- PTAB · Oct 23, 2023 · IPR2023-00697 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1, 3, 4, and 8 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Rauhala anticipates at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314, which requires demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We are persuaded, on the present record, that both Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposals are consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’825 patent and prior art of record. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). On balance, Petitioner’s proposal of education plus a minimum of two years of experience is a better reflection of the level of skill in the prior art. For example, Rauhala presents functional block diagrams of signal strength information. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, Figs. 1–5, ¶¶ 15, 17, 19, 21. Similarly, Masaaki’s Figure 1 shows “a circuit block diagram of a reception unit 40 of a pager” according to an embodiment of the invention. Ex. 1005, 5:3–4. The block diagram shows various components, including an antenna, amplifiers, bandpass filters, a mixer, an oscillator, and a detection circuit. Id. at 5:5–8, Fig. 1. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill for purposes of this Decision. Our decision, however, would not change if we had applied Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“strength indicator circuits 440 and 450, the written description unambiguously discloses that each circuit determines the cumulative signal level of the desired signal and the interfering signals. Neither circuit determines only the signal strength of the interferer signals, nor does a circuit determine only the signal strength of the desired signal. In other words, the written description does not support a limited reading of the claim language so as to require two separate circuits—one circuit for determining a a signal strength of the desired signal. Thus, based on this preliminary record, we do not construe the circuit limitation as requiring the wireless transceiver necessarily to have two circuits, one circuit for determining a signal strength of the interferer signal and a different circuit for determining a signal strength of the desired signal, because, under that reading of the claim, the only embodiment in the written description would not fall within the scope of the claim. It is well-established that “[s]uch an interpretation is rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support,” which is not present in this record as discussed below. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1584 (Fed. Cir. 1996).” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“As explained above, however, on this preliminary record, we do not interpret the circuit limitation to impose a timing requirement such that the determining has to occur at precisely the same time. Nor at this preliminary juncture do we read a precise timing requirement into the circuit limitation based on written description disclosure that the desired signal and the interferer signal are part of the received signal input spectrum. As explained above, for example, the written description describes a circuit providing a cumulative signal level corresponding to the sum of the desired and interfering signals. Ex. 1001, 6:59–67. As such, the written description describes making the determinations on two signals that are part of the received signal input spectrum. Patent Owner argues that Rauhala does not disclose “two determinations of two different signal strengths together.” Prelim. Resp. 40. We do not agree with Patent Owner on this preliminary record. Rauhala’s disclosure of providing control bits based on the comparisons of the signal strengths to respective thresholds, discussed above, also undermines Patent Owner’s argument that detector DET, which (i) provides one or the other and (ii) needs to be re-tuned to read the other signal, cannot anticipate the claim. Notably, for example, Rauhala discloses setting control bits based on comparisons of the respective signal strengths to thresholds: cM. Signal cA is 0 when signal RSS is greater than S4 and signal RSSn is at the same time smaller than Sn. Otherwise, signal cA is 1. Signal cA is taken to amplifiers Al and A2. Signal cM is 1 when signal RSS is not greater than S4 and signal RSSn is at the same time at least Sn. Ex. 1004 ¶ 17 (emphases added). Here Rauhala describes providing control signals based on the strength of both signals from the receive and neighboring channels, which undermines Patent Owner’s arguments.” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,129,825 - Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Colibri Heart Valve LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 11, 2023 · IPR2022-00878 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 55–72, 78–80, 83, and 84 are unpatentable over the instituted grounds; Petitioner did not show claim 85 unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill In determining the level of skill in the art, we consider the type of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus. Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been a mechanical engineer, medical device engineer, or an interventional cardiologist with a working knowledge of stent-based prostheses for use in a patient’s heart or vasculature to replace and/or repair a diseased valve, intravascular delivery systems for the delivery of such prostheses, and methods associated with the delivery and implantation of such prostheses in a patient. Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1026 ¶ 27). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner[’s] definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 2. 8 The parties have not directed our attention to any objective evidence of obviousness or non-obviousness. reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Terms Defined by the ’400 Patent 1. Both parties discuss claim terms (“substantially conical,” “folds,” “biocompatible membrane [that] does not comprise a treated tissue,” “cusp,” “cuff wall,” “frame,” “mobile leaflet layer” or “mobile leaflet,” “proximal,” “non-transverse”, and “plurality of . . . leaflets”) which are defined by the ’400 patent’s explicit definition of these terms or its explicit definition of a related term (e.g., definition of “folding” also defines claim term “folds”). Pet. 26–28; PO Resp. 26–28. Both parties assert that the definitions in the ’400 patent define these claim terms. Id. We agree. For the claim terms defined by the ’400 patent, Patent Owner has acted as its own lexicographer by setting out the definitions of these claims terms in the specification of the ’400 patent. Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am., LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 10 We note that throughout its claim construction arguments, Patent Owner refers to the claim construction of the word “attach;” however, the claim term at issue is “attached.” We understand Patent Owner to be referring to this claim term and treat Patent Owner’s arguments as if they refer to the claim term “attached.” discussed in Sections D–F below, we construe these terms in accordance with their definitions set forth in the ’400 patent.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“f) Conclusion Re Claim Construction For “Attached” We begin our analysis by reiterating that under the Phillips standard, claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one with ordinary skill in the art in the context of the specification, the prosecution history, other claims, and even extrinsic evidence including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises, although extrinsic evidence is less significant than the intrinsic record. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17. When a patent owner wishes to employ a definition that is different from the ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term, it may do so by acting as its own lexicographer setting out the definition of that claim term in the specification of its patent. Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365. As discussed in Section II.C.1 above, Patent Owner has acted as its own lexicographer and defined numerous claim terms in the ’400 patent. See Ex. 1001, 11:41–13:18. Thus, it is readily apparent that when Patent Owner intended to employ a definition of a claim term that differed from the the ordinary and customary meaning of that claim term, Patent Owner provided such a definition. A person of ordinary skill in the art would infer accordance with their ordinary and customary meaning. Having considered the full record before us including the evidence, testimony, and argument in support of the parties’ positions, we agree with Petitioner that the claim term “attached” should be construed in accordance with its ordinary and customary meaning, which the parties agree is “fastened, secured, or joined, directly or indirectly.”12 Pet. Reply 1; PO Resp. 15. We do not find that the context of the ’400 patent further narrows this term such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “attached” to require attachment “at the same location.” Accordingly, we apply the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim term “attached” in considering the challenges set forth in the Petition discussed below.” slip op. at 22
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“testimony, and arguments in support of both parties’ positions, we agree with Petitioner that Melsheimer’s cusps are substantially conical as required by independent claim 55. The definition of “substantially conical” set forth in the ’400 patent does not require that every part of the structure in question resemble a cone. Ex. 1001, 12:47–54. Rather, it requires a structure that “resembles a cone or portion thereof at some point in the practical use of the structure” and a “cross-sectional perimeter or area of the structure in the operationally closed position that decreases moving from the level of the leaflet apposition to the proximal end of the valve.” Id. (emphasis added). Melsheimer discloses receptacles 18 that are cone-shaped. Ex. 1003, Fig. 4A. Although, Melsheimer’s leaflet 16 and receptacle 18 pairs are not entirely cone-shaped, they do still resemble a cone. Further, Melsheimer’s receptacles 18 have the required cross-sectional perimeter. See id. Accordingly, we determine that these pairs (i.e., Melsheimer’s cusps) are “substantially conical” in accordance with the definition set forth in the ’400 patent. Conclusion For Grounds 1–3 Having considered the full record before us including the evidence, testimony, and arguments of both parties, we determine that Petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 55, 56, 58, 59–61, 63, 65, and 66 are anticipated by Melsheimer (Ground 1). We further determine that claims 57, 64, 78, and 79 are unpatentable over Melsheimer alone or in combination with Eberhardt (Ground 2) and that claims 62, 83, and 84 are unpatentable over Melsheimer alone or in combination with Pavcnik (Ground 3).” slip op. at 31
Patent outcomesUS 9,737,400 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,737,400 - PTAB · Jul 21, 2023 · IPR2023-00466 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 7–9, 11, 15, 17, 18, 20, and 21 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons below, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims on all grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and a minimum of 3-4 years of industry experience in wireless communications networks and engineering, including some knowledge of or experience with distributed antenna systems. An individual with a master’s degree in electrical engineering would require less industry experience (e.g., 1-2 years). Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1003 (Declaration of Dr. Anthony Acampora) ¶ 24). Patent Owner proposes substantially the same level of skill, but does not require the industry experience in wireless communications networks and engineering to include “some knowledge of or experience with [distributed antenna systems].” Prelim. Resp. 8–9 (citing Ex. 2001 (Declaration of Dr. Daniel Foty) ¶ 13); Ex. 1025, 9–10). For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Our decision would not be different if we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“On the present record and for the purpose of this Decision, we agree with Petitioner that the proper construction of “communications unit” encompasses multiple DRUs or antenna units. Although Patent Owner is correct that not every embodiment needs to be reflected in every claim, and indeed, some embodiments may not appear in any claim, we do not agree that there is evidence supporting Patent Owner’s argument that the construction of “communications unit” should be narrowed to the embodiment requiring only one DRU/antenna. The cited claims do not indicate that multiple units may not transmit at the sets of frequencies recited. Additionally, although Patent Owner cites claim 16 as requiring that each communications unit is a single DRU, if that were a correct reading of claim 16, it is not clear what the claim recitation would add, as it would not narrow the prior recitation of a “communications unit” from claim 15. Such interpretations are disfavored. See Cat Tech LLC v. TubeMaster, Inc., 528 F.3d 871, 885 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (refusing to adopt a claim construction that would render a claim limitation meaningless); Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (explaining that “claims are interpreted claim 16 uses the inclusive “comprises” in its recitations, which is an open-ended term and does not exclude the possibility of other DRUs in a communication unit. See Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“‘Comprising’ is a term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim.”).” slip op. at 14
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Additionally, with respect to claim 20, Petitioner argues that “the first frequency band” and “the second frequency band” recited in claim 20 lack antecedent bases and are indefinite. Pet. 42, 64. This issue was addressed in the Eastern District of Texas cases claim construction order that construed “the first frequency band and the second frequency band” as “the first frequency range and the second frequency range.” Ex. 1037, 19–20. For the purposes of this Decision, we agree with and adopt the reasoning and this determination is preliminary and for the purposes of this Decision; the parties may address it further in future briefing in accordance with our rules.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,197,358 - Recor Medical, Inc. / Otsuka Medical Devices Co., Ltd. v. Medtronic Ireland Manufacturing Unlimited Co.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 14, 2023 · IPR2022-00431 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 and 8–12 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not prove the asserted anticipation or obviousness grounds by a preponderance of the evidence.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends, with accompanying declaration testimony, that [t]he level of ordinary skill encompassed a team of people, having a person with a Ph.D. or M.D. and five years of clinical and/or research experience treating diseases of the kidneys and circulatory systems and a person with at least a Bachelor’s degree in biomedical engineering or a related field and at least five years of experience designing catheter-based ablation systems. Pet. 40 (emphasis omitted) (citing Daft Pet. Decl. ¶¶ 64–68). Patent Owner responds that, “[f]or purposes of this proceeding, [Patent Owner] does not object to the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art (‘POSITA’) proffered by Petitioner[] and adopted by the Board at institution as the result remains the same regardless of the definition—the Challenged Claims are valid.” PO Resp. 16; see also Dec. Inst. 15–17 (adopting, for purposes of institution, Petitioner’s proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art). In addition, however, Patent Owner proposes a different level of ordinary skill in the art “should the Board believe that the difference in definition impacts the outcome” of this proceeding.8 PO Resp. 16. Both Petitioner and Patent Owner discuss how” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“to transmit ultrasound energy waves to target renal neural fibers” (claim 1, element 1d) and “configured to [perform certain functions] to the target neural fibers” (claims 3, 4, 8, and 9). See Pet. 23–25; PO Resp. 17–22; Pet. Reply 10; PO Sur-reply 1–2. Petitioner asserts that the phrase “configured to” should be construed as “able to.” Pet. 23; see Pet. 23–24 n.5 (discussing how “able to” has the same meaning as “capable of”). Patent Owner responds that “[t]he Board need not reach the construction of this term as Petitioner[’s] arguments fail under either construction, but to the extent a construction is required, ‘configured to’ should be construed as ‘designed to.’” PO Resp. 18. Based on the complete record, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly this phrase because doing so would not change the result of the analysis below. 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))).” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“the alleged motivation to use the device of Acker in Levin’s renal neuromodulation method. As noted by Patent Owner, after introducing Webster (by patent number), Levin states that “[s]imilar catheter based apparatus can be used to ablate the renal nerve with an intent to treat [Chronic Renal Failure].” Ex. 1004 ¶ 64 (emphasis added) (cited at PO Resp. 39 (discussing how “Levin explicitly qualif[ies] its statement by referring to ‘similar’ (not identical) catheters”)). But neither Petitioner nor its declarants have established that Acker’s ultrasound catheter is in fact “[s]imilar” to that in Webster in a manner that would support the view that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Acker’s catheter could be used to “ablate the renal nerve with an intent to treat [Chronic Renal Failure]” as disclosed in paragraph 64 of Levin—i.e., to perform Levin’s renal neuromodulation method. See id. Dr. Mendelsohn states that Acker’s use of ultrasound-based ablation falls within the “any thermal means” disclosure in Webster (see Ex. 1052, 3:40–42), but Dr. Mendelsohn does not address why Acker’s ultrasound catheter is “[s]imilar” to the catheter in Webster (even after expressly noting the presence of that statement in Levin). See Mendelsohn Decl. ¶ 71 (“Moreover, Webster teaches transvascular nerve ablation using RF thermal ablation or ‘any thermal means’ and Levin teaches catheters similar to Webster’s can be used for renal denervation. Ultrasound ablation disclosed in Acker is a ‘thermal means’ of ablation.”).” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached
“(2) Objective Indicia of Nonobviousness We next turn to Patent Owner’s objective evidence of nonobviousness. Patent Owner alleges (1) unexpected results and skepticism, (2) copying, (3) praise, and (4) long-felt but unsolved need and failure of others. See PO Resp. 60–68; PO Sur-reply 25–27. Petitioner responds. See Pet. Reply 36–37. We have considered the evidence and argument presented by both parties, but do not address the issues in detail. See Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 391 F.3d 1365, 1373 n.9 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Because [patent challenger] has not made a prima facie case of obviousness, we need not address the parties’ assertions regarding the district court’s discussion of secondary considerations.”).” slip op. at 31
Patent outcomesUS 8,845,629 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,845,629 - Frameless Hardware Company LLC v. C.R. Laurence Co., Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 5, 2023 · IPR2022-00356 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 5, and 7 are unpatentable as anticipated by Sprague ’905, claim 8 is unpatentable as obvious over Sprague ’905 and Trainor, and claim 4 was not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“We decline to dismiss or terminate this proceeding on this basis. Patent Owner has not provided us any controlling authority that prevents a petitioner from advancing one construction in the District Court Litigation as an infringement defendant and a different construction as a Petitioner before the Board. Further, we note that 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) provides that the Board shall use the same claim construction standard as the courts, not that the Board shall use the same construction. The Board does, however, “consider[]” prior claim constructions by a district court. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). In any event, the related District Court Litigation here has been stayed; there is no court construction before us, only the parties’ proposals. Sur-sur-sur-reply 5; see Tr. 67:22–68:4 (“JUDGE IPPOLITO: And the related district court proceeding, by my recollection, has been stayed without the claim construction hearing; is that correct? MR. FRANKLIN: That’s correct. It was stayed without a claim construction hearing, without a claim construction order, without a tentative claim construction order, and for that matter, without the briefing on claim construction having been completed.”). Thus, to the extent that Patent Owner contends there is danger of inconsistent results, that danger is mitigated by the stay.” slip op. at 15
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus. Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in that art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or an equivalent field, plus at least two years of experience working in the field of mechanical design and product testing.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 34–36). Patent Owner does not dispute this level of skill. See generally PO Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We begin with the claim language. Patent Owner’s proposed construction proffers language that is not expressly recited in the claim. In particular, claim 1 does not recite a “spring.” Ex. 1001, 10:34–56. Nor does a “spring” appear in the other limitations of any claims. Thus, the express claim language does not require more than spring action. Our reading of claim 1 is consistent with the ’413 patent’s Specification that describes the operation of a spring action force clamping member, but does not describe a clamping member with a spring that specifically provides the spring force. In other words, while we agree that the spring action clamping member is recited as providing “spring action,” we are, however, not persuaded that this limitation requires a “spring.” As noted in the Specification, Figures 2 and 3 of the ’413 patent teach that an outwardly directed spring force may be created by U-shaped sections 58 of the spring action clamping member. Ex. 1001, 5:44–47. The ’413 patent further discloses that “[t]he degree of outwardly directed spring force may be varied by varying the bend radius of the U-shaped sections 58.” Id. at 5:47–49. As such, the outwardly directed spring action force is disclosed in these sections as being generated by U-shaped sections of the spring action clamping member interconnecting with walls 60 shown in Figure 2. Id. at 5:44–47. The Specification does not disclose a specific type of spring structure, nor does it define the U-shaped sections of the spring action clamping member interconnecting with walls 60 as a “spring.”” slip op. at 21
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“(3) Discussion Based on the complete record, we are persuaded by Petitioner that Sprague ’905 teaches these limitations. To start, as discussed in our claim construction above, we have not adopted Patent Owner’s proposed construction that requires a “spring action clamping member” to include a “spring.” See supra Sect. II.E. Rather, we have construed the plain and ordinary meaning of “spring action clamping member” to be that the “spring action clamping member provides a spring action force.” In this way, we are not persuaded that claim 1 requires a “spring” that requires material and physical dimensions according to Patent Owner’s proposed definition. See Ex. 2022 ¶ 27. This is particularly so when the express claim term is broader, requiring only a spring action force, and the Specification of the ’413 patent does not support Patent Owner’s narrower construction. With this construction in mind, we find Sprague ’905 teaches these contested limitations. In particular, Sprague ’905 discloses that the tightening of screw 206 forces clamp member 204 to move in the driven direction of arrow A shown in Figure 12. Ex. 1003, 6:50–51. Sprague ’905 teaches this forced movement brings clamp member 204 into contact with housing 202 at inclined surfaces that cause arms 208, 210 to move toward each other and “provide clamping force.” Id. at 6:51–57. Moreover, Sprague ’905 further discloses that the rail system is “easier to assemble and disassemble” and “facilitates easy field maintenance and replacement.” Id. at 2:39–42, 2:45–46. We find that this disclosure is consistent with the notion that screw 206 can be untightened to release clamp member 204 and move arms 208, 210 away from each other.” slip op. at 39
Patent outcomesUS 9,074,413 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,074,413 - PTAB · Apr 13, 2023 · IPR2022-01577 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–4 and 6–10 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 was anticipated by the HDI 3000 Manual.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons provided below, we determine Petitioner has satisfied the threshold requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Because Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of the ’157 patent is unpatentable, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims based on all grounds raised in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.08(a).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art: would have a degree in electrical engineering, biomedical engineering, or a related discipline, along with relevant experience (at least 2–3 years for a Ph.D., 3–5 years for a Master’s, and 5+ years for a Bachelor’s) researching or developing ultrasound systems or other medical imaging devices. EX1008, ¶¶21–26. The POSA would have general knowledge of ultrasound systems and related technologies as of January 15, 2001. Id. Pet. 7–8. Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s definition for purposes of its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 5. We adopt the parties’ accepted definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“In this case, Patent Owner’s assertion that its proposed construction is “consistent with the specification” fails to articulate or apply the proper standard. For example, any interpretation whose scope is equal to or narrower than a proper construction would logically be consistent with that proper construction. Thus, Patent Owner could only establish that its proposed interpretation is equal to or narrower in scope than the proper interpretation. Comparing the claims to prior art using a claim construction potentially narrower than what is claimed would not be a fruitful exercise because the claim could read on the prior art but not on the unduly narrow interpretation. Cf. Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that a broad claim is anticipated by any narrow disclosure falling within the broad claim). Patent Owner’s assertion that its proposed construction is consistent with examples in the specification is also not persuasive, and no more persuasive than its prior implication that its proposed construction is not inconsistent with the specification. i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 843–44 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[A] claim is not limited to the embodiments described in the specification unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim’s scope with words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.” (internal quotation omitted)). Similar to the situation in i4i, Patent Owner here has failed to explain how the claim is clearly limited to the examples in the specification. Instead, we construe “information of object” to be an identification of the object to be studied in the ultrasound examination, based on its plain language in the context of the claimed ultrasound device. We are not apprised of any language, on this record, in the ’157 patent or prosecution history that otherwise constrains what types of “object” would be inspected by the claimed device. For example, there is no indication that the machine is less capable than other ultrasound machines in a way that limits its use to examinations of certain things in a body such as a liver or a heart, but not simpler things in a body such as blood vessels or more complex things such as a fetus. Accordingly, we see no reason to constrain “object” to something other than those things in a body that a person of ordinary skill in the art would investigate during an ultrasound examination.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“It does not appear necessary at this time to specifically construe any other claim terms. 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)).” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 6,901,157 - PTAB · Apr 13, 2023 · IPR2022-01576 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–3 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable over Petruzzelli.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons provided below, we determine Petitioner has satisfied the threshold requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Because Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of the ’985 patent is unpatentable, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims based on all grounds raised in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.08(a).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art: would have a degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related discipline, along with relevant experience (at least 1– 2 years for a Ph.D., 2–3 years for a Master’s, and 3+ years for a Bachelor’s) researching or developing graphical user interfaces (GUIs) for ultrasound systems or other medical imaging devices. EX1007, ¶¶14–19. The person would have general knowledge of GUIs for ultrasound systems or other medical imaging devices as of April 18, 2014. Id.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction Petitioner asserts that no claim terms require construction at this stage. Pet. 15. Patent Owner does not offer any claim constructions, but does challenge Petitioner’s choice not to offer any claim constructions, and suggests that we should deny the Petition on that basis. Prelim. Resp. 75– 77. We find Patent Owner’s arguments unavailing. First, we note that the parties have not offered competing claim constructions, such that there is no specific claim construction issue between the parties at this time. Second, we note that we consider Petitioner’s interpretation of the claims sufficiently clear based on their application of the claims on the art. Thus, we are able to proceed without explicitly construing any claim terms, and we are not persuaded to deny on that basis. In view of the above, we do not construe any claim terms. 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)).” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“To establish anticipation, every element and limitation of the claimed invention must be found in a single prior art reference, arranged as in the claim. Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 6
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 9,538,985 - PTAB · Apr 13, 2023 · IPR2022-01575 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–6, 12, 13, and 15 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is anticipated and/or obvious over Halmann.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“unless the information presented in the Petition and any response thereto shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Considering the arguments presented in the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in challenging at least 1 of the claims 1–6, 12, 13, and 15 of the ’168 patent as unpatentable under the grounds presented in the Petition. Pursuant to § 314, we hereby institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner “does not believe any terms require construction at this stage.” Pet. 10. At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner has not yet filed a response. For purposes of this decision, we do not expressly construe any terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 1695 (April 30, 2018) (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)).” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“We have reviewed Petitioner’s evidence and argument, and find that Petitioner has sufficiently shown that Halmann discloses this limitation of claim 1 for the purposes of institution.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,867,168 - PTAB · Mar 23, 2023 · IPR2022-01402 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 3, 4, 14, and 16–20, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness over Geiwitz and, for claims 19–20, Geiwitz and Cardio Manual.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“which Patent Owner asserts the ’318 patent, but that litigation does not involve Petitioner. Ex. 2002 (infringement contentions from Rosen Technologies LLC v. Lennox International Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-00732 (N.D. Tex.)). As Fintiv notes, the Board generally disfavors discretionary denial when litigation did not involve the petitioner, unless “the issues are the same as, or substantially similar to those already or about to be litigated, or other circumstances weigh against redoing the work of another tribunal.” Fintiv, IPR2020-00019, Paper 11, 13–14. We consider the Fintiv factors. Id. at 6.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached
“B. REAL PARTY IN INTEREST Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner fails to name Lennox and Ecobee, the litigation parties, as real parties in interest. Prelim. Resp. 26–27. Because no time bar would apply to either allegedly unnamed real party in interest (see Prelim. Reply 1), we decline to address Patent Owner’s assertions at this stage. See SharkNinja Operating, LLC v. iRobot Corp., IPR2020-00734, Paper 11, 18 (Oct. 6, 2020) (precedential).” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“C. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner asserts skilled artisans “would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering or a similar degree and at least two years of professional experience,” and would have been “familiar with the circuitry and operation of programmable, touchscreen thermostats having liquid crystal displays.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 48). Patent Owner does not dispute that definition, and offers that skilled artisans “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related field, and at least two years of experience in working with HVAC systems or thermostat systems.” Prelim. Resp. 5. We perceive no distinction between how the two definitions might affect our analysis. We adopt Petitioner’s definition, as it is supported by expert testimony.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“First, the claim language requires that the control program establish on the liquid crystal display both “a representation of a first virtual button” and “a first legend indicative of a first control function of said thermostat.” Ex. 1001, 13:28–39 (claim 1), 15:1–9 (claim 16), 16:18–26 (claim 19). The claims do not require that the legend is part of the button, or any other specific relationship between the legend and button. Thus, the claim language does not support the construction Patent Owner seeks. Second, the Summary of the Invention states that “an image representative of a first virtual button may be shown on the touch screen display with graphics (alphanumeric characters and/or icons) on or closely associated with the first virtual button.” Id. at 3:53–56. By using a disjunctive, “or,” the Specification establishes that the legend (e.g., 4 Although Patent Owner seeks construction of “a first legend indicative of a first control function,” its proposed construction only addresses “legend,” while maintaining the other claim language. Prelim. Resp. 5–9. We address “legend” in the context of the other claim language and therefore need not address the full phrase. alphanumeric characters) need not be located on the button to which it corresponds. Accordingly, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s asserted construction at this stage. No other aspect of the challenged claims requires construction for purposes of institution. 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)).” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,156,318 - Logan Outdoor Products, LLC, D/B/A Camp Chef v. Lifetime Products, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 22, 2023 · IPR2022-01467 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable under the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“Based on the record before us, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently how Dahle’s distinct embodiments would have been combined to teach each limitation of claims 1, 10, and 15. First, Petitioner has not established sufficiently that insert 26, which is capable of burning charcoal or other burnable elements, discloses the claimed “wood pellet heat source.” Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 34, 42. Dahle’s insert 26 is designed to hold charcoal or similar burnable elements, and Petitioner does not explain how the insert discloses a wood pellet heat source. Dr. Stevick testifies that “[p]ellet grills are the types of grill that integrate the use of wood smoking in place of gas burners or charcoal to cook food.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 58 (emphasis added). Dr. Stevick explains that pellet grills may utilize a pellet reservoir that feeds pellets to an auger, which then transports them to a pellet burner, also referred to as a fire pot. Id. ¶ 62; see also Ex. 1001, 2:51–53 (“The wood pellet burner may include a cylindrical structure configured to receive wood pellets from the wood pellet reservoir via an auger.”). But none of this explains why Petitioner believes that Dahle’s insert 26 (depicted below in Figure 3) is a wood pellet burner.” slip op. at 20
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner disagrees with the Petitioner’s statements regarding a person of ordinary skill in the art, but does not provide a proposed alternative. See Prelim. Resp. 14. Patent Owner further notes that the disagreement does not have any bearing on its contentions. Id. The level of ordinary skill in the art can be evidenced by the references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner appears to be consistent with that of the references, and we apply Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)
“First, Petitioner has not established sufficiently that insert 26, which is capable of burning charcoal or other burnable elements, discloses the claimed “wood pellet heat source.” Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 34, 42. Dahle’s insert 26 is designed to hold charcoal or similar burnable elements, and Petitioner does not explain how the insert discloses a wood pellet heat source. Dr. Stevick testifies that “[p]ellet grills are the types of grill that integrate the use of wood smoking in place of gas burners or charcoal to cook food.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 58 (emphasis added). Dr. Stevick explains that pellet grills may utilize a pellet reservoir that feeds pellets to an auger, which then transports them to a pellet burner, also referred to as a fire pot. Id. ¶ 62; see also Ex. 1001, 2:51–53 (“The wood pellet burner may include a cylindrical structure configured to receive wood pellets from the wood pellet reservoir via an auger.”). But none of this explains why Petitioner believes that Dahle’s insert 26 (depicted below in Figure 3) is a wood pellet burner.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not found
“Petitioner first observes that both references are directed to dual-fuel grilling systems that utilize both gas burners and wood pellet burners. Pet. 93. Even presuming this to be true, it does not provide a rational basis for modifying Sauerwein as proposed on its own; it is merely an observation that the references are analogous art. The mere fact that two references may be analogous art, however, is not adequate to demonstrate motivation to combine, even at this stage of the proceeding. See Johns Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc., IPR2018-00827, Paper 9 at 10–11 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2018) (Decision Denying Institution) (informative) (“Demonstrating that a reference is analogous art or relevant to the field of endeavor of the challenged patent is not sufficient to establish that one of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine its teachings with other prior art in the manner set forth in the claim.”). Petitioner next states that Dahle teaches that dual-fuel source grills can be configured for different purposes. Pet. 93–94. Although we generally agree with this statement, it does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it obvious to add a burner or shorten Sauerwein’s cooking surface and also move its wood pellet heat source directly below the gas heat source.” slip op. at 30
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,292,531
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.