• Pungkuk Wire Manufacturing Company v. Seong, Ki ChulNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 16, 2017 · IPR2016-00762 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 were not shown unpatentable because Mukherjee did not necessarily disclose a crack structure on the alloy layer.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Cir. 2003) (citation omitted) (emphasis added). “Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Cont’l Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). “If, however, the disclosure is sufficient to show that the natural result flowing from the operation as taught would result in the performance of the questioned function, it seems to be well settled that the disclosure should be regarded as sufficient.” Cont’l Can, 948 F.2d at 1269 (emphasis added). Thus, the question we must answer to determine the inherency of a claim limitation in the prior art is whether the disclosure of the prior art shows that the limitation necessarily would result from following the express disclosure of the prior art, as opposed to showing that the limitation only might result from following the express disclosure of the prior art. Here, Petitioner has not directed us to sufficient evidence of record for us to find that this question should be answered affirmatively.” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Dr. Misiolek’s testimony also is not sufficient to support a finding that the Mukherjee process necessarily creates a crack structure in the surface of the alloy layer. In his initial declaration, Dr. Misiolek states that “[t]he wire drawing process disclosed by Mukherjee would crack the outside beta and gamma brass alloy layer.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 8 (emphasis added). As support for this statement, Dr. Misiolek testifies that “beta brass, gamma brass, and zinc each have a lower ductility compared to alpha brass and these layers are exposed to the highest strain.” Id. Dr. Misiolek does not explain why the first statement necessarily follows from the second. The presence of a relatively brittle alloy layer and the application of a relatively large amount of strain to that layer seem to make the formation of cracks more likely, but it is not clear from Dr. Misiolek’s testimony why the presence of such circumstances makes the formation of cracks completely certain. The testimony in Dr. Misiolek’s second declaration does not make the reasoning any more clear. Ex. 1013 ¶ 9 (testifying that “the drawing process in column 6 of Mukherjee would cause cracks to form” without explaining why). Thus, Dr. Misiolek’s testimony is conclusory and entitled to little weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Moreover, there is evidence of record that “whether cracks actually occur [in any given wire drawing process] depends on multiple factors, including . . . the temperature used during the [drawing] process, and . . . the speed of the drawing.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 14. Dr. Misiolek does not dispute this testimony, and Petitioner does not direct us to any evidence to the contrary. Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 14–18; Reply 12–22. Mukherjee does not disclose either the speed of its wire drawing process or the temperature at which that process takes place. Ex. 1002, 6:58–65. Accordingly, there is insufficient evidence of record to find that wires produced using the Mukherjee process always and inevitably must have a crack structure on the surface of their alloy layers. Therefore, we cannot find that Mukherjee anticipates claim 1 of the ’535 patent.” slip op. at 10

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “1019, and 1020. Paper 48. We do not consider the merits of Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude because, as explained above, even if the disputed evidence is considered, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–5 of the ’535 patent are unpatentable as anticipated by Mukherjee. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 6,482,535 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 6,482,535
• L’Oréal USA, Inc. v. Liqwd, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jul 19, 2017 · PGR2017-00011 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of PGR on claims 1–10 because Petitioner did not show that any claim was more likely than not unpatentable under § 112.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 324(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting a post-grant review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), which provides that a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.”” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “Moreover, “[a]pplicants can define . . . claim scope during prosecution,” just as they can in a patent specification. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 789 F.3d 1335, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Here, during prosecution of the ’419 patent, the applicant stated that “[t]he term ‘hair coloring agent’ refers to a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.” Ex. 1005, 7. To define specific terms used to describe an invention, the applicant need only set out the definition “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision,” “so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change” in meaning. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). On the present record, the definition of the term “hair coloring agent” set out in the prosecution history of the ’419 patent is sufficiently clear, deliberate, and precise to give a person of ordinary skill in the art notice that the term is used in the ’419 patent in a manner that does not include substances other than “colorant[s] or pigment[s] that [are] customarily used in hair care products,” even if those other substances might be described as “hair coloring agents” outside the context of the ’419 patent. Ex. 1005, 7. Accordingly, we should give effect to that definition. Because Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” gives effect to the prosecution history’s definition of “hair coloring agent,” we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction for purposes of the present decision. Thus, on the present record, and for purposes of the present decision, we construe “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” as “wherein the mixture applied to the hair does not have a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.”” slip op. at 6

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)Not shown unpatentable

    “to determine the scope of the claims. As discussed above, however, we interpret “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” as “wherein the mixture applied to the hair does not have a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.” We have not been directed to evidence of record that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered a bleaching agent to be “a colorant or pigment.” Pet. 7 (describing bleaching as a “process[] that destroy[s] pigment to change hair color,” as opposed to a “process[] that deposit[s] dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair to change hair color”); Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 14–15 (contrasting “dyeing,” meaning “processes that alter or change hair color by depositing dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair,” with “bleaching,” meaning “the application of an oxidizing agent to hair to destroy the natural or artificial pigment”). Accordingly, on the present record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown that it is more likely than not that claims 1–10 of the ’419 patent are indefinite.” slip op. at 10

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not shown unpatentable

    “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent.” Pet. 36–39; Prelim. Resp. 39–40. If “a hair coloring agent” encompasses bleaching agents, then the claims all require a bleaching formulation and simultaneously exclude a bleaching agent, a scope that Petitioner argues is not described in the specification of the ’419 patent. As discussed above, however, we interpret “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” as “wherein the mixture applied to the hair does not have a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.” We have not been directed to evidence of record that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered a bleaching agent to be “a colorant or pigment.” Pet. 7 (describing bleaching as a “process[] that destroy[s] pigment to change hair color,” as opposed to a “process[] that deposit[s] dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair to change hair color”); Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 14–15 (contrasting “dyeing,” meaning “processes that alter or change hair color by depositing dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair,” with “bleaching,” meaning “the application of an oxidizing agent to hair to destroy the natural or artificial pigment”). Accordingly, on the present record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown it is more likely than not that claims 1–10 of the ’419 patent lack written description support. slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 9,498,419
• Guangdong Alison Hi-Tech Co., Ltd. v. Aspen Aerogels, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jun 8, 2017 · IPR2017-00413 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–3, 5–7, 9, or 49 unpatentable on any asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2

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

    “model of glass wool, Corning model 3950, is resilient. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95–101 (testing a sample of Corning model 3950 for compressibility and resilience). This does not support Dr. Scherer’s or Petitioner’s conclusion, however, that all types of glass wool are resilient. Nor does it, at least on this record, support the conclusion that the glass wool disclosed in Ramamurthi is resilient. Ramamurthi’s glass wool is described as “pyrex glass wool (Corning SiO2 fibers, 8 μm diameter).” Ex. 1004, 7:20–21. Much of this description matches the description of Corning model 3950. Ex. 1018, 1 (describing Corning model 3950 as “Glass Wool, PYREX” and having a “[f]iber diameter” of “0.008 mm”). But Ramamurthi describes its glass as constituting individual fibers laid down “in a thin layer,” which does not match the product tested by Dr. Scherer. Ex. 1004, 7:34–36. The fact that it would be possible to rearrange Ramamurthi’s glass wool fibers into a configuration or arrangement similar to that represented by Corning model 3950, which is resilient, is not sufficient to demonstrate the inherency of such resiliency in the material disclosed by Ramamurthi. “Inherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Cont’l Can Co. USA, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).” slip op. at 7

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

    “obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art given the teachings of Sonoda and either Ramamurthi or Ryu. Pet. 53–55. Claim 7 depends from claim 1. Ex. 1001, 14:63–64. Accordingly, claim 7 incorporates all the limitations of claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(c). Petitioner’s obviousness argument rests on the assertion that “Sonoda discloses all the limitations of claim 1.” Pet. 53. As discussed above, however, we determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Sonoda discloses the “lofty fibrous batting sheet” that is recited in claim 1. Petitioner does not argue that Ramamurthi or Ryu remedies this deficiency. Even if Petitioner had so argued, as discussed above, we determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that either Ramamurthi or Ryu discloses the “lofty fibrous batting sheet” that is recited in claim 1. Because Petitioner’s argument for the obviousness of claim 7 relies on Sonoda anticipating claim 1, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the obviousness of claim 7 over the combination of Sonoda and either Ramamurthi or Ryu.” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “the determination that Ramamurthi’s glass wool inherently possesses both bulk and resilience. First, Dr. Scherer testifies that all glass wool shows these properties. Ex. 1003 ¶ 94 (“Glass wool (and materials like it) are compressible and resilient enough to re-expand back to their original shape. Glass wool may also have low thermal conductivity and low density, qualities that contribute to the ‘loftiness’ of the fibrous material.”). Dr. Scherer does not provide an explanation supporting this conclusion for all types of glass wool or all “materials like it.” Id. Accordingly, this testimony “is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 7

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,078,359
• Amazon.Com, Inc. / Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. Ac Technologies S.A.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 6, 2017 · IPR2015-01801 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 30, 31, 33, and 40–46 were not shown unpatentable because Rabinovich required prior client access before replication, and Carter did not cure that limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Ratner, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention “would have had an undergraduate degree in Computer Science or a related field, such as Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 17; Pet. 14. Patent Owner does not challenge this definition or present its own. Accordingly, we credit the testimony of Dr. Ratner regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, and find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an undergraduate degree in Computer Science or a related field, such as Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience. This level of ordinary skill is reflected not only by the information presented by the parties, but also by the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 9

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

    “We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s reasoning and determine Rabinovich to be a printed publication. We credit the unrebutted testimony of Dr. Rabinovich regarding the consistency of his professional practice in 1998 for republication of his AT&T technical memoranda on a webpage that he managed on AT&T’s publicly accessible website. Furthermore, we find the December 1998 IEEE article corroborates the public availability of Rabinovich on that website, and would have been a roadmap, for one of ordinary skill in the art of data management and optimized access to data, to be guided to Rabinovich. See Reply 21–22. As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner’s own declarant states that Rabinovich and the December 1988 IEEE article “are ‘similar[]’ in that they both address ‘problems in network connectivity caused by multiple clients accessing servers.’ (Ex. 2006 at 12).” Id. at 20. Additionally, the passage in the December 1998 IEEE article that cites to Rabinovich refers to an algorithm in Rabinovich for optimizing access to data in order to increase performance. Id. at 21. Accordingly, we find that footnote 16 of the IEEE article, which contains the URL to Rabinovich, would have guided one of ordinary skill directly to Rabinovich. We are, therefore, persuaded, that Rabinovich is a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” slip op. at 12

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

    “whether to replicate data object xs. Rabinovich defines cnt(s,xs) as the “total access count for xs,” which is equal to cnt(xs). Ex. 1006, 11. According to Dr. Ratner, “[t]he metric cnt(s,xs) measures the total number of times in that window that replica xs has been served to a client computer.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 253. As Patent Owner points out, Rabinovich teaches replicating/migrating object xs only if the ratio of cnt(s,xs) over aff(xs) is greater than m, and the ratio can be greater than m only if cnt(s,xs) is greater than zero. PO Resp. 19; Ex. 1006, 12, Fig. 4. In view of this, we agree with Patent Owner that if cnt(s,xs) has a value of zero, meaning that object x has not been served to any client computer, then the ratio of cnt(s,xs) to aff(xs) will be zero, i.e., less than m, and Rabinovich will not carry out its replication or migration step. This means that Rabinovich will not replicate or migrate object xs until xs has been accessed by a client computer at least once, such that the access count for xs is greater than zero. In this regard, we agree with Patent Owner that object xs is not “sen[t], from the at least one data storage device to the another data storage device . . . independent of an access of the at least one client computer” because Rabinovich teaches explicitly that object xs is not sent unless there has been at least one access from the client computer.” slip op. at 18

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

    “30, for use with a computer game (claim 45) and with an interactive computer game accessed by at least two users (claim 46). Ex. 1001, 30:47– 54. In connection with its obviousness contentions, Petitioner makes no separate arguments why Rabinovich teaches or suggests shifting redundantly stored data based upon data transmission parameters between the servers independent of an access of the client. Pet. 45–47; Reply 17–18. Because claims 45 and 46 depend from claim 30, we find that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Rabinovich teaches or suggests the limitations in these two dependent claims for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 30.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS RE40,521 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
• Amazon.Com, Inc. / Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. Ac Technologies S.A.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 6, 2017 · IPR2015-01802 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7–15 are unpatentable as anticipated by Rabinovich; Petitioner did not prove claims 1–15 obvious over Rabinovich.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 17; Pet. 16. Patent Owner does not challenge this definition or present its own. Accordingly, we credit the testimony of Dr. Ratner regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, and find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an undergraduate degree in Computer Science or a related field, such as Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience. This level of ordinary skill is reflected not only by the information presented by the parties, but also by the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 9

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

    “We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s reasoning and determine Rabinovich to be a printed publication. We credit the unrebutted testimony of Dr. Rabinovich regarding the consistency of his professional practice in 1998 for republication of his AT&T technical memoranda on a webpage that he managed on AT&T’s publicly accessible website. Furthermore, we find the December 1998 IEEE article corroborates the public availability of Rabinovich on that website, and would have been a roadmap, for one of ordinary skill in the art of data management and optimized access to data, to be guided to Rabinovich. See Reply 19–22. As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner’s own declarant states that Rabinovich and the December 1988 IEEE article “are ‘similar[]’ in that they both address ‘problems in network connectivity caused by multiple clients accessing servers.’ (Ex. 2006 at 12).” Id. at 21. Additionally, the passage in the December 1998 IEEE article that cites to Rabinovich refers to an algorithm in Rabinovich for optimizing access to data in order to increase performance. Id. Accordingly, we find that footnote 16 of the IEEE article, which contains the URL to Rabinovich, would have guided one of ordinary skill directly to Rabinovich. We are, therefore, persuaded, that Rabinovich is a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “object xs. Rabinovich defines cnt(s,xs) as the “total access count for xs,” which is equal to cnt(xs). Ex. 1006, 11. According to Dr. Ratner, “[t]he metric cnt(s,xs) measures the total number of times in that window that replica xs has been served to a client computer.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 253. As Patent Owner points out, Rabinovich teaches replicating object xs if the ratio of cnt(s,xs) over aff(xs) is greater than m, i.e., a non-zero value. PO Resp. 34; Ex. 1006, 12, Fig. 4. In view of this, we agree with Patent Owner that if cnt(s,xs) has a value of zero, meaning that object x has not been served to any client computer, then the ratio of cnt(s,xs) to aff(xs) will be zero, i.e., less than m, and Rabinovich will not carry out its replication step. This means that Rabinovich will not replicate object xs until xs has been accessed by a client computer at least once, such that the access count for xs is greater than zero. In this regard, we agree with Patent Owner that Rabinovich object xs is not “sen[t], from the at least one data storage device to the another data storage device . . . independently of an access of the at least one client computer” because Rabinovich teaches explicitly that object xs is not sent unless there has been at least one access from the client computer. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Rabinovich” slip op. at 18

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

    “pieces” Claim 1 recites “each file including a plurality of individual pieces, the pieces containing parts of the files.” Ex. 1002, 25:67–26:1. The other independent claims recite limitations commensurate in scope. Neither party proposes explicitly a construction of the term “piece.” Petitioner argues that “files are inherently composed of pieces in the form of bits that make up bytes, the bytes themselves being pieces of the file.” Pet. 32. Patent Owner argues that construing “piece” to cover “bits and bytes” of a file “would read out the ‘pieces’ limitation from the claim entirely” (PO Resp. at 29–30) and that “one of ordinary skill in the art would not read the ‘pieces’ limitation of the claim to include bits and bytes” (id. at 30). The claims themselves define “piece” by requiring that a “file” have a “plurality of individual pieces,” but do not establish a lower bound—i.e., a minimum number of bits or bytes—to qualify as a “piece.” Patent Owner identifies no support in the ’680 patent for its contention that “piece” or “pieces” excludes a byte or bytes of a file, relying instead solely on the testimony of Dr. Paul S. Jacobs. Id. (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 38, 39). We are not persuaded by Dr. Jacobs’s conclusory testimony. Because “piece” and “pieces” are limited by the claims only to being a subset of a file and because a byte or collection of bytes of a file is a subset of that file, we are persuaded that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “piece” and “pieces” in light of the Specification of the ’680 patent encompasses a byte or bytes. slip op. at 7

  Patent outcomesUS 7,904,680 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,904,680
• Commscope Technologies, LLC v. Communications Components Antenna Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 3, 2016 · IPR2016-00999 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–28 unpatentable, principally because Yea did not establish the claimed asymmetrical coverage areas.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “partes review of claims 1–28 of U.S. Patent No. 8,311,582 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’582 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, Communications Components Antenna Inc., filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute 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 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we are not persuaded Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of claims 1–28 of the ’582 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

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

    “Petitioner’s proposed construction of this limitation is supported by the specification of the ’582 patent. The ’582 patent discloses replacing a single sector coverage area with sub-sector coverage areas, at least one of which is an asymmetrical coverage area. Ex. 1001, 3:16–18. The ’582 patent discloses that the use of asymmetrical coverage areas permits the total coverage area to closely approximate the symmetrical sector coverage area being replaced, without creating excessively large sub-sector handover zones or introducing sever degradation in network performance. Id. at 3:18–24. The ’582 patent discloses creating the asymmetrical coverage areas by replacing an existing antenna with an antenna that has substantially the same coverage area, but divides the coverage area into a plurality of separate asymmetrical beams or sub-sectors. Id. at 4:32–38. As disclosed by the ’582 patent, the replacement antenna produces a plurality of separate beams, each defining a new sub-sector with only a small overlapping area between them and which together provide substantially identical coverage to the sector supported by the original antenna, to upgrade the single sector to a plurality of sub-sectors without significantly affecting neighboring sites. Id. at 4:51–57. The replacement antenna introduces asymmetry into the generated beam pattern. Id. at 4:58–60. The introduction of asymmetrical beams by the replacement antenna allows close approximation of the coverage area of the conventional sector antenna being replaced. Id. at 5:61–64. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of “a plurality of sub-sector coverage areas extending therefrom, at least one of which is asymmetrical,” as a plurality of replacement sub-sector beams, at least one of which has an asymmetrical shape, where asymmetry includes deliberate or inherent asymmetry as the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification.” slip op. at 8

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

    “49 (Fed. Cir. 2005). There, the district court invalidated claims of the patent in suit on summary judgment based on the measured dimensions of a prior art patent figure. Id. at 1148. The Federal Circuit reversed, warning “that arguments based on drawings not explicitly made to scale in issued patents are unavailing.” Id. at 1149. Petitioner here does not identify any portion of Yea disclosing that Figures 4 and 8 are drawn accurately enough to determine an asymmetrical nature of the radiation patterns. Petitioner also fails to cite to any disclosure in Yea that identifies or describes an asymmetrical nature of the radiation patterns. Furthermore, Petitioner also has not explained why the shapes shown in the linear scale drawings of Figure 4 would show similar shapes when converted to a logarithmic scale. Additionally, Petitioner does not explain why the carrier to interference ratio shown in Figure 8 can be used to accurately measure antenna radiation beam patterns. We find Petitioner does not sufficiently establish that the plots shown in Figures 4 and 8 of Yea can be used to determine whether the antenna radiation beam pattern is asymmetrical. On the record before us, we determine the Petition and supporting evidence does not adequately establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that Yea anticipates independent claims 1, 13, and 20. b. Dependent Claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, and 27 Petitioner argues that Yea anticipates dependent claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, and 27. Pet. 47–53. In so arguing, Petitioner relies on Yea as disclosing the claimed asymmetrical coverage area. Id. Because we are not persuaded that Yea discloses this limitation, we are not persuaded that Petitioner establishes a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that Yea anticipates dependent claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, and 27.” slip op. at 14

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

    “as well as testimony of both Mr. Collins and Mr. Cosgrove. Under Rule 37 C.F.R. § 42.108, any genuine issues of material fact created by the testimonial evidence should be viewed in light most favorable to the petitioner solely for purposes of deciding whether to institute an inter partes review. Even reviewing the testimony of Mr. Collins in the light most favorable to Petitioner, we determine Petitioner has established only that asymmetrical beams may be used in a planar array antenna, but not that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood steered beams of a planar array antenna are necessarily asymmetrical. Mr. Collins cites to Litva (Ex. 1009) and Wästberg (Ex. 1018) in stating that prior art steered beams of a planar array antenna can be asymmetrical beams. Ex. 1024 ¶ 179. We credit Patent Owner’s arguments and the testimony of Mr. Cosgrove to determine Petitioner does not sufficiently establish the likelihood that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that steered beams of a planar array antenna are necessarily asymmetrical. Further, Petitioner fails to set forth a sufficient rationale for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would use the asymmetrical beams of the prior art with the disclosure of Yea. Pet. 39–40. On the record before us, we determine the Petition and supporting evidence does not adequately establish a reasonable likelihood that using asymmetrical beams in Yea would have been obvious. We therefore conclude that the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the subject matter of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 11–15, 18–22, 24, and 27 would have been obvious over Yea, Metawave Website, Litva, and Wästberg.” slip op. at 22

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,311,582
• Pungkuk Edm Wire Manufacturing Company v. Seong, Ki ChulRehearing denied
  PTAB · Oct 31, 2016 · IPR2016-00762 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Rehearing

  Denied Petitioner’s rehearing request; claims 1–5 remain instituted only on the Mukherjee anticipation ground, with institution denied on the Briffod and Takano anticipation grounds.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “We will grant a request for rehearing of a petition decision if the requesting party demonstrates “an abuse of discretion” in the decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). However, we will grant a request for rehearing only if it also “specifically identif[ies] . . . the place where each matter [that we misapprehended or overlooked] was previously addressed.” Id. § 42.71(d). After considering the Request for Rehearing, the Decision, and the evidence currently of record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we deny the Request for Rehearing.” slip op. at 2

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

    “sufficiently that Briffod discloses the “crack structure” of the recited claims on the surface of its film 2. Dec. 14–15. This was based on the failure of Petitioner and Briffod to explain whether the voids that Petitioner contends constitute cracks are present on “the surface” of the layer in question. Id. In its Request for Rehearing, Petitioner now argues that conclusion was an abuse of discretion. Request 6–9. Petitioner argues that Briffod discloses voids contained within film 2 and that these voids “qualify as cracks.” Id. at 6. As stated in our Decision, we agree that Briffod discloses voids within film 2, and, for the purposes of deciding whether to institute inter partes review, we accepted Petitioner’s contention that the voids in question constitute “cracks.” Dec. 13–14. The challenged claims, however, require that the “alloy layer has a crack structure on its surface,” and the Petition failed to explain why the presence of cracks within a layer demonstrates the presence of cracks on the surface of that layer.” slip op. at 5

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “Finally, Petitioner argues that the roughness of the surface of film 2 and the roughness of overlying thin film 3 demonstrate the presence of voids on the surface of film 2. Request 8–9. Once again, Petitioner fails to explain adequately where this argument was made previously. Petitioner intermittently points to portions of the Petition where it contends that this argument was made previously, but Petitioner also intersperses arguments that do not cite to the Petition. Id. (citing Pet. 13–14, 23). To the extent that the citations are missing, we cannot consider this argument. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Even if we could consider this argument, we would not be persuaded that it showed an abuse of discretion in our conclusion that Petitioner failed to show sufficiently that Briffod discloses the presence of a crack structure on the surface of thin film 2. Briffod shows voids within thin film 2, and Briffod shows that thin film 2 has a rough surface. Ex. 1003, Fig. 1b. Briffod also states that the voids caused by the Kirkendall effect “may be the reason for the observed porosity of [thin film 3].” Id. at 4:21– 29. It is not clear that this establishes a causal relationship of any kind between the presence of voids and the rough surface, because it only posits a possible connection. Even if the voids do cause the surface to be rough, they could do so through several conceivable mechanisms, only one of which is the accumulation of voids at the surface. Petitioner did not explain in the Petition why we should assume any causal relationship, much less the single type of causal relationship that would satisfy the language of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 6

  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 6,482,535
• Pungkuk Edm Wire Manufacturing Company v. Seong, Ki ChulRehearing denied
  PTAB · Oct 31, 2016 · IPR2016-00764 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied the petitioner’s rehearing request, finding no abuse of discretion in denying institution on the Briffod and Takano anticipation grounds.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “ANALYSIS A request for rehearing must identify specifically all matters the party believes we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Additionally, Petitioner, as the party challenging the Decision, has the burden of showing the decision should be modified. Id. When rehearing a decision on a petition, the Board will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined “if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors.” Arnold Partnership v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Gartside, 200 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).” slip op. at 3

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

    “evidence presented, that Petitioner established sufficiently that Briffod discloses voids or cracks that are formed in the alloy layer. Dec. 19–20. Specifically, we stated that Briffod describes the surface of thin film 3 as shown in Figure 1b (the claimed “coating layer,” according to Petitioner) as “very rough,” with “many holes of 1 to 2µ which confirms the sponge-like structure suggested by the appearance of the surface.” [Ex. 1003, 4:8–15.] Briffod does not, however, describe the characteristics of film 2, which Petitioner contends is the “alloy layer” required by the claims. See Pet. 29 (quoting Ex. 1003, 2:55–56); id. at 30 (same). Petitioner does not provide any other evidence that shows sufficiently that Briffod discloses voids or cracks that are formed in the alloy layer. Id. Therefore, we considered Petitioner’s arguments and evidence that cracks or voids are formed in Briffod film 2, and deemed it insufficiently persuasive. Moreover, with respect to Petitioner’s argument that Briffod Figure 1b “illustrates the Kirkendall voids as small circles in the film 2,” we note that Briffod describes Figure 1b as illustrating the Briffod invention “in a schematic manner” (Ex. 1003, 2:51–55), and does not explain what, if anything, the “small circles” drawn in film 2 signify. It is not an abuse of discretion to have made an analysis or conclusion with which a party disagrees. As a result, we did not abuse our discretion in denying institution of inter partes review of claims 2, 5, 7, 8, and 10 on the asserted ground of unpatentability based on Briffod.” slip op. at 4

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

    “to show anticipation because Comparative Example 2, alone, shows all of the features of claims 1 and 6 of the ’036 patent.” Req. Reh’g 13. Petitioner does not point us to where this argument was made in the Petition; instead, Petitioner directs us to page 19 of the Petition, which is an overview of Takano. Id. at 12. In contrast, in the claim charts, which “show features of Takano that correspond to the claims of the ‘036 patent,” Petitioner identifies Example 1 as disclosing some limitations of the claims, and Comparative Example 2 as disclosing others. See, e.g., Pet. 33–34 (claim chart for claim 1). Per 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), Petitioner must point out where the matter was previously addressed in its Petition. We could not have overlooked argument or evidence that was not presented in the Petition. A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to supplement a petition.” slip op. at 5

  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 6,492,036
• Pungkuk Edm Wire Manufacturing Company v. Seong, Ki ChulRehearing denied
  PTAB · Oct 31, 2016 · IPR2016-00763 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied the petitioner’s rehearing request, leaving in place the refusal to institute on Takano anticipation of claims 1–4, 6, and 14–18.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “We will grant a request for rehearing of a petition decision if the requesting party demonstrates “an abuse of discretion” in the decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). However, we will grant a request for rehearing only if it also “specifically identif[ies] . . . the place where each matter [that we misapprehended or overlooked] was previously addressed.” Id. § 42.71(d). After considering the Request for Rehearing, the Decision, and the evidence currently of record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we deny the Request for Rehearing.” slip op. at 2

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

    “arguments in support of the asserted anticipation of claims 1–4, 6, and 14–18 by Takano. Req. 1. In refusing to institute on this ground, we concluded that Petitioner had not shown sufficiently that Takano anticipates claims 1– 4, 6, and 14–18 because Petitioner’s argument required combining disclosures from multiple embodiments disclosed in Takano. Dec. 18. Petitioner now presents two arguments that this determination was an abuse of discretion. Req. 5–8.” slip op. at 3

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

    “arguments in support of the asserted anticipation of claims 1–4, 6, and 14–18 by Takano. Req. 1. In refusing to institute on this ground, we concluded that Petitioner had not shown sufficiently that Takano anticipates claims 1– 4, 6, and 14–18 because Petitioner’s argument required combining disclosures from multiple embodiments disclosed in Takano. Dec. 18. Petitioner now presents two arguments that this determination was an abuse of discretion. Req. 5–8.” slip op. at 3

  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 6,306,523
• Mastercard International Inc. v. Leon StamblerAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 6, 2016 · CBM2015-00044 · APJ Peter P Chen · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 51 and 53 are unpatentable as anticipated by Davies; claims 51, 53, 55, and 56 are unpatentable as obvious over Davies and Meyer; claim 55 over Davies and Nechvatal; and claim 56 over Davies, …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “F. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner’s proposal for the level of ordinary skill in the art is “at least a bachelors degree in computer programming and two years’ experience as a programmer or developer in the field of computer science, with a working understanding of cryptographic operations for transforming original input into a coded output using a known algorithm.” Pet. 14–15. Patent Owner has proposed similarly, that one of ordinary skill in the art would possess “(1) undergraduate education in mathematics, physics, computer science, electrical engineering or similar technical subject; and (2) either postgraduate education in networking, cryptography, or other discipline encompassing information theory, or equivalent experience with applications involving communication of financial, military, medical or similarly sensitive data over secure and non-secure networks.” Prelim. Resp. 30–31. We determine that an express definition of the level of ordinary skill is not required. The level of ordinary skill in the art can be reflected in the cited prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.’”) (internal quotations omitted); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Therefore, we find the level of ordinary skill in the art to be reflected in the cited references.” slip op. at 16

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

    “1. “variable authentication number (VAN)” In the Decision to Institute, we construed the term “variable authentication number” or “VAN” as “a variable number resulting from a coding operation that can be used in verifying the identity of a party or the integrity of information or both.” Dec. to Inst. 8. See also Case IPR2014-00694, slip op. at 8–9 (PTAB Oct. 31, 2014) (Paper 10). Patent Owner “does not challenge this construction.” PO Resp. 16–17. Patent Owner asserts additional construction of the term is necessary for CBM standing issues, but does not elaborate further. PO Resp. 1. Patent Owner also argues we incorrectly applied the broadest reasonable interpretation to the term in the Decision to Institute. PO Resp. 9. The Decision to Institute noted that our review of the claims of the expired ’302 patent is similar to that of a district court’s review, In re Rambus, Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005), but inadvertently mentioned the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in construing this term. Dec. to Inst. 7–8. We reaffirm our agreement with Patent Owner that the Phillips framework is applied to the expired ’302 patent. Our construction of “VAN” is the same under either claim construction standard. We reject Patent Owner’s undeveloped argument regarding standing, and maintain the construction of VAN from the Decision to Institute, as the ordinary and customary meaning of the term: “a variable number resulting from a coding operation that can be used in verifying the identity of a party or the integrity of information or both.”” slip op. at 10

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

    “2. Sequence of method steps: receiving, generating In the Decision to Institute, we agreed with Patent Owner and construed the sequence of method steps in independent claim 51 to mean that at least a portion of the receiving step must precede the generating step. Dec. to Inst. 8. See also Case IPR2014-00694, slip op. at 11–14 (PTAB Oct. 31, 2014) (Paper 10). We maintain that construction as the ordinary and customary meaning of the sequence of the receiving and generating method steps.” slip op. at 11

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

    “intended use of an invention is generally not treated as limiting the scope of the claim. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). However, “a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Pitney Bowes Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “The effect preamble language should be given can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the patent to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim.” Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989). When the limitations in the body of the claim rely upon or derive essential structure from the preamble elements, e.g., the preamble serves as an antecedent basis for limitations in the claim, then the preamble acts as a necessary component of the claimed invention and is limiting. See Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In this case, the preamble of independent claim 51 recites “a credential being previously issued,” and the limitations of the claim include “determining whether the at least a portion of the received funds transfer information is authentic by using the VAN and the credential information.” Ex. 1001, 33:18–19, 33:29–31. Thus, the preamble’s recitation of “a credential” is an antecedent basis for the recited “the credential information” in the “determining” step, and we determine that the preamble limits the scope of the challenged independent claim 51 and dependent claims 53, 55, and 56.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 5,793,302 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 5,793,302

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.