- Saudi Arabian Oil Company v. SK Innovation Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · May 9, 2019 · IPR2018-00159 · APJ Monté T Squire · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 2 was held unpatentable as anticipated by Novomer 1; the contingent motion to amend was granted, substituting claim 5.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which requires demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, we granted Petitioner’s request and instituted an inter partes review for challenged claim 2. Paper 9 (“Institution Dec.”).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s assessment regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Mot. Amend 7. We determine the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner is consistent with the ’979 patent and the asserted prior art, and we adopt that level in construing and deciding the patentability of claim 2.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In the Institution Decision, we determined that the phrase “A poly(alkylene carbonate) represented by Formula 10” did not require construction at that stage. Institution Dec. 9; see also id. at 7 (citing Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only terms which are in controversy need be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy)). Neither party has argued post-institution that this phrase of claim 2 needs be construed. See PO Resp. 2; Pet. Reply 1–3. We conclude that no further construction of this phrase is necessary.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“In the Institution Decision, we agreed with Petitioner that the variable construction of the phrase “each independently” is the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, and construed the phrase to mean that “each variable R81, R82, R83, and R84 is independent from one instance to another throughout the polymer.” Institution Dec. 13–14. Based on that construction, we also determined in the Institution Decision that claim 2 encompasses the following genera: (1) “Genus A,” which includes a poly(ethylene glycol) chain transfer agent flanked by poly(ethylene carbonate) chains (Pet. 24); (2) “Genus B,” which includes a poly(propylene glycol) chain transfer agent flanked by poly(propylene carbonate) chains (id. at 25–26); (3) “Genus C,” which includes a poly(propylene glycol) chain transfer agent flanked by poly(ethylene carbonate) chains (id. at 26); and (4) “Genus D,” which includes a poly(ethylene glycol) chain transfer agent flanked by poly(propylene carbonate) chains (id. at 27). Institution Dec. 12–13. Neither party opposes adopting the variable construction of the phrase “each independently” and the determination that, under the variable construction, claim 2 encompasses Genus A, Genus B, Genus C, and Genus D. PO Resp. 2; Pet. Reply 1–3. We maintain the variable construction of the phrase “each independently” on the complete record.” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 9,023,979 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,023,979 - Fujifilm Corporation v. Sony CorporationNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 3, 2018 · IPR2017-01390 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held that claims 1–18 were not shown unpatentable because the prior art did not establish the claimed volume concentration in the formed magnetic layer.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“define the term “volume concentration.” In the context of the ’331 patent, “volume concentration” refers to the volume concentration of the magnetic particles in the formed magnetic layer.” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“(1) a bachelor’s degree in materials science, physics, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, chemistry, or a closely related field, and at least five years of experience in the field of magnetic recording, or (2) a Master’s degree or higher in materials science, physics, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, chemistry, or a closely related field, with an emphasis in magnetic recording, and at least three years of experience in the field of magnetic recording. Pet. 12; Ex. 1017 ¶ 60. Although Patent Owner does not expressly define the appropriate level of skill in the art in the Patent Owner Response or its Supplemental Response, Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Bain, presents a definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art in his declaration that is nearly identical to Petitioner’s definition. Ex. 2001 ¶ 44. In view of this, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“information, is not sufficient evidence to establish that Mori discloses the “volume concentration” recited in claim 1. Patent Owner does not dispute that there is some magnetic alloy present “in the magnetic layer” of Mori. The relevant question, however, is how much and how Mori’s disclosed values were determined. Unlike the term “volume concentration,” for which the parties offered undisputed evidence regarding accepted meanings of the term in the art (i.e., packing fraction and pigment volume concentration), we have not been directed to similar evidence regarding the phrase “fill rate”/“filling rate” in Mori. Thus, although Mori states “[t]he filling rate by volume of the strongly magnetic alloy powder in the magnetic layer can be equal to or higher than 30%” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 11 (emphasis added)), Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence demonstrating that the term “filling rate” in Mori refers to a final product-based value. As a result, we find that this language in Mori does not establish, by a preponderance of evidence, that Mori discloses the “volume concentration” recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“For all of the foregoing reasons, we find that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of evidence, that the combined teachings of Aonuma and Mori disclose or suggest “[a] dual layer magnetic recording medium comprising . . . a magnetic upper recording layer formed over [a] lower support layer, the magnetic upper recording layer comprising a volume concentration of at least about 35% of a primary magnetic particulate pigment,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 16. Ex. 1001, 11:14–20, 12:25–31. Claims 2–15, 17, and 18 depend from claim 1 or claim 16, and, therefore, include the “volume concentration” limitation of claims 1 and 16. As a result, we find that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that Aonuma and Mori disclose or suggest each limitation of claims 1–18, and, therefore, has not demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that claims 1–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Aonuma and Mori.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 7,115,331 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,115,331 - Fujifilm Corporation v. Sony CorporationSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 7, 2018 · IPR2017-01268 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 15 and 17 are unpatentable as anticipated by Ishikawa; the petitioner did not show claims 1–11, 16, and 18–20 unpatentable over Aonuma or Aonuma and Abe.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“(“POSITA”) at the time of the ’774 patent would have had “a bachelor’s degree in materials science, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, chemistry, or a closely related field, and at least five years of experience” in industry or academic research relating to magnetic tape, or “a master’s degree or higher” in the same fields and at least three years of experience relating to magnetic tape. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 65; Ex. 1018 ¶ 60). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assessment in its Response, and Dr. Talke agrees that it “is reasonable.” Ex. 2026 ¶¶ 25–26. Petitioner’s assessment appears consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art in this proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163–64 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“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)). For the purposes of the Decision on Institution, we determined that, based on the record at that time, no claim term required express construction (Dec. on Inst. 7), and we see no reason to modify that determination in light of the record developed during trial. C.” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedMixed
“considerably greater than Ishikawa’s stylus load of 50–300 μN (Ex. 1015 ¶ 45). The Talke Declaration does not address this discrepancy, and Dr. Talke stated during his deposition that reducing the stylus load would reduce scratching of the magnetic tape surface. Ex. 1030, 108:14–19 (“Q: Would reducing the contact pressure for the stylus instrument reduce the scratching of the magnetic tape surface by the stylus? A: Yes, it would, but you have to remember the other problem is the diameter and size of the stylus.”). Moreover, Petitioner provides evidence that it was not uncommon to use stylus-type profilometers to measure the properties of magnetic tape, even after Bhushan was published in 1996. See Reply 6. In particular, Petitioner points to Saliba,6 which describes using a stylus-type profilometer, under identical conditions to those used in Ishikawa, to measure the surface characteristics (including peak-to-valley roughness) of the backcoating of magnetic tape. Ex. 1027, 7:28–40, 57–60. Petitioner further points to Ohno,7 which also describes using “a stylus type 3D profilometer in accordance with JIS B0601” to measure the surface roughness characteristics of magnetic tape. Ex. 1028 ¶ 36; see also Ex. 1015 ¶ 45 (Ishikawa explaining that surface roughness characteristics were measured “in accordance with JIS-B0601-1994”); Ex. 1027, 7:28–39 (Saliba explaining that surface roughness characteristics where measured “in accordance with JIS-B0601-1994”). Accordingly, we are persuaded that the 6 US Patent No. 6,558,774 B1, issued May 6, 2003 (Ex. 1027). 7 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US 2005/0175866 A1, published Aug. 11, 2005 (Ex. 1028). evidence establishes that a stylus-type profilometer is a suitable device for measuring the surface characteristics of magnetic tape.” slip op. at 19
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner that Ishikawa teaches “peak-to-valley roughness less than about 325 nm” as recited in claim 15. Pet. 24–25; Reply 5–8; Ex. 1003 ¶ 216. In particular, Ishikawa teaches a backcoating layer of a magnetic tape that has a peak-to-valley roughness “Rz of 40 to 250 nm, particularly 50 to 200 nm.” Ex. 1015 ¶ 44. Ishikawa provides five example embodiments of its magnetic tape, and reports the measurements of a number of characteristics of the backcoat layer for each example, including peak-to-valley roughness Rz. Id. ¶¶ 120–134, Table 1. Ishikawa discloses that peak-to-valley roughness Rz was measured using a stylus-type profilometer under the following conditions: Stylus: diameter: 1.5 to 2.5 μm; curvature: 60º Contact pressure: 50 to 300 μN Cut-off length: 80 μm Sampling length: 80 μm Assessment length: 400 μm Id. ¶¶ 45, 49. The reported peak-to-valley roughness Rz values for the five examples ranged from 58 to 87 nm, as shown in the annotated portion of Ishikawa Table 1 from the Petition, reproduced below: Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1015, Table 1). The annotated portion of Ishikawa Table 1 shows the results for the measured characteristics of the backcoat layer of Examples 1–5, with the peak-to-valley roughness Rz values highlighted by a red box. Id. Because Ishikawa teaches that the backcoating layer of its magnetic tape should have a peak-to-valley roughness “Rz of 40 to 250 nm, particularly 50 to 200 nm,” and because Ishikawa presents examples of magnetic tape with backside surfaces having a peak-to-valley roughness of 87 nm or less, Ishikawa discloses “a peak-to-valley roughness less than about 325 nm” as recited in claim 15.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 7,029,774 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,029,774 - Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Corp.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 12, 2018 · IPR2017-00627 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 10–16, 21–23, 25, and 38–46 are unpatentable; claims 6–9, 17–20, 24, and 47 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Although the dictionary defines “periodically” as “from time to time” or “at regular intervals of time,” based on the record before us, we agree with Patent Owner that its proposed construction is how one skilled in the art would have understood that term in the context of the ’345 patent Specification. Turning first to the intrinsic evidence, the Specification explains that “[t]he future and current minimum values are calculated continuously and initiated periodically, for example, every 5 seconds.” Ex. 1001, 8:37–39. Although the Specification later notes that “[i]t will be appreciated that, while specific values are used as in the several equations and calculations employed in the present invention, these values may be different than those shown” (id. at 8:64–67), this passage does not mean that the Specification contemplates arrangements where “periodically” is simply “from time to time.” Rather, we determine that statement from the Specification indicates that the specific amount of time (i.e., every 5 seconds) may vary. Turning now to the extrinsic evidence, the testimony of Dr. Douglas supports our conclusion, explaining that “at regular intervals of time” is the “only . . . definition . . . consistent with the understanding of a person skilled in the art in light of the specification of the ’345 Patent and its use in the particular field of audio signal processing” because [l]ike the “period” of an audio signal itself, which is the amount of time it takes for a signal to repeat itself, “periodically” as recited in claims 6 and 9 and throughout the remainder of the specification of the ’345 Patent refers to actions that occur at regular intervals (e.g., every 5 seconds rather than merely “from time to time”). Ex. 2002 ¶ 48. Moreover, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Hochwald testifies that outside of the context of the ’345 patent Specification, “periodically” means “at regular time intervals” (Ex. 2005, 99:13–15), and when asked about that term’s meaning in the context of the ’345 patent Specification, Dr. Hochwald simply noted that “all I can do is read what it says,” which is that “[i]t’s doing something periodically, for example, every five seconds” (id. at 100:4–6). Accordingly, the testimony from Dr. Douglas, as well as that from Dr. Hochwald, supports Patent Owner’s construction. In summary, we adopt Patent Owner’s construction of “periodically,” requiring “at regular intervals of time,” because (1) this is consistent with how this term is used in the context of the ’345 Patent Specification; and (2) this is supported by the testimony of both experts.” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“Patent Owner responds that, because Helf uses average values (i.e., the average of eight consecutive values), it does not disclose using a minimum value. PO Resp. 17–23. Patent Owner acknowledges that the ’345 patent, itself, uses a “smoothing process [that] produces frequency bins with multiple smoothed magnitude values, ultimately finding the minimum of all of the values,” but contends that “Helf’s averaging process produces a single output representing one average of the original samples.” Id. at 20–21 (underlining omitted) (citing Ex. 1001, 8:14–28; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 52, 63–72). We disagree with Patent Owner’s characterization of the differences between Helf and the ’345 patent. While Helf may ultimately produce a single minimum value, as discussed above, that value is based on a minimum value of the averages calculated over the given time period. At oral hearing, Patent Owner acknowledged that Helf determines many averages values (i.e., the averages of the eight consecutive frames) and determines a minimum of those values. See, e.g., Tr. 22:2–6. The claim simply requires a “future minimum value,” and does not preclude that value from being a minimum value taken from a set of average values. Indeed, such an interpretation of the claim would be inconsistent with the ’345 patent’s use of smoothed values noted by Patent Owner. Ex. 1001, 8:14–28. The testimony of Dr. Douglas cited by Patent Owner does not convince us otherwise. See Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 52, 63–72 (effectively repeating Patent Owner’s contentions, which are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above). Accordingly, we are persuaded that Helf’s minimum value (Mk) corresponds to the “future minimum value” recited in claims 4 and 39.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundMotivation foundMixed
“With respect to its “running minimum estimator,” Helf explains that the “running minimum estimator” is used “when either the speech signal is never absent for more than a second or the background noise itself is never constant in spectral shape.” Ex. 1010, 8:11–15. Helf acknowledges that its “running minimum estimator” is “much less accura[te]” than its “stationary estimator,” which is typically used for background noise estimates. Id. at 8:15–17. As a result, Helf only uses its “running minimum estimator” if “[i]t has been more than 10 seconds since the last update of the background noise spectral estimate due to the Stationary Estimator,” and “[t]he difference, D, between the past background noise estimate, which may have resulted from the Stationary Estimator or the Running Minimum Estimator, and the current Running Minimum Estimator is great.” Id. at 8:32–42. We see no persuasive reason to set Helf’s current background noise estimate (Nk and Ck, considered the “current minimum” by Petitioner) to the minimum estimate (Mk) from the “running minimum estimator” (considered the “future minimum” by Petitioner). The testimony of Dr. Douglas supports this conclusion. See, e.g., Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 119, 120. Addressing the portions of Helf noted above, Dr. Douglas testifies that “Helf only relies on Mk in a ‘worst case’ scenario” and “disfavors the use of Mk, even where Bk is unavailable,” and concludes that “one of ordinary skill would not be motivated to force the use of the disfavored Mk every ten seconds even where the much more accurate Bk estimate is available.” Id. ¶ 119. Dr. Douglas further testifies that “one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to abandon[] the comparison of D to a threshold” because “one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Helf is a signal-dependent system, and it would not abandon its ability to adapt to varying signal conditions in favor of a blind periodic update using a disfavored estimate.” Id. ¶ 120. We credit the testimony of Dr. Douglas over that of Dr. Hochwald in this regard. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 157–159; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 115–120. The testimony from Dr. Douglas is consistent with the disclosure of Helf, while that of Dr. Hochwald is based on conclusory statements. For example, the only portions of Dr. Hochwald’s testimony cited in the Petition in connection with the rationale provided in this challenge are conclusory statements that “[a] person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to modify Helf to update the background noise estimate after every 10 second period based on the teachings of Martin,” and “[t]he skilled person would have recognized it was beneficial to periodically update the minimum noise value to ensure it accurately reflected the current noise level,” which are contrary to the disclosure of Helf noted above. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 158, 159.” slip op. at 21
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedOther
“We see no persuasive reason to set Helf’s current background noise estimate (Nk and Ck, considered the “current minimum” by Petitioner) to the minimum estimate (Mk) from the “running minimum estimator” (considered the “future minimum” by Petitioner). The testimony of Dr. Douglas supports this conclusion. See, e.g., Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 119, 120. Addressing the portions of Helf noted above, Dr. Douglas testifies that “Helf only relies on Mk in a ‘worst case’ scenario” and “disfavors the use of Mk, even where Bk is unavailable,” and concludes that “one of ordinary skill would not be motivated to force the use of the disfavored Mk every ten seconds even where the much more accurate Bk estimate is available.” Id. ¶ 119. Dr. Douglas further testifies that “one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to abandon[] the comparison of D to a threshold” because “one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Helf is a signal-dependent system, and it would not abandon its ability to adapt to varying signal conditions in favor of a blind periodic update using a disfavored estimate.” Id. ¶ 120. We credit the testimony of Dr. Douglas over that of Dr. Hochwald in this regard. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 157–159; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 115–120. The testimony from Dr. Douglas is consistent with the disclosure of Helf, while that of Dr. Hochwald is based on conclusory statements. For example, the only portions of Dr. Hochwald’s testimony cited in the Petition in connection with the rationale provided in this challenge are conclusory statements that “[a] person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to modify Helf to update the background noise estimate after every 10 second period based on the teachings of Martin,” and “[t]he skilled person would have recognized it was beneficial to periodically update the minimum noise value to ensure it accurately reflected the current noise level,” which are contrary to the disclosure of Helf noted above. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 158, 159.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 6,363,345 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,363,345 - Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Corp.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 12, 2018 · IPR2017-00626 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 12–25, 38, and 47 are unpatentable; claims 4–11 and 39–46 are not shown unpatentable, chiefly because the proposed Hirsch–Martin combination was not supported.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“In its Reply, Petitioner contends that, “[i]n this configuration [where W = 1], any purported distinction between windows and sub-windows in Martin vanishes and [Patent Owner]’s argument is irrelevant,” acknowledging that the proposed modification eliminates Martin’s sub-windows. Pet. Reply 5. Petitioner further contends that Patent Owner “incorrectly argues that the use of sub-windows is central to Martin’s algorithm” and “[n]othing in Martin suggests that the use of sub-windows is required.” Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 6–8). We disagree with Petitioner, and credit the testimony of Dr. Douglas over that of Dr. Hochwald with respect to Martin’s use of sub-windows because, as discussed below, Dr. Hochwald’s testimony is not consistent with the disclosure of Martin, while the testimony of Dr. Douglas is consistent with that disclosure. See, e.g., Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 6–9 (asserting that Martin does not expressly require sub-windows); Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 94–96 (discussing Martin’s use of at least two sub-windows for monotonic determination). As noted above, Martin’s algorithm requires a determination of whether or not “the minimum power of the last W windows with M samples each is monotonically increasing.” Ex. 1006, 1094. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to modify Hirsch’s system based on a scenario from Martin where W = 1 because such a scenario is counter to the entire purpose of Martin. Even Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Hochwald, acknowledges that a single data point (i.e., W = 1) cannot be used to determine whether something is monotonically increasing. See Ex. 2005 69:10–17 (explaining that you need at least two data points to make such a determination, meaning W ≥ 2). Petitioner fails to provide persuasive reasoning as to why one skilled in the art would have modified Hirsch’s teachings in a manner that is contrary to the express disclosure of Martin.” slip op. at 14
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner attempts to cure these deficiencies in its Reply, contending that, “[e]ven where Martin’s algorithm is configured to use multiple sub-windows, it still teaches the claimed ‘future minimum.’” Pet. Reply 8. We do not consider this new argument, as it is a new theory of unpatentability presented for the first time in the Petitioner’s Reply. See Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC, 818 F.3d 1293, 1301 (Fed Cir. 2016) (“A patent owner . . . is undoubtedly entitled to notice of and a fair opportunity to meet the grounds of [unpatentability].”) (quoting Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). For at least these reasons, Petitioner has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 4–11, 39–42, and 46 are unpatentable over the combined teachings of Hirsch and Martin.” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Hirsch is directed to “techniques . . . to estimate the noise spectra or the noise characteristics for noisy speech signals” that “can be combined with a nonlinear spectral subtraction scheme.” Ex. 1005, 153. Hirsch discusses use of “FFT based spectral analysis” (id. at 154), for example, which Petitioner cites as corresponding to the “generating the frequency spectrum of said audio signal thereby generating frequency bins of said audio signal” recited in claim 1 (Pet. 27). Hirsch discusses use of an “adaptive threshold” for each frequency bin to distinguish between speech and noise (Ex. 1005, 153), which Petitioner cites as corresponding to the “setting a threshold for each frequency bin using a noise estimation process” recited in claim 1 (Pet. 27). Hirsch describes comparing spectral components to their corresponding thresholds to determine if speech is present (Ex. 1005, 153), which Petitioner cites as corresponding to the “detecting for each frequency bin whether the magnitude of the frequency bin is less than the corresponding threshold, thereby detecting the position of noise elements for each frequency bin” recited in claim 1 (Pet. 27–28). Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that Hirsch discloses each and every element of claim 1. We also are persuaded that Hirsch discloses each and every element of claim 38 for the reasons discussed above in connection with claim 1, as well as the “subtracting said noise elements . . . from said audio signal” additionally recited in claim 38. With respect to the recited “subtracting,” Petitioner cites Hirsch’s discussion of spectral subtraction. Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1005, 153–155). As Petitioner notes, “[t]he spectral subtraction technique shown in Hirsch subtracts the noise estimate from each sub-band or ‘bin’ and sets any negative values to zero” (id. (citing Ex. 1005, 153)), which “is the same technique used in the ’345 patent” (id. (citing Ex. 1001, 6:58–61, 7:16–27)). Claims 2, 3, 12, 13, 21, and 23 depend from claim 1, and Petitioner cites to relevant portions of Hirsch as disclosing the additional limitations of those claims. See Pet. 28–31. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s unrebutted arguments and evidence related to how Hirsch properly accounts for each and every element of these dependent claims, which we adopt for purposes of this decision. Specifically, we find that Hirsch discloses the additional limitations recited in those claims based on the citations to Hirsch therein and the supporting expert testimony. See id. Based on our review of the record before us, the preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s contentions that claims 1–3, 12, 13, 21, 23, and 38 are anticipated by Hirsch.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundMotivation foundMixed
“Initially, we agree with Petitioner that one skilled in the art would have considered Martin’s teachings, generally, when reviewing the teachings of Hirsch, as Martin is specifically referenced in Hirsch itself. Nevertheless, we are not persuaded that one skilled in the art would have modified Hisch’s system based on the teachings of Martin in the particular manner proposed by Petitioner. Consistent with Patent Owner’s contentions noted above, Martin describes determining “[t]he noise power estimate is based on the minimum of signal power within a window of L samples” and “[f]or reasons of computational complexity and delay the data window of length L is decomposed into W windows of length M such that M * W = L,” and provides an example where W=4. Ex. 1006, 1094. Martin distinguishes between “slowly varying noise power” and “rapidly varying noise power” to determine its noise power estimate, with a determination of whether the minimum power in successive sub-windows is monotonically increasing central to its estimation. Id. “If the minimum power of the last W windows with M samples each is monotonically increasing we decide on rapid noise power variation” and “the noise power estimate equals the power minimum of the last M samples Pn(i) = PMmin(i = r * M).” Id. “In case of non monotonic power the noise power estimate is set to the minimum of the length L window.” Id. Regardless of whether the noise power calculation is that for “slowly varying noise power” or “rapidly varying noise power,” Martin requires that first a determination is made as to whether or not “the minimum power of the last W windows with M samples each is monotonically increasing.” Id. (emphasis added). To the extent there can be any dispute on this issue, the testimony from Dr. Douglas supports the understanding that at least two subwindows are required to determine which noise power calculation to use. See Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 95, 96. In its Reply, Petitioner contends that, “[i]n this configuration [where” slip op. at 13
Patent outcomesUS 6,363,345 mixed§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,363,345 - SK Hynix Inc. / SK Hynix America Inc. et al. v. Netlist, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 5, 2018 · IPR2017-00692 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–15 are unpatentable: claims 1–14 as anticipated by Best and obvious over Best, and claim 15 as obvious over Best, Mills, and Bonella.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“construction “requires two layers of IC packages, in which a first IC package (the Board’s ‘carrier’) contains one or more second IC packages (the Board’s memory chips).” PO Resp. 39. Petitioner counters that “[t]he Board’s construction does no such thing.” Pet. Reply 18–19. We agree with Petitioner. Patent Owner’s argument is predicated upon the erroneous assertion that “[e]ach memory chip in the Board’s ‘carrier’ requires a different IC package (i.e., a second IC package) that encloses at least one memory die.” PO Resp. 39. Each memory chip does not require its own integrated circuit package. On the contrary, it may be, as Best discloses, a die enclosed with another die in a single IC package. Having considered the arguments and evidence, we maintain our construction of “memory module” to mean “a carrier that contains one or more memory chips,” where “carrier” encompasses an integrated circuit package.” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Otherwise, we determine that no express finding on a specific corresponding level of technical education and experience is necessary. Here, the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 15
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We have reviewed the arguments provided by Patent Owner and determine such arguments are insufficient to have Mr. Maltiel’s declaration excluded in its entirety. Rather, it is within our discretion to assign the appropriate weight to be accorded evidence. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a); see also, e.g., Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding the Board has discretion to give more weight to one item of evidence over another “unless no reasonable trier of fact could have done so”); In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”); and Velander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“In giving more weight to prior publications than to subsequent conclusory statements by experts, the Board acted well within [its] discretion.”). Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that we should give the entirety of Mr. Maltiel’s declaration no weight.” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“8–14. Pet. 30–37, 44–49. Notwithstanding Patent Owner’s arguments, which we have considered and which we address below, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing, which we adopt as our own findings and conclusions, that claims 1–14 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Best.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 8,874,831 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,874,831 - Alere Inc. v. Rembrandt Diagnostics, LPSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 9, 2018 · IPR2016-01502 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 2 is unpatentable as anticipated by MacKay; claims 3–5 were not shown unpatentable over MacKay and Cipkowski.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Mkt’g Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett–Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). For example, a preamble may be limiting when the disputed preamble phrase provides antecedent basis for a claim term in the body of a claim, the specification underscores that the additional structure recited in the preamble is important, or when the patentee clearly relied upon the preamble during prosecution to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Id. at 808–09. “Conversely, a preamble is not limiting ‘where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention,’” id. at 808, or where the patentee uses the preamble to give “a descriptive name to the set of limitations in the body of the claim,” IMS Tech., Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The phrase ‘control apparatus’ in the preamble merely gives a descriptive name to the set of limitations in the body of the claim that completely set forth the invention.”). The term “device” is not recited in the body of any claim of the ’019 patent,4 the body of claim 1 recites a structurally complete invention, and the preamble phrase “device for collecting and assaying a sample of biological fluid” specifies the intended use of the invention. Thus, we find the claims of the ’019 patent do not support construing “device” as a limitation. See Catalina Mkt’g, 289 F.3d at 808–09.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“device” set forth above requires a single, unitary structure rather than a collection of separate structures that could be used during the test. See id. at 18 (concluding without analysis that the dictionary definition requires a “single, unitary structure”). Indeed, despite the ubiquitous use of the term “device” in patents generally, we are directed to no case in which the term “device,” by itself, was found to require a single, unitary structure. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, Section 2106, I (identifying “devices” as one of the four categories of statutory subject matter); Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson, 712 F.3d 549, 565 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (O’Malley concurring in part) (confirming that, in general, the term “device” is generic). Thus, we are not persuaded that the ordinary meaning of the term “device” requires a “single, unitary structure.” See Ex. 1023 ¶ 66 (Dr. Bohannon testifying that the word device, like the words “apparatus” or “system,” is merely a generic term that does not have a specialized meaning in the art and does not require a single, unitary structure). slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We do not find this argument persuasive. As noted above, we do not construe claim 1 to contain a method step of adding fluid to the container. We construe the first wherein clause of claim 1(c), instead, to require a structure that is capable of allowing liquid to enter the container when the flow control channel is properly disposed therein and is capable of directing this liquid to the sample loading zone of the assay test strip without the liquid having to migrate through an intermediate structure, such as a wicking material. We are persuaded—and Patent Owner does not dispute—that the apparatus of MacKay, as disclosed in Figures 8A–C, has a structure that is capable of achieving both functions. See, e.g., Tr. 26:10–30:20. First, given the open nature of the container, it is evident that liquid may be added to the container when the flow control channel is disposed within the container, and Patent Owner does not assert otherwise. See, e.g., id. Second, even if the fluid present in Figures 8A–C is considered, there is no intermediate structure in the container of MacKay that would prevent additional assay sample fluid from entering the container and being immediately directed to the sample loading zone of the assay test strips.6 Based on the foregoing, we find that MacKay discloses every limitation of claims 1 and 2 of the ’019 patent. Accordingly, Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 2 is anticipated by MacKay.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“discloses the subject matter of claims 3–5 of the ’019 patent. Pet. 26–30. Petitioner also asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to insert the test trip and flow control channel of MacKay in the holder of Cipkowski, in order to prevent “flooding of the test strip as taught in MacKay.” Id. at 29.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 6,548,019 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,548,019 - Intel Corporation v. Alacritech, Inc.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Jan 25, 2018 · IPR2017-01395 · APJ Daniel N Fishman · IPR · Rehearing
The Board partly granted Intel’s rehearing request to recognize the Stansbury Declaration as a compliant sworn affidavit, but otherwise denied rehearing and left institution denied.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedRehearing, deniedGranted in part
“When considering a request for rehearing, we review the Decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the Decision should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to present new arguments. See id. An abuse of discretion may arise if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“the information presented in the petition . . . and any 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). In the Decision, the Board determined that the record before it was insufficient to show that Stevens21 is a prior art printed publication under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 311(b) with respect to the ’948 patent. Stevens2 is one of the references relied upon in the sole asserted ground of unpatentability in the Petition. Accordingly, the Board concluded that Petitioner did not slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“Stevens2 was published no later than April 7, 1995 and is prior art under 102(b).” Pet. 45 n.9 (citing Ex. 1063 in support thereof (the “Stansbury Declaration”)). The Petition, per se, provides no other evidence or argument to establish a threshold showing that Stevens2 is a printed publication— publicly accessible by an interested person of ordinary skill in the art before the critical date. slip op. at 3
- Expert testimonyOther
“attested that Stevens2 was ‘standard reference book on TCP/IP’ that was ‘widely cited and relied upon,’ ‘well known resources to a [person of ordinary skill in the art]’ (Petition at 15 (citing Ex.1003 at ¶¶21-88, including ¶¶27, 60, and FN3), 45 (citing Ex.1003 at ¶1212), FN9).” Req. 12. Initially we observe the Petition cites these paragraphs of Dr. Horst’s Declaration as part of the “Background Of Technology” discussion rather than as support for public accessibility of Stevens2. See Pet. 15–24. Furthermore, incorporating by reference such a substantial portion of Dr. Horst’s Declaration (paragraphs 21–88) is improper under our rules. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). Regardless, even if we consider Dr. Horst’s description of well-known background material (including Stevens2) as support for public accessibility of Stevens2, his testimony does not indicate” slip op. at 5
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 8,805,948 - PTAB · Aug 17, 2017 · IPR2017-00662 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Harvard’s rehearing request, leaving institution in place on anticipation by Buchanan and obviousness over Buchanan and the knowledge of an ordinarily skilled artisan for claims 24, 26, and 29.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“We will grant a request for rehearing of a petition decision if the requesting party demonstrates “an abuse of discretion” in the decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). That party must also “specifically identify . . . the place where each matter [that we misapprehended or overlooked] was previously addressed.” Id. § 42.71(d). After considering Patent Owner’s request for rehearing, our decision, and the evidence currently of record, we determine Patent Owner has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we deny the request for rehearing.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“We are not persuaded that, based on the current record, we have misinterpreted Buchanan’s disclosure. First, Buchanan’s Example 3 does not state, as Patent Owner argues, “that the inventive method can be expanded from forming a multicomponent metal oxide as specifically described in Example 3, to forming a single metal oxide by ‘utilizing one precursor source mixture which contains only one precursor.’” Request 5. Patent Owner leaves out a portion of the statement, which says that the method “can be expanded to include growth of any single component metal, metal oxide, metal nitride or metal silicide film.” Ex. 1005, 20:63–67 (emphasis added). If the statement were to be limited to the use of one of the two precursors discussed in Example 3, it would mean that the method could be expanded only to deposit films containing either zirconium or hafnium, not to films based on “any . . . metal.” It may be that the evidence adduced at trial will show that “any . . . metal” should be interpreted as limited to zirconium and hafnium, but it is not apparent from the present record why this should be the case. If our conclusion on this record that Example 3 can be expanded to include the deposition of films based on any metal is correct, however, then it follows that the use of precursors other than zirconium nitrate and hafnium tertbutoxide is contemplated.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“tetrakis(dimethylamino) hafnium, and tetrakis(diethylamino) hafnium in particular would have been selected as better in Buchanan’s Example 3 than any of the other compounds disclosed by Buchanan.” Request 13–15. As discussed above, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown sufficiently for purposes of instituting review that, at least on the present record, Buchanan discloses using any of its suitable precursors in the method of its Example 3. Given this, Petitioner was not required to show that these particular compounds “would have been selected as better . . . than any of the other compounds disclosed by Buchanan” in order for us to conclude that Petitioner had shown a reasonable likelihood of succeeding in demonstrating the obviousness of claims 24, 26, and 29 over the combination of Buchanan and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. The law does not require that the use of the claimed compound be “better . . . than [the use of] any of the other disclosed compounds,” because “[a] finding that the prior art as a whole suggests the desirability of a particular combination need not be supported by a finding that the prior art suggests that the combination claimed . . . is the preferred, or most desirable, combination.” Bayer Healthcare Pharms., Inc. v. Watson Pharms., Inc., 713 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Instead, it requires only that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the teachings of the prior art. Here, to support its obviousness ground, Petitioner will need to show at trial that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine Buchanan’s teaching in Example 3 of a particular ALD process with Buchanan’s teaching that “tetrakis(dimethylamino), [and] tetrakis (diethylamino) Ti, Zr, Hf, Si, Ge, Sn, or Pb” were suitable precursors for use in an ALD process. In our Institution Decision, we were persuaded that, given Buchanan’s disclosure of using any suitable precursor in the process of Example 3, Buchanan’s disclosure that any of its precursors were suitable for use in any ALD process, and the description of these particular precursors as “preferred” and “highly preferred,” Petitioner had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would succeed in making this showing at trial. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that we abused our discretion in coming to this conclusion.” slip op. at 15
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Banerjee, testified “that a person of ordinary skill ‘would have at once envisaged’ the use of Buchanan’s named precursors in Buchanan’s Example 3.” Paper 11, 9 (quoting Ex. 1003 ¶ 134). Although we noted that this testimony was disputed by Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Gladfelter, we were required to resolve the factual dispute in the light most favorable to Petitioner for purposes of the Institution Decision. Id. (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c); Ex. 2101 ¶ 127). Patent Owner now argues that Dr. Banerjee’s testimony is entitled to no weight because it “is in the form of conclusory statements and fails to adequately explain why one of ordinary skill ‘would have at once envisaged’ the use of Buchanan’s named precursors in Example 3.” Request 10–11. Patent Owner cites to page 21 of its Preliminary Response as the place where it raised this argument previously. Id. at 10. Patent Owner did not previously raise the argument that Dr. Banerjee’s testimony is entitled to no weight, either on page 21, or on any other page, of its Preliminary Response. Under our rules, a party requesting rehearing must “specifically identify . . . the place where each matter [that we misapprehended or overlooked] was previously addressed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Accordingly, we will not grant Patent Owner’s request for rehearing on this basis. Moreover, we note that Dr. Banerjee’s testimony cites to Buchanan’s statement that “[t]he precursor source mixture of the present invention can be used in any CVD or ALD process with any delivery means currently employed” as the reason that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have at once envisaged that the other precursors are applicable to Example 3.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 134 (quoting Ex. 1005, 7:30–34). We need not determine at this point whether this reasoning is sufficient, in light of Dr. Gladfelter’s testimony to the contrary, to establish as a factual matter that a person of ordinary skill in the art actually “would have at once envisaged that the other precursors are applicable to Example 3,” which is an issue to be determined at trial. We do note, however, that, contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, Dr. Banerjee does offer at least some explanation for his opinion.” slip op. at 11
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,969,539 - Fitbit, Inc. v. Aliphcom, Inc. D/B/A JawboneAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 15, 2017 · IPR2016-00607 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 16–19, 23, and 26 are unpatentable as anticipated by Lo; claims 20–22, 24, and 25 are unpatentable as obvious over the specified combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“The broadest reasonable interpretation standard is intended to address just such situations, to encourage patentees to resolve ambiguities in claim language and encourage precision in claim drafting. See Cuozzo, 136 S. Ct. at 2145 (“use of the broadest reasonable construction standard . . . encourages the applicant to draft narrowly. This helps ensure precision while avoiding overly broad claims.”). Therefore, when faced with a claim term which has multiple reasonable interpretations in light of the specification, we must choose the broadest that is still reasonable. Here, that is the interpretation that encompasses a molding formed substantially across a side of the inner molding. We note, however, that we do not read the term as broadly as Fitbit implies, such that “substantially” would permit a small amount of coverage of that single side. We agree with Jawbone that this term of degree was intended to capture insubstantial differences in coverage, such as that depicted in Figure 9 (wherein the outer molding does not cover plug 904 and button 906). Accordingly, an outer molding that is formed substantially across a single side of an inner molding, would “cover all or 7 In our Decision on Institution, we phrased this interpretation as “on top of,” but did not intend to introduce a directional component (such as “above”) to the claim term that is unsupported by the ’811 patent. As Dr. Young understood, “the ‘top’ of the inner molding is the surface of the inner molding, not just the side that happens to point up as the ‘top’ when viewed in a cross-sectional image.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 47. To remove any potential confusion, we have rephrased the interpretation as “across a side of.” substantially all” of that inner molding within the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the ’811 patent specification.” slip op. at 22
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“The problem with Dr. Young’s testimony—and, in turn, Jawbone’s position—is that it rests on a flawed premise. Contrary to Dr. Young’s statements, the ’811 patent does not state conclusively that the purpose of the outer molding recited in claim 16 is protection of the inner molding. The specification states that the outer molding “may also be configured to completely enclose or encase an underlying item in order to protect the inner molding, the protective layer, and any elements from damage.” Ex. 1001, 7:29–32 (emphasis added). But the specification also states that the outer molding may be used to provide “surface ornamentation” to an object. Id. at 6:6–8. Furthermore, the specification acknowledges that “protective” is used in two contexts in the patent: providing protection to the structure to which it is applied, but also “a protective property may be a characteristic of a coating that, when applied, protects a wearer or users” (for example, an anti-bacterial property). Id. at 12:36–51 (emphasis added). Neither Jawbone nor Dr. Young address why, if the purpose of the outer molding is to protect a user, it would be necessary to fully enclose the inner moldings instead of merely covering the surface that is to be in contact with a user. Dr. Young also cites, as evidence of the protective nature of the outer molding, several dependent claims which recite that the outer molding has protective features such as “protect[ing] against ultraviolet radiation” (claim 4) or a “waterproof seal” (claim 6). Ex. 2001 ¶ 51. The flaw in this argument is that these dependent claims depend from claim 1, not claim 16. While they may signal that the outer molding of claim 1 has a protective purpose, they are not relevant to claim 16. By contrast, claim 16 recites that at least one of the inner moldings has a protective property, and the dependent claims further specify protective properties for that inner molding, such as waterproofing, oleophobicity (fingerprint resistance), or antibacterial. Dr. Young hypothesized that there might be a reason to make an inner molding antibacterial, even if it is completely enclosed (Ex. 1029 61:4–13), but was unable to provide a single example of a product with a fully encased, antibacterial inner molding (id. at 62:24–63:7). The fact that claim 16’s inner molding has a protective property, therefore, diminishes the credibility of Dr. Young’s testimony that the outer molding must fully encase and protect the inner molding. In sum, we disagree with Dr. Young’s conclusion that the outer molding of claim 16 must have a protective property, and that in that context the only reasonable construction of “covers all or substantially all” is a molding that encases or encloses the inner molding.5 Jawbone’s remaining” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Reviewing Fitbit’s assertions regarding the written description and figures of Lo, we find that the reference discloses in a single embodiment all limitations of claim 16. Jawbone does not challenge the Petition as to the first two steps of claim 16, and we find that Lo discloses both applying a protective material substantially over one or more of a plurality of elements, and forming a protective inner molding substantially over that protective material. Furthermore, for the reasons discussed above, we find that Lo’s transmission medium is an outer molding that covers all or substantially all of the inner molding. With respect to dependent claims 17–19, 23, and 26, we find that Lo discloses the additional elements of these claims as set forth by Fitbit in its Petition. Pet. 24–28. For example, claim 18 requires that the protective property of the inner molding is waterproofing, and claim 19 recites water-resistance. We find that Lo discloses that its plastic housing provides water resistant properties. Ex. 1003, Abstract, ¶ 121. Jawbone does not contest any of these additional claim limitations or argue separately the patentability of the dependent claims apart from independent claim 16. Instead, Jawbone relies on its argument that there is no outer molding as recited in claim 16 (PO Resp. 23), and that Fitbit improperly combined embodiments (id. at 26), arguments we discussed and rejected above. For these reasons, and based on a review of the complete record, we find claims 16–19, 23, and 26 are anticipated by Lo.” slip op. at 28
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Fitbit responds by arguing that, even if Lo requires ultrasonic transmission, a person of skill in the art “would have naturally selected a coating that does not render the Lo heart monitor useless.” Pet. Reply 23. While this is true, it also admits the premise of Jawbone’s argument. In other words, if the coatings of Huang render Lo’s monitor useless, a person of ordinary skill would not have combined Huang with Lo. Nevertheless, we do not agree with Jawbone’s characterization of Lo as describing ultrasonic transmission of the monitor as “critical.” The portion of Lo cited by Jawbone describes prior art devices, and states that “[p]rior ultrasonic monitors require applying water or an aqueous gel between the transducer module and the living subject to eliminate any air gap.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 17 (emphasis added). There is no statement that the plastic housing of the module—the “inner molding” of claim 16 that must have the protective properties supplied by Huang—must be ultrasonically transmissive. Indeed, it is the transmission medium of Lo that is explicitly described as having ultrasonic transmission properties, and Lo’s transmission medium addresses this deficiency in prior art devices. Id. at 58–59. Lo does not state whether its plastic housing is suitable for ultrasonic transmission, and there is no basis for concluding that the addition of Huang’s coatings—whether or not they disrupt ultrasonic transmission— would result in a non-functional device. We find that Fitbit, relying on the testimony of Dr. Cairns, has articulated a reason with rational underpinning for combining the coatings of Huang with the device of Lo. Pet. 29–30 (stating that it would have been obvious to “utilize the well understood application of hydrophobic materials, such as in Huang, to have imparted protective properties to the plastic housing in Lo”); Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 64–66. This combination would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, on which the experts largely agree.9 Jawbone’s arguments do not convince us otherwise. Furthermore, we find that the combination of Lo and Huang in this manner teaches all limitations of claims 20–22 for the reasons given by Fitbit, assertions that” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 8,529,811 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,529,811
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.