- Medivis, Inc. v. Novarad Corp.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Apr 23, 2024 · IPR2023-00042 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Medivis’s rehearing request, leaving in place the decision that claims 1–6 and 11–20 were not shown unpatentable because the cited references’ public accessibility was not established.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, a reply, or a sur-reply. Thus, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity to present new arguments or evidence or merely to disagree with the panel’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence. With this in mind, we address the arguments presented in turn.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“accessibility, except the references Chen, 3D Visualization, and 3D Slicer themselves. This is insufficient and tantamount to submitting no proof of public accessibility. To find public accessibility, we must determine that a “document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art[,] exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2008), quoted in Dec. 26–27. Petitioner has insufficiently explained, by a preponderance of the evidence, how Chen, 3D Visualization, and 3D Slicer themselves answer the question of whether they have been disseminated or otherwise made available to those of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, we did not overlook or misapprehend any evidence of public accessibility on pages 29–30 of the Petition.” slip op. at 4
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedOther
“declaration by reference, we exercised our discretion to address a portion of it in our Decision. Dec. 30–31. We did so because we noted that his testimony was “particularly deficient for [the 3D Slicer] reference.” Id. at 30. Petitioner now asserts that in doing so, we “misapprehended or overlooked the logic that application documentation” like 3D Slicer’s “must be accessible to potential application users because it serves to help users use the application.” Req. 7. But Petitioner’s assertion that “application documentation must be accessible to potential application users because it serves to help users use the application” is a new argument, not raised in the Petition or Reply. Even if Petitioner’s assertion were correct, it falls far short of the evidence required to prove that 3D Slicer was actually disseminated to interested members of the public. See, e.g., Weber, 92 F.4th at 1068. Thus, Petitioner’s argument fails to persuade us that we overlooked or misapprehended anything.” slip op. at 11
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 11,004,271 - PTAB · Jan 21, 2020 · IPR2019-01091 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and left in place its denial of institution for claims 1, 13, 25-27, 29, 30, 32, 34-36, and 166, finding no abuse of discretion.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. When rehearing a decision on a petition, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision (1) is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful; (2) is based on an erroneous conclusion of law; (3) rests on clearly erroneous fact findings; or (4) involves a record that contains no evidence on which the Board could rationally base its decision.” Redline Detection, LLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc., 811 F.3d 435, 442 (Fed. Cir. 2015). With this in mind, we address the arguments presented by Petitioner entities in turn.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“argument because it is a new argument presented for the first time in the Request for Rehearing. Although Petitioner entities affirmatively discuss the Rackspace IPR in the Petition, they only do so in the context of explaining that the Petition is not a follow-on petition to the petition filed in the Rackspace IPR because it involves a different petitioner, different claims, different asserted grounds of unpatentability, and different arguments and evidence. See Pet. 12–13. Indeed, Petitioner entities do not address squarely Francisco’s disclosure of periodically varying the algorithm in the Petition, much less take the position that periodically varying the algorithm is an “optional” feature. See generally Pet. Petitioner entities’ failure to address Francisco’s periodically varying algorithm was the reason for our concern with the Petition, especially given that Petitioner entities bear the burden to demonstrate unpatentability. See Dec. 24–25 (explaining that Petitioner entities “do[] not address Francisco’s disclosure of ‘periodically vary[ing]’ the algorithm . . . [which] is problematic as [Petitioner entities] bear[] the burden of demonstrating . . . unpatentability” (first alteration in original) (quoting Ex. 1003, 2:43)). We did, however, further explain that, even assuming that there may be an embodiment in Francisco in which the algorithm would not be varied (a fact that Petitioner entities did not establish), we would have still exercised our discretion to deny institution given the other shortcomings of the Petition. Id. at 25. Accordingly, our Decision Denying Institution did consider the possibility of embodiments where Francisco’s algorithm would not be varied, even though Petitioner entities did not address this issue squarely in the Petition itself.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“of the claim construction arguments presented by Petitioner entities with respect to the claim term “message digest function” included arguing that the specification of the ’420 patent does not define this claim term explicitly, but that the specification “generally describes it as ‘reduc[ing] a data block B of arbitrary length to a relatively small, fixed size identifier.” Dec. 11 (citing Paper 1 (“Pet.”) 40). Petitioner entities also argued that the specification cites well-known cryptographic hash functions as examples of a “message digest function”—namely, MD4, MD5, and Secure Hash Algorithm. Id. For purposes of claim construction, Petitioner entities did not rely on the two related, but different, patents previously challenged by Rackspace and Apple that include claims reciting the claim terms “message digest function or hash function”; nor do Petitioner entities predicate their claim construction arguments presented and developed in the Petition on the positions taken by PersonalWeb in those three cases. See generally Pet. Notably, Petitioner entities do not even allege in the Request for Rehearing that our construction of the claim terms “message digest function or hash function” is incorrect. In any event, Petitioner entities do not direct us to, nor are we aware of, controlling precedent that prevents PersonalWeb from raising a claim construction argument with respect to the claim terms “message digest function or hash function” that appear in independent claim 25 of the ’420 patent merely because PersonalWeb chose not to raise the same claim construction argument when responding to previous challenges of two related, but different, patents. The cases relied on by Petitioner entities to support their new argument are distinguishable from the circumstances presented here. See Req. Reh’g 3. The Google case involved an inter partes review in which a Board panel ultimately adopted previous district court” slip op. at 5
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“argument presented by Petitioner entities because they only presented and developed this argument in the context of addressing claim 29, which depends from independent claim 25 and further recites “wherein the first content-dependent name for the particular sequence of bits comprises a digital fingerprint of the particular sequence of bits.” See Pet. 45–47. In essence, Petitioner entities request that we search through the entire Petition to find support for their theory that Francisco discloses the “message digest function or a hash function” recited in independent claim 25 because it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement Francisco’s system using a more complex hashing algorithm. If Petitioner entities desired for us to consider one portion of the Petition as supporting arguments presented and developed in another portion of the Petition, they should have provided citations to those portions with particularity. Moreover, the obviousness argument that Petitioner entities present with respect to dependent claim 29 appears to be setting forth an alternative ground based on proposed modifications to Francisco in view of the admitted prior art of the ’420 patent and secondary references. See Pet. 45– 47 (arguing that “Francisco meets th[e] limitation” of dependent claim 29, but further arguing that it would have been obvious to implement a more complex algorithm in Francisco because the ’420 patent “acknowledges that the MD5 hash algorithm . . . is prior art” and relying on Exhibit 1009 (Langer) and Exhibit 1010 (Browne) for teachings regarding MD5). The only statutory ground the Petition identifies under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) is obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of Wyman and Francisco. See id. at 5. The Request for Rehearing does not explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the MD5 algorithm to be taught or suggested by the teachings of Wyman or Francisco, as opposed to substituting the MD5 algorithm taught in alleged admitted prior art or secondary references for Francisco’s algorithm. Stated differently, the Request for Rehearing does not suggest that we should have granted institution on any grounds other than under § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of Wyman and Francisco. Accordingly, Petitioner entities have not persuaded us to modify the Decision Denying Institution with respect to claims 25 or 29.” slip op. at 8
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 8,099,420 - PTAB · Jan 21, 2020 · IPR2019-01089 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and left in place the denial of institution for claims 1, 13, 25–27, 29, 30, 32, 34–36, and 166, finding no abuse of discretion.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. When rehearing a decision on a petition, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision (1) is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful; (2) is based on an erroneous conclusion of law; (3) rests on clearly erroneous fact findings; or (4) involves a record that contains no evidence on which the Board could rationally base its decision.” Redline Detection, LLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc., 811 F.3d 435, 442 (Fed. Cir. 2015). With this in mind, we address the arguments presented by Petitioner entities in turn.” slip op. at 3
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“argument presented by Petitioner entities because they only presented and developed this argument in the context of addressing claim 29, which depends from independent claim 25 and further recites “wherein the first content-dependent name for the particular sequence of bits comprises a digital fingerprint of the particular sequence of bits.” See Pet. 42. In essence, Petitioner entities request that we search through the entire Petition to find support for their theory that Francisco discloses the “message digest function or a hash function” recited in independent claim 25 because it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement Francisco’s system using a more complex hashing algorithm. If Petitioner entities desired for us to consider one portion of the Petition as supporting arguments presented and developed in another portion of the Petition, they should have provided citations to those portions with particularity.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“because it is a new argument presented for the first time in the Request for Rehearing. As we explained in the Decision Denying Institution, the extent of the claim construction arguments presented by Petitioner entities with respect to the claim term “message digest function” included arguing that the specification of the ’420 patent does not define this claim term explicitly, but that the specification “generally describes it as ‘reduc[ing] a data block B of arbitrary length to a relatively small, fixed size identifier.” Dec. 11 (citing Paper 1 (“Pet.”) 35). Petitioner entities also argued that the specification cites well-known cryptographic hash functions as examples of a “message digest function”—namely, MD4, MD5, and Secure Hash Algorithm. Id. For purposes of claim construction, Petitioner entities did not rely on the two related, but different, patents previously challenged by Rackspace and Apple that include claims reciting the claim terms “message digest function or hash function”; nor do Petitioner entities predicate their claim construction arguments presented and developed in the Petition on the positions taken by PersonalWeb in those three cases. See generally Pet. Notably, Petitioner entities do not even allege in the Request for Rehearing that our construction of the claim terms “message digest function or hash function” is incorrect.” slip op. at 5
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 8,099,420 - Google LLC v. Ipa Technologies Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 20, 2018 · IPR2018-00475 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Google’s rehearing request and left in place denial of institution because the Petition did not show Cheyer was publicly accessible prior art.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“trial is set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), which provides in relevant part: “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” Section 42.71(c), in turn, references 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides a request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party challenging a decision bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. Id.” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“There is no evidence that whatever version of Cheyer (if any) was linked on the SRI website was ever downloaded, or that a search engine could have been used to find it. Thus, even if we were to assume that Cheyer was available online (i.e., technical availability), Petitioner fails to point to any persuasive evidence of public accessibility to the document or the SRI website.” slip op. at 5
- Other 314aDenied
“request, or panels to authorize, an expanded panel. See generally 35 U.S.C. § 6; 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.1–42.412. The Chief Judge may consider panel expansions upon a “suggestion” from a judge, panel, or party. PTAB SOP 1,” slip op. at 11
§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,742,021 - Google LLC v. Ipa Technologies Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 20, 2018 · IPR2018-00384 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Google’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1–18 because the petition did not show Cheyer was publicly accessible and qualified as prior art.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“trial is set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), which provides in relevant part: “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” Section 42.71(c), in turn, references 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides a request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party challenging a decision bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. Id.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“trial is set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), which provides in relevant part: “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” Section 42.71(c), in turn, references 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides a request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party challenging a decision bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. Id.” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“There is no evidence that whatever version of Cheyer (if any) was linked on the SRI website was ever downloaded, or that a search engine could have been used to find it. Thus, even if we were to assume that Cheyer was available online (i.e., technical availability), Petitioner fails to point to any persuasive evidence of public accessibility to the document or the SRI website.” slip op. at 5
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 6,523,061 - Google LLC v. Ipa Technologies Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 20, 2018 · IPR2018-00474 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Google’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied on all challenged claims because Cheyer was not shown reasonably likely to have been publicly accessible as prior art.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“trial is set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), which provides in relevant part: “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” Section 42.71(c), in turn, references 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides a request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party challenging a decision bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. Id.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“we denied the Petition as to all claims. We determined that Petitioner had failed to satisfy its burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of showing, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), that its principal reference, Cheyer,1 was disseminated or publicly accessible prior to one year before the effective filing date of the ’021 patent and, therefore, did not qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Dec. 6–15.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“There is no evidence that whatever version of Cheyer (if any) was linked on the SRI website was ever downloaded, or that a search engine could have been used to find it. Thus, even if we were to assume that Cheyer was available online (i.e., technical availability), Petitioner fails to point to any persuasive evidence of public accessibility to the document or the SRI website. Id. at 14.” slip op. at 5
- Other 314aDenied
“request, or panels to authorize, an expanded panel. See generally 35 U.S.C. § 6; 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.1–42.412. The Chief Judge may consider panel expansions upon a “suggestion” from a judge, panel, or party. PTAB SOP 1,” slip op. at 11
§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,742,021 - Google LLC v. Ipa Technologies Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 20, 2018 · IPR2018-00476 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Google's rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1–27 because Cheyer was not shown reasonably likely to qualify as publicly accessible prior art.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“trial is set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), which provides in relevant part: “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” Section 42.71(c), in turn, references 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides a request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply” (37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)). The party challenging a decision bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified (id.).” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot reached
“how to retrieve Cheyer, included in Moran’s footnote citation, did not persuade us that Cheyer was publicly accessible (id. at 15; see Pet. 3)). Importantly, we note Petitioner has not shown the link provided in the footnote worked, or that the link, which is to a “Bibliography” page (see Ex. 1029), provided Cheyer’s paper or a publicly accessible link to Cheyer’s paper. In particular, Petitioner does not provide a copy of this Bibliography page to show what actually was on this page and how or if an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been able to access Cheyer’s paper from the Bibliography page. In our Decision, we noted Petitioner failed to provide testimonial or other evidence that the link provided in the article actually worked at the relevant time period, what content was included at the linked website, how one would find Cheyer after selecting the link, or which version of Cheyer allegedly was accessible via the link (Dec. 15). We also explained that this latter showing is of special importance here because Petitioner acknowledges that there were several different versions of Cheyer (id. at 12 (citing Pet. 3)).” slip op. at 8
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“professional computer scientist or engineer directed to find an article on a section of a website would have been unable to do so with reasonable diligence” (id. at 7–8). Petitioner’s argument fails for several reasons. First, it is a new argument not appropriately raised on rehearing. Second, Petitioner identifies no support in the record for the assertion that Cheyer was actually available (see Ex. 2001 and 2002) or that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been able to find Cheyer, only Petitioner’s speculation.2 Finally, this argument overlooks that the burden is on Petitioner, not the Board, to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this issue.” slip op. at 7
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 6,757,718 - Necksgen, Inc. v. Simpson Performance Products, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jul 25, 2018 · IPR2018-00133 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place its denial of institution because Petitioner did not show the asserted art taught claim 1[d] or establish motivation to combine with a reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW When considering a request for rehearing, the Board reviews its decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if the decision was based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if an unreasonable judgment is made in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Additionally: “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“the Preliminary Response. In our Decision, we determined that “[w]e do not need to construe expressly any claim terms for purposes of this Decision” because it did not appear, from the arguments presented, that any claim terms were in dispute. Dec. 6. When we considered the parties’ positions in reaching our Decision, we were aware that the term “tether” was defined in the ’529 patent, even though Petitioner did not state that expressly. In other words, we understood, and now explicitly determine, that the patentee acted as his own lexicographer by setting forth a specific definition for “tether” in the ’529 patent. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (if the specification “reveal[s] a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess[,] . . . the inventor’s lexicography governs”) (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Motivation to Combine & Reasonable Expectation of Success Petitioner contends that we abused our discretion by failing to consider the appropriate claim scope when evaluating motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success. Req. Reh’g 10–14. First, as discussed above, we did not fail to consider the appropriate claim scope. Second, we have now set forth that claim scope expressly. In light of our discussion above, our analysis regarding motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success is no different from that which we set forth in our Decision. Dec. 11–15. Petitioner’s reiteration of the same positions set forth in Petition does not persuade us that we abused our discretion in finding that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of demonstrating that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been promoted to modify and combine the teachings as proposed by Petitioner with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded by Petitioner’s argument that we abused our discretion with respect to these issues.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,351,529 - Unified Patents Inc. v. Red Rock Analytics, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 28, 2018 · IPR2017-01490 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place its denial of institution because Petitioner did not show that the Board misapprehended “calibration cycle” or abused its discretion.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“STANDARD OF REVIEW The applicable standard for a request for rehearing is set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides in relevant part: A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for rehearing, without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). III.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“calibration cycle.” E.g., Ex. 1001, 11:66–67 (emphasis added). We found that how the calibration cycle is referred to in this limitation (i.e., signal includes it) underscores that the calibration cycle is a feature of the calibration RF signal itself. Dec. 15–16. Rather than addressing this claim 1 U.S. Patent No. 6,940,916 B1 (issued Sept. 6, 2005) (Ex. 1003, “Warner”). 2 We do not address further Warner’s teachings because Petitioner’s arguments are predicated on our having misapprehended the meaning of “calibration cycle,” which we did not. In an inter partes review, the petitioner has the burden to show why the patent it challenges is 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)(citation omitted).” slip op. at 4
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“signal includes a calibration cycle.” Ex. 1001, 11:56–12:5 (claim 1), 12:22– 54 (claim 7), 13:18–49 (claim 16), 13:63–14:30 (claim 22), 14:65–15:32 (claim 32), 15:46–62 (claim 38), 16:12–44 (claim 44), 17:8–37 (claim 53), 17:52–18:19 (claim 59), 18:52–19:18 (claim 69) (emphasis added). In denying the Petition, we found that Petitioner did not establish that the prior art disclosed or rendered obvious this limitation. Dec. 8–19. More specifically, we found that the calibration cycle relates to a feature of the calibration radio frequency (“RF”) signal (i.e., the signal includes), rather than simply requiring having a calibration process occur, as Petitioner submitted. Id. at 15–19. Our reasoning underlying this finding related to (A) the language of the limitation, (B) the language of dependent claims, and (C) the ’313 Patent’s Specification. Id.” slip op. at 3
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 7,346,313 - Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 27, 2017 · IPR2017-00493 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place its denial of institution because the Petition failed to identify corresponding structure and show the prior art disclosed the same or equivalent structures.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous We did not undertake an analysis to determine whether the equivalent structure was shown in the prior art because Petitioner failed to do so in the first instance: “By not identifying a corresponding structure, material, or acts in the ’542 patent specification, Petitioner does not show where that structure, material, or acts or its equivalent is disclosed by Maresh-I.” Dec. 18 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art . . . relied upon.”)). conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). The request must identify, specifically, all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, opposition, or reply. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner
“In particular, we first construed “right means,” “left means,” “second end portion support,” “first support,” “second support,” “first member,” and “second member” as invoking § 112, ¶ 6, because none of the terms has a sufficiently definite meaning as a name for structure. Dec. 7–15. Second, with respect to independent claims 1, 46, 75, and 86, we found that Petitioner did not identify corresponding structure, material, or acts in the specification for performing each of the recited functions. See id. at 17–18 (discussing Maresh-I), 19–21 (discussing Stearns). With respect to independent claims 91, 94, 97, and 100, we found that even if we accepted Petitioner’s identification of the alleged corresponding structure, material, or acts, Petitioner’s analysis failed to show that the prior art structures were the same or equivalent. Id. at 18 (discussing Maresh-I), 20–21 (discussing Stearns). Rather, Petitioner’s analysis focused entirely on the functional language of these claim elements without identifying and addressing the corresponding structure. Id. at 18 (discussing Maresh-I), 20–21 (discussing Stearns).1” slip op. at 2
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“We disagree. Petitioner did not do either. First, Petitioner did not identify any portion of the specification describing corresponding structure in the Petition. Second, there is no mention of tracks or swing arms in the discussion of Maresh-I and Stearns at pages 14, 15, and 40 of the Petition, let alone any argument that the structures identified in either reference are equivalent. See Pet. 14, 15, 40. Accordingly, we did not misapprehend or overlook whether Petitioner complied with these requirements for means-plus-function claim terms; Petitioner did not. Petitioner’s Alleged Analysis and Evidence Regarding the Same or Equivalent Structures” slip op. at 7
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 7,341,542
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.