• Synaffix B.V. v. Hangzhou Dac Biotech Co., Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Aug 22, 2023 · IPR2022-01531 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied for claims 1–17, 20–21, 24–26, and 29–34 because petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). Upon consideration of the briefing and the evidence of record, we conclude that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on the grounds advanced here. Accordingly, we deny institution of inter partes review of claims 1–17, 20–21, 24–26, and 29–34 of the ’682 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer foundDecided for patent owner

    “Ex. 1018, 42–43. The Examiner found that Lees discloses NHS vinyl sulfone as a heterobifunctional linker used to attach a derivatized polysaccharide to one end and a protein to the other and found that this compound anticipated formula 55 of the Specification, which was encompassed by claim 1. Id. at 42–43.” slip op. at 22

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

    “For the reasons discussed above regarding claim interpretation of Y, Z, Q and T, Patent Owner has the better argument for claims 1 and 2. Specifically, Y and Z are independent groups that function without reliance this ground for claims 1 and 2 rely on sulfone to assist vinyl to enable the reaction above, Petitioner is unlikely to prevail in establishing that Morales- Sanfrutos discloses the Y or Z limitations and has therefore not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that the disclosures of Morales-Sanfrutos in light of Straus anticipate claims 1 and 2. With regard to claims 3, 6, 24, 25, and 33 we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s assignment of sulfone for the Q moiety is incorrect because that group becomes complexed to HRP through a vinylsulfone mediated reaction, making a derivatized protein, e.g., HRP-11. Prelim. Resp. 48 (citing Ex. 1005, 4046). In this structure, sulfone is no longer an independent group available to be identified as Q because it has been complexed to the Cb moiety, making the Q moiety limitation not shown in the HRP-11 conjugate. Thus, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that Morales-Sanfrutos discloses the Q limitation and has therefore not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that the disclosures of Morales-Sanfrutos in light of Straus anticipate claims 3, 6, 24, 25, and 33.17” slip op. at 28

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

    “d) Petitioner’s allegations of obviousness A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the 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 the subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In this section, we determine whether Petitioner shows sufficiently, for purposes of institution, that claims 1, 20, 21, and 29–31 would have been rendered obvious by Harris.” slip op. at 32

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,131,682
• Apotex Inc. v. Cellgene CorporationInstituted
  PTAB · Jul 20, 2023 · IPR2023-00512 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 6–9, 11–28, 32–36, and 38–43 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “IV. CONCLUSION Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing at trial in showing that at least one of claims 1, 2, 6–9, 11–28, 32–36, and 38–43 of the ’628 patent is unpatentable over the cited prior art. Our decision derives from our review of the preliminary record before us. Accordingly, we institute inter partes review of each challenged claim the ’628 patent on each of the grounds asserted by Petitioner. This decision does not reflect a final determination on the patentability of the claims. ORDER Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Petition is granted and we institute inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 6–9, 11–28, 32–36, and 38–43 of the ’628 patent based on the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 53

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

    “patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess. In such cases, the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Moreover, “[w]hen the specification explains and defines a term used in the claims, without ambiguity or incompleteness, there is no need to search further for the meaning of the term.” Multiform Dessicants, Inc. v. Medzam Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1998). We agree with the parties that the ’628 patent expressly defines this term in stating “[t]he term ‘non-enteric-coated,’ when used herein, refers to a pharmaceutical composition, formulation, or dosage form that does not comprise a coating intended to release the active ingredient(s) beyond the stomach (e.g., in the intestine),” and we adopt this express definition herein with regard to “nonenteric coated tablet.”9 Ex. 1001, 11:42–48 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 14

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

    “to, and sometimes associated with, but not identical to the claim term “subject”), which appears in claims 11, 12, 18–22, and 38–43, means “a human or other animal who received the recited pharmaceutical composition in connection with a test of the recited parameter.” Prelim. Resp. 18–19 (also asserting Petitioner does not appear to dispute this construction). We first note that the term “test subject” appears in the ’628 patent only in the claims. See generally Ex. 1001. However, we find Patent Owner’s definition comports with the Specification’s express definition of “subject,” a term the Specification appears to use synonymously with the claim term “test subject” and the word patient, and that Patent Owner’s definition adds that the subject received the pharmaceutical composition in connection with a test of the recited parameter, which we find to be a reasonable interpretation of the claim term “test subject,” in accordance with the plain language of the claims on their face, and as supported by the relevant portions of the Written Description that describe testing parameters relating to drug administration. Ex. 1001, 35:45–36:62, 67:61–81:48. We adopt Patent Owner’s definition herein.” slip op. at 16

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “A single prior art reference may anticipate without disclosing a feature of the claimed invention if such feature is necessarily present, or inherent, in that reference.” Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 754 F.3d 952, 958 (Fed. Cir. 2014). However, “‘[i]nherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities.’” In re Montgomery, 677 F.3d 1375, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citations omitted, alterations in original). “The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient to establish inherency.” Scaltech Inc. v. Retec/Tetra L.L.C., 178 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1999). slip op. at 38

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,846,628
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 26, 2023 · IPR2022-00149 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7–13 and 15–17 are unpatentable: the Board found them obvious over the listed Nerone-based and Zhang-based combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “had, at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, physics, or the equivalent, and two or more years of experience with LED devices and related LED circuit design. Lack of work experience could have been remedied by additional education and vice versa.” PO Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 38–42). Patent Owner contends this is a similar definition as “provided by Petitioner” but Petitioner’s definition is “overbroad in several respects, as explained by Dr. Ducharme,” including allowing an individual with no experience in LEDs or LED devices to be a person of ordinary skill in the art. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 20–21; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 40–41). Petitioner contends that “[t]here is no meaningful dispute over a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Pet. Reply 1. We apply Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it requires specific experience with LED circuit design, and, thus, more closely aligns with the level of skill reflected in the ’400 patent and the prior art of record. However, if we were to apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, our Decision would not be affected.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Petitioner contends that “no special constructions are necessary.” Pet. 8; Pet. Reply 2. “Patent Owner has applied the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim terms.” PO Resp. 8. Upon review of the record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). D. Patent Owner’s Contention that Martin is not Available as Prior Art” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner. The statute governing the formerly available CBM proceeding explicitly limits challenges based on “prior art that is described by section 102(a).” AIA § 18(a)(1)(C). In contrast, § 311(b) permits challenges “on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” The language in § 311(b) implies that, unlike CBMs, IPRs are not limited to prior art challenges solely under § 102(a). Patent Owner relies, inter alia, on Infobridge, but that case deals with public accessibility under § 102(b). Infobridge, 929 F. 3d at 1368–69. The parties do not cite to any Federal Circuit decisions that squarely address this issue. However, the Federal Circuit applied § 102(e) patent application publication prior art in an appeal from an IPR. See, e.g., Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Iancu, 767 Fed. App’x 918, 920–21, 926 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (nonprecedential) (determining that a § 102(e) patent application publication, “Joshi”, was available as prior art in an IPR).” slip op. at 11

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

    “provide a specific numerical analysis of the number of LEDs necessary to match a value of the DC output voltage in Nerone. PO Resp. 31–32. Based on Dr. Baker’s testimony, Petitioner provides several factors that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered when designing Nerone’s circuitry to satisfy the “matching” requirement of limitation 7(f). Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 120). Dr. Baker supports his testimony concerning the knowledge of these factors by one of ordinary skill with reference to disclosures in Cross and Martin. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 121–123. Neither Patent Owner nor Dr. Ducharme dispute that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known to consider these factors when designing Nerone’s circuit. See PO Resp. 30–43; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 89–106. Petitioner then explains how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have used these factors to apply the teachings of Martin to configure Nerone’s circuitry so that “the forward voltage of the series-connected LEDs [] approximately match[es] the rectified AC voltage output of the above-described LED driver circuit.” Pet. 21; id. at 20–21; see also Ex. 1107 ¶ 29 (“a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood and would have been capable of determining the appropriate number of LEDs based on the application and design of Nerone’s system such that the forward voltage drop of the LEDs . . . matches the rectified AC voltage output . . . to mitigate against overdriving or underdriving the LEDs.” (citing Ex. 1074 ¶¶ 30–31, Fig. 2)). For these reasons, we find that it was not necessary for Petitioner to provide a specific numerical calculation of the number of LEDs in its proposed modification of Nerone. We also agree with Petitioner that “matching the input voltage to the forward voltage of the LEDs had become a matter of routine optimization.” Pet. 19. Patent Owner contends that this statement is “vague and conclusory.” Sur-reply 12–13. Petitioner, however, supports this statement with the testimony of Dr. Baker. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 120–123. Dr. Baker’s testimony, which we credit, is corroborated by both Cross and Martin. See id. (citing Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 2, 21, 22 Fig. 5; Ex. 1074 ¶ 30). In particular, Cross specifically discloses that “[t]he number of LEDs employed will vary with the intended lighting application and the value of the rectified DC voltage, wherein optimization of such is well within the skill of those in the art.” Ex. 1074 ¶ 30. Patent Owner does not dispute Cross’s statement that optimizing the number of LEDs is within the skill of an ordinarily skilled artisan. See PO Resp. 40. Martin chooses the number of LEDs “such that the maximum voltage across each individual LED . . . is low enough so as to not damage the LEDs.” Ex. 1015 ¶ 22. It also specifically discloses that “[t]he voltage across each of the individual LEDs in the array is the line voltage divided by the number of LEDs in series.” Id. (emphasis added). Consequently, Martin uses “voltage matching” to determine the number of LEDs so as not to damage the individual LEDs. See also Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 120–124 (Dr. Baker explaining that a skilled artisan “configuring Nerone’s circuit 400 would have recognized that the forward voltage of the series-connected LEDs should approximately match the rectified AC voltage output of the above-described LED driver circuit.” Id. ¶ 124.). Martin’s disclosure, thus, aligns with the reason for “matching” described in the ’400 patent. Ex. 1001, 2:24–35.” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 10,687,400 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,687,400
• Tokyo Ohka Kogyo., Ltd. v. Fujifilm Electronic Materials U.S.A., Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 31, 2023 · PGR2022-00010 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable for lack of written description support under § 112(a); the Board did not reach either obviousness ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) “would have had a Bachelor degree in materials science, engineering, chemistry or similar technical discipline, and had at least two years of experience relating to the design and development of semiconductor manufacturing processes.” Pet. 14. Petitioner further submits that, “[a]lternatively, such a person may have had additional graduate education as a substitute for professional experience, or significant work experience as a substitute for formal education.” Id. Patent Owner states that, “[w]ithout taking a position on the correctness of this definition, Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s POSA definition.” PO Resp. 11 (citing Pet. 14). 3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), revised 35 U.S.C. § 103 effective March 16, 2013. Petitioner contends, and Patent Owner does not contest, that “the earliest priority date claimed by the ’329 patent” is December 6, 2013. Pet. 13; PO Resp. 6. Because the undisputed earliest claimed priority date of the ’329 patent is after March 16, 2013, we apply the AIA versions of §§ 102 and 103. record, and is consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art in this proceeding.” slip op. at 5

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

    “We disagree. It is clear from the plain language of claim 1 that the claimed “cleaning composition” is a composition for cleaning that includes four named components and has a specified pH. Ex. 1001, 29:2–9. The ’329 patent specification unambiguously teaches that the cleaning composition is for removing residues from semiconductor substrates. Id. at 1:23–29, 2:10–12, 2:17–33, 15:52–55. Although the ’329 patent describes a cleaning composition that comprises a redox agent, a chelating agent, a metal corrosion inhibitor, an organic solvent, and water, we see no reason to construe the term “cleaning composition” itself to require these components. Claim 1 expressly recites expressly including or precluding a chelating agent or a metal corrosion inhibitor. Ex. 1001, 29:2–9. The Federal Circuit advises that the specification “is not a suitable substitute for, nor can it be used to rewrite, the chosen claim language. ‘Specifications teach. Claims claim.’” SuperGuide, 358 F.3d at 875 (quoting SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 n. 14 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc)). The ’329 patent specification does teach a cleaning composition that includes a redox agent, a chelating agent, a metal corrosion inhibitor, an organic solvent, and water, but claim 1 is directed to a cleaning composition that expressly requires only a subset of those components. Patent Owner’s proposed construction would effectively rewrite the claim by adding unclaimed components, which we decline to do under the guise of claim construction. See id. (“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.”).” slip op. at 9

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable

    “that Petitioner establishes that the ’329 patent does not provide sufficient written description support for the challenged claims. Pet. 15–43; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 56–82. More specifically, we find that the ’329 patent does not reasonably convey to a POSA that the inventor was in possession of cleaning compositions that do not include a chelating agent or a metal corrosion inhibitor. There is no dispute, on this record, that the ’329 patent specification explicitly teaches that a redox agent, a chelating agent, a metal corrosion inhibitor, an organic solvent, and water are mandatory components of the cleaning composition described therein. PO Resp. 15 (Patent Owner agreeing with Petitioner that “[t]he ’329 patent’s disclosure is unambiguously explicit regarding mandatory components of the cleaning compositions described therein.” (citing Pet. 17; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 56–57) (emphasis omitted, alteration in original)); see Ex. 1001, 3:47–48, 3:62–64, 10:24–26, 10:66–11:2, 12:3–4; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 56–67. Claim 1, however, does not require that the cleaning composition include a chelating agent or a metal corrosion inhibitor. Ex. 1001, 29:2–9. Therefore, establishing proper written description support for claim 1 requires more than showing that the inventor was in possession of a cleaning composition that includes a redox agent, a chelating agent, a metal corrosion inhibitor, an organic solvent, and water; the ’329 patent must also show that the inventor was in possession of a cleaning composition that includes only a redox agent (hydroxylamine), an organic solvent (an alkylene glycol), water, and an alkanolamine. Id.” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 10,927,329 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,927,329
• Canon U.S.A., Inc. / Canon Inc. v. Slingshot Printing LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · May 24, 2023 · IPR2022-01415 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–10, 13, or 14 were unpatentable over any asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). An inter partes review may be instituted if “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the papers, we determine that the information presented in the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny the Petition and do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’629 patent would have had “at least a Bachelor’s level college degree in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Physics, Computer Science or a related field, and at least two years of training or experience in the design of inkjet printheads.” Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 45). Patent Owner does not identify a level of skill in the art that one would have had at the time of the invention of the ’629 patent or identify any shortcoming in Petitioner’s formulation. See Prelim. Resp. 42–43. For purposes of this Decision on Institution, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art, except we decline to adopt the recitals of “at least” as that language is vague and openended. Pet. 14–15. This definition is consistent with the ’629 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our analysis below.” slip op. at 8

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

    “The parties both argue that we should construe “non-contiguous hybrid arrangement” to mean “[a]n arrangement in which the first set of logic cells are interleaved or interlaced with the second set of logic cells.” Pet. 15; Prelim. Resp. 43. Petitioner supports its argument by pointing to the claim construction order from the HP litigation, which provides this construction for this term. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1010, 4 (construing non-contiguous hybrid arrangement)). Patent Owner supports its argument by citing to the written description and figures of the ’629 patent. Prelim. Resp. 43–46 (citations omitted). For example, Patent Owner cites Figure 4 of the challenged patent, and its accompanying text, and argues that Figure 4 illustrates that the “logic cells [are] interleaved in a manner that minimizes the space between heater arrays by forming a single linear array.” Id. at 44 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 4). The accompanying text teaches that “the magenta logic cells 440a–n may be interleaved between the cyan logic cells 420a–n in an alternating manner to form a single, linear hybrid cyan/magenta P-logic array 302.” Ex. 1001, 5:67–6:4; Prelim. Resp. 45 (citing same). The ’629 patent adds that “[b]ecause of this interlacing of cyan P-registers 420a–n and magenta P-registers 440a–n, neither the cyan P-registers 420a–n nor the magenta P-registers 440a–n remain contiguous,” and that “[f]or example, in F[igure] 4, the cyan logic cell 420b is followed by the magenta logic cell 440a instead of the next cyan logic cell 420c.” Ex. 1001, 6:10–15; Prelim. Resp. 45 (citing same). We have reviewed the parties’ arguments, and we adopt the parties’ proposed construction for this term. In addition, we determine that no express construction is needed for any other term for us to render our Decision on Institution. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 9

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

    “However, we agree with Patent Owner that Hayasaki does not disclose that AND circuit array 5M’ and AND circuit array 5Y are arranged in a non-contiguous hybrid arrangement. Prelim. Resp. 51–52, 54–63. Rather, Hayasaki’s AND gates are arranged in a grid, with each magenta 6 Petitioner argues that “‘a first and a second set of logic cells’ is indefinite because it is unclear if this requires (i) a first set of logic cells and a second set of logic cells, (ii) first and second sets of logic cells, or (iii) a set of first logic cells and second logic cells.” Pet. 30 n.5. We disagree. The plain reading of this limitation corresponds to a first set of logic cells and a second set of logic cells, which is in accord with the interpretation Petitioner applies in this proceeding. Id. AND gate of AND circuit array 5M’ located directly aligned with the corresponding yellow AND gate of AND circuit array 5Y—they are not interleaved or interlaced. Ex. 1004, Fig. 9. Put differently, Hayasaki teaches that AND circuit array 5M’ and AND circuit array 5Y comprise two separate columns of logic cells that are not interleaved or interlaced. See Ex. 1004, Fig. 9, ¶ 93. Thus, Hayasaki does not teach sets of logic cells in a non-contiguous hybrid arrangement.” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,559,629
• Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 22, 2023 · PGR2022-00009 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 7–12, and 14–19 are unpatentable based on lack of written description, anticipation by Bruning, or obviousness over Bruning and Kabel.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “lighting device.” Accordingly, we determine that the level of ordinary skill in the art is “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or similar technical field, with two years of relevant experience in the field of design and/or development of LEDs and circuits,” as Petitioner proposes and that “the field of design and/or development” would be “in the context of lighting devices” as Patent Owner proposes, in which “[a]n increase in experience could compensate for less education.” Id.; Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 46).” slip op. at 15

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer foundDecided for patent owner

    “theoretically fall under the “or greater” portion of the amended claim limitation “forward voltage of 6V or greater,” Applicant distinguished Colby on the basis that the 120V AC voltage from a wall outlet is not “the minimum voltage difference required between the anode and cathode of the LEDs in the claimed circuit to allow current to flow through the LEDs.” See Ex. 1023, 9 (emphasis added). Applicant’s argument specifically identifies the claim language at issue––“forward voltage of 6V or greater”––and specifically states that it is not disclosed because Colby does not disclose the minimum voltage and instead, discloses something else, something larger–– 120V AC voltage. Accordingly, we conclude that Applicant disclaimed any voltage that is more than “the minimum voltage difference required between the anode and cathode of the LEDs in the claimed circuit to allow current to flow through the LEDs” from the scope of “forward voltage.”” slip op. at 25

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable

    “4. 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) With respect to the written description requirement, we are persuaded” slip op. at 32

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not enabledUnpatentable

    “Basis § Unpatentable Unpatentable Lack of written description, 3, 10, 17 112(a) 3, 10, 17 Lack of enablement 3, 10, 17 112(b) Indefiniteness 3, 10, 17 Lack of written description, 4, 11, 18 112(a) 4, 11, 18 Lack of enablement 4, 11, 18 112(b) indefiniteness 4, 11, 18” slip op. at 77

  Patent outcomesUS 10,932,341 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,932,341
• Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 10, 2023 · IPR2021-01575 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations of Saito and Catalano, Saito and Wojnarowski, and those combinations with Johnson.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date of the ’551 patent “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, physics, or the equivalent, and two or more years of experience with LED devices and/or related circuit design, or a related field.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 19–20). For purposes of this proceeding, “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” PO Resp. 9. Upon review of the parties’ arguments, the prior art of record, and the ’551 patent, adopt Petitioner’s undisputed level of ordinary skill in the art in this proceeding.” slip op. at 6

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In IPR2021-01367, which also is directed to the ’551 patent, the Board construed the term “driver” to mean “a program, circuitry, or device used to power other programs, circuits, or devices.” Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Lynk Labs, Inc., IPR2021-01367, Paper 8 at 11–14 (PTAB Feb. 14, 2023) (Institution Decision); see also IPR2021-01367, Paper 46 at 7 (Final Written Decision). Patent Owner believes that this construction is broader than that used by the ’551 patent, “but will nevertheless refer to this construction because it is helpful in resolving the disputes over the teachings of the prior art, because none of the prior art teaches or suggests a driver even under this broader construction.” PO Resp. 10–11. Patent Owner does not propose an alternative construction of the claim term. Id. Petitioner does not contest the adopted construction of “driver.” Pet. Reply 1. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and evidence, and for the reasons expressly set forth in IPR2021-01367, we construe “driver” to mean “a program, circuitry, or device used to power other programs, circuits, or devices.” No other claim terms require express construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 6

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artPriority date awardedDecided for petitioner

    “connector” to describe the 3-pin connector of Catalano was potentially ambiguous. Based on the full trial record, we are persuaded that the citations provided in the Petition provide sufficient evidence that the ’495 Provisional provides written description support for claim 23 of Catalano.11 In response to Patent Owner’s argument that Catalano’s 3-pin connector 612 is connected to bulb base 616, and there is no evidence that such a connector is used in “a conventional incandescent bulb” (Sur-Reply 9), we find that regardless of the internal components connecting the “standard bulb base” to the LED circuit, the “standard bulb base” is a connector that can fit within “standard bulb sockets” and allow the device to replace a conventional incandescent bulb. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 5–7. Therefore, it is “a standard bulb power connector equivalent to the power connector of a” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Upon review of the record and the parties’ arguments as a whole, we agree with Petitioner that Saito discloses a driver, as that term is used in claim 1 of the ’551 patent. First, our construction of “driver” is broad, constituting any “program, circuitry, or device used to power other programs, circuits, or devices.” And, consistent with the structure of claim 1 of the ’551 patent, this construction does not require that the identified circuit or device actually generate power, only provide power to another device or circuit. switch that turns on or off a power source. Rather, the circuit of Saito monitors the voltage provided at both node A 107 and node B 715 and, depending on the reported voltages, switches between voltage sources to provide power to the LEDs. In this way, the voltage applied to the LED circuit is maintained within a range of roughly 16 and 30 Volts, and the LEDs are driven for a prolonged period of time by capacitors 106 and 107, which Saito explains “cut[s] down the consumption of electric current” and results in more efficient use of power. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 98–103. We find persuasive Dr. Baker’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered such a circuit to be a “driver,” as recited in claims 1 and 5 of the ’551 patent. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 94–95, 110–111.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 10,154,551 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,154,551
• Vifor (International) AG v. Biofer S.P.A.Institution denied
  PTAB · Apr 24, 2023 · IPR2022-01608 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–16, 19–21, and 23–25 were unpatentable on any asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “step of reacting a sugar with bromine occurs “in a solution at a pH between 7.0 and 9.0.” Ex. 1001, 16:46–47. A dispositive question arises, on this record, as to whether Petitioner’s information, directed to this pH range limitation, is sufficient to support institution of review. For reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner’s information is not sufficient and deny the Petition on that basis.” slip op. at 9

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

    “and 12 and that Stoll suggests a pH range of 7 or greater. Pet. 29–30 and n.7, 39. Those prior art pH ranges overlap or encompass the specified pH range of “between 7.0 and 9.0.” Pet. 38–39 and n.10. Under these circumstances, the burden of production shifts to Patent Owner to come forward with evidence of the criticality of the specified pH range limitation. See id. at 39–40 (quoting E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V., 904 F.3d 996, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Patent Owner meets that burden by directing us to the Marchi Declaration. Resp. 9–12; Ex. 1004, 432–440. That evidence contains experimental results that support Dr. Marchi’s opinion that the claimed method, when performed at a pH of 8, “can be run with equimolar amounts of oxidant without increasing depolymerization,” but when performed at a pH of 10, results in an undesirable “depolymerizing attack on the main chain, even employing only 0.9 equivalents of oxidant.” Ex. 1004, 434–435 (¶ 7). As Patent Owner points out, moreover, the oxidation reaction in each of the examples in Geisser is carried out at a pH of 10. see Prelim. Resp. 26 and n.8 (citing Ex. 1006, Examples 1–8).” slip op. at 10

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

    “We assess the ground based on anticipation by Geisser in view of the principle that a prior art reference anticipates a patent claim “if it discloses every claim limitation.” In re Montgomery, 677 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The ground based on anticipation by Geisser rests on a conclusory opinion that Geisser’s disclosure of a pH range between 8 and 12 “describes” an oxidation reaction that occurs “at a pH between 7.0 and 9.0.” Pet. 63 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 178, which repeats that conclusory opinion verbatim without objective evidence or analysis). It is unclear on this record, and Petitioner does not explain adequately, how or why Geisser anticipates the pH range limitation of claim 1, which is “critical” for reasons explained above in our analysis of the ground based on obviousness over Geisser and Stoll. Ex. 1004, 435 (the Marchi Declaration, ¶ 7). Accordingly, on this record, we determine that Petitioner does not establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing “with respect to at least [one] of the claims” based on any ground asserted in the Petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Petitioner proposes that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would hold an advanced degree, such as an M.S. or doctorate, in chemistry, medicine, pharmacy, or a related degree,” as well as post-graduate experience “in areas of carbohydrate chemistry, synthetic chemistry, medicinal chemistry, inorganic chemistry, and/or metal carbohydrate complexes, or the clinical use of such complexes.” Pet. 16. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed definition in the Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 17–18. Based on the information presented, we find that the asserted prior art itself is sufficient to demonstrate the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art). To the extent a more precise definition is required, we apply Petitioner’s unopposed proposed definition for purposes of determining whether to institute review because it is consistent with the disclosures of the asserted prior art references.” slip op. at 7

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,759,320
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 19, 2023 · IPR2021-01576 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 13–18 are not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations fail to teach or suggest multiple LED packages connected in series.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “PO Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 41–42). Patent Owner argues that its definition is superior because Petitioner’s “and/or” qualifier “might be read as considering a person who has ‘related circuit design’ experience but no experience with ‘LED devices’ to be a POSITA.” Id. at 9. Patent Owner further views Petitioner’s “or a related field” phrasing as potentially including a person who has no experience with LED devices. Id. We agree with Patent Owner on both points. We agree with Patent Owner that Patent Owner’s proposal is more consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’979 patent and prior art of record. We adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of skill but note that had we adopted Petitioner’s level of skill, we would not have reached a different outcome here.” slip op. at 6

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

    “specification support its construction of “formed or mounted to” as encompassing indirect attachment to the substrate. Neither the plain claim language nor the specification requires the phosphor coating to be directly attached to the substrate. Limitation 1(c) recites, wherein the LED chips comprise a phosphor coating to produce a change in a color or a quality of light emitted from the LED chips, wherein the LED chips, the power connection leads, and the phosphor coating are formed or mounted to a flexible substrate that is sufficiently flexible to be formed into a cylindrical shape[.] Ex. 1001, 22:7–12 (emphasis added). The claim is inartfully written, as it requires the LEDs to comprise a phosphor coating but then separately recites that the LED chips and the phosphor coating are formed or mounted to the substrate. But Petitioner correctly explains that the plain meaning requires that “the LED chips comprise a phosphor coating” and that “the [same] phosphor coating” (included in the LED chips) is “formed or mounted to a flexible substrate.” Reply 2. In other words, the use of the term “the” before “phosphor coating” indicates reliance on the antecedent basis of “LED chips comprise a phosphor coating,” and thus the same coating of the LED chips is formed or mounted to the substrate. Logically, by including a phosphor coating with the LED chips, which are formed or mounted to the substrate, the coating of these chips is also indirectly formed or mounted to the substrate. Conversely, it would be illogical to conclude that the claim recites two phosphor coatings, one attached to the LED chips and another attached directly to the substrate, because the structure of the claim refers to a single phosphor coating of the LED chips. Even Patent Owner concedes that the claim encompasses the phosphor coating indirectly being mounted or attached to the substrate (in addition to being directly attached). PO Resp. 11 (“The ordinary English reading of the claim language does not encompass the phosphor coating only being indirectly attached to the substrate, instead, the language indicates that the coating is directly applied to the substrate.” (emphasis changed)), 13 (“the phosphor coating . . . is not merely attached to the substrate indirectly”).” slip op. at 10

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

    “After considering Patent Owner’s arguments, which we address below, we agree with Petitioner that the combination of Wojnarowski and Martin discloses this limitation and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references’ teachings in the manner asserted by Petitioner. Briefly, we summarize our findings, and then we address the parties’ arguments in more detail. First, we agree with Petitioner, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that Wojnarowski’s AC input voltage would have been converted to DC voltage in light of the bridge rectifier and capacitor disclosed by Wojnarowski. Pet. 25; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 119– 20 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1005, 7:59–62, Fig. 24); PO Resp. 35–36 (acknowledging Wojnarowski discloses converting an AC input to a DC voltage). Second, we further agree with Petitioner, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that excessive current due to too few LEDs would have harmed Wojnarowski’s LEDs, and too small a current due to too many LEDs would be insufficient to power Wojnarowski’s LEDs. Pet. 26; Ex. 1002 ¶ 134; PO Resp. 48 (discussing, but not disputing, these assertions).13 Third, we agree that a POSITA would have recognized in view of Martin’s teachings and the knowledge of a skilled artisan that when configuring Wojnarowski’s device, the total forward voltage drop of the series-connected LEDs should approximately match the DC voltage output 13 Petitioner explains the relationship between voltage and current for the LEDs as follows: “the total voltage drop of the circuit would dictate the current drawn by the LED circuitry, which would have been known to be inversely proportional to the voltage.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 134). of Wojnarowski’s circuit. Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 132–38; Ex. 1008, Abstract (LED voltage “must be matched to the input source voltage”), ¶ 60 (“For AC or any other regularly varying input voltage, there is an additional requirement to direct drive voltage matching”)). For example, Martin teaches that “[t]he number of LEDs in the monolithic array may be selected to achieve a particular voltage drop across each device.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 22. Martin further explains, “[t]he voltage across each of the individual LEDs in the array is the line voltage divided by the number of LEDs in series,” and “[t]he number of LEDs is chosen such that the maximum voltage across each individual LED during the peak in the alternating current cycle is low enough so as not to damage the LEDs.” Id. The forward voltage drop across Martin’s 38 LEDs is about 171 V, which matches Martin’s AC input voltage peak of about 169.71 V. See id. (“At 120 RMS volts, the peak voltage will be about 180V [correction: 169.71 V],” and if the LEDs “can tolerate a maximum forward voltage of 4.5V, at least 38 LEDs connected in series are required.” (38 LEDs x 4.5 V = 171 V)); PO Resp. 41–42 (“While Martin references ‘about 180V,’ both parties agree that the correct value of the peak voltage Vp is 169.71 V.” (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 127)). Although Martin’s LED forward voltage drop (171 V) differs slightly from the peak input voltage (169.71 V), Patent Owner conceded at the hearing that the claimed “matches” does not require an exact equivalence. Tr. 38:9–11 (“Patent Owner agrees . . . that matching has a meaning that goes beyond exact equivalence.”).14” slip op. at 22

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “35 U.S.C. § 311(b). PO Resp. 22–25. This statute provides that “[a] petitioner in an inter partes review may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” § 311(b) (emphasis added). Patent Owner contends that Martin is not available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) because it is not a patent or printed publication and is only prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). PO Resp. 22. Patent Owner argues that documents are “printed publications” as of the date they become available to the public, and Martin became public on its publication date of October 21, 2004, after the February 25, 2004 priority date of the ’979 patent. Id. at 23. Patent Owner raises a similar argument for the Soules-II reference in Ground 6. Id. at 25– 26. Petitioner responds that the AIA framework permits the use of § 102(e) prior art in IPR proceedings, unlike formerly available covered business method review (CBM) proceedings, which restricted challenges to § 102(a) prior art. Reply 29. We agree. The statute governing the formerlyavailable CBM proceeding explicitly limits challenges based on “prior art that is described by section 102(a).” AIA § 18(a)(1)(C). In contrast, § 311(b) more broadly permits challenges “on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” The broader language in § 311(b) implies that unlike CBMs, IPRs are not limited to challenges solely under § 102(a) prior art. The parties cite to no Federal Circuit decisions that squarely address this issue. However, the Federal Circuit has applied § 102(e) patent application publication prior art in appeals from IPR proceedings. See, e.g., Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Iancu, 767 Fed. App’x 918, 920–21, 926 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (nonprecedential) (determining that a § 102(e) patent application publication was available as prior art in an IPR). The Board has also long permitted challenges based on patent application publications under § 102(e). See, e.g., Idle Free Sys., Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., IPR2012-00027, Paper 14 at 27 (PTAB Jan. 31, 2013) (instituting trial over § 102(e) ground based on a patent application publication). We therefore find Patent Owner’s § 311(b) argument unpersuasive.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 10,652,979 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,652,979
• Restem, LLC. v. Jadi Cell, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 18, 2023 · IPR2021-01535 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 were not proven unpatentable: Majore did not anticipate claims 1–13 and 15, and the asserted obviousness combinations did not establish the claimed limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 132, 133. Importantly, however, Dr. Olson does not cite anything to support his opinion that the ordinary artisan would have known that MSCs could be cultured to be renewable from subepithelial UC tissue. Nor does Dr. Olson explain why the artisan would have had this understanding aside from simply stating it. Majore uses the word “subepithelial” only once to explain that primitive stem cells are “distributed in subepithelial and intervascular regions,” but this does not teach what Dr. Olson asserts. Accordingly, Dr. Olson’s testimony is entitled to little weight. Xerox Corp., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15–16 (finding that an expert’s conclusory assertions that repeat the proposition for which they are offered without “any additional supporting evidence or provide any technical reasoning” in support are “conclusory and unsupported, add[] little to the conclusory assertion[s] for which [they are] offered to support, and is” slip op. at 52

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “21 The parties do not dispute that the preamble’s recitation of “isolated cell” serves as a limitation to claim 1 as it provides antecedent basis for its recitation later in the body of the claim. Accordingly, we treat the preamble as limiting. “When limitations in the body of the claim rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed invention.” See Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003).” slip op. at 31

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

    “[JUDGE NEWMAN:] So if -- if the comparison is possible, why did you not present evidence of that comparison? MR. FITZPATRICK: We --we’ve had the -- we had this discussion with our -- with our expert, and our conclusion was that it’s just not -- it wasn’t necessary. The conclusion was that the -- the evidence that’s in the -- in the prior art references, including the fact that it clearly practices the exact same steps as the claims, that was sufficient to -- and would anticipate or render obvious the claims. That’s the only reason we didn’t present evidence -- our own evidence.” slip op. at 38

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

    “Ex. 1007 ¶ 168 (alteration in original). We agree that an ordinary artisan would be motivated to look to the teachings of analogous references for information, but to establish obviousness, a party must show that “there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (requiring “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”)). Petitioner has not provided sufficient rationale to explain why the ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make the isolated cell with the specific marker profile or why the artisan would have looked to the cited references themselves out of the wide range of references available in the art.” slip op. at 64

  Patent outcomesUS 9,803,176 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,803,176

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.