• Flowco Production Solutions LLC v. Well Master CorporationInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jan 6, 2023 · IPR2022-01386 · APJ James P Calve · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–11, 13, 15, 16, 18–21, 23, and 24 unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We have authority to determine whether to institute inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the record, we determine that the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. We therefore deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “II. DISCUSSION A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have at least a bachelor’s degree in physics or an appropriate engineering discipline, as well as at least three years of experience in designing well plungers.” Pet. 5–6. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contention. Prelim. Resp. 2; Ex. 2001 ¶ 38. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8

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

    “The ’892 patent prosecution history evidences that an unimpeded fluid path does not include valves. During prosecution, Patent Owner amended the independent claims to claim “an unimpeded fluid path” in claims 1 and 23 and “an unimpeded narrow passageway within the fluid path” in claim 18. Ex. 1002, 61–64 (emphasis in original). Patent Owner argued that, The Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 18, and 23 to clarify that the fluid path is unimpeded. The alleged fluid path through the body of the plunger disclosed by Brown identified at page 4 of the Office Action is not unimpeded due to the presence of valves 76 and 102/104. Thus, Brown cannot anticipate claims 1, 2, 4–8, 12, 18, 19 or 23 of the present application. Id. at 66. In response, the Examiner issued a Notice of Allowability but did not provide a Statement of Reasons for Allowance. Id. at 43. “Prosecution disclaimer can arise from both claim amendments and arguments.” Tech. Props. Ltd. v. Huawei Techs. Co., 849 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Here, Patent Owner’s amendments to claim an unimpeded fluid path/passageway and arguments distinguishing Brown’s fluid path as being impeded by valves 76, 102/104 (versus unimpeded as claimed) clearly and unmistakably disclaimed coverage of plungers having bypass valves in the fluid path and narrow passageway through the plunger body.” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundDecided for patent owner

    “b. Motivation to Combine Further, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that a skilled artisan would not have modified Gray’s bypass valve with Victor’s stopper because their different principles of operation would render Gray’s plunger unsuitable for its intended purpose of providing lift in early stage wells. See Prelim Resp. 35–38 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 66–75, 103–107, 111). Mr. Cosby testifies that Gray and Victor operate differently so adding a narrow passage of Victor to Gray’s plunger would reduce the ability of Gray’s plunger to work in high pressure wells. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 103–07; see Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 57, 91, 98, 111–12. The record supports Mr. Cosby’s testimony, and Petitioner’s attorney arguments do not address the arguments and evidence. Pet. 14–15. For this additional reason, Petitioner has failed to show a reasonable likelihood of demonstrating the unpatentability of any of claims 1–11, 13, 15, 16, 18–21, 23, and 24 under Ground 1.” slip op. at 23

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,627,892
• Configit A/S v. Versata Development Group, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 20, 2022 · IPR2021-01055 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 and 9–19 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over the combinations of Oracle1, Oracle2, and the additional references listed for each ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Computer or Electrical Engineering, Engineering Science, an engineering major with a significant computational component, or a similar discipline, or with at least two years of research or experience in configurable systems including testing.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 53–55). Patent Owner argues that “[t]here may be some differences between this and the correct level of skill in the art, but those differences will not affect this case at this stage,” such that Patent Owner applies the proposed level of skill in the art without agreeing to it. PO Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 35–37). We continue to find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), and, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this decision. See Dec. 6.” slip op. at 6

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

    “With respect to this rationale, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. The first part of the claim construction, namely rules not being properly defined and “produc[ing] an undesired effect,” does not specify an error being “internal” to the configuration engine. The specification provides that such a configuration error “may occur when a rule or series of rules is not properly defined and produces an undesired effect, such as the exclusion of a part that should be selectable” (Ex. 1001, 1:54–61, emphasis added), but the latter clause provides only one example of the undesired effect. While it seems clear that “internal” errors may result in a “configuration error,” we are not persuaded that the specification limits the term to only such errors. Further, the recitation in the specification that the invention is concerned with configuration errors in a system for configuring products describes generally the context of such configuration errors, and not that they need to be explicitly “in” the system. As such, we are not persuaded that “configuration errors,” as recited in the instant claims must be limited to errors contained in the configuration engine.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Looking at all of the evidence presented and taking the arguments of the parties into consideration, we continue to determine that Petitioner has sufficiently shown that Oracle1 and Oracle2 were publicly available to serve as art under § 102(a). We further determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the references were published at dates consistent with the evidence and testimony submitted, with the publication date for Oracle1 as April 30, 2000 and with the publication date for Oracle2 as March 31, 2000.” slip op. at 19

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “arguments. We find it curious that Patent Owner has not polled its own expert declarant or provided other evidence such as a survey of the appropriate literature at the time that the application that resulted in the ’766 Patent was filed to provide a showing of what the appropriate understanding of “configuration error” would have been. Looking to the examples cited in Dr. Woods testimony, they are purely exemplary, and he is certainly not definitive, as Patent Owner appears to acknowledge, when using the term “configuration error.” Patent Owner seeks to have us give weight to the portions that seem to support its understanding of the claim term, but give less weight to portions that do not, asserting the latter to be guided only by hindsight. This does not even address Patent Owner’s other assertions that Dr. Woods declaration should be entitled to little weight because it is “incomplete.” PO Resp. 37–39. In sum, according to Patent Owner, we should pick and choose aspects of Dr, Wood’s testimony to support Patent Owner’s contention, where the overall declaration should be given little weight. Looking at the totality of Dr. Wood’s testimony and his deposition testimony (Exs. 1002, 2005), we are not persuaded that it supports the proposition that Patent Owner relies upon to illustrate, namely that those of skill in the art would have known that configuration errors are internal to the configurator. Exemplary of this, Dr Wood avers that “[t]hroughout my Declaration I provide context of other configuration errors that would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the patent. They can include syntax types of errors, semantic errors, logical errors, logical rule errors, as examples.” Ex. 2005, 59:22–60:05. Petitioner points out that Dr. Wood cited examples from Exhibits 1006, 1033, 1046, and 1050 pertaining to “configuration errors,” and those citations are not limited to those that would have been internal to the configurator. Pet. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 40–41, 48–49). As such, we are not persuaded that there is sufficient evidence before us that those of skill in the art would have known that configuration errors are internal to the configurator.” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 6,836,766 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,836,766
• Medtronic Corevalve LLC / Medtronic, Inc. v. Speyside Medical, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 16, 2022 · IPR2021-00244 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 21 and 22 are unpatentable as obvious over Salahieh and Sands; the Board did not reach the remaining grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”), at the time the ’708 or its parent applications were filed, would have had a minimum of either a medical degree and experience working as an interventional cardiologist or a Bachelor’s degree in bioengineering or mechanical engineering (or a related field) and approximately two years of professional experience in the field of prosthetic cardiovascular implants. Additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education. Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–34). For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we maintain our determination from the Institution Decision because neither party disputes that determination, and that level of ordinary skill is consistent with the record. See Resp. 11 (applying Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill).” slip op. at 8

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

    “ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Furthermore, we expressly construe the claims only to the extent necessary to resolve the issues presented in this case. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 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))). For purposes of this decision, the parties agree that we do not need to construe any claim terms to resolve their dispute. Resp. 12, 13 n.1; Reply 1 (“The Board need not construe any claim terms as the claims are unpatentable under Grounds 1-2.”). Accordingly, we need not construe expressly any claim terms in this decision. Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 8

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

    “petitioner’s grounds of unpatentability. A petitioner bears the burden of proving that a non-patent reference qualifies as a printed publication. Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 772 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“As petitioner, Blizzard had the burden to prove Lin is a printed publication.”); Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 11 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential) (“To prevail in a final written decision in an inter partes review, the petitioner bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that a particular document is a printed publication.”). The determination of whether a reference is a “printed publication” “involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public.” In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Whether a document qualifies as a printed publication is a legal conclusion based on underlying factual determinations. Medtronic, Inc. v. Barry, 891 F.3d 1368, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2018). We do not reach Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the McCarthy declaration because we find Petitioner’s other evidence and arguments demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Sands was publicly available.8 Our analysis focuses on the indicia of availability on Sands and Dr. Drasler’s testimony, as outlined below.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 9,603,708 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,603,708
• Godbersen-Smith Construction Company D/B/A/ Gomaco Corporation v. Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 9, 2022 · IPR2021-00136 · APJ James J Mayberry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable: claims 1–3, 5–7, 14, and 15 over CIII and Rio; claim 4 over CIII, Rio, and Widdrington; claims 9–13 over CIII, Rio, and Smolders; and claim 8 over CIII, Rio, and …

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public.” In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Whether a document qualifies as a printed publication is a legal conclusion based on underlying factual determinations. Medtronic, Inc. v. Barry, 891 F.3d 1368, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2018). slip op. at 30

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “1. Petitioner’s contentions Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art” slip op. at 21

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

    “(f) Conclusion-motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success In conclusion, for the reasons discussed above, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had reasons to combine Rio’s and CIII’s teachings and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the combination. We also find that Petitioner’s reasons are adequately supported with rational underpinnings. See KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 418 (stating that, to facilitate the analysis of an obviousness position, the proponent should provide “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”).” slip op. at 82

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “Inc., No. 2020-1350, 2022 WL 499843 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 18, 2022), is instructive. The Federal Circuit held that the Board properly found that the objective indicia evidence “says nothing to suggest non-obviousness of one of the two types of systems and methods within the claims’ coverage,” where one of the embodiments within the scope of the claims was found in the prior art. Zaxcom, Inc., 2022 WL 499843, *2. Accordingly, because there was no long-felt unsolved need for an embodiment covered by the claims, Patent Owner does not demonstrate a nexus between the claimed invention and a long-felt need.” slip op. at 89

  Patent outcomesUS 9,908,571 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,908,571
• Godbersen-Smith Construction Company D/B/A/ Gomaco Corporation v. Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 19, 2022 · IPR2021-00050 · APJ James J Mayberry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 are unpatentable: claims 1 and 7 over Swisher and Rio; claims 2–6 and 12–13 over Swisher, Rio, and CIII; claims 4 and 13 also over Widdrington; and claims 8–11 over Guntert, with or …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A. Level of Ordinary Skill Public accessibility of a reference centers on whether the reference is disseminated or otherwise made available to persons having ordinary skill in the art. See Jazz Pharm., Inc. v. Amneal Pharm., LLC, 895 F.3d 1347, 1355–56 (Fed. Cir. 2018). As such, we start by defining the level of ordinary skill. 1. Petitioner’s contentions Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a four-year degree in mechanical engineering or a closely related field and at least two years of experience designing, developing, or operating heavy machinery, including their components and control systems.” Pet. 12 (referencing Ex. 1002 (Declaration of Dr. William Singhose) ¶ 22). Petitioner also contends that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience and significant work experience—such as working with, servicing, or operating heavy machinery in the field— could substitute for formal education.” Id. at 12–13. Other than providing his understanding of the types of information considered in determining the level of ordinary skill, Dr. Singhose does not provide any additional support for this definition. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 21–22. 2. Patent Owner’s response Patent Owner contends that the level of ordinary skill in the art is a person having “a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, or a related field, and approximately two years of experience designing or developing heavy machinery, including their components and/or control systems.” PO Resp. 12 (referencing Ex. 2030 (Declaration of Dr. Carl Nelson) ¶ 21). Like Dr. Singhose, Dr. Nelson provides his understanding of the types of information considered in determining the level of ordinary skill, but does not provide any additional support for this definition. See Ex. 2030 ¶¶ 19–21.” slip op. at 18

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

    “involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public.” In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Whether a document qualifies as a printed publication is a legal conclusion based on underlying factual determinations. Medtronic, Inc. v. Barry, 891 F.3d 1368, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2018). slip op. at 27

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

    “C. Ground 1: Claims 1 and 7 as anticipated by Swisher Petitioner contends that Swisher anticipates claims 1 and 7. Pet. 6, 18–33. We address Petitioner’s contentions with respect to how Swisher discloses the subject matter of independent claim 1, below.18 1. Independent claim 1” slip op. at 40

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

    “(3) Conclusion-reasonable expectation of success We find, on the complete trail record, that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had reasons to combine Rio’s teaching directed to its actuators, sensors, and control system with Swisher’s control system, with a reasonable expectation of success. We weigh heavily Rio’s own disclosure on using a rotary actuator in conjunction with a jacking column. We also agree with Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Nelson, that any problem that may be encountered in combining the teachings of Swisher and Rio is the type a mechanical engineer may encounter with many types of machines and mechanisms, and the physics and math involved in solving these problems are the same. Cf. Ex. 1157, 13:11–16:13. d) Conclusion-motivation to combine In conclusion, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had reasons to combine Rio’s and Swisher’s teachings and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the combination. We also find that Petitioner’s reasons are adequately supported with rational underpinnings. See KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 418 (stating that, to facilitate the analysis of an obviousness position, the proponent should provide “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”).” slip op. at 69

  Patent outcomesUS 9,708,020 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,708,020
• Godbersen-Smith Construction Company D/B/A/ Gomaco Corporation v. Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 19, 2022 · IPR2020-01698 · APJ James J Mayberry · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–20 unpatentable: claims 1–11, 13–17, 19, and 20 over CIII and Rio; claim 18 over CIII, Rio, and Smolders; and claims 11–12 over CIII, Rio, and Widdrington.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “the level of ordinary skill. That is, our conclusion of public accessibility of CIII does not depend on the actual dissemination of the manual to customers. We find, independent of this actual dissemination, a person having ordinary skill in the art, exercising reasonable diligence, could have accessed CIII prior to the earliest filing date of the ’749 patent, by locating a dealer or user of the underlying machine, and requesting a copy. See, e.g., Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 3, 13; Ex. 1164 ¶ 6. The lack of any restrictions on disseminating the manual supports a finding that this approach would have been successful. See, e.g., Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 3, 26; Ex. 1164 ¶ 6.” slip op. at 31

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “4. Analysis and Conclusion – Level of Ordinary Skill The level of skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view” slip op. at 21

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

    “d) Conclusion-motivation to combine In conclusion, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had reasons to combine Rio’s and CIII’s teachings and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the combination. We also find that Petitioner’s reasons are adequately supported with rational underpinnings. See KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 418 (stating that, to facilitate the analysis of an obviousness position, the proponent should provide “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”).” slip op. at 61

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for patent owner

    “where one of the embodiments within the scope of the claims was found in the prior art. Zaxcom, Inc., 2022 WL 499843, *2. Accordingly, because there was no long-felt unsolved need for an embodiment covered by the claims, Patent Owner does not demonstrate a nexus between the claimed invention and a long-felt need.” slip op. at 86

  Patent outcomesUS 10,029,749 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,029,749
• Haas Automation, Inc. v. Olati LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 13, 2022 · IPR2021-00146 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 are unpatentable: claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 are anticipated by Oraby; claims 7 and 8 are obvious over Oraby and Edie, among other grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “In the Decision on Institution, we agreed with Patent Owner’s arguments and adopted Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, stating it was “consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art.” Dec. Inst. 10. Petitioner indicates that it does not challenge this determination for the purposes of this proceeding. Pet. Reply 1. Based on our review of the complete record, we continue to apply the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted in the Decision on Institution.” slip op. at 10

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

    “1. “at least one controller . . . adjusts the power” In the Decision on Institution, we determined that there was no need to construe explicitly the phrase “at least one controller . . . adjusts the power.” Dec. Inst. 11–12 (citing Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Neither party disagrees with this determination. Pet. Reply 7 & n.4; PO Resp. 8–9. Thus, on the full record, there is no controversy between the parties regarding the construction of this phrase. Furthermore, explicitly construing this phrase would have no effect on the analysis below. Accordingly, we need not construe this phrase to resolve the issues in dispute in this proceeding. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017; see also Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those 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)). After considering the parties’ arguments regarding Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction for the phrase “adjusts the power exerted by at least one of the spindle drive system and the feed drive system in real-time based on the real-time determinations,” we declined to adopt the proposed construction in the Decision on Institution. Dec. Inst. 13–16 (citing Prelim. Resp. 9–11; Paper 8, 2–4; Paper 9, 2–3). Neither party has addressed this proposed construction in their post-institution briefing. Therefore, on the complete trial record before us, we need not construe this phrase to resolve Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 11

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

    “d) Conclusion In summary, we construe “real-time” to mean “autonomously during a machining operation and performed quickly enough to achieve a desired machining system performance.”” slip op. at 18

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

    “Like the database in Lister, the University of Sheffield’s University Library database allowed members of the public, at least as early as 2004, to “electronically search[] the University Library index” via the internet or the library’s computer terminals, and using any of the author, department, date, and, most importantly, title. See Ex. 1010 ¶ 7. Indeed, Ms. Abbs states that, once a thesis such as Oraby is received by the library, “at least the title, author, related department, and date of completion are recorded in the University Library’s records.” Id. ¶ 3 (emphasis added). Furthermore, like the manuscript in Lister, Oraby has a title that is descriptive of its subject matter—“Mathematical Modelling and In-Process Monitoring Techniques for Cutting Tools” (Ex. 1004, 1)—as Oraby indeed covers “mathematical models which describe the cutting tool-workpiece interaction” and “accurate on-line monitoring of tool-state” (see id. at 3). Thus, a reasonably diligent researcher in the field of CNC machining interested in ways to improve the 11 The court ultimately held, however, that the manuscript did not qualify as prior art because there was insufficient evidence that the aforementioned “date that [the manuscript] was included in either [of the two] databases that permitted keyword searching of titles” had actually antedated the patent’s critical date. Lister, 583 F.3d at 1316–17. library’s database by title for references disclosing such improvements. Furthermore, given Oraby’s title that describes its subject matter covering particular improvements in the CNC machining process, Oraby would have been discovered through such an electronic search. As such, Ms. Abbs’ declaration is sufficient evidence to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Oraby was publicly available before the ’432 patent’s critical date and therefore qualifies as a printed publication.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 8,136,432 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,136,432
• Askeladden L.L.C. v. Aml IP LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · May 11, 2022 · IPR2022-00319 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all grounds and claims 1–13 because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that Armes, alone or with Steury or Maritzen, rendered the claims unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “to satisfy both the “bridge computer” and at least one “service provider computer,” we do not see how the method steps recited in limitations B, Ci, and Cii are satisfied. Petitioner’s attempt to satisfy these steps with Armes’s card provider 3 computer (i.e., as the “bridge computer”) raises multiple questions that persuade us Petitioner has not demonstrated by a reasonable likelihood that these limitations are satisfied. For example, to satisfy the recited “service providers,” Petitioner relies on “incentive rewards [or MR] companies.” Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 52, 59, 87); see also id. at 40 (relying on MR company to satisfy limitation B); see also id. at 41 (relying on MR company to satisfy limitation Ci); see also id. at 43 (relying on MR company to satisfy limitation Cii). Petitioner also cites to the testimony of Mr. Zatkovich. See, e.g., id. at 39– 41 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 120–124). The Petition does not clearly explain how Armes’s “bridge computer” (i.e., the card provider’s computer system) makes a “determin[ation] from among the plurality of service providers,” however, when the card provider itself is a service provider. The testimony of Mr. Zatkovich does not relieve our confusion. Mr. Zatkovich’s testimony merely parrots, verbatim, that which is in the Petition. Compare Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 120–124, with Pet. 39–41. Although Petitioner and Mr. Zatkovich cite to Armes, the citations are to disjointed disclosure whose relevance is not clearly apparent. See Fritch, 972 F.2d 1266 (“one cannot use hindsight reconstruction to pick and choose among isolated disclosures in the prior art”); see also Karsten, 242 F.3d at 1383 (“[To establish anticipation,] all of the elements and limitations of the claim must be shown in a single prior reference, arranged as in the claim.”). For instance, Mr. Zatkovich cites to both Armes’s back end application service 8 and STN system 18 for performing the step of “determining from among the plurality of service providers . . . whether the given vendor is associated with the same [or different] service provider.” See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 122, 124; see also Pet. 40; see also supra § I.D. It is not clear to us, however, how “STN system 18” and “backend application service 8”—both acting as the “bridge computer”—perform the step of “determining from among the plurality of service providers . . . whether the given vendor is associated with the same [or different] service provider,” as recited in claim 1. In support of his assertions, Mr. Zatkovich quotes Armes’s disclosure that “CAS 7 recognizes the transaction as involving a STN 15, and forwards the request to the STN system 18” (Ex. 1002 ¶ 122, citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 109)) and “backend application service 8, upon receiving a STN 15, recognizes the associated PPC originated with another card issuer 92” (Ex. 1002 ¶ 124 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 95)). Even if “CAS 7 recognizes the transaction as involving a STN 15,” for example, we do not see this as performing the step of “determining whether the given vendor is associated with the same service provider,” as Petitioner asserts. See Pet. 40. As explained above, Armes uses STNs to improve credit card security (supra § II.D.1), and the computer system’s mere recognition that “the transaction [] involve[es] a STN” is not a determination of “whether the given vendor is associated with the same service provider.”” slip op. at 36

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “We are not persuaded that a POSITA “would have at least one or two years of experience with payment or credit systems,” as Petitioner proposes (see Pet. 17), or “would have at least a Master of Science [] Degree . . . or equivalent work experience in the field of computer networks,” as Patent Owner proposes. See Prelim. Resp. 6. Rather, we adopt a hybrid of Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill. For purposes of this Decision, we find that a POSITA at the time of the invention would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related study along with knowledge of the general structure of payment or credit systems, its hardware and software components.” slip op. at 12

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Both parties acknowledge and agree with the final Claim Construction Order. See Pet. 14; see also Prelim. Resp. 4. We further note that the claims of the ’979 patent “shall be construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim[s] in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2021). For purposes of this Decision, we consider and adopt the District Court’s claim construction of “bridge computer” in our analysis. Id. (“Any prior claim construction determination concerning a term of the claim in a civil action, or a proceeding before the International Trade Commission, that is timely made of record in the inter partes review proceeding will be considered.”). 2. “service provider” In the Claim Construction Order, the court concluded that the term “service provider” shall mean “a business that provides internet-related services to customers.” Ex. 1017, 1. Petitioner does not propose a construction of this term. See Pet. 11– 16. Patent Owner, on the other hand, expounds upon the District Court’s claim construction, submitting that there are two different types of “service providers”: (1) “A service provider of [the] type may maintain a virtual presence on the web in the form of a web site”; and (2) one that “may offer on-line access to customers (e.g., broadband or dial-up Internet access using an Internet account associated with the service).” See Prelim. Resp. 4–5. Patent Owner does not dispute the District Court’s interpretation, however, and acknowledges that “[t]hese different types of service providers are referred to collectively herein as ‘service providers’ or ‘Internet service providers’.” Id. 5. For purposes of this Decision, we consider and adopt the District Court’s claim construction of “service provider” in our analysis. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).” slip op. at 14

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

    “Specifically, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner improperly uses hindsight “to pick and choose among isolated disclosures in [Armes] to deprecate the claimed invention.” Prelim. Resp. 28 (quoting In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (quoting In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1075 (Fed. Cir. 1988))); see also Karsten, 242 F.3d at 1383 (“[To establish anticipation,] all of the elements and limitations of the claim must be shown in a single prior reference, arranged as in the claim.”).” slip op. at 34

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,876,979
• Shenzhen Buxiang Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. Sun Pleasure Co. LimitedNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 11, 2022 · IPR2021-00080 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 were not shown unpatentable because Metzger lacked the claimed fluid passage, and Wu was not prior art based on the claims’ earlier reduction to practice.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Relying on the testimony of Mr. Kuchel, Petitioner submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have either (i) a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, or an equivalent field, or (ii) would have an associate degree in mechanical engineering, or an equivalent field, and two years of practical experience in inflatable product design.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 26). In the Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, stating it was “consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art.” Dec. Inst. 9. In its Response, Patent Owner makes arguments that rely on Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, but does not dispute Petitioner’s definition. See PO Resp. 35, 39–53 (citing Ex. 2014 ¶ 66). Based on our review of the complete record, we continue to apply the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted in the Decision on Institution.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Petitioner proposes claim constructions for the terms “substantially below” and “substantially inwardly” recited in claims 1 and 6. Pet. 40–41. In the Decision on Institution, we determined that it was not necessary to construe the terms at that stage of the proceeding. Dec. Inst. 9–10 (citing Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Patent Owner contends “the claim terms ‘substantially below’ and ‘substantially inwardly’ are sufficiently clear on their face to preclude any need for claim construction,” but proposes claim constructions that differ somewhat from Petitioner’s proposed constructions in the event the Board determines that these terms require claim construction. PO Resp. 13, 15–16. Patent Owner also proposes a claim construction for the term “upper tubular periphery” recited in claims 1 and 6 that Petitioner opposes. Id. at 17–19; Pet. Reply 7–10. Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017. Because the outcome of our decision does not depend on either parties’ construction of the terms “substantially below,” “substantially inwardly,” or “upper tubular periphery,” we need not construe these terms to resolve the issues in dispute in this proceeding.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Metzger’s gaps define fluid passages located between adjacent side support beams 25 (i.e., “internal walls”) and are not formed in any of the side support beams. We are not directed to any written description in Metzger indicating that the gaps are formed in a side support beam.7 Instead, Figures 5 and 6 of Metzger depict the gaps as being defined between four distinct side support beams 25. Furthermore, as Patent Owner points out, Mr. Kuchel appears to agree that there are no passages formed through the side support beams 25 of Figures 5 and 6. Ex. 2003, 107:12–108:9, 108:17–108:21. For these reasons, we determine that Metzger’s gaps are not formed through an internal wall, as required by claim 1. In the Reply, Petitioner asserts that, even if Metzger discloses four discrete, spaced-apart beams or walls, “the gaps or slices between walls are apertures in a structure through which air can pass.” Pet. Reply 15 (emphasis added). This argument is not persuasive because claim 1 recites that the fluid passage is formed through the internal wall (which Petitioner asserts is met by Metzger’s side support beam 25), not just any structure. Petitioner’s general assertion that air passes through “a structure” fails to establish that the gaps are formed in a side support beam.” slip op. at 16

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

    “Specifically, Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from Metzger “that an air passage would be necessary to bypass the side support beam 25 and inflate the upper tubular periphery for the air mattress to function as intended.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 200). According to Petitioner, because Metzger discloses only a single air inlet valve, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that providing openings, or fluid passages, through the side support beam 25, in lieu of or in addition to the gaps between the side support beam 25, would have been a simple solution to adequately inflate the peripheral frame of the mattress defined by the side support beam(s) 25. Id. at 74–75 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 200). Petitioner thus presents two alternate theories for modifying Metzger: (1) providing fluid passages in at least one side support beam 25 in addition to the gaps, and (2) providing fluid passages in lieu of the gaps. In support of the first theory, Petitioner only argues that providing fluid passages in the side support beams, in addition to the gaps between the ends of the side support beams, would have allowed the peripheral frame to inflate more freely. Id. at 75 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 201). In its Response, Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner is just wrong.” PO Resp. 45 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 146–149). Dr. Letton testifies that pumps used to inflate air mattresses are low flow and low pressure and generally inflate an air mattress to a maximum pressure of around 1 psi. Ex. 2001 ¶ 147. Dr. Letton further testifies that, with Metzger’s design, the” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 7,353,555 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,353,555
• Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte Ges.M.B.H. v. Sonova AGAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 31, 2022 · IPR2021-00023 · APJ Avelyn M Ross · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, and 14 are unpatentable over Meier; claims 5, 10, and 11 are unpatentable over Meier and Kenigsberg.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “porous cover element for acoustic aperture SE, Meier’s disclosure is not so limited. Id. at 3:18–21. For example, Meier describes “cover elements for vents.” Id. at 4:66; see Ex. 2011, 73:1–5 (Dr. Giacomin’s similar testimony). Petitioner, relying on the testimony of Dr. Giacomin, explains that “[b]ased on the disclosure of Meier, the cover element covers the air vent in a manner similar to how the cover elements are shown covering the acoustic input or output apertures, e.g., the cover element is assembled with the housing such that crevices are formed between these two components.” Pet. 26–27; see also id. at 21 (same); Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 42, 44–46, 52, 60–61. Dr. Giacomin testifies that even when a nonporous cover element is used, the cover element needs to be coated with a hydrophobic coating to prevent water from entering the vents, i.e., crevices. Ex. 2011, 73:1–23. Dr. Giacomin’s testimony below illustrates Petitioner’s position.” slip op. at 30

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “materials science.” Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 20). Patent Owner does not propose its own definition or dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition except to assert that “other disciplines including electrical engineering should be included.” PO Resp. 8–9. In light of the record before us, we determine that Petitioner’s proposed definition is consistent with the prior art of record and apply it for this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings on 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))). We also include disciplines, including electrical engineering, as Patent Owner proposes. Accordingly, the definition for a person of ordinary skill in the art, applied herein, “would have had, as of December 2003, the equivalent of a Bachelor of Science degree in chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, physics, or a related discipline and at least two years of related experience, preferably with a working understanding of plastics manufacturing, chemistry, and/or materials science.”” slip op. at 9

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

    “Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We agree with Patent Owner that this term need not be expressly construed because, as explained below, Petitioner has sufficiently shown the cited art discloses a “coating” regardless of whether we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction.” slip op. at 11

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner has not persuasively explained why we should depart from the construction for “hydrophobic” adopted in the district court. Nor has Petitioner persuasively explained why here different constructions should apply in different forums. See Tr. 6:16–7:9, 32:3–9. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), we have considered the district court construction of the term “hydrophobic,” which is consistent with the record evidence, and adopt it as our own. Therefore, we construe “hydrophobic” to mean “having resistance to water penetration wherein the contact angle between the water droplet with the surface exceeds 90 degrees.”” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 7,267,847 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,267,847

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.