- Opticis Co., Ltd. v. Inneos LLCInstitutedPTAB · Feb 2, 2024 · IPR2023-01256 · APJ Terry J Owens · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 9 on all five §103 grounds in the petition.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” A decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (implemented as a result of SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018)). Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons explained below, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Ground 1 is based upon obviousness, not anticipation. Patent Owner’s argument is not well taken because it does not address what fixing Kurita’s single optical fiber (40) in place.” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedInstituted
“The purpose of requiring reasonable diligence by the first to conceive the invention but second to reduce to practice is to assure that the invention was not abandoned or unreasonably delayed by the first inventor during the period after the second inventor entered the field.” Brown v. Barbacid, 436 F.3d 1376, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “A patent owner need not prove the inventor continuously exercised reasonable diligence throughout the critical period; it must show there was reasonably continuous diligence.” Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc. v. Olympus Am., Inc., 841 F.3d 1004, 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “[T]here need not necessarily be evidence of activity on every single day if a satisfactory explanation is evidenced.” Monsanto Co. v. Mycogen Plant Sci., Inc., 261 F.3d 1356, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Thus, Patent Owner must provide an explanation that is satisfactory to indicate that the relied-upon computer modeling and prior art search update show reasonably continuous diligence from November 10, 2003 to January 15, 2004. Patent Owner has provided some evidence to show diligence from November 10, 2003 to January 15, 2004, but Patent Owner has not explained why, under the facts of this case, the evidence is sufficient to establish reasonably continuous diligence for the period before Bhandarkar’s effective filing date to the date of constructive reduction to practice. We have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions as to how Bhandarkar teaches the subject matter of the claims, and we find them sufficiently persuasive at this stage. Based upon the above-discussed evidence and that the optical combiner claimed in claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 9 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over Bhandarkar. slip op. at 26
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) because the factors identified in Apple, Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”), weigh in favor of denying institution in view of the district court litigation (Prelim. Resp. 68–69). A Memorandum from Director Vidal titled Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (USPTO June 21, 2022) (“Interim Procedure”)2 provides that “the PTAB will not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv . . . where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition” (Interim Procedure 9). Petitioner has submitted such a stipulation (Paper 11). Thus, we do not exercise discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 27
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,198,416 - Motorola Mobility LLC v. Largan Precision Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 3, 2024 · IPR2022-01156 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6–16, 18–24, 28, and 29 are unpatentable as anticipated by Chen-069, which is prior art because the 2012 application lacks written-description support for their full scope.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’948 patent would have had “(i) a Bachelor’s degree in Physics, Optical Sciences, or equivalent education or training, as well as (ii) approximately three years of experience in designing multi-lens optical systems.” Id. at 12 (quoting Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 28)). We also found that “[l]ack of work experience could have been offset by additional education, and vice versa,” and that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood the fundamentals of optical aberration theory, and understood and used standard techniques for making lenses cheaper and more effective, especially for lens systems used in mobile devices.” Id. (quoting Pet. 14; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 28, 30). We also agreed with Petitioner and found that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have known how to use lens design software such as Code V, Oslo, and ZEMAX, and would have taken a lens design course or had equivalent training.” Id. (quoting Pet. 14; Ex. 1003 ¶ 29). We also agreed with Petitioner and found that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have regularly used such software to create new lens designs, often using pre-existing lens designs as a starting point and then performing routine optimizations to reach a desired design.” Id. at 12–13 (quoting Pet. 14; Ex. 1003 ¶ 29). Patent Owner does not identify a level of skill in the art that one would have had at the time of the invention of the ’948 patent or identify any shortcoming in Petitioner’s formulation. See PO Resp. 16–17. Because Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill in the art is consistent with the ’948 patent and the asserted prior art, we maintain it for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579; In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner argues that construing the challenged “claims to include first and second lens elements having the same refractive power . . . is improper.” PO Resp. 21. According to Patent Owner, one of ordinary skill in the art “would construe the [’]948 [p]atent claims to include first and second lens elements in the form of a ‘doublet,’ which requires the respective lens elements to have opposite refractive power, and thus includes only configurations” of “positive-negative” and “negative-positive” for the first and second lens elements, respectively. Id. at 20–21. In other words, “[t]he proper construction of the ’948 [p]atent claims is that the first and second lens elements may have positive-negative or negative-po[sitive] refractive powers, but would not include first and second lens elements having the same refractive polarity,” according to Patent Owner. Id. at 26. Thus, the parties agree that the challenged claims should be construed to encompass at least a lens system having a first lens element with a negative refractive power and a second lens element with a positive refractive power. See, e.g., Pet. 33; PO Resp. 21. We conclude that such a lens system is consistent with the plain language of the challenged claims. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 12:8–26, 13:14–38, 14:16–46 (reciting first and second lens elements without reciting a specific refractive power polarity for the independent claims). And we determine that no claim terms require further construction in light of our findings below. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 10
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“In sum, we determine that the 2012 application does not provide written description support for an imaging lens system with a negative refractive power first lens and a positive refractive power second lens. And the agreed scope of the challenged claims includes such a configuration, and thus, the written description of the 2012 application does not support the full breadth of the challenged claims. We therefore determine that the challenged claims of the ʼ948 patent do not benefit from the priority date of the 2012 application. Therefore, we determine that Chen-069 is prior art to the challenged claims of the ʼ948 patent.” slip op. at 23
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“After reviewing Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, which are not addressed by Patent Owner (see generally PO Resp.), we determine that Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that Chen-069 anticipates claim 1. D. Remaining Challenged Claims Petitioner argues that Chen-069 discloses the limitations recited in claims 2–4, 6–16, 18–24, 28, and 29. Pet. 48–65. Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s arguments directed to these claims. See generally PO Resp. 32–34. Based on the evidence and arguments of record, we find that Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that Chen-069 anticipates claims 2–4, 6–16, 18–24, 28, and 29.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 9,784,948 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,784,948 - PTAB · Nov 15, 2023 · IPR2023-00821 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–20 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 3 are anticipated by Jones and claims 1–20 are obvious over Jones, Zheng, and Keenan.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). We may not institute an inter partes review “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The “reasonable likelihood” standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Applying those standards, and upon consideration of the information presented in the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one claim of the ’008 patent is unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art also is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Neither party argues, at least at this stage of the proceeding, that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Considering the subject matter of the ’008 patent, the background technical field, the prior art, and Petitioner’s proposed and unopposed definition of the skilled artisan, we apply the level of skill set forth above, which is consistent with the testimony of Mr. Hurlbut (Ex. 1003 ¶ 33).” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Only those claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Petitioner proffers constructions for two terms, namely, (1) “threat model components” and (2) “attack paths,” as recited, for example, in independent claim 4. Pet. 12. Petitioner submits that it defines these two terms “consistent with the ’008 patent specification and applies the plain and ordinary meaning that [the skilled artisan] would attribute to the remaining terms.” Pet. 12. “Patent Owner submits that the Board need not engage in any pre-institution claim construction of these [two] terms.” Prelim. Resp. 11. Based upon our consideration of the record at this stage of the proceeding, we conclude that it is unnecessary to interpret expressly any term in the ’008 patent claims for which we institute inter partes review. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017. Nevertheless, we determine that briefing during the trial on the proper interpretation of certain claim terms may assist us in resolving issues presented in this case. In particular, we invite the parties to address the proper construction of the limitation “redefine the first threat model by including in it a second threat model associated with the component group,” as recited, for example, in independent claim 1, and to provide evidentiary support therefor (the parties should focus particularly on defining the full scope of what it means to “redefine” the first threat model and to “include” a second threat model “in” a first threat model). To the extent that a party proposes that this limitation should have its ordinary and customary meaning, we encourage the party to explicitly identify such meaning(s) and the evidentiary support therefor. In addition, the parties should consider whether Ex parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential) applies to limitations of the challenged claims, such as claim 1’s recital of “configuring the diagram interface to, in response to receiving one or more user inputs, add a component group to the first threat model.”” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“Pet. 35–36 (emphases added) (citing Ex. 1004, 6:12–34; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 81–84). As we understand Petitioner’s argument (and its expert’s testimony), Petitioner argues Jones “modifies,” i.e., “redefines,” a “first threat model” (level n) by “including” in it cybersecurity threats (e.g., via metadata) associated with nested components (i.e., “a second threat model”), to produce the “modified” (“redefined”) “first threat model” (level n+1). See id.; In re Bond, 910 F.2d at 832–33 (anticipation “is not an ‘ipsissimis verbis’ test”). In other words, Petitioner argues that, although Jones may not use the identical terminology as the ’008 patent, Jones nevertheless explicitly discloses limitation 1[f] to the skilled artisan, by describing modifying a first “threat” model from a level “n” model to a level “n+1” model by including therein threats associated with a particular layer of components (nested components), i.e., a second “threat” model. Based on the record before us, we find Petitioner’s arguments persuasive.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,699,008 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Apex Beam Technologies LLCInstitutedPTAB · Oct 20, 2023 · IPR2023-00599 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–12 under all asserted grounds: anticipation by Lee and obviousness over Lee and Chen.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“The Director’s Memo provides that “[c]onsistent with Sotera Wireless, Inc.,[5] the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Director’s Memo 3. With our authorization, Petitioner has filed a stipulation, which stipulates “that, if the PTAB institutes inter partes review, Petitioner ‘will not pursue in [Apex Beam Technologies LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00188-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (consolidated with Apex Beam Technologies LLC v. ZTE Corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-00031-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.))] the specific grounds [asserted in IPR2023-00599], or . . . any other ground . . . that was raised or could have been reasonably raised in an IPR (i.e., any ground that could be raised under §§ 102 or 103 on the basis of prior art patent or printed publications).’” Ex. 1022, 1 (quoting Sotera Wireless, Inc., Paper 12 at 13–14) (alterations in original). We determine that the language of this stipulation sufficiently comports with the language of the stipulation discussed in the Director’s Memo. See Director’s Memo 3. We accordingly decline to discretionarily deny institution in view of the related district court litigation.” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We do not read Xerox to require us to give little weight to an expert declaration solely because some or all of it is also repeated within the Petition. Rather, Xerox found a declaration was entitled to little weight where the declaration merely repeated “the conclusory assertion for which it is offered to support.” Xerox, Paper 9 at 15 (emphasis added). If declaration testimony is supported sufficiently and, in turn, supports contentions in the Petition, we do not give it little to no weight simply because it is repeated in the Petition. Patent Owner does not point to any specific statements in Dr. Kakaes’s declaration and explain specifically why Patent Owner believes they are conclusory, and thus, Patent Owner has not sufficiently explained the applicability of Xerox here. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 13 n.1, 18 n.2, 21 n.3, 23 n.4, 25 n.5, 28 n.6, 29 n.7, 47–48. Moreover, we can assess the weight to be given to Dr. Kakaes’s declaration testimony, including based on its corresponding factual support, if any, and afford such testimony an appropriate weight. Accordingly, at this stage, we decline Patent Owner’s invitation to assign no weight to all of Dr. Kakaes’s declaration testimony.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“For purposes of this Decision on Institution, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art, except we decline to adopt the recitals of “at least” as that language is vague and open-ended. Pet. 13. We also decline to adopt Petitioner’s assertion concerning “[a]dditional relevant work experience,” as it also is vague and open-ended. As adopted, we view the definition for the level of ordinary skill is consistent with the ’081 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our analysis below.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner argues that “no terms need construction to resolve the controversy in this forum.” Pet. 11. Patent Owner argues that at this stage of the proceeding, “claim construction is not required to resolve any issues.” Prelim. Resp. 10. We determine that no express constructions are needed for us to render our Decision on Institution. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”). Rather, at this stage of the proceeding, we apply the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim terms.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,912,081 - PTAB · Oct 6, 2023 · IPR2023-00656 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 and all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Keenan anticipates the claims.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). We may not institute an inter partes review “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The “reasonable likelihood” standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Applying those standards, and upon consideration of the information presented in the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one claim of the ’366 patent is unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to all Challenged Claims of the ’366 patent on all grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the earliest effective filing date of the ’366 patent: would have had a Bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, mathematics, or a similar discipline, with at least three years of relevant industry or research experience, including experience in software development and designing or implementing threat models. Additional work or research” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Only those claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Petitioner proffers constructions for four terms, namely, (1) “third party software application,” (2) “third party diagram components,” (3) “visual representations of the threat model components,” and (4) “threat model components,” each as recited, for example, in independent claim 1. Pet. 12–14. Petitioner submits “[Patent Owner] defined [these] claim terms in the specification and file history,” “Petitioner is applying those definitions in this petition,” and “[f]or all other claim terms, Petitioner applies the plain and ordinary meaning that a [skilled artisan] would attribute to those terms.” Pet. 12. “Patent Owner submits that the Board need not engage in any pre-institution claim construction of these [four] terms.” Prelim. Resp. 11. Based upon our consideration of the record at this stage of the proceeding, we conclude that it is unnecessary to interpret expressly any term in the ’366 patent claims for which we institute inter partes review. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017. Nevertheless, we determine that briefing during the trial on the proper interpretation of certain claim terms may assist us in resolving issues presented in this case. In particular, we invite the parties to address the proper construction of “threats,” “threat model components,” “visual representations of the threat model components,” and “mapping files,” and the evidentiary support therefor. To the extent that a party proposes that such a term should have its ordinary and customary meaning, we encourage the party to explicitly identify such meaning(s) and the evidentiary support therefor.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“does not disclose the “threats” described and claimed in the ’366 patent. See Prelim. Resp. 5–7, 11–19. Based on the record before us at this stage of the proceeding, we disagree and preliminarily find Patent Owner’s arguments unavailing, as further discussed below. In particular, Patent Owner concedes that “Keenan discloses that color can ‘represent different types of risk (e.g., cyber, environmental, accidental, etc.),’” where Keenan displays such colors associated with objects in a topology. Prelim. Resp. 17 (citing Ex. 1004, 16:40–51) (emphases added); see Ex. 1004, Fig. 7. But Patent Owner then merely concludes, without citing any factual support, that “use of a color identifying the generic nature of a risk still fails to disclose any threats associated with the risk.” Id. at 17– 18. On the other hand, Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Hurlbut, testifies: Keenan demonstrates that its risk measurement and display includes a determination of threats where Keenan discloses a risk measurement view that uses [] color to “represent different types of risk (e.g., cyber, environmental, accidental, etc.).” [Ex. 1004], 16:40–51. [The skilled artisan] would understand that “types of risk,” as disclosed in Keenan are threats because the described examples are all types of threats (cyber, environmental, accidental). Thus, Keenan discloses threats within its risk analysis. Moreover, [the skilled artisan] would understand that risk is a function of threats exploiting vulnerabilities to obtain, damage, or destroy assets. In other words, threat modeling is used to identify risk. Ex. 1003 ¶ 79 (cited at Pet. 21–24); see id. ¶ 82 (cited at Pet. 26–28). Patent Owner disputes this testimony of Mr. Hurlbut using only attorney argument, and without telling us, for example, why Mr. Hurlbut allegedly is wrong (e.g., by explaining why specific “types” of risk do not fall within the scope of “threats” as broadly recited in claim 1, or how “risk” is not a function of “threats” in Keenan, as explained by Mr. Hurlbut). See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.”). Moreover, although Patent Owner characterizes the “types of risk” disclosed in Keenan as identifying a “generic nature of a risk” (Prelim. Resp. 17–18 (emphasis added)), we note that “threats” is broadly recited in claim 1 with no requirement as to any level of specificity of such threats.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,713,366 - Nespresso USA, Inc. v. K-Fee System GmbHInstitutedPTAB · Sep 13, 2023 · IPR2023-00502 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 1–16 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood that the claims would have been obvious over Yoakim, Jarisch, and Rapparini.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least [one] of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to claims 1–16 of the ’923 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier application provides support for the claims of the later application, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112.” In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 297 (Fed. Cir. 1995). One may show support for the claims of a later application by showing that a single, earlier application provides written description support for the claims. PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Studiengesellschaft Kohle, MBH v. Shell Oil Co., 112 F.3d 1561, 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (noting that a patentee “cannot distinct previous applications”). Once Petitioner identifies a prior art reference with an effective filing date prior to that of the challenged patent, the burden of production to show entitlement to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application shifts to Patent Owner. See In re NTP, 654 F.3d 1268, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a patent’s claims are not entitled to an earlier priority date merely because the patentee claims priority . . . Rather, for a patent’s claims to be entitled to an earlier priority date, the patentee must demonstrate that the claims meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120”). Patent Owner may show possession of the invention through “such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “Although the exact terms need not be used in haec verba, . . . the specification must contain an equivalent description of the claimed subject matter. A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient.” Id.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artPriority date, deniedDecided for petitioner
“Once Petitioner identifies a prior art reference with an effective filing date prior to that of the challenged patent, the burden of production to show entitlement to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application shifts to Patent Owner. See In re NTP, 654 F.3d 1268, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a patent’s claims are not entitled to an earlier priority date merely because the patentee claims priority . . . Rather, for a patent’s claims to be entitled to an earlier priority date, the patentee must demonstrate that the claims meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120”). Patent Owner may show possession of the invention through “such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “Although the exact terms need not be used in haec verba, . . . the specification must contain an equivalent description of the claimed subject matter. A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient.” Id.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“7. Analysis: Reasons to Combine the References Petitioner shows sufficiently that Yoakim, Jarisch and Rapparini are “analogous art in the field of portion capsule beverage extraction, each disclosing an invention that may be applied in automatic coffee/espresso machines.” Pet. 43. “Yoakim and Jarisch both improve the optimization of beverage parameters in a single-serve brewing system, and use optical codes read by the machine to achieve this.” Id. “Rapparini further improves the the wall of the capsule body like those used in Yoakim and Jarisch.” Id. at 43–44; see id. at 50–51, 53–54 (Petitioner’s further argument that Rapparini discloses “an optimized capsule structure that is stiffer and more stable” by virtue of radially spaced and vertically oriented ribs and grooves, where the vertically oriented grooves are free from extending entirely to the bottom region of the capsule). Petitioner directs us to additional evidence tending to establish that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been prompted to modify Yoakim’s device, to include the code placement of Jarisch and the grooves and ribs of Rapparini, to arrive at the claimed invention with an expectation of success. Id. at 44–48.” slip op. at 27
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,994,923 - PTAB · Aug 30, 2023 · IPR2023-00521 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 19–61 and 63–81 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Doud anticipates claims 19–61 and 63–75.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim of the ’740 patent. Accordingly, we grant institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateOther
“the application describe the claim limitations exactly,” the application must demonstrate to persons of ordinary skill in the art that the applicants invented a composition including those limitations. Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262. On its face, the range of “at least 0.01 wt. %” encompasses a range that is broader than 0.01–35 wt. %, and Patent Owner does not sufficiently explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand from merely a disclosure of 35 wt.% that the inventors were in possession of the entire claimed range for copper, cobalt, or nickel in the magnesium composition.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedOther
“On this record, the term “at least 0.01 wt. %” in the ’740 patent encompasses values for nickel, copper, and cobalt that are higher than the 35 wt. % (nickel and copper) and 20 wt. % (cobalt) limits outlined in the parent and grandparent applications. Accordingly, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that claim 19 of the ’740 patent is not entitled to the benefit of the filing dates of its priority applications. Challenged claims 20–61 and 63–75 depend from claim 19 and there is no argument presented that these claims have independent written description support in Doud. For example, there is no evidence presented that any of these dependent claims narrow the ranges for each of copper, nickel, and cobalt recited in in the ’295 application for these claims.7 Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we apply Doud as prior art to challenged claims 19–61 and 63–75.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“as the ’740 patent. For example, Doud and the ’740 patent both disclose a method of forming a novel magnesium composite that includes melting an AZ91D magnesium alloy containing 90 wt. % magnesium, 9 wt. % aluminum, and 1 wt. % zinc. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 45, 47; Ex. 1001, 21:43–51, 22:48–53, 33:32–43, 34:9–12. To this alloy is added either 7 wt. % nickel or 10 wt. % copper. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 45, 47, 53, 57; Ex. 1001, 21:48–51, 22:53–56, 33:35–36, 34:12–13. These additives are mixed in the magnesium alloy at a temperature that is less than the melting point of copper or nickel, and the casting is then cooled. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 45, 47, 53, 57; Ex. 1001, 21:51–54, 22:56–58, 33:35, 34:12-13. Doud reports that nickel and copper, when added to molten magnesium, will form Mg2Ni and CuMg2 intermetallic, galvanically-active, in situ precipitates. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 12–13. Doud discloses that the dissolution rate of the resulting casting material is either 325 mg/cm2-hr (nickel) or 50 mg/cm2-hr (copper) in a 3% KCl solution at 90° C. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 45, 47, 53, 57; Ex. 1001, 21:60–62, 22:61–63, 33:41–43, 34:15–17. Doud also discloses that the average particle diameter of the additives used in the invention is generally “at least about 0.1 microns” and “typically no more than about 500 microns.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 6. Petitioner explains how the identified disclosures of Doud anticipate independent claim 19. Pet. 39–40. Petitioner also identifies where the limitations of dependent claims 20–61 and 63–75 are disclosed in Doud. Id. at 41–45. Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s anticipation arguments with respect to claims 19–61 and 63–75, apart from arguing that Doud is not prior art to these claims. Prelim. Resp. 27–39. demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that claims 19–61 and 63–75 are anticipated by Doud.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,689,740 - PTAB · Aug 4, 2023 · IPR2023-00309 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–6 and 8–20 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). An inter partes review may be instituted if “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 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).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityOther
“A. Real Parties-In-Interest The parties identify themselves as the real parties-in-interest. Pet. 1; Paper 3, 1.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“invention of the ’864 patent would have had “a Bachelor’s or Master’s level college degree in Mechanical Engineering, Materials Science, Physics, Electrical Engineering, or a related field, and two years of training or experience in the design of inkjet printheads or semiconductor circuit layout.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 56). Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute [Petitioner’s] characterization of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of [Patent Owner’s] Preliminary Response, except that it disagrees that a degree in Materials Science is sufficient.” Prelim. Resp. 16.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Patent Owner, however, also argues that under the plain and ordinary meaning, “power traces” “are narrow connections between a wider bond pad and a heater array.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, citing Figs. 1–3). This term does not appear in independent claim 1, but rather in dependent claims 3 and 5. See Ex. 1001, 6:31–39, 6:43–46, 6:49–51. We note that the term “traces” appears in independent claim 8, but Patent Owner does not address whether “traces” has the same meaning as “power traces.” Prelim. Resp. 17. In addition, Patent Owner argues that “[t]he term ‘physically separated proximal to the bondpad’ should be interpreted consistent with the ’864 patent to mean ‘separated at a location nearer to the bond pad than the heater arrays.’” Prelim. Resp. 17; see id. at 17–18 (arguing that the language of claims 1 and 3 supports its construction); id. at 18 (citing Ex. 2001; Ex. 2002) (arguing that dictionary definitions support its construction). This term appears in dependent claims 3 and 9, and similarly in dependent claim 15. Ex. 1001, 6:43–46, 7:4–5, 7:26–8:2. As we discuss below, we find that Petitioner shows by a reasonable likelihood that claim 1—as well as other claims that also do not contain these terms—would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See supra Section V.C (finding at this stage that challenged claims would have been obvious in view of the combination of Benjamin144 and Benjamin703). Thus, we determine that no express constructions are needed for us to render our Decision on Institution. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”). Moreover, at this stage of the proceeding, we do not view these issues as being fully developed. The parties should fully develop the record for any claim construction issues relating to these terms, and any other terms in dispute,7 during trial in accordance with our Rules. If the parties assert a term has its plain and ordinary meaning, but dispute what that plain and ordinary meaning is, such a dispute needs to be resolved as a matter of claim construction. See Eon Corp. IP Holdings v. Silver Spring Networks, 815 F.3d 1314, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,290,864 - Apple Inc. v. Immervision, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Aug 1, 2023 · IPR2023-00472 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Institution
Instituted inter partes review of claims 1–7 on all asserted grounds: anticipation and/or obviousness based on Thibault, Matsusaka, and Kim.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“used to compensate” language is an “intended use,” we agree with Patent Owner that the language including and following the “being used to compensate” language of claim 1 results in a structural limitation. Per the language of claim 1, the location of the “zone” is keyed to an area of the image where the quality drops due to a drop either of relative illumination or of MTF, and where the image magnification takes effect. The language of claim 1 requires that the zone be “intentionally” created. Within this “zone,” lower or higher object to image magnification (compared to linear targeted resolution) is required depending on the conditions. The “being used to compensate” language describes the conditions (i.e. lower relative illumination or lower MTF) that lead to the intentional creation of the “zone” where the image magnification is required. As Patent Owner notes, the “being used to compensate” language explains “how the created zone is arranged within the field of view of the optical apparatus.” Prelim. Resp. 11. This “tells us something about the structural requirements” of the zone intentionally created within the apparatus. K-2 Corp., 191 F.3d at 1364. Accordingly, we decline to view the “being used to compensate” language of claim 1 as an “intended use.” Any claim construction at this stage in the proceeding is preliminary, and our final determinations as to claim construction will be made on the full record, as developed during trial.” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in an academic area emphasizing physics, optical engineering, electrical engineering and/or a similar discipline, and at least five years of experience in developing and designing optical imaging systems and have familiarity with image processing algorithms and optical design software” and that “[s]uperior education could compensate for a deficiency in work experience, and vice-versa.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 15). Patent Owner states that solely for purposes of the Preliminary Response, it “does not object to Petitioner’s definition of a POSA [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Prelim. Resp. 10. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art with the exception of the open-ended phrase “at least,” which expands the range of experience indefinitely without an upper bound. The level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“that Petitioner’s comparison of Thibault’s Figure 6 and the ’120 patent’s Figure 7 (above), particularly with respect to the downward resolution curve circled in green, supports Petitioner’s assertion that Thibault’s apparatus meets the “being used to compensate” language. Id. at 30–31. We are also persuaded that Petitioner’s comparison of Thibault’s Figure 6 and the ’120 patent’s Figure 7, in view of the language of the ’120 patent (the “downward curve between maximum value 712 and position 714 allows the lens system to have a higher relative illumination value toward the edge of the field of view,” Ex. 1001, 6:36–41), supports Petitioner’s assertion that Thibault’s apparatus “would therefore have the same impact on relative illumination as described in the ’120 Patent.” Id. at 31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 123). Although Patent Owner argues that “slope alone cannot equate to the claimed magnification zones” (Prelim. Resp. 16), at this stage in the proceeding we have unrebutted testimony from Petitioner’s declarant, providing reasoning supporting Petitioner’s arguments about Thibault’s disclosures and limitation [1e]. Pet. 25–32 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 117–124). On this record, we are persuaded that Petitioner establishes a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its arguments that Thibault discloses and/or renders obvious the limitations of claim 1. On the present record, Patent Owner does not substantively dispute Petitioner’s arguments as to dependent claims 2–7. Prelim. Resp. 13–18. We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and the cited evidence, and, on the present record, Petitioner shows sufficiently that Thibault discloses the limitations of claims 2–7. Accordingly, Petitioner shows a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its argument that claims 1–7 would have been anticipated by or obvious in view of Thibault.” slip op. at 29
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). A “prior art reference—in order to anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102—must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements ‘arranged as in the claim.’” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Although the elements must be arranged or combined 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). slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,795,120 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 26, 2023 · IPR2022-00149 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 7–13 and 15–17 are unpatentable: the Board found them obvious over the listed Nerone-based and Zhang-based combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “had, at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, physics, or the equivalent, and two or more years of experience with LED devices and related LED circuit design. Lack of work experience could have been remedied by additional education and vice versa.” PO Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 38–42). Patent Owner contends this is a similar definition as “provided by Petitioner” but Petitioner’s definition is “overbroad in several respects, as explained by Dr. Ducharme,” including allowing an individual with no experience in LEDs or LED devices to be a person of ordinary skill in the art. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 20–21; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 40–41). Petitioner contends that “[t]here is no meaningful dispute over a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Pet. Reply 1. We apply Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it requires specific experience with LED circuit design, and, thus, more closely aligns with the level of skill reflected in the ’400 patent and the prior art of record. However, if we were to apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, our Decision would not be affected.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner contends that “no special constructions are necessary.” Pet. 8; Pet. Reply 2. “Patent Owner has applied the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim terms.” PO Resp. 8. Upon review of the record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). D. Patent Owner’s Contention that Martin is not Available as Prior Art” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. The statute governing the formerly available CBM proceeding explicitly limits challenges based on “prior art that is described by section 102(a).” AIA § 18(a)(1)(C). In contrast, § 311(b) permits challenges “on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” The language in § 311(b) implies that, unlike CBMs, IPRs are not limited to prior art challenges solely under § 102(a). Patent Owner relies, inter alia, on Infobridge, but that case deals with public accessibility under § 102(b). Infobridge, 929 F. 3d at 1368–69. The parties do not cite to any Federal Circuit decisions that squarely address this issue. However, the Federal Circuit applied § 102(e) patent application publication prior art in an appeal from an IPR. See, e.g., Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Iancu, 767 Fed. App’x 918, 920–21, 926 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (nonprecedential) (determining that a § 102(e) patent application publication, “Joshi”, was available as prior art in an IPR).” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“provide a specific numerical analysis of the number of LEDs necessary to match a value of the DC output voltage in Nerone. PO Resp. 31–32. Based on Dr. Baker’s testimony, Petitioner provides several factors that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered when designing Nerone’s circuitry to satisfy the “matching” requirement of limitation 7(f). Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 120). Dr. Baker supports his testimony concerning the knowledge of these factors by one of ordinary skill with reference to disclosures in Cross and Martin. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 121–123. Neither Patent Owner nor Dr. Ducharme dispute that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known to consider these factors when designing Nerone’s circuit. See PO Resp. 30–43; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 89–106. Petitioner then explains how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have used these factors to apply the teachings of Martin to configure Nerone’s circuitry so that “the forward voltage of the series-connected LEDs [] approximately match[es] the rectified AC voltage output of the above-described LED driver circuit.” Pet. 21; id. at 20–21; see also Ex. 1107 ¶ 29 (“a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood and would have been capable of determining the appropriate number of LEDs based on the application and design of Nerone’s system such that the forward voltage drop of the LEDs . . . matches the rectified AC voltage output . . . to mitigate against overdriving or underdriving the LEDs.” (citing Ex. 1074 ¶¶ 30–31, Fig. 2)). For these reasons, we find that it was not necessary for Petitioner to provide a specific numerical calculation of the number of LEDs in its proposed modification of Nerone. We also agree with Petitioner that “matching the input voltage to the forward voltage of the LEDs had become a matter of routine optimization.” Pet. 19. Patent Owner contends that this statement is “vague and conclusory.” Sur-reply 12–13. Petitioner, however, supports this statement with the testimony of Dr. Baker. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 120–123. Dr. Baker’s testimony, which we credit, is corroborated by both Cross and Martin. See id. (citing Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 2, 21, 22 Fig. 5; Ex. 1074 ¶ 30). In particular, Cross specifically discloses that “[t]he number of LEDs employed will vary with the intended lighting application and the value of the rectified DC voltage, wherein optimization of such is well within the skill of those in the art.” Ex. 1074 ¶ 30. Patent Owner does not dispute Cross’s statement that optimizing the number of LEDs is within the skill of an ordinarily skilled artisan. See PO Resp. 40. Martin chooses the number of LEDs “such that the maximum voltage across each individual LED . . . is low enough so as to not damage the LEDs.” Ex. 1015 ¶ 22. It also specifically discloses that “[t]he voltage across each of the individual LEDs in the array is the line voltage divided by the number of LEDs in series.” Id. (emphasis added). Consequently, Martin uses “voltage matching” to determine the number of LEDs so as not to damage the individual LEDs. See also Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 120–124 (Dr. Baker explaining that a skilled artisan “configuring Nerone’s circuit 400 would have recognized that the forward voltage of the series-connected LEDs should approximately match the rectified AC voltage output of the above-described LED driver circuit.” Id. ¶ 124.). Martin’s disclosure, thus, aligns with the reason for “matching” described in the ’400 patent. Ex. 1001, 2:24–35.” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 10,687,400 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,687,400
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.