and too focused on the preferred embodiment. See Dissent 7–8. We disagree. Our analysis considers the entirety of the ’848 application, including all of the passages cited by Consumeron and the dissent.” slip op. at 13
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“But it does not follow that an agent encountering a stock-out would necessarily respond according to the specific steps recited in claims 1 and 14.10 For example, instead of sending information about a replacement product, the agent could travel to another location to look for the same product, or notify the customer that the desired product could not be found and terminate the transaction. Because the ’848 application only contemplates scenarios where a product can be located, it does not describe the agent’s response in the event the identified product cannot be located or is unavailable, much less reasonably convey possession of a method comprising the specific, responsive steps in claims 1 and 14.11” slip op. at 17
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“construed the terms “acquisition request” and “acquiring” in our final written decision in the related 1357 IPR to encompass “not only a request for a delivery agent to shop for and purchase goods, but also a request for the agent to pick up or obtain pre-paid goods.” See 1357 IPR, Paper 35 at 11. It is undisputed that the ’465 patent at issue here and the ’835 patent at issue in the 1357 IPR are related and share essentially identical specifications, figures, and claim terms. See Pet. Reply 16; PO Resp. 38 n.6. Thus, for the same reasons as in our final written decision in the related 1357 IPR, we likewise determine here that Instacart’s construction of “acquisition request” is the correct one. See SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 809 F.3d 1307, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Where multiple patents ‘derive from the same parent application and share many common terms, we must interpret the claims consistently across all asserted patents.’” (quoting NTP, Inc., v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Consumeron provides no persuasive justification for us to depart from our prior reasoning in the related 1357 IPR.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 11,238,465 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,238,465 - Micron Technology, Inc. / Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. et al. v. Besang Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00900 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 13–17 were not shown unpatentable: Lee-based grounds fail on the stackable add-on layer limitation, and Watanabe-based grounds fail on nonvolatile memory, enablement, or motivation to combine.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“meaning in the art. See Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (stating that, absent an accepted meaning in the art, “we construe a claim term only as broadly as provided for by the patent itself”). Thus, we must attempt to discern the meaning of this term from the claim language itself and from the remainder of the intrinsic record. See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“It is well-settled that, in interpreting an asserted claim, the court should look first to the intrinsic evidence of record, i.e., the patent itself, including the claims, the specification and, if in evidence, the prosecution history.”). Upon review of the parties’ arguments and the intrinsic record, we agree with Petitioner that the ’702 patent does not support a construction of “stackable add-on layer” that encompasses memory cells formed by sequential deposition on a substrate without being formed and then added to a separately formed substrate.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“As discussed above, we construe “stackable add-on layer” to not include memory cells that are formed by sequential deposition on or above a substrate without being added to a separately formed substrate. It is undisputed, and indeed it is Petitioner’s assertion, that Lee’s memory devices are formed by sequential deposition. See Pet. 52 (asserting that in Lee “the layers of the array are directly deposited on the layers of each underlying level, and the array is deposited on the interlayer insulating layer formed over a substrate”); see also id. at 70 (“Lee discloses forming vertical memory devices through layer-by-layer sequential deposition on the substrate . . . .”). Therefore, Petitioner does not show that Lee discloses every limitation of independent claim 13 under our claim construction. Thus, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 13 would have been obvious in view of Lee. 3. Claims 14 and 15 Claims 14 and 15 depend from claim 13. Ex. 1001, 12:35–42. Petitioner’s arguments for these claims do not remedy the deficiencies noted above with respect to independent claim 13. Pet. 54–59. Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 14 and 15 would have been obvious in view of Lee alone. E. Claims 16 and 17 over Lee and Endoh Petitioner contends the subject matter of claims 16 and 17 would have been obvious over the combined disclosures of Lee and Endoh. Pet. 59–69. Petitioner’s arguments with respect to these claims, however, do not remedy the deficiencies noted above with respect to Lee and its monolithic, sequentially deposited memory array. Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 16 and 17 would have been obvious over Lee and Endoh.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“combined Lee and Watanabe to achieve improved integration density. Pet. 71. Petitioner concedes, however, that the benefits of Lee’s design related to 3-D integration and improved integration density would be obtained if Lee’s memory structures are formed using either Lee’s monolithic construction method or Watanabe’s alternative stacking method. Pet. Reply 13–14 (citing Ex. 1041 ¶ 34). Thus, we are not persuaded that improved integration density provides a sufficient rationale for Petitioner’s combination of Lee’s memory device and Watanabe’s stacking method. Petitioner argues that Watanabe’s stacking method “improves the accuracy of the wiring” because the wiring is made “for each planar member.” Pet. 72 (citing Ex. 1005, 6:1–3). Watanabe also states that its disclosed methods provide “a low interconnection wire resistance.” Ex. 1005, 6:20–23. Petitioner does not, however, explain sufficiently how Watanabe’s stacking method would improve Lee’s device. For example, Petitioner does not address whether the alleged wiring benefit already existed in Lee’s monolithic array or explain how this benefit would also apply to Lee’s particular memory array, which differs in construction and elements from Watanabe’s device. This diminishes Petitioner’s benefits-based motivation to combine arguments. In general, a petitioner need not demonstrate that a particular alternate method would improve a prior art device in order to show a motivation to combine. Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2023); see Pet. Reply 20 (citing Intel). But here, Petitioner affirmatively invokes improvement of Lee’s device as a reason for the combination, and we must evaluate Petitioner’s contention. Moreover, any relative lack of improvement or benefits must be weighed against any problems the alternative method would introduce. See Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 795–96 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (noting that simultaneous advantages and disadvantages to a proposed combination must be analyzed to determine whether the disadvantages “outweighed any reason to combine”). Here, as discussed above in more detail with respect to the ground based on Watanabe, the evidence shows that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected Watanabe’s bonding temperature of 900– 1000° C to damage the electronic devices in an underlying substrate. Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 75–76; Ex. 2028, 123:13–124:7; Ex. 2027, 715. The expected damage to Lee’s device, when balanced against the limited evidence of a benefit to the combination,7 outweighs the reason to combine Lee and Watanabe set forth in the Petition. Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 13 would have been obvious over Lee and Watanabe. 2. Analysis – Claims 14 and 15 Claims 14 and 15 both depend directly from independent claim 13. Ex. 1001, 12:35–42. Petitioner’s arguments with respect to claims 14 and 15 do not remedy the deficiencies noted above with respect to independent claim 13. Pet. 73. Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that these claims would have been obvious over Lee and Watanabe.” slip op. at 40
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedOther
“We credit the testimony of Dr. Przybylski that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Watanabe’s stacked structure would be severely impacted if bonded at a temperature above 900° C, as disclosed in Watanabe. Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 76–77. Dr. Przybylski’s opinion is supported by Dr. Lee’s testimony (Ex. 2028, 123:13–124:7, 125:6–126:7), as well as Watanabe (Ex. 1005, 6:6–14) and Batude (Ex. 2027, 715). As further discussed below, we find that Petitioner has not rebutted Patent Owner’s showing of nonenablement, and Patent Owner has carried its burden to demonstrate that Watanabe was not enabled for bonding temperatures of 900–1000° C, as of the 2004 filing date of the ’702 patent.” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 7,378,702 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,378,702 - Nintendo Co., Ltd. / Nintendo Of America Inc. v. Gamevice, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 29, 2024 · IPR2023-00643 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 are unpatentable as obvious over Willner and Park; the Board did not reach the other instituted grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The main distinction between Petitioner’s ordinarily skilled artisan and Patent Owner’s is that Patent Owner’s definition requires “a mechanical engineering degree” whereas Petitioner’s definition allows for a degree in “mechanical, electrical, or computer engineering.” See Pet. Reply 16 (citing Pet. 13). However, Mr. Kitchen states that he qualifies as one of ordinary skill in the art based on Patent Owner’s proffered definition “even without an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering” because he has “over 40 years of experience in the design and development of interactive products, including specifically with respect to handheld gaming devices.” Ex. 1033 ¶ 7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 24–30). Mr. Kitchen asserts that his experience is in “the same category of products claimed in the ’393 patent and described in the prior art references at issue in this proceeding.” Id. In view of this and based on the complete record before us, we view the parties’ proposals as substantially the same because Petitioner’s proposed definition includes the requisite education Patent Owner’s definition requires. Thus, we find (as we did in the Institution Decision) that Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’393 patent and the prior art of record. See Inst. Dec. 20–21 (citing Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355). More particularly, we do not agree with Patent Owner that the education component for the level of ordinary skill in the art for computing gaming devices would be limited to just mechanical engineering. We note that, based on the record and evidence before us, our decision and analysis would be the same applying either party’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“After reviewing the full record, we determine that it is unnecessary to construe the term “confinement structures,” as it appears in the limitation “a pair of confinement structures” to reach a determination in this proceeding. 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)). However, we will address the parties’ dispute regarding whether the prior art discloses or teaches physical component(s) that hold(s) a computing device within our merits analysis below. The parties do not dispute the construction of any other claim terms and we find that no other terms require express construction to resolve the controversy between the parties. Accordingly, we do not construe any other claim terms expressly. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375 (“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., 200 F.3d at 803).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“First, the test for obviousness “is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference, . . . but rather whether ‘a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention.’” Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Pet. Reply 11–12 (arguing the same). Second, we disagree with Patent Owner’s assertion that the proposed combination would fail “to retain[] computing device 10 in position during normal user operation” because Park’s adjustable bridge “configuration does not allow mobile phone (1) to be seated for stability in the device.” PO Resp. 20 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 42; Ex. 2004 ¶ 68). At the outset, we note that Patent Owner’s argument mischaracterizes the disclosure of Park. Instead, we find Park discloses that a “basic configuration of [Park’s] game pad device for a mobile phone according to the present invention” “sufficiently allows mobile phone (1) to be mounted on the device according to the present invention and used.” Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 25, 41. Although Park discloses that “mobile phone (1) may come loose during gaming or become detached in severe cases” (id. ¶ 41), we do not view this disclosure to otherwise negate Park’s teaching that its adjustable bridge (30,40) “sufficiently allows mobile phone (1) to be mounted on the device according to the present invention and used.” Id. We credit Mr. Kitchen’s declaration testimony to that effect. See Ex. 1033 ¶ 47 (declaring that one of ordinary skill in the art would have “understood this disclosure to mean that a computing device (mobile phone) would have been secured by the device for normal use . . . as part of a handheld gaming device.”).” slip op. at 24
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner and find more credible Mr. Kitchen’s opinion regarding “normal user operation.” In doing so, we credit Mr. Kitchen’s opinion that Willner’s sidewalls would “function to secure the sides of the computing device and hold it in place” and, “[i]n the combination, Park’s bridge would be adjusted to reduce the length of the bridge and thereby ‘mount’ a computing device by having Willner’s side walls (confinement structures) ‘apply pressure’ to opposing sides of the computing device.” Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 154–156 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 38–41). We note that the ’393 patent operates in a similar manner using a sufficient compressive load to hold a computing device. More particularly, the ’393 patent discloses that [t]he expansion and contraction of the distance between the pair of confinement structures 316, facilitates placement of the computing device 302 between the pair of confinement structures 316, the application of sufficient compressive load being placed on the computing device 302 to securely hold the computing device between the pair of confinement structures 316. Ex. 1001, 10:11–20. Thus, we find Mr. Kitchen’s opinion credible and supported by the complete record. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the combination of Willner and Park teaches or suggests “a pair of confinement structures,” as recited by limitation 1[b][1].” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 10,391,393 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,391,393 - Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 15, 2024 · IPR2023-00745 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 and 8–22 were not shown unpatentable because Mills did not disclose the required embedded structure and Markel combined with Mills did not teach it; the revised motion to amend was dismissed as moot.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsNot reached
“Patent Owner’s Revised Contingent Motion to Amend asserts that in “the event the Board finds at least one challenged [Revised Motion to Amend] claim unpatentable, [Patent Owner] respectfully requests that the Board grant this Motion with respect to the corresponding proposed substitute claim(s).” Paper 27, 1. Because we determine that Petitioner has not established that any of the challenged claims 1–4 and 8–22 are unpatentable, Patent Owner’s Revised Contingent Motion to Amend is moot.” slip op. at 61
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is somewhat broader in both education and proposed work experience. Patent Owner’s proposed work experience is somewhat vague and potentially outside the scope of the claimed invention. For example, the requirement that the person of ordinary skill in the art have experience with the “capture and processing of data or information, including but not limited to physiological information,” would seemingly encompass data processing areas that do not relate to the scope of the claimed invention. We adopt Petitioner’s level of the level of ordinary skill in art because it is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). Our analysis and the end result are the same under either proposed definition.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“structure where a lead is embedded in a portion of the enclosure from other embodiments where a lead is merely positioned against or in parallel contact with a portion of the enclosure. See Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 36–37. The Specification describes distinct embodiments such as “lead 472 of the heart sensor can be positioned against the back surface of bezel 460,” or “[a]lternatively, lead 472 can be placed within the thickness of bezel 460 (e.g., in a pocket within the bezel wall), but underneath the outer surface of the bezel.” Ex. 9:44–48. We agree with Patent Owner, and Dr. Kenny, that “[t]his passage distinguishes a lead that is embedded in a portion of the enclosure from a lead that is merely ‘positioned against’ or in parallel contact with a portion of the enclosure.” PO Resp. 6–7 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 33–35). See also Ex. 2008, 31:10–33:18, 109:18–110:19 (Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Oslan, suggesting that a first component or object in parallel contact with and positioned under a second component or object would not necessarily indicate that the first component or object is embedded in the second component or object). Similarly, we also agree that “the claims of the ’257 use the term ‘embedded in’ while also using the word ‘embedded’ in other contexts, which” indicates distinct claim scope for “the term ‘embedded in,’” versus “the broader term ‘embedded.’” Ex. 2003 ¶ 38. For instance, claim 9 distinctly requires “embedded with,” which is a broader term that, according to Dr. Kenny, encompasses embodiments where a lead may be adjacent/parallel to the first portion of the enclosure. Id.” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“under the exterior of the first portion” (see Pet. 21–22, 24–25; Pet. Reply 4); and (3) leaf spring 62 is embedded in housing 12 and electrode 14 (see Pet. 22–24). None of Petitioner’s mappings disclose every element of claim 1 and Petitioner improperly jumps between these various mappings without fully examining a single mapping for each and every limitation of claim 1. See Pet. 18–25. In essence, Petitioner invites the Board to piece together a single theory that meets all claim elements from these disparate theories that each require distinct structure within Mills. See Amazon.com, Inc., et al. v. Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) PTE. LTD., IPR2017-01112, Paper 11, at 13 (PTAB Aug. 23, 2017) (“Petitioner is inviting us to assume the role of archeologist of the record, which invitation we decline.”).” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 10,076,257 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,076,257 - PTAB · Oct 11, 2024 · IPR2024-00771 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–6 of the ’195 patent on all asserted grounds and granted Texas Instruments’ motion to join the Cirrus IPR.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Because the Preliminary Response in the instant case includes arguments pertaining to the sufficiency of the asserted prior art references, which were not raised in the preliminary response in the Cirrus IPR, we briefly address below the patentability of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner
“II. TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(B) Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), “[a]n inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.” Patent Owner argues that the Petition is untimely under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) because Petitioner is in privity with time-barred entities. Prelim. Resp. 10– 30. However, 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) also provides that the one-year time bar “shall not apply to a request for joinder under subsection (c).” See also 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). Because the Petition is accompanied by a timely request for joinder (Paper 2) to the instituted proceeding (IPR2024-00017), which we grant as further discussed below, Patent Owner’s argument that the Petition is time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) is moot, irrespective of whether Petitioner is in privity with time-barred entities.” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“B. Whether to Join Petitioner as a Party to the Cirrus IPR Joinder may be authorized when warranted, but the decision to grant joinder is discretionary. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122. A motion for joinder should (1) set forth reasons why joinder is appropriate; (2) identify any new grounds of unpatentability asserted in the petition; (3) explain what impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial schedule for the existing review; and (4) address specifically how briefing and discovery may be simplified. See, e.g., Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC, IPR2013- 00004, Paper 15 (PTAB April 24, 2013). As the moving party, Petitioner bears the burden of proving that it is entitled to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). As an initial matter, we find the Motion for Joinder meets the timing requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) because Petitioner filed it on April 4, 2024, no later than one month after the Cirrus IPR was instituted on May 1, 2024.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“5. “Aid the Movement of Minority Carriers” Patent Owner argues that the Petition fails to show that the applied prior art references disclose the claim limitations “requiring ‘aid the movement of minority carriers,’” as twice recited in claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 8. Patent Owner summarizes this dispute as follows: The challenged patent discloses and claims a semiconductor device with (among other things) a “drift layer having a graded concentration of dopants . . . [and] further having a first static unidirectional electric drift field to aid the movement of minority carriers.”[] The Petition should not be instituted, because (among other deficiencies) it fails to show that the prior art discloses the “aid the movement of minority carriers” claim limitation. Rather than pointing to anything in the prior art that would teach this claim limitation, the Petition assumes that any “graded concentration of dopants” would necessarily “aid the movement of minority carriers.” The Petition contains no analysis explaining why the “graded concentration of dopants” in the prior art meet the “aid the movement of minority carriers” limitation, apart from the fact that they are “graded concentration of dopants.” In other words, Petitioner reads the “aid the movement of minority carriers” limitation out of the claims completely. Id. at 1–2. Patent Owner includes additional details in support of its view that the asserted prior art fails to establish obviousness of the “aid carrier movement” limitations of claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 1–10.” slip op. at 8
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,421,195 - Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 1, 2024 · IPR2023-00734 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 are unpatentable as obvious under §103 over the combinations of prior art identified in the eight grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We discern no material difference between the parties’ definitions. Cf. PO Resp. 14 (Patent Owner stating that “[t]he analysis presented [in the Response] remains unchanged even if [Petitioner’s proposed] skill level is applied.”). Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. We note, however, that were we to adopt Patent Owner’s assessment, the outcome of this Decision would be the same.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner proposes constructions for certain terms concerning the cover material—“a cover formed from a dielectric material,” “a transparent substrate,” and “a cover comprising a non-conductive material”—and window terms such as “defines at least one window” and “window defined.” Pet. 7–10. Patent Owner states that it does not take a position regarding Petitioner’s offered constructions. PO Resp. 15. On this record and for purposes of this decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to make the proposed combination and would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in making that combination. See, e.g., PO Resp. 34–35. These arguments are not persuasive at least because Patent Owner’s motivation requirement and implied definition of success are not sufficiently tied to the claimed invention. See, e.g., Elekta Ltd. v. ZAP Surgical Sys., Inc., 81 F.4th 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“Reasonable expectation of success refers to the likelihood of success in combining references to meet the limitations of the claimed invention.”). Patent Owner would require a successful outcome to be “quick and efficient wireless charging.” See PO Resp. 34–35. In making these arguments, Patent Owner is improperly superimposing the purported goals and purpose of Honda, the secondary reference, onto the ordinary artisan. See, e.g., id. at 41–45. However, the intended purpose of a prior art reference does not control the obviousness inquiry. Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Our reviewing court recently explained: The [motivation-to-combine] inquiry is not whether a relevant artisan would combine a first reference’s feature with a second reference’s feature to meet requirements of the first reference that are not requirements of the claims at issue. A contrary view would run counter to established principles, including that the claim defines the invention whose obviousness is being assessed and that a skilled artisan may be motivated to combine particular features of different references, e.g., to secure some benefits at the expense of others, even when bodily incorporation would be impossible or inadvisable. Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 73 F.4th 950, 957 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Petitioner’s combination yields the benefit of the addition of wireless charging capability to a biosensor device. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find that benefit to be a motivating reason to make the combination. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 176 (Dr. Duckworth’s motivation opinion based, in part, on “Kotanagi’s own statement that its rechargeable battery can be recharged ‘in a contactless state.’”); id. ¶ 149 (Dr. Duckworth describing a motivating factor in “Honda’s teaching of a wireless receive coil near a rear opening similar to that taught in Kotanagi (where both Honda’s and Kotanagi’s openings have a cover glass)” and opining that, in the proposed modifications, “the resulting magnetic flux would pass through the cover glass, as taught by Honda”); see also Ex. 1052, 45:16–46:2 (Dr. Anthony, on cross-examination and after being asked whether wireless charging is an improvement over wired charging for a consumer watch, responding that “in some instances it could be, and in others it may not be.”). And, as to a reasonable expectation of success, Patent Owner admits that “Petitioner has presented a device configuration in which a wireless charging coil could be provided in Kotanagi’s through hole 22.” PO Resp. 54; see also id. at 3 (Patent Owner arguing that “the size of coil that could be provided in this allegedly available space would be small and would significantly limit the amount of wireless power signal transmission,” but not arguing that even Patent Owner’s purported size-limited configuration would be inoperative); see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 155–156 (Dr. Duckworth credibly testifying that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kotanagi and Honda).” slip op. at 27
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“would limit the size and positioning of a charging coil, and that the purported combination, as characterized by Patent Owner, would result in a “significantly degrad[ed] wireless charging efficiency” of Honda’s coil. PO Resp. 41–42; see id. at 36–45, id. at 55 (Patent Owner arguing that, “given the size restrictions imposed by Kotanagi,” the housing and cover glass cannot be expanded to allow for a larger coil). Patent Owner further argues that the combination would have to be configured a certain way and that the resulting configuration would “would frustrate Honda’s goals and intended purpose.” Id. at 37–38, 40–41; see also, e.g., id. at 43–44 (Patent Owner arguing that the combination, as characterized by Patent Owner, would inject noise and interference that are contrary to Honda’s goals of quick and efficient power transmission). We do not agree with this line of argument. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The person of ordinary skill in the art is not compelled to blindly follow the teaching of one prior art reference over the other without the exercise of independent judgment. See Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984). As the Supreme Court recognized in KSR, “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” 550 U.S. at 421. Dr. Duckworth persuasively testifies that, “if, under the relevant engineering trade-offs, a POSITA wanted to increase charging speed, consistent with Honda’s teachings, Honda would have provided the motivation and information to either re-size or reshape Kotanagi’s protrusion and/or cover glass to provide for a larger coil.” Ex. 1060 ¶ 346; see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 157–159 (“[I]t would have been feasible to make the second modification option discussed above: to enlarge Kotanagi’s opening and cover glass to make room for a coil behind the cover glass, surrounding the LED and PD.”); Ex. 2039, 47:5–10 (“[A] POSITA would view Honda’s teachings to either modify Kotanagi to position wireless charging coil behind Kotanagi’s cover glass or enlarge the Kotanagi’s opening and cover glass to make room for a coil behind the cover glass.”); PO Resp. 44 (Patent Owner admitting that Honda teaches that metal is inferior for power transmission and “[t]his is precisely why Honda seeks to provide glass for its rear cover.”). And, although the references express certain goals, Patent Owner does not adequately identify any disclosure in either reference that disparages Petitioner’s articulated combination. See DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“A reference does not teach away, however, if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not ‘criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage’ investigation into the invention claimed.”). Even if, as Patent Owner argues, the proposed combination would not quickly charge the device, this is not dispositive. Dr. Anthony agrees that “[d]evices, depending on their use and their function, can benefit from either fast charge or trickle charge or a little bit of charge.” Ex. 1052, 19:3–6. “It’s not necessary to show that a combination is ‘the best option, only that it be a suitable option.’” Intel Corp., 21 F.4th at 800 (quoting PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197–98 (Fed. Cir. 2014)); see also In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[J]ust because better alternatives exist in the prior art does not mean that an inferior combination is inapt for obviousness purposes.”); Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.”). Based upon the final record before us, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider even a slow charging configuration to be a suitable option.” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 10,942,491 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,942,491
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.