- Google LLC v. Voip-Pal.Com, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 19, 2022 · IPR2022-01073 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Teodosiu did not disclose the claimed location identifier, and the proposed combinations did not cure that deficiency.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“For all its grounds, Petitioner relies on Teodosiu for allegedly disclosing “a location identifier separate and distinctive from said callee identifier, said location identifier identifying a location of the mobile telephone” as recited in each of the challenged independent claims of the ’234 patent. See Pet. 19–21 (claim 30), 44–45 (claim 46), 56 (claim 62). Petitioner relies on its showing as to this limitation of claim 30 for each of the other independent claims. Id. Because the Petitioner fails to establish that Teodosiu discloses this limitation, we determine that the Petition does not show a reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner would prevail in showing any of the challenged claims are unpatentable.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“and 93 of the Mir Declaration. See Pet. 19–20 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 87–89, 93). We have considered the Mir Declaration and determine that it does not support finding that Teodosiu discloses receiving an access code request message including “a location identifier identifying a location of the mobile telephone” as recited in each independent claim of the ’234 patent by disclosing transmission of the mobile device’s phone number. The Mir Declaration states: “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that an area code associated with a device’s phone number can identify an area (e.g., location) in which the device may be located.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 87. We agree with this statement to the extent that we agree that the device’s phone number could possibly identify an area or location in which the device might be located. But, we do not agree with Dr. Mir’s conclusion that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that “Teodosiu’s method includes a network server receiving from the mobile device (‘mobile telephone’) a request (‘access code request message’) including a selected contact (‘callee identifier’) and mobile device 110 phone number, which includes geographic information (‘location identifier’).” Id. ¶ 89. Dr. Mir fails to adequately explain how or why the area code of a mobile device’s phone number is a “location identifier identifying a location of the mobile telephone.”” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningOther
“We interpret claims in the same manner used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b) “including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). When applying that standard, we interpret the claim language as it would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the specification. Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1279–80 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Thus, we give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). We determine that it is not necessary to expressly interpret any claim language in order to decide whether to institute review. B. Legal Standards” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), reaffirmed the framework for determining obviousness as set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966). The KSR Court summarized the four factual inquiries set forth in Graham that we apply in determining whether a claim is reasonably likely to be unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows: (1) determining the scope and content of the prior art, (2) ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, (3) resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and (4) considering objective evidence indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 406. With these standards in mind, we address each challenge below. slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 8,630,234 - Google LLC v. Voip-Pal.Com, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 19, 2022 · IPR2022-01074 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show Teodosiu disclosed the required location identifier, and the proposed combinations did not remedy that deficiency.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In summary, we determine that Petitioner has not shown that the cited art discloses all the limitations of any challenged claim and we deny institution on this basis. III. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude that there is not a reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner would prevail with respect at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. Therefore, we do not institute inter partes review on any claims or any challenge to the claims of the ’721 patent.” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“[a] person of ordinary skill in the art as of the claimed priority date of the ’721 patent . . . would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field along with at least two years of work experience in the field of networking.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 19–21). Petitioner further contends “[m]ore education can complement practical experience and vice versa.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 19–21). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the ’721 patent and the asserted prior art. slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“2018, “[claims] of a patent . . . shall be construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the [claims] in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the [claims] in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claims as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2018); see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005). We construe only terms that are in controversy and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, construe any claim terms in order to make this decision.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“the Mir Declaration. See Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 87–91). We have considered the Mir Declaration and determine that it does not support finding that Teodosiu discloses transmitting “a location identifier identifying a geographical location of the wireless device” as recited in each independent claim of the ’721 patent by disclosing transmission of the mobile device’s phone number. The Mir Declaration states: “[a] person of with a device’s phone number can identify an area (e.g., location) in which the device may be located.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 89. We agree with this statement to the extent that we agree that the device’s phone number could possibly identify an area or location in which the device might be located. But, we do not agree with Dr. Mir’s conclusion that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the mobile device 110 phone number [as disclosed in Teodosiu] includes [a] ‘location identifier,’ as claimed.” Id. ¶ 90. Dr. Mir fails to adequately explain how or why the area code of a mobile device’s phone number is a “location identifier identifying a geographical location of the wireless device.”” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,880,721 - Lenovo Holding Company, Inc. / Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v. Interdigital Technology CorporationSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 14, 2022 · IPR2020-01494 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8, 10–12, 21–24, and 26 are unpatentable as obvious over Li and Tiedemann, with or without ETSI1997; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“In its Response, InterDigital does not contest Dr. Acampora’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill, except that “InterDigital applies Petitioners’ alleged baseline level of ordinary skill without the phrase ‘at least.’” PO Resp. 3. We agree with InterDigital that the term at least arguably “creates unnecessary ambiguity.” Id. (citing Inst. Dec. 9–10). But we find that Petitioner’s articulation, after deleting the phrase at least, is reasonable in light of the subject matter involved in the ’449 patent, and we adopt it for our decision.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“To the extent that text was copied and pasted in either direction between the Petition and Dr. Acampora’s declaration, we disagree that this mere fact indicates that we should give Dr. Acampora’s testimony less weight. Patent Owner does not argue that Dr. Acampora was uninvolved with the preparation of his declaration, which he signed, under penalty of perjury, and presented as reflecting his own opinions. That typographical errors may, for example, have been propagated from his declaration to the Petition is by itself of little consequence. The cited Wowza decision does not suggest otherwise. In that case, the Board assigned little weight to the expert declaration, not because of its similarity to the petition, but because the declaration did not disclose the underlying facts or data on which its opinion testimony was based. See IPR2013-00054, Paper 16 at 4–5. As Petitioner correctly argues in its Reply, InterDigital does not “identif[y] where Dr. Acampora fails to provide sufficient facts underlying his opinions.” Pet. Reply 1 n.1.” slip op. at 20
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“1. “channel quality” InterDigital states that the court in the parallel district court litigation adopted the parties’ agreed construction of “channel quality” as meaning “a value/values quantifying how efficiently downlink resources of a channel can communicate information.” PO Resp. 3–4 (citing Ex. 2008, 1; Ex. 2009, 18). InterDigital contends that the ’449 patent suggests this construction, and that both sides’ experts agree with it. Id. at 4 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:36–61; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 33–35; Ex. 2002, 21:14–22; Ex. 2007, 26:12–17). Because the meaning of this term is uncontested, and it is consistent with the evidence of record, we adopt the parties’ agreed construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“For the above reasons, we determine that Petitioner has persuasively shown that a channel quality of the plurality of downlink resources and the related term a first channel quality indication for the plurality of downlink resources mean “a channel quality value related to the ‘plurality of downlink resources’ as a whole.” Pet. 11–13. We also determine that Petitioner has persuasively shown that both alternatives 8 and 9 reflect embodiments of this term, which is consistent with the district court’s construction that provides “a mean or reference value related to the plurality” as examples of a channel quality value related to the plurality of downlink resources as a whole, explicitly referencing alternative 9 in its analysis. See Ex. 2009, 12– 13.” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 9,456,449 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,456,449 - Lenovo Holding Company, Inc. / Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v. Interdigital Technology CorporationNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 14, 2022 · IPR2020-01505 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish that Zhang disclosed the claimed response to a non-zero grant construed as a power ratio greater than zero.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Here, we determine that the term “power ratio” in the involved parenthetical in the Specification is a definition, and not merely an illustrative example, of a “grant.” First, the Specification does not identify any other type of grant. Dr. Mahon testifies that the Specification does not provide an example of any other type of grant. Ex. 2001 ¶ 35. Petitioner offers no rebuttal expert testimony and identifies no other type of grant disclosed in the Specification. See Pet. Reply 1–5. We credit Dr. Mahon’s unrebutted testimony that the Specification does not identify any other type of grant. Ex. 2001 ¶ 35. Thus, the parenthetical at issue in this case does not exclude any grant described in the Specification (nor, as set forth in Section II.B.2.ii, any grant set forth by ordinary meaning of the term grant based on the extrinsic evidence of record).” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner offers no extrinsic evidence, other than the testimony of Dr. Kakaes, regarding the ordinary meaning of the term “grant,” and Dr. Kakaes cites no extrinsic evidence to support his definition of the term “non-zero grant.” Pet. 12; Pet. Reply 1–5; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–65. Dr. Kakaes does not separately address the meaning of “grant.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–65. We find Dr. Mahon’s testimony and the 3GPP Technical Specification persuasive. As set forth above, the 3GPP Technical Specification describes grants as power ratios—a fact that Petitioner does not dispute. Pet. Reply 1– 5. Further, as set forth above, in light of the Specification’s references to 3GPP standards and the 3GPP recitations in the preambles of claims 1 and 6, 3GPP standards from the time of the ’873 patent are highly relevant evidence to an ordinarily skilled artisan of the ordinary meaning of the terms “grant” and “non-zero grant.” iii. A Non-zero Power Ratio is a Power Ratio Greater than Zero Dr. Mahon testifies that a “non-zero grant” should be construed as “a power ratio greater than zero.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 33. Dr. Mahon explains that a power ratio cannot be negative, so a “non-zero” power grant must be greater than zero. Id. ¶ 38. Petitioner does not dispute Dr. Mahon’s testimony that a power ratio cannot be negative. Pet. Reply 1–5. Petitioner further does not dispute that if a “grant” is construed to be a “power ratio,” a “non-zero grant” should be construed to be a “power ratio greater than zero.” Id. We credit Dr. Mahon’s testimony that a power ratio cannot be negative. Ex. 2001 ¶ 38. Thus, in light of the Specification’s and extrinsic evidence’s teachings that a “grant” is a “power ratio,” we construe “non-zero grant” to be a “power ratio greater than zero.”” slip op. at 19
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“2. Claim 1 Claim 1 recites the following limitation: triggering transmission of scheduling information (SI), from the WTRU to a Node-B, in response to the WTRU having a non-zero grant smaller than needed preventing the WTRU from sending a medium access control protocol data unit (PDU) of any of a plurality of scheduled medium access control-d (MAC-d) flows. [“responsive limitation of claim 1”] Ex. 1001, 7:36–8:6 (emphasis added). Petitioner does not argue, let alone prove, that Zhang discloses the transmission of scheduling information “in response to the WTRU having a non-zero grant smaller than needed” when “non-zero grant” is construed as a “power ratio greater than zero.” Pet. 25–29; Pet. Reply 1–5, 12–13. Thus, Petitioner has not proven that claim 1 is anticipated by Zhang. 3. Claim 5 Claim 5 depends on claim 1. Ex. 1001, 8:15–16. Petitioner relies on its showing for claim 1 for the limitations that claim 5 incorporates from claim 1. Pet. 29–30. Thus, Petitioner has not proven that claim 5 is anticipated by Zhang.” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“B. Ground 2: Asserted Obviousness over Zhang Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 5, 6, and 10 would have been obvious over Zhang. Pet. 5. For the responsive limitations of claims 1 and 6, Petitioner relies on its showing for Ground 1. Id. at 32–33. Thus, Petitioner has not proven that claims 1 and 6 would have been obvious over Zhang. For claims 5 and 10, Petitioner also relies on its showing for Ground 1. Id. at 33. Thus, Petitioner has not proven that claims 5 and 10 would have been obvious over Zhang. C. Ground 3: Asserted Obviousness over Zhang and TS 25.321 Petitioner asserts that claims 1–10 would have been obvious over Zhang and TS 25.321. Pet. 5. For this ground, Petitioner argues “[t]o the extent one might argue that Zhang does not . . . sufficiently disclose a WTRU configured to process ‘a plurality of scheduled medium access control-d (MAC-d) flows,’ it would have been obvious to include that functionality in the WTRU of Zhang in view TS 25.321.” Id. at 34 (emphasis omitted). For the responsive limitations of claims 1 and 6, Petitioner relies on its showing for Ground 1. Id. at 34–40, 48. Thus, Petitioner has not proven that claims 1–10 would have been obvious over Zhang and TS 25.321. D. Ground 4: Asserted Obviousness of Claims 1, 5, 6, and 10 over Zhang and Lohr Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 5, 6, and 10 would have been obvious over Zhang and Lohr. Pet. 5. For this ground, Petitioner argues “[t]o the extent one might argue that Zhang alone, or Zhang in combination with TS 25.321 do not does not sufficiently disclose a WTRU configured to process “a plurality of scheduled medium access control-d (MAC-d) flows,’ it would have also been obvious to include that functionality in the WTRU of Zhang in view” of Lohr. Id. at 52–53 (emphasis omitted). For the responsive limitations of claims 1 and 6, Petitioner relies on its showing for Ground 1. Id. at 52–55. Thus, Petitioner has not proven that claims 1, 5, 6, and 10 would have been obvious over Zhang and Lohr. E. Ground 5: Asserted Obviousness of Claims 1–10 over Zhang, Lohr, and TS 25.321 Petitioner asserts that claims 1–10 would have been obvious over Zhang, Lohr, and TS 25.321. Pet. 5. For this ground, Petitioner argues that claims 1, 5, 6, and 10 would have been obvious over Zhang and Lohr for the reasons set forth for Grounds 1–4. Id. at 56. Thus, Petitioner has not proven that claims 1–10 would have been obvious over Zhang, Lohr, and TS 25.321. See Sections III.A–D above.” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 8,797,873 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,797,873 - PTAB · Apr 6, 2022 · IPR2021-01458 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 9–12, 15, 17, and 18 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Based on these factors, we conclude that Twitter has made a sufficient showing that claim 12 would have been obvious over PALLAS in view of Yau (Ground 2) or in view of the teachings of both Yau and Kim (Ground 4). Thus, for the reasons below, we determine that Twitter is reasonably likely to prevail on claim 12.” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“As PARC recognizes, the first factor examines whether the same petitioner or a related petitioner previously filed a petition directed to the same claims of the same patent, and can also apply in some circumstances when “when different petitioners submit multiple petitions to challenge the same patent.” Prelim. Resp. 12 (citing Valve Corp. v. Electronic Scripting Products, Inc., IPR2019-00062, Paper 11 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2019) (precedential) (“Valve I”); see also Valve Corp. v. Electronic Scripting Products, Inc., IPR2019-00064, Paper 10 (PTAB May 1, 2019) (precedential) (“Valve II”). Valve II held that “when different petitioners challenge the same patent, [the Board] consider[s] any relationship between those petitioners while weighing the General Plastic factors.” Valve II at 10. In weighing this factor against the second petitioner Valve in Valve II, the Board noted that “Valve and HTC were co-defendants in the District Court litigation and were accused of infringing the [challenged] patent based on the same product, namely HTC’s VIVE devices that incorporate technology licensed from Valve.” Id. at 11. Also, Valve joined the previous petition as a party and the later-filed petitions challenged the same claims as the previous petition. See id. (noting a “complete overlap in the challenged claims”). Similar considerations do not exist here. Twitter did not previously file a petition challenging the ’599 patent,11 nor did Twitter seek to join the 11 Concurrently with this Petition, Twitter filed another petition on the same grounds, challenging claims of the ’599 patent that Twitter thought might be indefinite and thus not amenable to an inter partes review. See IPR2021- 01459, Paper 3; Paper 2, 2. Because Twitter ranks this Petition above that in IPR2021-01459 (see Paper 2, 3), we address the parallel-petition issue in the decision instituting trial in the other proceeding. earlier Snap or Facebook petitions. See generally IPR2021-00987, IPR2021- 01294, IPR2021-01536. There is also no evidence in the record that Twitter coordinated with Snap or Facebook in their respective petitions: Twitter represents that they “are unrelated companies; if anything, they are direct competitors.” Pet. 102. Twitter also represents that “Twitter has not coordinated its IPR with Snap or Facebook; and the attorneys substantively preparing Twitter’s IPR did not use Snap’s or Facebook’s petitions as a roadmap or even consult them.” Id.” slip op. at 32
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Twitter argues, for the purpose of its Petition, that all of the terms in the challenged claims have their ordinary and customary meaning, except that the ’599 patent defines contextual information to mean “input data that is gathered by a computing device from a number of input sources, and reflects basic information associated with the user and/or the operating environment of the computer device.” Pet. 13 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Ex. 1001, 6:15–19). Twitter also argues that the ’599 patent defines context to mean “a set of data that describes an event or environmental factor associated with a user or the operational environment of content management system.” Id. (emphasis omitted) (quoting Ex. 1001, 7:36–39). Twitter provides little analysis for its proposed constructions apart from citing the location of the alleged definitions in the ’599 patent. PARC does not agree that the terms contextual information or context need explicit constructions, but does not offer any evidence that Twitter’s proposed constructions are incorrect. See Prelim. Resp. 11. PARC also contends that Twitter incorrectly applies its proposed constructions to the asserted prior art by failing to recognize the distinction between those two terms. See id. at 11, 25. We address this argument below. See infra part III.D.1(d). Based on the parties’ arguments at this stage, our application of the claim limitations to the asserted prior art does not rely on Twitter’s proposed constructions, and no explicit construction is necessary for our decision to institute an inter partes review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). To the extent that the parties’ arguments touch on these or other particular claim terms, we discuss them below in the context of the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Based on the preliminary record, we disagree. Although Yau teaches that students engage with the learning content at a time when they “would like to undertake some learning activities” (Ex. 1005, 4), Yau also states that it takes a “context-triggered approach” based on “IF-THEN rules, which are previously specified,” so that actions are “invoked automatically when a contextual element or a mixture of contextual elements are fulfilled.” Ex. 10 PARC also addresses Twitter’s argument (for Ground 1) that PALLAS alone teaches a trigger condition that triggers presentation of a content piece to the user. See Prelim. Resp. 18–22. As we discuss below, we do not need to reach this issue for our determination to institute an inter partes review. See infra part III.D.2. 1005, 5. Thus, we find Twitter’s arguments sufficiently persuasive that Yau teaches a trigger condition that triggers the presentation of a content piece such as a formal assessment. PARC also contends that Twitter’s arguments in this regard are insufficiently cited and thus conclusory, and that Twitter improperly incorporates Dr. Turnbull’s declaration by reference. See Prelim. Resp. 23– 24. We disagree, based on the present record, that Twitter’s arguments in the Petition lack sufficient support. A successful petition must “articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418); see also 35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.104(b)(4). Although many of the quotations in Twitter’s claim charts are abbreviated and lack specific citations, Twitter adequately directs our attention to the passage in Yau with those quotations that indicate that context-triggered actions are automatic when a contextual element is fulfilled. See Pet. 37. Twitter also articulates specific reasoning, based on the disclosures in PALLAS and Yau, that would support the conclusion obviousness, including a motivation to combine the two references. See Pet. 43–44. We find these arguments sufficiently specific and persuasive, at this stage, to support Twitter’s contention that the combination of PALLAS and Yau teaches limitation 12.1.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,489,599 - PTAB · Mar 24, 2022 · PGR2021-00112 · APJ Bryan F Moore · PGR · Institution
Instituted PGR on claims 1–20 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 lacks written description support; all petition grounds were included.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“content for output.” Id. at 89. We determine, however, that Petitioner’s argument under Step 2A Prong One that claim 1 is directed to the “obtaining content for output” is not substantially different from the Examiner’s determination that claims 1‒20 recite “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis.” Compare Pet. 37–88 (citing e.g. Electric Power), with Ex. 2001, 193–194 (also citing Electric Power). In both cases, the argument is the same or substantially the same, i.e., that similarly identified subject matter of the claim is obtaining (collecting) data and displaying (outputting) it. Nevertheless, as to Step 2A Prong Two, we determine that the claims at issue in the ’096 prosecution differ in material ways from the ’903 patent claims at issue in this PGR. Specifically, the ’096 patent claims recite a touchscreen interface not recited in the ’903 patent claims. Additionally, the ’903 claims focus on the “output device” as performing the patented steps but in the ’096 prosecution history the “‘information apparatus performs the patented steps and “is integral to the claims” (as the Applicant argued). See Ex. 2008 [comparison of ’096 prosecution claims and ’903 claims]; Ex. 2001, 150; see also Pet. 89 (“the claims at issue in the ’067 application were different than the claims of the ’903 patent addressed here.”). rejection and arguments in the ’096 prosecution history turns on whether the claims in this PGR recite different elements that must be determined to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (i.e., Prong Two of Step 2A). Petitioner argues that an essential element different than the ’096 claims, i.e. the output device, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claims do not amount to an improvement to computer functionality. Pet. 37–72. We find this a close case. Nevertheless, due to the differences in the claims, we determine that the Examiner’s withdrawal of the § 101 rejection in light of the applicant’s arguments regarding the claim being directed to a specific technical solution is not substantially the same argument that Petitioner’s presents in the Petition as to Prong Two of Step 2A.” slip op. at 22
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“C. Lack of Written Description Support Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable for lack of written description for the same reasons it contends the ’903 patent is PGR eligible. Pet. 13–36. The Specification of the ’903 patent has substantially the same disclosures as the Specification of the ’413 application relied on by Patent Owner (see Prelim. Resp. 20) to which the ’903 patent claims priority. Having determined that the disclosures in the ’903 patent Specification and the ’413 application is insufficient to provide written description support for the at least claim 1, we also determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least claim 1 is unpatentable for the same reasons. Thus, we exercise our discretion and institute post grant review of claims 1–20 challenged under this ground. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1369–60 (2018).” slip op. at 33
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateInstituted
“in the art at the time of the invention] would have understood that an output system/device could be (or include) an information apparatus. Prelim. Resp. 24. We determine that Patent Owner’s argument has a logical flaw––i.e., the fact that a particular device could be used alternately as an information apparatus or an output device does not necessarily mean that it was known by one of ordinary skill in the art to use a combined information apparatus/output device and have the new combined device perform all the additional functions required by the claims. “The knowledge of ordinary artisans may be used to inform what is actually in the specification, but not to teach limitations that are not in the specification, even if those limitations would be rendered obvious by the disclosure in the specification.” Rivera v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 857 F.3d 1315, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Rivera”). “The question is not whether a claimed invention is an obvious variant of that which is disclosed in the specification . . . . It extends only to that which is 1997). Patent Owner has not pointed to any disclosure in the ’413 application teaching that an “output device” can perform the functions of the “information apparatus” including its interactions with the “output device.” For example, claim 1 recites “wirelessly receiving, by the output system . . . output data from at least one server of the one or more servers over the Internet.” Ex. 1001, 37:28–32. At this stage, we find sufficiently persuasive Petitioner’s argument, which we discuss above, that the only written description support for an “output device” that performs the claimed functions by accessing the Internet provided by Patent Owner is not an “output device” but an “information apparatus.” Prelim. Resp. at 27–29.” slip op. at 29
§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Mayo · Bilski · Electric PowerPatents in suitUS 11,029,903 - ROKU, Inc. v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 14, 2022 · PGR2021-00111 · APJ Bryan F Moore · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the challenged patent was not eligible for post-grant review; it found the priority applications supported claims 6 and 19 and did not reach the § 101 ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“For the above reasons, we are persuaded that the ’031 patent’s priority applications (pre-AIA applications) provide written description support for the claim limitation that “that the “output system” (claim 6) or “output device” (claim 19) can be an “Internet appliance.” Thus, we are not persuaded by Petitioner that claims 6 and 19 have an effective filing date after March 16, 2013. Accordingly, claims 6 and 19 do not render the ’031 patent eligible for post-grant review under AIA § 6(f)(2)(A). Accordingly, the information presented in the Petition does not establish that the ’031 patent is eligible for post-grant review.” slip op. at 16
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner
“Finally, the definition of output device in the priority ’765 Application (as in the Specification of the ’031 patent) is that an “[o]utput device [] is an electronic system capable of outputting digital content … Any device capable of playing or reading digital content in voice (e.g., music, speech) or data (e.g., text, document) is also a possible output device.” Prelim. Resp. 15 (alterations in original) (quoting Ex. 1011 (’765 application) ¶ 89, Ex. 1001, 16:29–41). An Internet appliance does fall within that definition. The ’765 Application also contemplates that an output device is a network device accessible through an IP address. See Ex. 1011, 14 (referring to “[i]dentification of an output device” by “IP address”). Put another way, the priority application adequately describes a device fitting the description of” slip op. at 14
§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 10,846,031 - Forescout Technologies, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 27, 2022 · IPR2021-01328 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Forescout did not show Thomas was prior art, so it did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was obvious over Thomas or Thomas and Gill.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“§ 42.4(a), we may only institute an inter partes review when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any 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); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) (2020). Applying that standard, we do not institute an inter partes review, for the reasons explained below.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Fortinet that Forescout has not met its burden to particularly articulate its arguments in the Petition. To be successful in an inter partes review, a petition must “articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)); see also 35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2) (2020). In this case, Forescout’s burden includes, among other things, explaining in the Petition why Thomas “was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2). On its face, Thomas does not qualify as prior art to the ’421 patent because the application was filed on April 1, 2016, after the effective filing date of the ’421 patent. Thus, when Forescout filed its Petition, it was clear that Forescout needed to rely on a prior application in Thomas’s priority chain, such as the Thomas Provisional, to establish that Thomas was prior art to the ’421 patent under § 102(a)(2). Section 102(d)(2) of 35 U.S.C. provides that, “[f]or purposes of determining whether a patent or application for patent is prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2), such patent or application shall be considered to have been effectively filed, with respect to any subject matter described in the patent or application . . . as of the filing date of the earliest such application that describes the subject matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 102(d)(2) (emphases added). Without having the benefit of the provisional’s filing date, Thomas does not qualify as prior art to the ’421 patent. See supra. Thus, the subject matter disclosed in Thomas is only available as prior art to the ’421 patent to the extent it also is described in the earlier-filed Thomas Provisional. Thus, Forescout has an initial burden, not just to compare the challenged claims with the disclosure in Thomas, but to show that the subject matter that Forescout relies on in Thomas is also found in the Thomas Provisional. Because Forescout has not met that burden, we determine that Forescout has not adequately shown that it is reasonably likely to prevail on the issue of whether Thomas is prior art to the challenged claims of the ’421 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artNot shown unpatentable
“particularly articulate its arguments in the Petition. To be successful in an inter partes review, a petition must “articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)); see also 35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2) (2020). In this case, Forescout’s burden includes, among other things, explaining in the Petition why Thomas “was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2). On its face, Thomas does not qualify as prior art to the ’421 patent because the application was filed on April 1, 2016, after the effective filing date of the ’421 patent. Thus, when Forescout filed its Petition, it was clear that Forescout needed to rely on a prior application in Thomas’s priority chain, such as the Thomas Provisional, to establish that Thomas was prior art to the ’421 patent under § 102(a)(2). Section 102(d)(2) of 35 U.S.C. provides that, “[f]or purposes of determining whether a patent or application for patent is prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2), such patent or application shall be considered to have been effectively filed, with respect to any subject matter described in the patent or application . . . as of the filing date of the earliest such application that describes the subject matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 102(d)(2) (emphases added). Without having the benefit of the provisional’s filing date, Thomas does not qualify as prior art to the ’421 patent. See supra. Thus, the subject matter disclosed in Thomas is only available as prior art to the ’421 patent to the extent it also is described in the earlier-filed Thomas Provisional. Thus, Forescout has an initial burden, not just to compare the challenged claims with the disclosure in Thomas, but to show that the subject matter that Forescout relies on in Thomas is also found in the Thomas Provisional. Because Forescout has not met that burden, we determine that Forescout has not adequately shown that it is reasonably likely to prevail on the issue of whether Thomas is prior art to the challenged claims of the ’421 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“A claim is unpatentable under § 103 for obviousness “if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103 (2018). As discussed above, we determine that Forescout has not adequately shown that Thomas is prior art to the challenged claims. For the same reason, Forescout has also failed to adequately show that in light of Thomas alone or in combination with Gill, the claimed inventions would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to March 17, 2014, the effective filing date of the ’421 patent. See supra part III.B. Thus, we determine that Forescout has not shown that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in proving that any of the challenged claims would have been obvious over either Thomas alone or Thomas in view of Gill.” slip op. at 10
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 9,503,421 - PTAB · Jan 21, 2022 · IPR2021-01249 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
Instituted review of claims 1, 6, 11, 16, 19, 24, 26, 27, and 30 on all petitioned grounds; the Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on the Dimov–Kovac and Park–Kovac obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Under the circumstances, we disagree with Patent Owner that the Petition is deficient under § 42.104(b)(3) because of how Petitioner addresses claim construction. Petitioner’s main argument is that we do not even need to construe “chamber” or “retaining position” explicitly in this proceeding. See Pet. 9, 12. We agree that neither term needs an explicit construction, at least for our decision to institute trial. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). That Petitioner alternatively offers two explicit constructions with which it does not agree—and which are, effectively, irrelevant at this stage because we do not need to construe these terms—does not render the Petition insufficient. We do not discern any substantial ambiguity or lack of clarity in how Petitioner applies the terms “chamber” and “retaining position” to the asserted prior art. To the extent that it may become necessary to construe any terms explicitly at trial, we will consider evidence on both sides, and as usual, Petitioner will have the burden of persuasion. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e).” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Relying on Dr. Meinhart’s testimony, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, biomedical engineering, molecular biology, (bio)chemistry, or an equivalent degree relevant to microfluidic biological cell analysis, and three to five years of experience with the construction of and application of microfluidic devices to cell culture and analysis.” Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 40). Patent Owner does not dispute this proposed level of ordinary skill in its Preliminary Response. See Prelim. Resp. 7. Because it is supported by testimonial evidence and appears reasonable at this stage in light of the subject matter of the ’408 patent, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art for this decision. If Patent Owner proposes a different articulation at trial, we will consider any evidence that Patent Owner submits, in light of the full trial record.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“To establish anticipation, a petitioner must find each and every element in a claim, arranged as recited in the claim, in a single prior art reference. See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The limitations may be present in the reference “either explicitly or inherently.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Further, an anticipating prior art reference must be enabling and must describe the “claimed invention sufficiently to have placed it in possession of a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention.” See Helifix Ltd. v. Blok-Lok, Ltd., 208 F.3d 1339, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2000). We do, however, consider the reference “together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)). Based on these principles, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not identified within the four corners of Dimov a sufficient disclosure of selectively recovering a cell based on the response in the monitoring step. Although Dimov discloses non-selective recovery, and although Petitioner has identified techniques that might theoretically be used for selective recovery, Dimov itself does not appear, based on the preliminary record, to disclose selective recovery based on a prior monitoring step. We also agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s reliance on Kennametal is misplaced. “Kennametal does not permit the Board to fill in missing limitations simply because a skilled artisan would immediately envision them.” Nidec II, 851 F.3d at 1274–75. Thus, on the present record, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Dimov anticipates claim 1.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). For a combination of known elements that are not explicitly found together in the prior art, we consider “whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” Id. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). A successful petition must “articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418); see also 35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.104(b)(4) (2020). We base our obviousness inquiry on factual considerations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art, and (4) any objective indicia of obviousness or non-obviousness that may be in evidence.9 See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18. Based on these factors, we conclude that Petitioner has not made a sufficient showing that claim 1 would have been obvious over Dimov. Petitioner’s proposed modification of Dimov, though remarkably similar to the process of aspirating cells disclosed in the ’408 patent, does not seem to appear expressly in Dimov (see supra part II.B), nor has Petitioner demonstrated persuasively that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the proposed modification with a reasonable 9 At this stage, the parties do not identify any objective indicia of obviousness or non-obviousness, so this does not factor into our decision to institute an inter partes review. expectation of success based on Dimov alone. Thus, on the present record, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that claim 1 would have been obvious over Dimov without combination with another prior art reference.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,087,408 - Berkeley Lights, Inc. v. The University Of British ColumbiaInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 21, 2022 · IPR2021-01250 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“§ 42.4(a), we may only institute an inter partes review when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any 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); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) (2020). Applying that standard, we do not institute an inter partes review, for the reasons explained below.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Relying on Dr. Meinhart’s testimony, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, biomedical engineering, molecular biology, (bio)chemistry, or an equivalent degree relevant to microfluidic biological cell analysis, and three to five years of experience with the construction of and application of microfluidic devices to cell culture and analysis.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 38). Patent Owner does not dispute this proposed level of ordinary skill in its Preliminary Response. See Prelim. Resp. 5–6. Because it is supported by testimonial evidence and appears reasonable at this stage in light of the subject matter of the ’936 patent, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art for this decision.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Regardless of whether Patent Owner is correct that the Petition is deficient under § 42.104(b)(3), our decision not to institute does not depend on the construction of “chamber” or whether claim 6 invokes § 112 para. 6. Thus, we do not need to construe either term explicitly for our decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner has the ultimate burden of persuasion on the question of whether a claim is entitled to the priority date of an earlier application. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “[A] patent application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier application provides support for the claims of the later application, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112.” In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 297 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In particular, “[t]o be entitled to a parent’s effective filing date, a continuation must comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1.” In re Owens, 710 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citations omitted). The test for the written description requirement “is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). A prior application need not contain precisely the same words as are found in the asserted claims. See Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Purdue Pharma LP v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“In order to satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure as originally filed does not have to provide in haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue.”). On the other hand, “[e]ntitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A key factor in this written description analysis, which Petitioner did not clearly address in its Petition, is the meaning of “measuring a cell product” in limitation 1D. The ’936 patent discloses that “[t]he measuring the cell product [step] may be selected from one or more of: lineage staining; cell-surface protein staining; antibody staining; enzymatic assay; RT-PCR analysis; PCR analysis; sequencing; functional assay; and bead capture assay to characterize the cells.” Ex. 1001, 6:47–51. This appears to be definitional, such that the meaning of “measuring a cell product secreted by the individual clonal cell populations, or subset thereof,” as in limitation 1D, would include using any one of these listed techniques to analyze cell secretion products. This passage is also consistent with the other claims in the ’936 patent, such as claim 18, which depends from claim 1 and further states that the “measuring the cell product” step “comprises flowing a fluid comprising an immunostaining agent, an enzymatic reagent, a dye or a functionalized bead into the individual chambers.” Id. at 48:29–32; see also id. at 48:33–48 (similar limitations in claims 19–23). As Patent Owner persuasively shows on the present record, the ’213 application discloses many of these analytical techniques, including staining, functional assay, and bead capture. See Prelim. Resp. 15–17. We also find persuasive Dr. Pelanda’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the references in the ’213 application to these analytical techniques relate to analysis of secreted cell products, and that a particular focus of the ’213 application was to use the microfluidic device for analyzing autocrine signaling, which involves detecting or analyzing cell secretions. See Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 22–32. For the above reasons, on the present record, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the ’213 application lacks disclosure such that Lecault is prior art to the challenged patent. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not shown that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on its first and third grounds with respect to any of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,421,936
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.