• Intel Corporation / Qualcomm Incorporated et al. v. DSS Technology Management, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 1, 2017 · IPR2016-00290 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7–9, 15, and 17 are unpatentable as anticipated by Sakamoto; claims 10–12 are unpatentable as obvious over Sakamoto and Cederbaum.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenOther

    “Owner’s election not to file a Patent Owner Preliminary Response does not implicate any adverse inference. 37 C.F.R.§ 42.107(a); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide. 77 Fed Reg. 48756, 48,764 (Aug. 14, 2012). However, as to the Patent Owner Response after institution of trial, under our Scheduling Order “Patent Owner is cautioned that any arguments for patentability not raised in the response will be deemed waived.” Paper 11, 3; see In re Nuvasive, 842 F. 3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016)(finding that NuVasive waived public accessibility arguments in its Preliminary Response by failing to challenge public accessibility during the trial phase, i.e. by not addressing public accessibility in its Trial Response and explicitly declining to make further arguments at oral hearing). In this case, Patent Owner “defers to the Board” to determine whether Petitioner has demonstrated the challenged claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. PO Resp. 2. There is no argument or evidence, other than that presented in the Petition and the accompanying Exhibits, for us to consider. Nevertheless, “In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the petitioner to prove ‘unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence,’ . . . and that burden never shifts to the patentee.” Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 316(e)).” slip op. at 6

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

    “meaning to the terms not construed. We applied the broadest reasonable interpretation to the following term that required construction. Noting a claim construction dispute in co-pending district court litigation, Petitioner proposed that we construe the “diffusion region formed in said substrate” to mean “conductive terminal region, such as a source or drain, that contains dopants implanted in the silicon substrate.” Pet. 24. As discussed in the Decision to Institute, we determined that the subject matter of the claims concerns a local interconnect between a gate and a diffusion region and that there was no need to further construe “the diffusion region formed in said substrate” for purposes of this decision. Dec. to Inst. 5–6. Based on the complete record now before us, we discern no reason to change the constructions.” slip op. at 5

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “Petitioner cites Sakamoto’s disclosure of softening and reflowing BoroPhosphoSilicate Glass (BPSG) film to form insulating layer 9, stating that BPSG is a type of silicon oxide. Id. at 44–45 (citing Bravman Decl. ¶ 91; Ex. 1115, at 185).5 We credit Dr. Bravman’s testimony and are persuaded that insulating layer 9 is formed of silicon oxide.” slip op. at 14

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “embodiments, which all delineate p-well region 2 and Sakamoto’s fifth embodiment in which p-well region 2 is not shown, based on the record in this proceeding, we are persuaded that the evidence supports Petitioner’s contention that the implanted p-well region is part of the silicon substrate.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 5,965,924 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 5,965,924
• Intel Corporation / Qualcomm Incorporated et al. v. DSS Technology Management, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 1, 2017 · IPR2016-01314 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 8–12 are unpatentable as anticipated by Heath under § 102(b), because Heath discloses every limitation of the challenged claims.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “preliminarily interpreted the “angle limitation” set forth above—i.e., the limitation reciting “a side of the electrically insulative spacer has an angle relative to the substrate surface that is either a right angle or an acute angle of more than 85°”8—to mean “a side of the electrically insulative spacer has an angle relative to the substrate surface that is greater than 85° and less than or equal to 90°.” Dec. on Inst. 8–14. Importantly, we were unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that the angle of a side of the insulating spacer must be obtained “through the use of a low selectivity etch” (Prelim. Resp. 15–19) and determined that the challenged claims do not require the use of a low selectivity etch. Dec. on Inst. 8–12. 8 Claim 1 includes essentially the same limitation, the only difference being that claim 1 recites “insulating spacer” instead of “electrically insulative spacer” recited in claim 8. Tracking the language of the claims, the ’552 patent uses the terms “insulating spacer” and “insulative spacer” interchangeably throughout the written description. See, e.g., Ex. 1101, col. 6, ll. 13–65; see also id. at col. 13, ll. 55–62 (using “the spacer portions of the insulating material” and “the spacer portions [of] insulative material” interchangeably). The parties also appear to use the terms “insulating spacer” and “insulative spacer” interchangeably in the Petition and the Preliminary Response. See, e.g., Pet. 28–29; Prelim. Resp. 15–16, 19. Upon considering the complete record, we deem the terms “insulating spacer” and “insulative spacer” to be interchangeable and to have no meaningful difference in their meaning in the context of the ’552 patent. The parties do not present additional claim construction arguments in their Patent Owner Response and Petitioner Reply. Upon considering the complete record, we discern no reason to deviate from our construction, which was adopted from the parties’ agreed construction at the district court (Dec. on Inst. 14 (citing Ex. 1124 (Dist. Ct. Claim Construction Order), 7– 8)), and maintain our construction of the “angle limitation” to mean “a side of the electrically insulative spacer has an angle relative to the substrate surface that is greater than 85° and less than or equal to 90°.”” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “1. Principles of Law A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 only if a single prior art reference expressly or inherently describes each and every limitation set forth in the claim. See Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Further, a reference cannot anticipate “unless [it] discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed[,] but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Although the elements must be arranged in the same way as in the claim, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). We analyze this asserted ground based on anticipation with the principles identified above in mind.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We credit Dr. Bravman’s testimony and are persuaded that sources and/or drains are known in the art to be electrically conductive diffusion regions of a transistor structure, and that polysilicon used to form gate electrode 16 of Heath is an electrically conductive material. See Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 79, 80. Therefore, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument and evidence that Heath discloses “(a) a first electrically conductive material formed in and/or on a surface of a substrate” and “(b) . . . a second electrically conductive material formed on the substrate,” as recited in claim 8.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 6,784,552 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 6,784,552
• Intel Corporation / Qualcomm Incorporated et al. v. DSS Technology Management, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 1, 2017 · IPR2016-00288 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 8–12 are unpatentable because Heath anticipates each challenged claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenUnpatentable

    “art reference expressly or inherently describes each and every limitation set forth in the claim. See Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Further, a reference cannot anticipate “unless [it] discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed[,] but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Although the elements must be arranged in the same way as in the claim, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). We analyze this asserted ground based on anticipation with the principles identified above in mind.” slip op. at 12

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “preliminarily interpreted the “angle limitation” set forth above—i.e., the limitation reciting “a side of the electrically insulative spacer has an angle relative to the substrate surface that is either a right angle or an acute angle of more than 85°”8—to mean “a side of the electrically insulative spacer has an angle relative to the substrate surface that is greater than 85° and less than or equal to 90°.” Dec. on Inst. 8–14. Importantly, we were unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that the angle of a side of the insulating spacer must be obtained “through the use of a low selectivity etch” (Prelim. Resp. 15–19) and determined that the challenged claims do not require the use of a low selectivity etch. Dec. on Inst. 8–12.” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “art reference expressly or inherently describes each and every limitation set forth in the claim. See Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Further, a reference cannot anticipate “unless [it] discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed[,] but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Although the elements must be arranged in the same way as in the claim, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). We analyze this asserted ground based on anticipation with the principles identified above in mind.” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “art reference expressly or inherently describes each and every limitation set forth in the claim. See Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Further, a reference cannot anticipate “unless [it] discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed[,] but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Although the elements must be arranged in the same way as in the claim, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). We analyze this asserted ground based on anticipation with the principles identified above in mind.” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 6,784,552 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 6,784,552
• Intel Corporation / Qualcomm Incorporated et al. v. DSS Technology Management, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 1, 2017 · IPR2016-01313 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 14, and 16 are unpatentable as anticipated by Sakamoto; claims 4–6 and 13 are unpatentable as obvious over Sakamoto and Cederbaum.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “BACKGROUND On June 8, 2016 we instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–6, 13, 14, and 16 of U. S. Patent No. 5,965,924 (“the ’924 Patent”) based on a Petition filed by Intel Corporation. Paper 12 (“Dec. to Inst.”). DSS Technology Management, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) waived its right to file a Preliminary Response. On August 29, 2016 we instituted inter partes review of the same claims on the same grounds based on a substantially identical petition filed by Qualcomm Incorporated, Globalfoundries Inc., Globalfoundries U.S. Inc., Globalfoundries Dresden Module One LLC & Co. KG, Globalfoundries Dresden Module Two LLC & Co. KG, in IPR2016-01313. We then joined IPR2016-00289 and IPR2016-01313. Papers 18, 19. In this joined proceeding, we refer to Intel Corporation, Qualcomm Incorporated, Globalfoundries Inc., Globalfoundries U.S. Inc., Globalfoundries Dresden Module One LLC & Co. KG, Globalfoundries Dresden Module Two LLC & Co. KG, collectively as “Petitioner.”” slip op. at 2

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

    “meaning to the terms not construed. We applied the broadest reasonable interpretation to the following term that required construction. Noting a claim construction dispute in co-pending district court litigation, Petitioner proposed that we construe the “diffusion region formed in said substrate” to mean “conductive terminal region, such as a source or drain, that contains dopants implanted in the silicon substrate.” Pet. 25. As discussed in the Decision to Institute, we determined that the subject matter of the claims concerns a local interconnect between a gate and a diffusion region and that there was no need to further construe “the diffusion region formed in said substrate” for purposes of this decision. Dec. to Inst. 5–6. Based on the complete record now before us, we discern no reason to change the constructions.” slip op. at 5

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “not shown, we are persuaded that the evidence supports the proposition that the implanted p-well region is part of the silicon substrate. Based on this analysis, we are persuaded that Sakamoto discloses element (a) a silicon substrate with a top surface. As to element (b), we are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Sakamoto discloses a diffusion region formed in said substrate. Element (b) also recites that the diffusion region is adjacent said top surface. Having determined that the p-well region is part of the substrate, we agree that Figure 1 of Sakamoto illustrates a diffusion region in the form of source/drain region 7 adjacent to the top surface of the substrate.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Petitioner persuasively argues that the evidence supports the conclusion that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Cederbaum with those of Sakamoto because they both teach the same type of device and are directed to the same problem, i.e., stacking transistors in an SRAM. Pet. 51. Petitioner points out that Cederbaum and Sakamoto also disclose nearly identical structures with nearly identical components, with both employing an electrically conducting plug within an opening that contains a sidewall spacer to directly connect a diffusion region to a gate. Id. at 52–53. Petitioner cites Cederbaum’s disclosure of materials, such as refractory metals, to be used in forming the conductive plug and Sakamoto’s discussion of the advantages to using a conductive plug of increased conductivity. Id. at 53–54. Thus, Petitioner has demonstrated that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to replace the polycrystalline plug 15 of Sakamoto with a refractory metal plug of tungsten, as disclosed by Cederbaum. Id. at 51. This feature (“said electrically conducting plug is a refractory metal plug”) is recited in claim 5 of the ’924 Patent. Claim 4 recites a metal plug and claim 6 recites the electrically conducting plug is formed of a material selected for the group consisting of titanium, tantalum, molybdenum, and tungsten. Petitioner cites Cederbaum’s disclosure at column 9, lines 31–65 as disclosing a tungsten conducting plug. Id. at 49–50. Claim 13 of the ’924 Patent depends from claim 1 and recites the further limitation “said conducting plug comprises an outer glue layer and a plug material therein.” Petitioner cites Cederbaum as disclosing an outer glue titanium nitride (TiN) layer and an inner plug material, i.e., tungsten. Pet. 55. Petitioner notes that one of ordinary skill would have understood that because the TiN is deposited in opening 28 of Cederbaum before the tungsten is deposited, the TiN layer is an outer glue layer and the tungsten is the inner plug material. Id at 55–56 (citing Ex. 1004, col. 9, ll. 31–47). Petitioner further notes that Cederbaum discloses the TiN layer acts as an outer glue layer because it improves adhesion of the inner tungsten layer. Id. at 56 (citing Ex. 1004, col. 9, ll. 36–43).” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 5,965,924 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 5,965,924
• Intel Corporation / Qualcomm Incorporated et al. v. DSS Technology Management, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 1, 2017 · IPR2016-00289 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 14, and 16 are unpatentable as anticipated by Sakamoto; claims 4–6 and 13 are unpatentable as obvious over Sakamoto and Cederbaum.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “CLAIM CONSTRUCTION In our Decision to Institute, we applied the ordinary and customary meaning to the terms not construed. We applied the broadest reasonable interpretation to the following term that required construction. Noting a claim construction dispute in co-pending district court litigation, Petitioner proposed that we construe the “diffusion region formed in said substrate” to mean “conductive terminal region, such as a source or drain, that contains dopants implanted in the silicon substrate.” Pet. 25. As discussed in the Decision to Institute, we determined that the subject matter of the claims concerns a local interconnect between a gate and a diffusion region and that there was no need to further construe “the diffusion region formed in said substrate” for purposes of this decision. Dec. to Inst. 5–6. Based on the complete record now before us, we discern no reason to change the constructions.” slip op. at 5

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites that the insulator layer is formed of material selected from the group consisting of silicon oxide and silicon nitride. Petitioner cites Sakamoto’s disclosure of softening and reflowing BoroPhosphoSilicate Glass (BPSG) film to form insulating layer 9, stating that BPSG is a type of silicon oxide. Id. at 46 (citing Bravman Decl. ¶ 90; Ex. 1015, 185).5 We credit Dr. Bravman’s testimony and are persuaded that insulating layer 9 is formed of silicon oxide.” slip op. at 13

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “not shown, we are persuaded that the evidence supports the proposition that the implanted p-well region is part of the silicon substrate. Based on this analysis, we are persuaded that Sakamoto discloses element (a) a silicon substrate with a top surface. As to element (b), we are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Sakamoto discloses a diffusion region formed in said substrate. Element (b) also recites that the diffusion region is adjacent said top surface. Having determined that the p-well region is part of the substrate, we agree that Figure 1 of Sakamoto illustrates a diffusion region in the form of source/drain region 7 adjacent to the top surface of the substrate.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Petitioner persuasively argues that the evidence supports the conclusion that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Cederbaum with those of Sakamoto because they both teach the same type of device and are directed to the same problem, i.e., stacking transistors in an SRAM. Pet. 51. Petitioner points out that Cederbaum and Sakamoto also disclose nearly identical structures with nearly identical components, with both employing an electrically conducting plug within an opening that contains a sidewall spacer to directly connect a diffusion region to a gate. Id. at 52–53. Petitioner cites Cederbaum’s disclosure of materials, such as refractory metals, to be used in forming the conductive plug and Sakamoto’s discussion of the advantages to using a conductive plug of increased conductivity. Id. at 53–54. Thus, Petitioner has demonstrated that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to replace the polycrystalline plug 15 of Sakamoto with a refractory metal plug of tungsten, as disclosed by Cederbaum. Id. at 51. This feature (“said electrically conducting plug is a refractory metal plug”) is recited in claim 5 of the ’924 Patent. Claim 4 recites a metal plug and claim 6 recites the electrically conducting plug is formed of a material selected for the group consisting of titanium, tantalum, molybdenum, and tungsten. Petitioner cites Cederbaum’s disclosure at column 9, lines 31–65 as disclosing a tungsten conducting plug. Id. at 49–50.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 5,965,924 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 5,965,924
• Hamamatsu Corporation v. Sionyx, LLCRehearing granted
  PTAB · May 26, 2017 · IPR2016-01910 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Rehearing

  Rehearing was granted for claims 9, 24, and 25 because Petitioner did not show their process limitations lacked patentable weight; it was denied for claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 13.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedRehearing, deniedGranted in part

    “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). The burdens and requirements of a request for rehearing are stated in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d): (d) Rehearing. . . . The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 2

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

    “The relevant inquiry is not whether the Specification has support for an “enhanced response,” but whether the Specification supports construing the claim term “interact with” to mean an “enhanced response and/or filtering.” Even assuming, without deciding, for the purposes of this decision, that diffusing, redirecting, and absorbing electromagnetic radiation results in an increased quantum efficiency that could be considered to provide an enhanced response to electromagnetic radiation, Patent Owner fails to demonstrate persuasively that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the description in the ’591 patent Specification that the claim term “interacting with” is defined as “providing an enhanced response and/or filtering.” Furthermore, we are unable to discern a portion of the Specification of the ’591 patent that discloses such an equivalency. Not only does the ’591 patent not define “interact with,” the Abstract of the ’591 patent discloses that “[i]n one aspect, the textured region is operable to facilitate generation of an electrical signal from the detection of infrared electromagnetic radiation” and “[i]n another aspect, interacting with electromagnetic radiation further includes increasing the semiconductor substrate’s effective absorption wavelength as compared to a semiconductor substrate lacking a textured region.” Ex. 1001, Abstract (emphasis added). This passage suggests that, at least in one aspect, “interact[ing] with” electromagnetic radiation includes merely generating electrons from photons, which is not an “enhanced response” and/or “filtering,” as required by Patent Owner’s proffered claim construction.” slip op. at 4

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

    “position with sufficient evidence that demonstrates that the processes recited in claims 9, 24, and 25 do not impart structural and functional differences to the product. Moreover, Petitioner does not point to citations in the ’591 patent, testimonial evidence, or any other record evidence to support its position that the structure or functionality of the textured region resulting from the chemical etching or lasing processes recited in claims 9, 24, and 25 would be the same as the structure or functionality of a roughened surface produced by a mechanical polishing process as disclosed in Nakashiba. Rather, Petitioner provides only conclusory statements regarding its position. Given that Petitioner has not demonstrated sufficiently that the limitations recited in claims 9, 24, and 25 are not entitled to patentable weight, and in light of Petitioner’s concession that “Nakashiba does not disclose that the roughened surface S1 is formed by either lasing (in particular using short duration laser pulses) or chemical etching, as recited in claims 9, 24, and 25 of the ‘591 Patent,” we determine Petitioner has not met its burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to showing that claims 9, 24, and 25 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Nakashiba.” slip op. at 6

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

    “Upon review of the record, we determine Petitioner did not support its position with sufficient evidence that demonstrates that the processes recited in claims 9, 24, and 25 do not impart structural and functional differences to the product. Moreover, Petitioner does not point to citations in the ’591 patent, testimonial evidence, or any other record evidence to support its position that the structure or functionality of the textured region resulting from the chemical etching or lasing processes recited in claims 9, 24, and 25 would be the same as the structure or functionality of a roughened surface produced by a mechanical polishing process as disclosed in Nakashiba. Rather, Petitioner provides only conclusory statements regarding its position. Given that Petitioner has not demonstrated sufficiently that the limitations recited in claims 9, 24, and 25 are not entitled to patentable weight, and in light of Petitioner’s concession that “Nakashiba does not disclose that the roughened surface S1 is formed by either lasing (in particular using short duration laser pulses) or chemical etching, as recited in claims 9, 24, and 25 of the ‘591 Patent,” we determine Petitioner has not met its burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to showing that claims 9, 24, and 25 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Nakashiba.” slip op. at 6

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 8,680,591
• Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 25, 2017 · IPR2016-00306 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 63 was not shown unpatentable because Spinney does not disclose performing the selecting and determining steps in parallel.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “First, we give no credit to Dr. Chao’s opinion in this regard because it is not supported by Spinney. Specifically, we give no weight to Dr. Chao’s opinion that “Spinney makes clear that the CAM lookup and the hashing function (i.e., the forwarding lookup) take place at the same time.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 53. Instead, we find that the parallel operations in Spinney are confined to (1) applying the hash function to the 48-bit address and (2) performing a CAM lookup of the same 48-bit address. For example, Spinney discloses in Figure 8 that incoming address field 85 is subjected to hash function 86 to produce another 48-bit value. See id. at Fig. 8, 15:21−24; 16:16−19 (“The 48-bit destination address 61 from an incoming packet is simultaneously subjected to the hash function 86 and a CAM match” (emphasis added)), 16:44−46 (“this compare in the CAM is done in parallel with the hash function” (emphasis added)). The application of the hash function and the performance of the hash lookup are two different operations that produce different results. The hash function application produces a hashed 48-bit value, while the hash lookup results in pointing to an entry in the translation table that includes the gigaheader information, for processing the packet. See id. at Fig. 8 (identifying hash function 86 applied to input address 85, resulting in hashed address 89); 15:60−63. Spinney further discloses that the hash lookup is performed only if a CAM match is not found and, therefore, must occur after the CAM lookup is performed. Id. at 16:20–26 (“[I]f a CAM match is found in CAM 23, an index into the translation table 94 is immediately generated as indicated by the line 100. If not, the 16-bit field 88 of the hashed address 87 is used to index into the hash table 89 . . . .” (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 14

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

    “is not supported by Spinney. Specifically, we give no weight to Dr. Chao’s opinion that “Spinney makes clear that the CAM lookup and the hashing function (i.e., the forwarding lookup) take place at the same time.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 53. Instead, we find that the parallel operations in Spinney are confined to (1) applying the hash function to the 48-bit address and (2) performing a CAM lookup of the same 48-bit address. For example, Spinney discloses in Figure 8 that incoming address field 85 is subjected to hash function 86 to produce another 48-bit value. See id. at Fig. 8, 15:21−24; 16:16−19 (“The 48-bit destination address 61 from an incoming packet is simultaneously subjected to the hash function 86 and a CAM match” (emphasis added)), 16:44−46 (“this compare in the CAM is done in parallel with the hash function” (emphasis added)). The application of the hash function and the performance of the hash lookup are two different operations that produce different results. The hash function application produces a hashed 48-bit value, while the hash lookup results in pointing to an entry in the translation table that includes the gigaheader information, for processing the packet. See id. at Fig. 8 (identifying hash function 86 applied to input address 85, resulting in hashed address 89); 15:60−63. Spinney further discloses that the hash lookup is performed only if a CAM match is not found and, therefore, must occur after the CAM lookup is performed. Id. at 16:20–26 (“[I]f a CAM match is found in CAM 23, an index into the translation table 94 is immediately generated as indicated by the line 100. If not, the 16-bit field 88 of the hashed address 87 is used to index into the hash table 89 . . . .” (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 7,023,853 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 7,023,853
• Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 25, 2017 · IPR2016-00303 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 7–10, 12–16, 18–22, 25, and 28–31 are unpatentable as obvious over Huey and ATM UNI; claim 2 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “PO Mot. 13–14. A motion to exclude is the wrong vehicle to challenge public availability, which is a substantive issue that goes to the sufficiency of the evidence, not to admissibility at issue here. FLIR Sys., Inc. v. Leak Surveys, Inc., IPR2014-00411, slip. op., Paper 113 at 4 (PTAB September 3, 2015) (“A motion to exclude is not a vehicle for addressing the weight to be given evidence.”); see also 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“A motion to exclude . . . may not be used to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to prove a particular fact.”). For the reasons above, we do not exclude Exhibit 1028.” slip op. at 9

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

    “35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 898–99 (Fed. Cir. 1986). To qualify as a prior art printed publication, the reference must have been disseminated or otherwise made accessible to persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter to which the document relates prior to the critical date. Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008).” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “References within the statutory terms of 35 U.S.C. § 102 qualify as prior art for an obviousness determination only when analogous to the claimed invention.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (finding both hair brush art and toothbrush art to be analogous to a claim to a hair brush) (citing In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). “Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Id. (citations omitted). The scope of the field of endeavor is a factual determination based on the scope of the application's written description and claims. Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1326. slip op. at 27

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “There are two problems with Petitioner’s assertion. First, Petitioner has not shown a reason to combine Kogge with Huey and the ATM UNI Specification. Second, to the extent this reference is used to show the scope and content of the art at the time of the invention, Kogge makes it clear that parallelism and pipelining are different concepts that are “generally discernably different in their general approach.” Ex. 1033, 1. Petitioner has not explained how Kogge shows that putting packets through the pipeline without waiting for the previous packet to finish would be considered operating in parallel given that this reference distinguishes parallel operation from pipeline operation. Petitioner argued at the oral hearing that Patent Owner was advocating “a particular flavor of parallelism, as opposed to what’s understood by normal parallel pipelining.” Tr. 41:6–14. However, neither Petitioner nor its declarant has explained what “normal parallel pipelining” is or what the basis is for us to define “normal parallel pipelining.” Thus, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Huey to meet the limitation of performing at least two of said steps “in parallel using a pipeline.”” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 6,377,577 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,377,577
• Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. William Beaumont Hospital And Elekta, Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 4, 2017 · IPR2016-00187 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 25–29 and 35–42 are unpatentable: claims 25–29 and 36–39 as obvious, and claims 35 and 40–42 as anticipated.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “2. Analysis Petitioner asserts that Jaffray ’97 anticipates claims 35 and 40–42. Pet. 41–45 (citing Exs. 1003, 1004). For example, independent claim 35 recites “providing an existing radiation therapy system that comprises a radiation source that is supported on a support structure.” Petitioner cites Jaffray ’97 for disclosing a rotating gantry including an MV source. Independent claim 35 recites further “attaching an imager that does not directly 5 We refer to the original pagination of Jaffray ’97, and not Petitioner’s pagination. face said radiation source to said support structure.” Petitioner cites Jaffray ’97 for disclosing a kV imager that does not directly face the MV source. Petitioner provides similar analyses for claims 40–42. Patent Owner does not dispute any of the Petitioner’s assertions. 3. Conclusion After considering all of the above-referenced evidence and arguments anew, in light of the appropriate standard, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 35 and 40–42 are anticipated by Jaffray ’97.” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), reaffirmed the framework for determining obviousness as set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966). The KSR Court summarized the four factual inquiries set forth in Graham that we apply in determining whether a claim is reasonably likely to be unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows: 1. determining the scope and content of the prior art, 2. ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, 3. resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and 4. considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 406. With these standards in mind, we address the challenges based on obviousness below.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Patent Owner’s arguments are not persuasive. Initially, we note that Patent Owner does not dispute that Span discloses the movable imager support system recited in claim 25. Nor does Patent Owner dispute that Span’s movable support system is a known improvement. Ex. 1005, 2:59– 63 (disclosing that due to the movable support structure, imaging equipment “can be very easily moved by rotation of the arm 14 about the pivot 24”). Instead, Patent Owner alleges that one of ordinary skill would not have modified the CBCT system of Jaffray ’97 to include the Span’s movable support system, for the known improvement of facilitating movement of a detector toward and away from a patient, because there is no need for such an improvement for a CBCT system. PO Resp. 14–20 (citing Exs. 1005, 1:12–21, 1:30–35, 2:35–36, 2:38–44, 2:48–55, 2:59–63, 3:2–4, Fig. 1a; 2080 ¶¶ 78–85, 100–103, 117). Patent Owner’s argument is misplaced, because Petitioner’s proffered modification is for the known improvement of movement generally, and not limited to the movement of a detector toward and away from a patient disclosed in Span. Specifically, Petitioner asserts: Jaffray ’97 does suggest that “important characteristics [of the imaging system] include . . . (iii) flexibility of use . . . and, (v) convenience.” (Id. at 5.) Span addresses this flexibility and convenience, explaining that, with the disclosed support structure, equipment “can be very easily moved by rotation of the arm 14 about the pivot 24 . . . .’’ (Ex. 1005 at 2:59–63.) Pet. 27–28. KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 419 (“The second error of the Court of Appeals lay in its assumption that a person of ordinary skill attempting to solve a problem will be led only to those elements of prior art designed to solve the same problem.”). The Petition does not rely on the movement in Span being limited to “toward and away from a patient.” See generally Pet. 27–28.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’592 Patent would be a person with a graduate degree (M.S. or Ph.D.) in medical physics or a related field (e.g. Physics, Engineering) and three years of experience in radiation oncology physics, imaging science, and image processing related to radiation oncology applications beyond the completion date of their degree. Ex. 2080 ¶ 17. The Declarants are in agreement that the person of ordinary skill in the art has a relatively high level of skill, and also are in agreement as to the basic qualifications for that person. Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s Declarant’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill as our own, if for no other reason than for conciseness, with the understanding that the differences between the proffered levels of ordinary skill are, at best, limited and inconsequential in our analysis.” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 7,826,592 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,826,592
• Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. William Beaumont HospitalNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 4, 2017 · IPR2016-00160 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14, 16–29, 33, and 35–38 were not held unpatentable because Petitioner failed to show the Jaffray references were prior art or that the asserted combination rendered the claims obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “Having considered the arguments and evidence, we agree with Patent Owner that the ’590 Application provides sufficient written description support for “said computer receives said image of said object and based on said image sends a signal to said radiation source that controls said path of said radiation source.” In particular, we credit the testimony of Dr. Hashemi that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the ’590 Application that components of the disclosed system were computer-controlled based upon, e.g., the depiction of an Elekta SL-20 in 9 Both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion. Figure 3 of the ’590 Application and from the depiction of an electronic portal imaging device. (Ex. 2080 ¶¶ 109–116, 125–132). Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive because they are based upon a construction of the disputed limitation that excludes human intervention. We have construed that limitation, however, to encompass a person or user operating the computer to perform the recited control functions. In post-hearing briefing, both parties agree that this is the proper construction. Papers 80, 81. As a result, even if we assume, as Petitioner contends in Reply, that a person of ordinary skill in the art reading the ’590 Application would have understood that “the step of controlling the path of the beam based on image data was performed by a human operator, not a computer acting autonomously” (Pet. Reply 9) and that “[t]he computer elements connected to table control . . . are all operated in response to commands received from a human operator, and none are tied to table movements specifically based on image data” (id.), it would not show a lack of support for the disputed limitation, because the disputed limitation does not exclude human intervention. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently,” slip op. at 18

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedNot shown unpatentable

    “Having considered the arguments and evidence, we agree with Patent Owner that the ’590 Application provides sufficient written description support for “said computer receives said image of said object and based on said image sends a signal to said radiation source that controls said path of said radiation source.” In particular, we credit the testimony of Dr. Hashemi that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the ’590 Application that components of the disclosed system were computer-controlled based upon, e.g., the depiction of an Elekta SL-20 in 9 Both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion. Figure 3 of the ’590 Application and from the depiction of an electronic portal imaging device. (Ex. 2080 ¶¶ 109–116, 125–132). Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive because they are based upon a construction of the disputed limitation that excludes human intervention. We have construed that limitation, however, to encompass a person or user operating the computer to perform the recited control functions. In post-hearing briefing, both parties agree that this is the proper construction. Papers 80, 81. As a result, even if we assume, as Petitioner contends in Reply, that a person of ordinary skill in the art reading the ’590 Application would have understood that “the step of controlling the path of the beam based on image data was performed by a human operator, not a computer acting autonomously” (Pet. Reply 9) and that “[t]he computer elements connected to table control . . . are all operated in response to commands received from a human operator, and none are tied to table movements specifically based on image data” (id.), it would not show a lack of support for the disputed limitation, because the disputed limitation does not exclude human intervention. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently, on this record, that both Jaffray 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO are prior art to independent claim 1, and the challenged claims that depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” slip op. at 18

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “Having considered the parties arguments and evidence regarding “[t]he content and nature of the printed publication, as well as the circumstances surrounding its publication” (Katz, 687 F.2d at 455), we are not persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of persuasion by showing sufficiently that the portions of Jaffray 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO on which it relies are the work “others.” Unlike in Katz, where the question was “the sufficiency of applicant’s showing to establish that the subject disclosure was his original work, and his alone” (687 F.2d at 455), the question before us is the sufficiency of Petitioner’s showing to establish that the subject disclosure was the work of the non-inventor coauthors of Jaffray 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378 (“In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the 10 Both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion. 11 At oral argument, counsel for Petitioner indicated that, in his view, it does not matter who has the burden of production. Tr. 20:9, 20:16–17. petitioner to prove ‘unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence,’ 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), and that burden never shifts to the patentee.”); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In the context of the present case, however, the notion of burden-shifting is inapposite because the patentee’s position is that the patent challenger failed to meet its burden of proving obviousness.”); see also Duncan Parking Techs., Inc. v. IPS Group Inc., Case IPR2016-00067, slip op. at 8–13 (PTAB Mar. 27, 2017) (Paper 29). Patent Owner presents testimony of Dr. Jaffray and Mr. Drake that the subject matter relied upon by Petitioner was not the work of the non-inventor coauthors, and after considering all relevant arguments and evidence, we are unpersuaded by Petitioner’s assertions that this testimony is unreliable. Dr. Jaffray testifies, for example, that “[t]he JRO article and the SPIE article disclose work done at the direction of me and Dr. Wong in support of the joint research conducted by the two of us.” Ex. 2077 ¶ 2. Dr. Jaffray further testifies that “with the exception of Dr. Siewerdsen coming up with the pre-reconstruction image processing for the SPIE article, the [non-inventor] co-authors did not come up with the ideas for the systems described in those articles.” Id. ¶ 6. Dr. Jaffray describes the contributions of the co-authors as follows:” slip op. at 22

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

    “D. The Challenged Claims – Obviousness over Jaffray 1999 SPIE, Jaffray 1999 JRO, Adler, and Depp Petitioner asserts that a combination of Jaffray 1999 SPIE, Jaffray 1999 JRO, Adler, and Depp renders obvious claims 1–14, 16–29, 33, and 35–38. Pet. 18–58. Petitioner relies solely upon Jaffray 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO for several limitations of claim 1, including, for example, “a cone-beam computed tomography system comprising: an x-ray source that emits an x-ray beam in a cone-beam form towards said object,” and “a flat-panel imager receiving x-rays after they pass through the object, said imager providing an image of said object.” Pet. 29–31. As discussed above, however, we not persuaded that Jaffray 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO are prior art to claims 1–14, 16–29, 33, and 35–38. Moreover, Petitioner does not contend that Adler or Depp teach these limitations. As a result, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–14, 16–29, 33, and 35–38 are obvious over a combination of Jaffray 1999 SPIE, Jaffray 1999 JRO, Adler, and Depp.” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 6,842,502 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,842,502

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.