- Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Correct Transmission, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 22, 2021 · IPR2021-00814 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–3, 6, 7, 9–15, 18–24, 26, 27, and 30–32 because neither obviousness ground showed a reasonable likelihood of success.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). We may not institute an inter partes review “unless . . . 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). Applying those standards, and upon consideration of the information presented in the Petition, Preliminary Response, and supplemental briefing, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any of challenged claims 1–3, 6, 7, 9–15, 18–24, 26, 27, and 30–32 of the ’928 patent. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Accordingly, constrained by the record before us, we deny institution of an inter partes review of the ’928 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a closely related field, and one to two years of experience in the design and development of network communication systems. Alternatively, a POSITA would have a Master’s degree or similar post-graduate work in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a closely related field, and less years of design and development experience. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 67–71). Patent Owner does not present an alternative definition at this stage of the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 30. We regard Petitioner’s proposed definition as reasonable, and” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction Petitioner does not propose any claim terms for construction. Pet. 7 (“For purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner construes each of the ’928 claim terms as having its ordinary and custom[ary] meaning.”). Although, Petitioner does submit that, “[f]or purposes of this IPR only, Petitioner relies on the claim scope positions Patent Owner has advanced in district court for ‘port definer module.’” Pet. 8. Similarly, Patent Owner argues each claim term should have its ordinary and customary meaning, except that, as in the parallel district court proceeding, the function of alleged means-plus-function term “port definer module” should be construed to be “designating any one physical link of the logical link and examining the designated link of the logical link.” Prelim. Resp. 11–12. We note that, in the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not appear to identify any structure in the Specification for performing that function. See generally Prelim. Resp. Regardless, we do not find that the express construction of any term is necessary for this decision. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner has not explained sufficiently, let alone with particularity, why the skilled artisan, but for hindsight, would have (1) taken Y.1731, which says nothing concerning aggregated physical links with a single logical link to which packets are directed; (2) then turned to the architectural basis for Y.1731, namely “Ethernet specification G.8010/Y.1306”; (3) then turned to standards “IEEE 802.1D, 802.1Q, and 802.3,” which are “account[ed] for” by G.8010/Y.1306, and specifically selected to pursue 802.3 from among those; (4) then, without any reference or indication in Y.1731 itself, turned specifically to standard IEEE 802.3ad within the set of 802.3 standards, and specifically to its disclosure of aggregated physical links with a single logical link; and then (5) upon making all of these connections, understood Y.1731 itself to disclose or teach aggregated physical links with a single logical link, particularly in the context of the Challenged Claims as a whole. See InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“It appears that [the expert] relied on the [] patent itself as her roadmap for putting what she referred to as pieces of a ‘jigsaw puzzle’ together.”); Sensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing W.L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983)) (“To draw on hindsight knowledge of the patented invention, when the prior art does not contain or suggest that knowledge, is to use the invention as a template for its own reconstruction—an illogical and inappropriate process by which to determine patentability.”). Although “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” (KSR, 550 U.S. at 421), the Federal Circuit has observed that “‘the prejudice of hindsight bias’ often overlooks that the ‘genius of invention is often a combination of known elements which in hindsight seems preordained.’” Polaris Industries, Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2018).” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,768,928 - PTAB · Oct 19, 2021 · IPR2020-00847 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 10, and 14 are unpatentable as obvious over Kurganov-262 and Chakrabarti; the Board did not reach the alternative grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“Turning now to obviousness, Petitioner identified disclosure within Kurgonov-262 and Chakrabarti which teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1. Pet. 11–21. Furthermore, Petitioner identified multiple reasons that would have prompted the skilled artisan to combine the teachings of Kurganov-262 and Chakrabarti to arrive at the subject matter of claim 1. Id. at 21–22. Because Patent Owner focused its arguments solely on the issue of whether Kurganov-262 is prior art, Petitioner’s assertions regarding the substantive teachings of Kurganov-262 and Chakrabarti remain unrebutted on the complete record. PO Resp. 31–34; Sur-reply 1–3. Patent Owner likewise failed to substantively address Petitioner’s proffered reasons why the skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine these teachings. PO Resp. 31–34; Sur-reply 1–3. We have reviewed the disclosures of Kurganov-262 and Chakrabarti relied on by Petitioner, as well as the explanations provided by Mr. Lipoff, and are persuaded that the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed in the prior art. Pet. 11–21; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 103–109; Ex. 1004; Ex. 1008. Petitioner also persuades us that the skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply Chakrabarti’s techniques for web crawling to Kurganov-262’s system, and would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully doing so, thus arriving at the subject matter of claim 1 of the ʼ084 patent. Pet. 21–23; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 110–114. Therefore, Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of claim 1 of the ʼ084 patent would have been obvious over the combined disclosures of Kurganov-262 and Chakrabarti.” slip op. at 24
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner describes a person having ordinary skill in the art as having “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science or a related field, and at least two years of experience with voice interfaces and information processing. More education could substitute for less experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 41–47). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition of the skilled artisan. See generally, PO Resp. Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the references themselves. 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.’”); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (finding that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not err in concluding that the level of ordinary skill in the art was best determined by the references of record). Thus, on the complete record, we accept Petitioner’s assessment of the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. C. Asserted Obviousness based on Kurganov-262 and Chakrabarti” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Rather, on the complete record, Patent Owner makes inadequately supported assertions regarding what the skilled artisan “would understand” based on the ʼ084 patent’s disclosure. See PO Resp. 33–34. For example, Patent Owner asserts that “[a] POSITA would understand that” polling or pinging “describes a process where by existing and new devices and/or websites are discovered,” and that “‘polling’ includes asking for information from a website, including a listing of URLs or asking a website of a search engine to provide new website information.” Id. at 34 (citing Ex. 2059 ¶¶ 154–155). We reject this line of argument because we afford minimal weight to Patent Owner’s reliance on paragraphs 153–155 of Exhibit 2059. PO Resp. 33–34. These declaration paragraphs provide little detail beyond what is argued in the Patent Owner Response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65 (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 22
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable
“We are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that sufficient written description support does not exist in the ʼ996 application for “limitation 1.i” which requires the computing device to be “configured to periodically search via the one or more networks to identify new web sites and to add the new web sites to the plurality of web sites.” Pet. 6–11. Thus, we determine that Kurganov-262 is available as prior art against the challenged claims. On the complete record, Patent Owner fails to direct us to specific disclosure within the ʼ996 application that evinces written description for limitation 1.i. Rather, Patent Owner’s citations to the ʼ084 patent fail to describe with adequate precision a computing device configured to periodically search the network(s) to identify new web sites and add such new web sites to the plurality of web sites that are accessed. See PO Resp. 31–34.” slip op. at 20
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,451,084 - PTAB · Oct 13, 2021 · IPR2021-00713 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, and 19 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate unpatentability. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). At this preliminary stage, we determine whether the information presented in the Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one of the challenged claims would have been obvious over the proposed combinations of prior art. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“argue that the reason to combine Ikonen and Gu is insufficient. Prelim. Resp. 47–52. However, Patent Owner’s argument misidentifies the proposed combination. While Patent Owner argues that there is no reason “why a POSA would have been motivated to substitute Ikonen’s Bluetooth solution with Gu’s (HTTP and TCP/IP based) UPnP networking framework,” the actual combination appears to be to implement Gu’s UPnP framework on Ikonen’s wireless LAN. Pet. 42 (“UPnP relies on IP networking . . . which a POSA would have known to be compatible with Ikonen’s wireless LAN option.”); Ex. 1002 ¶ 140 (Petitioner’s declarant explaining that UPnP could be implemented over a wireless LAN); see also Pet. 40–42 (the section entitled “Motivation to Combine” includes no explicit references to Ikonen’s teaching of Bluetooth, but rather only discusses Ikonen’s wireless LAN). All of Patent Owner’s arguments over the reason to combine focus on Ikonen’s teaching of Bluetooth, rather than Ikonen’s wireless LAN. See Prelim. Resp. 47–52. But, as we view the Petition to clearly set forth a reasonable rationale to combine Gu’s UPnP with Ikonen’s wireless LAN, and to provide evidence in support, Patent Owner’s arguments do not identify any shortcomings that undermine Petitioner’s showing at this stage. We do note that the Petition often refers to both of Ikonen’s teachings of Bluetooth and wireless LAN when discussing Ikonen individually. But, the Petition only refers to Ikonen’s teachings of wireless LAN when discussing the combination with Gu.” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedReference not prior artDecided for patent owner
“the ’101 provisional for each claim element of claims 7, 8, 10, and 11 of the ’066 patent. Prelim. Resp. 39–40. In response to Petitioner’s arguments about the prior art status of Yamaguchi (Reply 1–5), Patent Owner offers the testimony of Todor Cooklev, Ph.D. (Ex. 2029) in support. Sur-reply 1–4. Patent Owner also relies on the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant Samrat Bhattacharjee, Ph.D. (Ex. 1002). Sur-reply 2. Based on the current record, and for the reasons discussed below, we agree with Patent Owner that claims 7, 8, 10, and 11 of the ’066 patent are supported by the ’101 provisional and therefore, Yamaguchi is not prior art.” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITADecided for patent owner
“In essence, Petitioner has offered two positions as to the meaning of “wireless output device” in claim 7; one outlined in the Petition, supported by Petitioner’s declarant, Patent Owner, and Patent Owner’s declarant, and a second position outlined in the Reply that contradicts the Petition and is not supported by either of the declarants.10 It is on the basis of this new claim construction that Petitioner argues that the ’101 provisional does not provide support for this aspect of claim 7. As we reject Petitioner’s new claim construction as unsupported by the evidence, at this stage of the proceeding, it is unnecessary to review Petitioner’s argument that the wireless output device of claim 7 is unsupported by the ’101 provisional based on this claim construction.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,740,066 - Favored Tech Corporation v. P2i LtdNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 23, 2021 · IPR2020-00478 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Final written decision
Favored Tech did not prove claims 1–17 unpatentable: Baalmann did not anticipate the asserted claims, and the obviousness grounds lacked adequate disclosure or motivation with a reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionNo construction neededGranted
“After considering Petitioner’s arguments regarding claim 9, Patent Owner’s silence regarding claim 9, and the language in the ’070 patent itself (e.g., Ex. 1001, 11:45–52, 12:60–61), we agree with Petitioner that the term “1H, 1H, 2H, 3H-heptadecafluorodecylacylate” in claim 9 should be construed to correctly recite HDFDA (1H, 1H, 2H, 2H-heptadecafluorodecylacrylate). The error Petitioner identifies is conspicuous and undisputed, and the intrinsic record does not suggest a different interpretation. Fitbit, Inc. v. Valencell, Inc., 964 F.3d 1112, 1119–20 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Novo Industries, L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Additionally, after reviewing the parties’ remaining claim construction arguments and evidence, we determine that we do not need to expressly construe any other terms for purposes of this Decision because, as addressed in detail below, we find Petitioner’s showings deficient for reasons that do not depend on the construction of any claim term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 6
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’070 patent would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in a field such as chemistry, physics, or chemical engineering, as well as at least two years of experience with plasma-polymerization techniques.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 26–31). Patent Owner agrees with this proposed definition “with the understanding that ‘experience with plasma-polymerization techniques’ includes plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) techniques.” PO Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2010 ¶ 20; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 12, 63). In light of the record before us, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. As Patent Owner points out, Dr. Gleason states that PECVD is a form of plasma polymerization, and thus the parties agree that experience with plasma-polymerization techniques would include PECVD. PO Resp. 9; Ex. 1002 ¶ 63. The level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate adequately that each and every element in claim 1, arranged as recited in the claim, is found in a single prior art reference. NetMoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1369; Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Here, Petitioner combines several different teachings from Baalmann to support its anticipation argument. For example, Petitioner relies on the “evacuable chamber with a volume of 1 m3” from Baalmann’s Example 1, but not the power (2kW) expressly disclosed as being used with that reactor of Example 1. Ex. 1004 ¶ 47. With regard to power density, Petitioner relies on Baalmann’s general disclosure that “[t]he electrical power input per chamber volume is set between 0.5 kilowatt/m3 and 5 kilowatt/m3.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 20. As Patent Owner points out, however, that power density range is not tied to any particular reactor volume or plasma zone volume. PO Resp. 19. Baalmann also fails to expressly disclose the plasma zone volume of the reactor in Example 1. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 47–48. To attempt to overcome this absence of an express disclosure, Petitioner argues that, for the reactor used in Example 1, the plasma zone volume and reactor volume are the same based on the configuration of the electrodes in the reactor. Pet. 24–25. Baalmann, however, does not expressly disclose the electrode configuration of the reactor in Example 1. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 47–48. Instead, Petitioner relies on Baalmann’s general disclosure of an embodiment wherein one electrode is formed by the chamber wall itself. Pet. 24–25; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 35, 61. In so doing, Petitioner ignores the fact that Baalmann also states that “[t]wo opposite rod-shaped electrodes may also be used.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 35. In view of this, we disagree with Petitioner’s conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that chamber to be configured as described throughout the rest of the specification: with the chamber wall serving as one of the electrodes.” Pet. 24. Even if we were persuaded by Petitioner’s argument, the fact remains that Petitioner’s anticipation challenge is based on the combination of different features disclosed in separate portions of Baalmann. “Such picking and choosing . . . has no place in the making of a 102, anticipation rejection.” In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587–88 (CCPA 1972) (cited with approval in Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 550 F.3d 1075, 1083 (Fed. Cir. 2008)); see also Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti, Inc., 878 F.3d 1052, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that anticipation is not proven by multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“For all of the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have inferred the volume of the plasma zone10 in Coulson is 470 cm3 based on Coulson’s disclosure of a “glow discharge reactor” having a volume of 470 cm3. Pet. 38; Reply 15–16. In view of this, we are likewise not persuaded that Coulson discloses a power density of 85.1 W/m3, because Petitioner’s 9 Dr. Gleason confirmed that she did not perform any experiments to verify her opinions regarding Coulson’s plasma zone. Ex. 2017, 80:10–18. 10 As noted above, Petitioner presented its argument in the context of its proposed construction of plasma zone. Petitioner did not present an alternative argument supported by sufficient evidence addressing the volume of Coulson’s plasma zone based on Patent Owner’s proposed construction of plasma zone. Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner’s assertion that we do not need to expressly construe the term plasma zone to resolve this issue. Sur-reply 1. argument that Coulson discloses this power density is based on its assertion that Coulson has a plasma zone volume of 470 cm3. Pet. 38. This finding is fatal to Petitioner’s obviousness challenge of claim 1 based on the combined teachings of Baalmann and Coulson because Coulson’s purported disclosure of using a power density of 85.1 W/m3 is an essential component of Petitioner’s obviousness challenge. An obviousness determination requires finding both “that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art . . . and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367-68 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In attempting to establish a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Baalmann and Coulson, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, Petitioner repeatedly refers to using Coulson’s optimized reaction conditions, including power density, in Baalmann’s larger reactor. Pet. 48 (stating that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to maintain the same or similar reaction conditions within a larger reaction chamber that were present in Coulson’s chamber during Coulson’s reported plasma polymerization reactions, including power density and pressure, to preserve the same effective results.”), 48–49 (“That would have included motivation to maintain Coulson’s disclosed power density when scaling up to a larger reaction volume to preserve the beneficial results Coulson reported at that optimized power density.”); Reply 23 (referring to the “straightforward, compelling obviousness case set forth in the petition” that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have expected to succeed performing Coulson’s reactions on a larger scale in view of Baalmann”); 23 (“The petition explained why a POSA would have modified Baalmann to use Coulson’s HDFDA monomer and reaction conditions to produce coatings with a reasonable expectation of success” ), 24 (stating the Petition “explained why a POSA would have expected success using known parameters from Coulson in an established large-scale apparatus”). During the oral hearing, counsel for Petitioner confirmed its obviousness positions depend on using Coulson’s power density. Tr. 20:10–21:16. Accordingly, Petitioner’s failure to demonstrate adequately that Coulson discloses or suggests a power density of 85.1 W/m3 undermines its reason to combine and reasonable expectation of success arguments. Petitioner’s argument that Baalmann discloses the claimed power” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 8,389,070 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,389,070 - Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 3, 2019 · IPR2018-01140 · APJ Marc S Hoff · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 13 are unpatentable as anticipated by Ogino; claims 14 and 15 are unpatentable as obvious over Ogino and Chen II.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“claims 1 and 13 of the ’032 Patent are anticipated by Ogino. Petitioner has also demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 14 and 15 of the ’032 Patent are unpatentable over the combination of Ogino and Chen II. The chart below summarizes our conclusion. References Claims Claims Claims 35. Shown Not shown Challenged U.S.C. Unpatent- Unpatentable able Ogino 1 and 13 1 and 13 § 102 Ogino, Chen 14 and 15 14 and 15 § 103 II 1 and 13-15” slip op. at 40
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“that Ogino and Chen II disclose substantially different lens systems. PO Resp. 36. As Petitioner points out, both Ogino and Chen II describe mobile phone camera systems with all lenses being aspheric; a first lens with a meniscus shape with positive refractive power; a second lens with negative refractive power; a third lens with a meniscus shape and with a negative refractive power; a fourth lens with a meniscus shape with positive refractive power; and a fifth lens with a meniscus shape and with a negative refractive power. Pet. Reply 22; Pet. 41–44. We agree with Petitioner that such a skilled artisan, possessing an applicable college degree, approximately three years experience in designing multi-lens optical systems, “experience in analyzing, tolerancing, adjusting, and optimizing multilens systems, and experience with lens design software such as CodeV, Oslo, or Zemax,” would have the appropriate knowledge to perform routine modifications to a lens design. Pet. Reply 24; Pet. 7; PO Resp. 12. Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Moore testified that such a skilled artisan “would be able to use the computer program [i.e. CodeV or Zemax] to optimize lens designs.” Pet. Reply 24; Ex. 1025, 29:25–30:9. Dr. Moore testified that the skilled artisan would “tell the [lens design] program that you want to vary certain parameters of a lens . . . . And then the program, through a fairly complicated algorithm, then actually goes through and varies them and determines how to make a better lens. You determine as a lens designer what you’re trying to improve.” Ex. 1025, 28:13–23.” slip op. at 38
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that the skilled artisan would have understood that third, fourth, and fifth lenses also contribute to vignetting in Ogino. PO Resp. 38. We credit Petitioner’s argument that Dr. Moore’s conclusion regarding vignetting in the third, fourth, and fifth lenses is unreliable because it is based on assumptions not specified in Ogino. Pet. Reply 16; Ex. 1026 ¶ 11. For example, Ogino does not provide lens diameters or vignetting apertures for the lens assembly of Example 6 that would vignette the light beams on the third, fourth or fifth lens elements. Pet. Reply 17; Ex. 1026 ¶ 11. Additionally, Dr. Sasián testifies that vignetting is a result of the second lens. Pet. Reply 17–18; Pet. 54; Ex. 1003, 59.” slip op. at 36
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Effective Focal Length (EFL) Petitioner asserts that while the specification of the ’032 Patent does not offer an express definition for the term “effective focal length,” “its meaning is well known in the art, as exemplified in Li (Ex. 1007), which states that “[t]he focal length of a lens assembly [is] also referred to as the effective focal length [(]EFL).” Pet. 9–10 (internal parentheses omitted); Ex. 1007, 2:59–61. Patent Owner, in response, does not dispute Petitioner’s construction of “effective focal length,” stating that the Petition does not turn on the construction of the term. PO Resp. 20. Having reviewed the evidence of record, we agree with Petitioner that Li supports construing the term “effective focal length” as “the focal length of a lens assembly.” We adopt this construction.” slip op. at 10
Patent outcomesUS 9,402,032 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,402,032 - Mexichem UK Ltd. v. The Chemours Company FC, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jul 12, 2019 · IPR2019-00529 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1–11, and it declined to institute the remaining grounds under § 314(a).
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Resp. 7–8. Patent Owner contends that “a POSITA is a person with a masters or doctorate degree in chemistry and/or chemical engineering, and having at least 3 years of experience working on the research, development, manufacture and formulations of HFC, HCFC and HFO compounds and mixtures.” Id. at 8 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 23). Patent Owner’s declarant Dr. Thrasher testifies, however, that he has “reviewed Dr. Sandford’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art” and his opinions “do not change under Dr. Sandford’s definition.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 24. We agree with the parties that a POSITA would have had an advanced degree in chemistry or chemical engineering, and experience in the research, development, and/or manufacture of hydrofluorocarbons (HFC) and hydrofluoroolefins (HFO), which is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art in this proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). Our determination regarding Petitioner’s challenge does not turn on the differences between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s definitions, and we note that our conclusions would be the same under either definition.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), which is articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018) (applicable to inter partes reviews filed on or after November 13, 2018). Under Phillips, claim terms are afforded “their ordinary and customary meaning.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. “[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Id. at 1313. Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. 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)). Petitioner does not propose a construction for any of the claim terms. Pet. 21–22. For purposes of this Decision, based on the record before us, we determine that no claim term requires explicit construction.” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentable
“sufficiently establishes that Rao ’434, Rao ’781, and Rao ’597 disclose compositions comprising HFO-1234yf, 3,3,3-trifluoropropyne, and at least one additional compound, as recited in independent claims 1, and 7 of the ’709 patent, or compositions comprising HFC-245eb, 3,3,3- trifluoropropyne, and at least one additional compound as recited in independent claim 11 of the ’709 patent. The ’709 patent states that the examples present a “general procedure [that] is illustrative of the method used for analyzing the products of fluorination reactions.” Ex. 1001, 12:30– 33. Examples 1, 2, and 3 of the ’709 patent use that procedure to measure the reaction product of (1) vapor phase dehydrofluorination of HFC-245eb to HFO-1234 with fluoride alumina catalyst, (2) pyrolysis of HFC-245eb, and (3) liquid phase dehydrofluorination of HFC-245eb to HFC-1234yf, respectively. Id. at 13:1–14:16. Although the ’709 patent provides the amounts of a number of different reaction products detected in each example, i.e., HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze, and HFC-245eb, notably absent is a measurement for 3,3,3-trifluoropropyne. Id. There is no indication, therefore, that the products in the examples of the ’709 patent represent the claimed compositions of the ’709 patent, each of which requires the presence of 3,3,3-trifluoropropyne.” slip op. at 15
- Burden
“this result. An experiment reproducing or recreating an example falls within the scope of that example so long as the reproduction is consistent with the teachings of the example, any deviations are immaterial, and the reasons for any deviations are adequately explained. See, e.g., Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Epic Pharma, LLC, 811 F.3d 1345, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding “no clear error” in the district court’s determination that the prior art application’s process was recreated “fairly, accurately, and with no material variation”); Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd., 52 F.3d 1043, 1047 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (finding no error in the district court’s determination that one skilled in the art would have understood that testing departing from the “strict letter” of a prior art example was nonetheless consistent with that example). Based on the current record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner sufficiently establishes that its replication of Rao ’434’s example falls within the scope of the example.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,147,709 - Power Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components Industries, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · May 23, 2019 · IPR2018-00180 · APJ Kamran Jivani · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 4–7, 9–16, and 18 are unpatentable over Hwang or Hwang and Balakrishnan; claim 17 was not shown unpatentable over Hwang.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Although the parties formulate slightly differently their respective assessments of the skill level, neither party disputes directly the other’s assessment nor makes any arguments related to the assessments. See generally Pet.; PO Resp. The ’221 patent states its disclosure “relates, in general, to integrated circuits and, more particularly, to power converter integrated circuits.” Ex. 1001, 1:9–11. In view of the foregoing, we adopt Patent Owner’s formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Further, this level of ordinary skill is reflected 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 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“construction must begin with the words of the claims themselves.”); In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)) (“As with any claim construction analysis, we begin with the claim language.”). None of the challenged claims (nor even unchallenged claim 8) recites the claimed disabling or terminating occurs in response to the detect signal independent of other circuit conditions or in response only to the detect signal. See Ex. 1001, 12:5–14:36. For instance, independent claim 4 merely recites, “wherein the control circuit disables the switched drive control signal in response to the detect signal.” Id. at 12:49–51. Independent claim 7 similarly recites, “wherein the gating circuit disables the drive control signal in response to the detect signal.” Id. at 13:11–13. Independent claim 9 discloses only, “a first comparator . . . having an output for disabling the pulse generator.” Id. at 13:27–30. Finally, independent claim 15 requires, “comparing the error signal to a reference signal . . . to terminate the step of generating in response to the error signal.” Id. at 14:21–23. Therefore, the plain language of the challenged claims does not, standing alone, support adoption of Patent Owner’s proposed construction.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“testimony from their respective declarants on whether one of ordinary skill in the art would understand “in response to” as requiring “independent of other circuit conditions.” Compare Reply 2–3 (citing Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 18–21, 26–30; Ex. 2003, 43:16–45:1) with PO Resp. 14–15, 17 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 42, 44–45.) and Sur-Reply 11–12 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 45). Patent Owner further directs our attention to a single sentence of deposition testimony in which Petitioner’s declarant Dr. Szepesi appears to agree with Patent Owner’s construction by stating, in the context of claim 9, that “the output signal of this first comparator disables the output pulses driving the gate of that independent of anything else.” PO Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2003, 44:16– 45:1). Petitioner rebuts Patent Owner’s arguments by identifying additional deposition testimony and statements made in a second declaration offered by Dr. Szepesi opposing Patent Owner’s construction. Reply 2–3 (citing Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 18–21, 26–30; Ex. 2003, 43:16–45:1). For instance, immediately before the statement Patent Owner cites, Dr. Szepesi testified: Q: “So is it your opinion that an output for disabling the pulse generator must disable the pulse generator regardless of the other conditions in the circuit?” . . . A: “I don't understand your question. I said disabling the pulse generator means that the output of the pulse generator which is providing the pulses to the gate of the main switch, those pulses are disabled. That’s what it means in my opinion in this context.” Ex. 2003, 43:24–44:9. And, in his supplemental declaration, Dr. Szepesi states: As a first matter, I opined during my deposition that “an output disabling a pulse generator” means that “the output signal of this first comparator disables the output pulses driving the gate of that independent of anything else.” But, at the time of my deposition I had not done a focused claim construction analysis of the limitation “a first comparator […] having an output for disabling the pulse generator.” This is because I hadn’t anticipated there being a dispute relevant to the validity analysis in view of what I understood as the plain meaning of the language. Despite the quote that Patent Owner relied upon, I believe now that a POSITA would not understand the claim language to require the first comparator to disable the output pulses independent of anything else. This belief is consistent with my responses to the first two of three successive questions in which I was asked about “disabling the pulse generator.” It is my opinion that the operation of the disclosed embodiment requires the presence of other conditions precedent before the first comparator can disable the drive pulses and this requirement is not excluded by the claim language. Ex. 1016 ¶ 18 (emphasis added). Our reviewing court has made clear that extrinsic evidence “is generally of less significance than the intrinsic record” in matters of claim construction. Wi-LAN, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 811 F.3d 455, 462 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Here, beyond competing declarant testimony, neither party has entered into the record extrinsic evidence, such as dictionary definitions or contemporaneous usage in the art, addressing the scope of “in response to.” Having considered the testimony upon which Patent Owner relies and weighing it against the claim language itself, the Specification’s disclosures set forth above, and the contrary testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, we find on balance that it does not warrant departing from the plain and ordinary meaning of “in response to” as Patent Owner urges. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (holding that an inventor may define specific terms used to describe invention, but must do so “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision”) (quoting Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1387-88 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Claim 4 further recites, “a control circuit having an input coupled for receiving the detect signal, wherein the control circuit disables the switched drive control signal in response to the detect signal.” Patent Owner’s sole contention with respect to claim 4 is that “[t]he alleged detect signal in Hwang does not satisfy this limitation” because “unlike the ’221 patent, the alleged ‘control circuit’ does not disable the switched drive control signal ‘in response to the detect signal’ independent of other circuit conditions.” PO Resp. 15–16. As discussed above, we decline to import into claim 4 a requirement that the claimed disabling must occur independent of other circuit conditions. See supra Section III.C.1. Because Patent Owner’s argument relies on a claim construction that we rejected above, we are not persuaded that Hwang fails to meet the limitations of claim 4. Rather, having reviewed the evidence cited by Petitioner, we agree with Petitioner that Hwang discloses the limitations of independent claim 4, arranged as recited in the claim. Petitioner’s analysis, as supported by the Szepesi Declaration, further demonstrates where Petitioner contends each element of dependent claims 5 and 6 is disclosed in Hwang. Pet. 21–24. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis beyond the argument raised with respect to claim 4. See PO Resp. 17. Having reviewed the evidence cited by Petitioner, we agree with Petitioner that Hwang discloses the limitations of dependent claims 5 and 6, arranged as recited in these claims, and we adopt that analysis as our own. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we find Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Hwang anticipates claims 4–6.” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 6,597,221 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,597,221 - Emerson Electric Co. v. Sipco, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 28, 2018 · IPR2017-00359 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 32, 34, 37–38, 55–57, and 59 are unpatentable over Cunningham; claims 1, 3–8, 11–14, 24–31, 36, 42, 43, 46–49, 51–54, and 60–64 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“This argument is conclusory and not supported by sufficient evidence. Moreover, the stated conclusion is vague with respect to the limitation at issue. Petitioner argues that “the node 18 must translate messages” (id. (emphasis added)), but does not explicitly argue that all three recited pieces of information—“the select information, the transmitter identification information, and transceiver identification information”—must be translated. Even assuming Mason’s node must translate all three recited pieces of information, Petitioner does not show that all such translated pieces of information must be further transmitted to the AMR server over the WAN. In particular, Petitioner does not show that transceiver identification information would have to be further transmitted.” slip op. at 21
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Moreover, we agree with Petitioner that such a construction is “non- specific, vague and unhelpful” in the context of the ’692 patent. Reply. 16. Patent Owner’s construction limits “low power” to signals having a “limited transmission range,” but provides no guidance of what “limited” means, or what its boundaries might be. Petitioner argues correctly that Patent Owner’s construction fails to address questions its proposed construction raises, such as, what a ‘limited’ transmission range means and how ‘limited’ the range must be (i.e., what the range’s distance should be), whether the transmission range depends on the particular system or application, and whether other factors should be considered in determining whether the transmission range is limited.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Notably, Petitioner says these contentions are “further evidence” but does not explain how this evidence is to be used to buttress Cunningham’s disclosure or how it is to be combined with Cunningham’s disclosure. Specifically, given the limited contentions in the Petition detailed above, Petitioner does not explain how Energy Management Services or the “routines” described in the Provisional send control signals from the computer to the actuator as required by the claims. For example, even if we to accept that the “Williams Network Control Center” creates control signals as required by the claim Petitioner has not explained how those signals are translated from network transfer protocol to RF signals and then translated to an analog signal that can be used at an actuator. Even though the ’978 Provisional is allegedly incorporated by reference, an obviousness determination still requires--“[w]hether a [obviousness challenge] is based on combining disclosures from multiple references, combining multiple embodiments from a single reference, or selecting from large lists of elements in a single reference[--] a motivation to make the combination and a reasonable expectation that such a combination would be successful, otherwise a skilled artisan would not arrive at the claimed combination.” In re Stepan Co., 868 F.3d 1342, 1346 n. 1 (Fed. Cir. 2017); c.f. Boston Sci. Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (finding obviousness shown despite fact that “all of the limitations are found in two separate embodiments pictured side by side in the patent, not in one embodiment” because the party showed motivation to combine and reasonable likelihood of success). Additionally, “there must be evidence presented on the obviousness of the claim as a whole.” Circuit Check Inc. v. QXQ Inc., 795 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 420, 127 S.Ct. 1727); see also Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Roxane Labs., Inc., 903 F.3d 1310, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“The determination of obviousness is made with respect to the subject matter as a whole, not separate pieces of the claim”). Here, the “routines” described in the ’978 Provisional work differently than the “utility prices” embodiment of Cunningham. Petitioner has not explained how those would work together to meet the claim limitations.” slip op. at 30
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“Patent Owner’s argument is inapposite, as it is premised on reading a limitation into the claims, namely that the information encoded in the RF signal must be translated in real time. Further, we agree with Petitioner, that even under such an erroneously narrow construction, Cunningham would meet the limitation. In that regard, Petitioner argues that, “although Cunningham discloses sending cumulative data readings, individual signals from the sensor are identified by the gateway and this information is then transmitted (with transmitter identification information) to a computer on the WAN.” Reply 6 (citing Ex. 1046 ¶¶31–32; Ex. 1004, 31:6–28). Petitioner argues, and we are persuaded, that “Cunningham explains that the ‘most current cumulative reading’ is the current absolute ‘reading’ (i.e., information signal) from the sensor (Ex. 1004, 13:44–46) and that two cumulative readings can be used to ‘interpolate’ and ‘recover’ a missed reading (i.e., a signal from the sensor).” Reply 7 (citing Ex. 1004, 13:44–56; 31:6–27; Pet. 75; Ex. 1002 ¶¶115, 152; Ex. 1046 ¶32). We are persuaded that Cunningham discloses this limitation. Lastly, claim 32 also recites “a computer configured to execute at least one computer program that formats and stores select information responsive to the electrical signal for retrieval upon demand from a remotely located device.” To meet this limitation, Petitioner accurately points out that “Cunningham discloses that[,] in response to receiving information from the sensor interface module through the data collection modules, the host module compiles the information into a user specified readable format and stores it for later retrieval upon demand from a customer computer or workstation.” Pet. 83 (citing Ex. 1004, 7:19–27, 44:12–41, 44:53–64, 46:44–61, 47:44–54, Ex. 1002 ¶¶138–140). Patent Owner does not contest that Cunningham discloses “a computer configured to execute at least one computer program that formats and stores select information responsive to the electrical signal for retrieval upon demand from a remotely located device.” See PO Resp. 22–29, 41–46. We are persuaded that Cunningham discloses this limitation. For the forgoing reasons, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of” slip op. at 37
Patent outcomesUS 6,437,692 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,437,692 - PTAB · Jul 26, 2018 · IPR2017-01903 · APJ Kamran Jivani · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Power Integrations’ rehearing request, leaving institution denied because it did not show Mammano and the SMP3 Datasheet were publicly accessible printed publications.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for rehearing, without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, opposition, or a reply. (Emphasis added.) See Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48768 (Aug. 14, 2012). Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted).” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“As we explained in the Institution Decision, “‘[p]ublic accessibility’ is the touchstone in determining whether a reference is a ‘printed publication.’” Inst. Dec. 9 (citing In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 898–99 (Fed. Cir. 1986)); see, e.g., L-3 Commc’n. Holdings, Inc. v. Power Survey, LLC, Case IPR2014- 00832, slip op. at 11–12 (PTAB Nov. 14, 2014) (Paper 9) (applied reference not shown to be publicly accessible); C&D Zodiac, Inc. v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., Case IPR2014-00727, slip op. at 20–22 (PTAB Oct. 29, 2014) (Paper 15) (applied reference shown to be publicly accessible). Consequently, “[a] reference will be considered publicly accessible if it was ‘disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.”’ Inst. Dec. 9 (emphasis added) (citing Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2008))). The status of a reference as a printed publication is a legal conclusion “based on underlying factual determinations.” Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1348 (citing In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2009)).” slip op. at 4
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“we should find that Mammano is a printed publication consistent with the requirements of In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Reh’g Req. 10; see id. at 7–10. We decline to draw now the conclusions argued for the first time in this Request for Rehearing. A request for rehearing is not an opportunity for the requestor to present new arguments or evidence. It goes without saying that we could not have overlooked or misapprehended arguments that Petitioner did not make, and it is not an abuse of discretion not to consider such arguments. Thus, Petitioner’s submission of new arguments and evidence in its Request for Rehearing is both improper and unpersuasive.” slip op. at 7
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“Reh’g Req. 13–14. Although we did not require that Petitioner show “every possible detail,” we did require Petitioner to make a threshold showing. In finding that Petitioner failed to make the necessary threshold showing, we applied the standard clearly set forth by our reviewing court in Blue Calypso, Kyocera Wireless, and SRI International to Petitioner’s arguments and evidence. Inst. Dec. 9. A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to reargue positions, elaborate on previous positions, or to disagree with the analysis or conclusions of the panel. See Nestlé Purina Petcare Co. v. Oil-Dri Corp. of Amer., Case IPR2015-00737, slip op. at 8 (PTAB Feb. 9, 2017) (Paper 39) (“Merely disagreeing with our analysis or conclusions does not serve as a proper basis for a request for rehearing.”).” slip op. at 10
§ 102 anticipation - National Oilwell Varco, L.P. v. Technical Industries, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 18, 2018 · IPR2017-00699 · APJ Jacqueline T Harlow · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 6 and 20 are unpatentable as anticipated by Assanelli; claims 4, 6, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, and 20 are unpatentable over Kiefer and Assanelli; claims 6 and 20 are unpatentable over Lam and …
RulingsFinal written decision- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“In addition, on April 5, Patent Owner filed a Request for Adverse Judgment seeking cancelation of claims 1–3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 19 of the ’518 patent (Paper 44), which we granted (Paper 50). Claims 4, 6, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, and 20 of the ’518 patent remain in trial. Id.” slip op. at 3
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In view of the evidence described above, including the sophistication of the technology at issue, and the problems encountered and solutions disclosed in the prior art, we do not find persuasive either Mr. Webre’s or Mr. Sfeir’s opinions concerning the level of ordinary skill in the field. Mr. Webre’s opinion that a relevant skilled artisan would have been “a person that was exposed to tubular inspection methods and equipment that was in commercial use by providers of tubular inspection services or as a user of pipe inspection services” (Ex. 2002 ¶ 11) is based on the faulty premise that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been one who uses tubular inspection techniques, rather than one who develops them. Furthermore, Dr. Webre’s opinion does not comport with the level of sophistication of the ’518 patent or the prior art, each of which addresses the development of improved methods of pipe inspection, not the rote use of commercially available products. Mr. Webre’s reference to the purported educational criteria for obtaining nondestructive testing certification does not cure the defects in his opinion, as Mr. Webre does not explain what such certification entails, or whether one so certified would be an artisan of” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“In view of the evidence described above, including the sophistication of the technology at issue, and the problems encountered and solutions disclosed in the prior art, we do not find persuasive either Mr. Webre’s or Mr. Sfeir’s opinions concerning the level of ordinary skill in the field. Mr. Webre’s opinion that a relevant skilled artisan would have been “a person that was exposed to tubular inspection methods and equipment that was in commercial use by providers of tubular inspection services or as a user of pipe inspection services” (Ex. 2002 ¶ 11) is based on the faulty premise that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been one who uses tubular inspection techniques, rather than one who develops them. Furthermore, Dr. Webre’s opinion does not comport with the level of sophistication of the ’518 patent or the prior art, each of which addresses the development of improved methods of pipe inspection, not the rote use of commercially available products. Mr. Webre’s reference to the purported educational criteria for obtaining nondestructive testing certification does not cure the defects in his opinion, as Mr. Webre does not explain what such certification entails, or whether one so certified would be an artisan of 13 ordinary skill in the relevant field, i.e., the development of tubular inspection techniques. In addition, Mr. Webre’s unsupported, conclusory testimony that Assanelli was “inconsistent” with the “then-current industry standard” screening (Ex. 2002 ¶ 16) is unpersuasive, entitled to little weight (37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a)), and seemingly beyond the scope of his engagement to testify regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention of the ’518 patent (Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 1–2). Mr. Sfeir’s opinion, which expressly excludes those with “the education, training, experience or motivation to attempt to develop a new, allegedly better, way to calculate pipe collapse pressure” as ordinarily skilled artisans (Ex. 2003, 3) suffers from the same shortcomings as Mr. Webre’s opinions, in that it ignores the level of sophistication of the technology and prior art at issue. In addition, Mr. Sfeir does not provide evidentiary support for his opinions; as such, we give them little weight (37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a)).” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“to . . . compute the effect of stressors on the wall of said tubular good” (Ex. 1001, 10:4–7), and that requirement is captured by our construction of that claim phrase to mean “causing a computer to use at least some of the information contained in the computer readable recording to compute the effect, on the strength of the tubular, of stressors applied to the tubular” 18 (Inst. Dec. 8). To the extent Patent Owner contends that the term “computer” should be understood in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning, i.e., as referring to a device for performing calculations on data, we agree, and observe that such understanding is captured by our original construction. Accordingly, for the reasons above, as well as those set forth in the Decision to Institute (id.), we construe the phrase “causing a computer means to use at least some of the information contained in said computer readable recording to compute the effect of stressors on the wall of said tubular good” to mean “causing a computer to use at least some of the information contained in the computer readable recording to compute the effect, on the strength of the tubular, of stressors applied to the tubular.”” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 7,401,518 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,401,518
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.