- PTAB · Dec 6, 2021 · IPR2021-00849 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–14, finding a reasonable likelihood that the claims would be unpatentable on the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, and for the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one challenged claim of the ’548 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–14 of the ’548 patent. See SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“For purposes of this Decision, we generally accept Petitioner’s proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art (or ordinarily skilled artisan), which appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosures of the ’548 patent; however, we also agree with Patent Owner that such a definition should be flexible enough to include a person with a lesser academic degree and having experience working in the field, such as an engineer with clinical experience in ophthalmic surgery, as well as a medical doctor, such as an ophthalmic surgeon with experience working with medical optics and lasers. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected in “the prior art itself”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Such an expanded definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art, including aspects of both parties’ definitions, is appropriate based on our review of the record, which demonstrates individuals having a broad array of scientific degrees that collaborate as a team. We note, however, that our decision to institute trial in this proceeding would not change were we to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Both parties provide a construction of the term “cataract incision.” Pet. 7–9; Prelim. Resp. 17–18. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, we determine that no claim terms require construction for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityReference is prior artPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“and evidence supporting such grounds,” including “the prior art relied upon and evidence that it qualifies as such.” Hulu, Paper 29 at 13 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)). The Petition identifies the grounds for institution and the evidence supporting such grounds, and presents evidence that Weikert qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 5–6, 28–29. For example, Petitioner and Dr. Lubatschowski assert that CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY “is a quarterly review series comprising chapters written by well-known specialists,” and that Weikert was included in the 2005 edition of CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY as Chapter 14: Refractive Keratotomy: Does it Have a Future Role in Refractive Surgery? Ex. 1001 ¶ 73. Although minimal, given the type of document involved, and in the absence of any reason to question Petitioner’s and Dr. Lubatschowski’s assertions, Petitioner’s evidence is sufficient to present a reasonable likelihood that Weikert is prior art to the ’548 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,709,548 - PTAB · Nov 12, 2021 · IPR2021-00845 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–17 and 20–26 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would be shown obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, and for the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one challenged claim of the ’024 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–17 and 20–26 of the ’024 patent. See SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“For purposes of this Decision, we generally accept Petitioner’s proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art (or ordinarily skilled artisan), which appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosures of the ’024 patent; however, we also agree with Patent Owner that such a definition should be flexible enough to include a person with a lesser academic degree and having experience working in the field, such as an engineer with clinical experience in ophthalmic surgery, as well as a medical doctor, such as an ophthalmic surgeon with experience working with medical optics and lasers. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected in “the prior art itself”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Such an expanded definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art, including aspects of both parties’ definitions, is appropriate based on our review of the record, which demonstrates individuals having a broad array of scientific degrees that collaborate as a team. We note, however, that our decision to institute trial in this proceeding would not change were we to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“On this record, we agree with Patent Owner that the disputed preamble phrase is limiting. “[C]lear reliance on the preamble during prosecution to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art transforms the preamble into a claim limitation because such reliance indicates use of the preamble to define, in part, the claimed invention.” Catalina Mkt’g Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808–09 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Here, the Examiner expressly allowed the claims in view of the Examiner’s Amendment changing “[a] method” to “[a] cataract surgery method,” thereby transforming this portion of the preamble into a limitation. Ex. 1009, 14, 16, 19; see Catalina Mkt’g, 289 F.3d. at 808. system may be able to make additional types of incisions, we understand the current method steps to require a laser surgery system that is capable of creating the type of “cataract incision” discussed repeatedly in the ’024 patent, the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and Drs. Lubatschowski’s and Hatch’s declarations, i.e., the type of incisions traditionally used in the art when performing cataract surgery to allow for the insertion of slender surgical instruments. Ex. 1007, 3:10–13 (noting that the invention enables “the formation of very small and geometrically precise opening(s) and incision(s) in precise locations in and around the cornea and limbus”), 10:19–21, 11:7–10, Figs. 5A–B; Pet. 12 (noting that cataract incisions have been applied as part of cataract surgeries since the late 1800s), 29 (referencing the small cataract incisions discussed in Weikert); Prelim. Resp. 7–8 (asserting that a “cataract incision” is “a small incision” made in the cornea, limbus, or sclera, to provide access for “slender surgical instruments . . . to be inserted through a small opening in the cornea”); Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 23, 61 (Dr. Lubatschowski describing cataract incisions and noting that he “will apply the prior art as if the incision must be specifically for cataract surgery”); Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 16, 18 (Dr. Hatch asserting that the “cataract incisions” of the ’024 patent are small and made with the goal of minimizing refractive changes). In view of the foregoing, for purposes of this Decision, we construe the preamble phrase “[a] cataract surgery method” recited in independent claims 1, 8, 12, and 22 to be limiting and to require, inter alia, a method step of creating a cataract incision of the type commonly used in cataract surgery to allow for insertion of slender surgical instruments into the eye cavity.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“A petition must “identify with particularity the grounds for institution and evidence supporting such grounds,” including “the prior art relied upon and evidence that it qualifies as such.” Hulu, Paper 29 at 13 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)). The Petition identifies the grounds for institution and the evidence supporting such grounds, and presents evidence that Weikert qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 5, 26–27. For example, Petitioner and Dr. Lubatschowski assert that CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY “is a quarterly review series comprising chapters written by well-known specialists,” and that Weikert was included in the 2005 edition of CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY as Chapter 14: Refractive Keratotomy: Does it Have a Future Role in Refractive Surgery? Ex. 1001 ¶ 73. Although minimal, given the type of document involved, and in the absence of any reason to question Petitioner’s and Dr. Lubatschowski’s assertions, Petitioner’s evidence is sufficient to present a reasonable likelihood that Weikert is prior art to the ’024 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). In addition, Hulu contemplates additional evidence being admitted in a reply to a patent owner preliminary response, as long as that evidence is responsive to the prior briefing. Hulu, Paper 29 at 14. In this case, Petitioner’s evidence submitted in its Reply is responsive to arguments made in the Preliminary Response, and confirms what was asserted in the Petition CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY and the document bears a copyright date of 2005 (or, as asserted by Dr. Lubatschowski, is a “2005 edition”). Ex. 1060, 5, 12; Pet. 5, 26–27; Ex. 1001 ¶ 73. In addition, this evidence indicates that CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY was published by “Springer,” which is a well-known publishing company, and is the type of document that would be expected to be made publically accessible. See Ex. 1001 ¶ 73 (asserting that CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY “is a quarterly review series comprising chapters written by well-known specialists”); Ex. 1019, 220, 224, 227, 228, 230, 232 (providing a “Summary for the Clinician” at the end of several sub-chapters); Ex. 1060, 4–5. In the absence of evidence or argument suggesting that Weikert was not publically available, at this stage of the proceeding, we find the information presented in the Petition, as confirmed by the Reply evidence submitted by Petitioner, demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Weikert is prior art to the ’024 patent.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,233,024 - PTAB · Nov 12, 2021 · IPR2021-00843 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all grounds for claims 1–17, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would be shown unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, and for the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one challenged claim of the ’023 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–17 of the ’023 patent. See SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“For purposes of this Decision, we generally accept Petitioner’s proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art (or ordinarily skilled artisan), which appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosures of the ’023 patent; however, we also agree with Patent Owner that such a definition should be flexible enough to include a person with a lesser academic degree and having experience working in the field, such as an engineer with clinical experience in ophthalmic surgery, as well as a medical doctor, such as an ophthalmic surgeon with experience working with medical optics and lasers. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected in “the prior art itself”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Such an expanded definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art, including aspects of both parties’ definitions, is appropriate based on our review of the record, which demonstrates individuals having a broad array of scientific degrees that collaborate as a team. We note, however, that our decision to institute trial in this proceeding would not change were we to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“On this record, we agree with Patent Owner that the disputed preamble phrase is limiting. “[C]lear reliance on the preamble during prosecution to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art transforms the preamble into a claim limitation because such reliance indicates use of the preamble to define, in part, the claimed invention.” Catalina Mkt’g Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808–09 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Here, the Examiner expressly allowed the claims in view of the Examiner’s Amendment changing “scanning system” to “cataract surgery scanning system,” thereby transforming this portion of the preamble into a limitation. Ex. 1006, 13, 15, 18; see Catalina Mkt’g, 289 F.3d. at 808. Furthermore, contrary to Petitioner’s arguments, the record appears to suggest that there are structural differences between the optical systems of cataract surgery systems on the one hand and corneal surgery systems on the other. See Ex. 2006, 5:30–36; Ex. 2009, 1209–10. Thus, on this record, we are not persuaded that the language added by the Examiner represents merely an intended use for the disclosed system. In view of the foregoing, for purposes of this Decision, we construe the preamble phrase “cataract surgery scanning system” recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 12 to be limiting.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“The ’023 patent explains that a “cataract incision” is an incision created “to allow access for the lens removal instrumentation.” Ex. 1004, 10:17–19. The potential ambiguity in the claim comes, as Petitioner notes, from the fact that the cataract incision of claim 1 “only partially extend[s] through the target tissue,” which would not appear to provide immediate “access to an eye chamber of the patient’s eye.” Pet. 10; Ex. 1004, 10:19– 23, 14:15–21. Although somewhat ambiguous on its face, the prosecution history provides guidance as to how this claim phrase is to be interpreted. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (“Like the specification, the prosecution history provides evidence of how the PTO and the inventor understood the patent.”). During prosecution, the Applicants explained that the invention allows “straight cataract incisions [to be] made at the correct location,” and that partially penetrating cataract incisions are advantageous because they allow the laser delivery system to be located in an “unsterile field,” with the final penetrating incision to be made “by a physician after a patient has been moved to a sterile field.” Ex. 1006, 52–53. The Applicants then explained that despite the fact that partially penetrating cataract incisions do not fully for the lens removal instruments,” as that term is used in the ’023 patent. Id. at 52 (noting the purpose of “partially penetrating cataract incisions” is “to allow access for lens removal instruments”), 55 (“In short, none of the cited art teaches . . . to deliver the first treatment pattern to the target tissue to form partially penetrating cataract incisions – i.e. incisions that allow access for the lens removal instruments.”). The Examiner agreed with this reasoning. Id. at 15 (agreeing that the prior art did not teach or suggest partially penetrating cataract incisions that provide “access to the eye chamber of the patient’s eye”). Given these disclosures, we agree with Patent Owner that “provides access to an eye chamber of the patient’s eye” in claim 1 means that the partial incision is a starting incision, made in the appropriate shape and location, that allows complete access for lens removal instrumentation when completed, for example, by the surgeon. In view of the foregoing, we construe the claim phrase “cataract incision therein that provides access to an eye chamber of the patient’s eye, the incision . . . only partially extending through the target tissue” to require “a partially penetrating cataract incision that, when completed by the” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,233,023 - Satco Products, Inc. v. The Regents Of The University Of CaliforniaAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 19, 2021 · IPR2020-00813 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 8–12, and 18–20 are unpatentable: Okamoto anticipates some claims, and the asserted Okamoto- and Miyahara-based combinations render the claims obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“Both parties appear to be in general agreement regarding the level of skill, and neither party contends that any differences between their proposals would have any effect on our analysis of Petitioner’s challenges. Although we encouraged the parties (Institution Dec. 7–8) to address any material differences between the two proposals in post-institution briefing, neither party addressed the issue. See generally PO Resp.; Reply; Sur-Reply. We, therefore, adopt a level of ordinary skill that encompasses a person with a degree in mechanical or electrical engineering or a related field and the equivalent of several years of experience in designing semiconductor LED packages.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“As detailed below, we determine that Patent Owner has not shown that the term “lead frame,” as recited by the challenged claims, requires that any component lead provide support to the LED chip. Instead, we maintain our construction from the Institution Decision that “lead frame” in this context means a support structure for providing an interface to a semiconductor die, where the lead frame structure, as a whole, provides the support to the semiconductor die.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We agree that Okamoto shows the claimed lead frame, as a whole, providing support to the LED chip as required by claims 1 and 13. As shown in Okamoto’s Figure 1, reproduced above, “lead frame 8 is attached to the wiring pattern 6 drawn around an end of the glass substrate 2 with a solder material 9.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 29. According to Patent Owner, Okamoto’s transparent plate “supports the lead frame,” (PO Resp. 10) and as agreed upon by the parties, the claimed lead frame includes the transparent plate. Okamoto also discloses that the LED chip is on transparent glass substrate 2. Id. ¶ 27 (stating that LED elements “are disposed in a row on a front face of a light-transmissive glass substrate 2.”). Based on this disclosure, we find Okamoto teaches or suggests a lead frame that includes a transparent plate supporting an LED chip.” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“In sum, on the complete record, we find that the combination of Okamoto and Shimizu teaches each limitation of claims 1 and 11, and we find that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had reasons, with rational underpinning, to combine Okamoto and Shimizu.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 9,859,464 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,859,464 - Satco Products, Inc. v. The Regents Of The University Of CaliforniaAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 12, 2021 · IPR2020-00780 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 5–7, 9, 13, 14, 18–20, 22, and 26 are unpatentable based on anticipation by Okamoto or Miyahara and obviousness over the asserted combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“construction requiring at least one lead to provide structural support to the LED chip. First, Patent Owner contends that the plain meaning of the term “lead frame” requires that the leads must form “the structural frame supporting the LED chip.” Sur-Reply 4. According to Patent Owner, “[o]n its face, the meaning is clear” that “‘lead frame’ is a frame formed by leads.” Id. We do not find this conclusory statement helpful in determining whether the leads in a lead frame are required to provide structural support to the LED chip. Patent Owner does not identify any evidence, intrinsic or extrinsic, that the plain meaning of the term “lead frame” requires that any leads provide direct or indirect support to the LED chip. In fact, Patent Owner refers to several dictionary definitions of the term “lead frame,” none of which makes any reference to support. PO Resp. 5 (citing Ex. 1023, 4 (“Lead Frame. The metallic portion of a component package that is used to interconnect with semiconductor die by wire bonding and to provide output terminal leads.”); Ex. 1024, 4 (“lead frame— . . . 2. The metal part of a solid-state device package that achieves electrical connection between the die and other parts of the system of which the IC is a component. . . .); Ex. 1026, 3 (“lead frame the metallic portion of the device package that makes electrical connections from the die to other circuitry.”).” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“The fundamental error in Petitioner’s argument on this point, however, is that the claims at issue in this proceeding do not require “a lead frame including a transparent plate,” but instead “a lead frame having a transparent plate therein.” Petitioner must do more than show that Okamoto discloses that “the transparent plate is part of the lead frame,” as argued in the Petition. And, as we pointed out in our Institution Decision, Petitioner concedes that “Okamoto’s lead frame sits on its transparent plate, rather than the transparent plate being in the lead frame.” Institution Dec. 17 (citing Pet. 39; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 34, 36). During the trial, Petitioner did not engage with this issue or provide any reason for us to diverge from our prior conclusion that, because “the plain language of the claims requires that the lead frame have a transparent plate ‘therein’ . . . [b]y Petitioner’s own admission . . . Okamoto does not anticipate.” Id. In other words, because Petitioner concedes that Okamoto’s transparent plate is not in its lead frame, it cannot meet the requirement of claims 1 and 14 that the lead frame have a transparent plate therein. For this reason, we maintain our prior determination that Okamoto does not disclose a lead frame having a transparent plate therein, and as a result, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 14 are anticipated.” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Patent Owner also asserts that “Petitioner fails to explain how its proposed modification of wrapping the wiring pattern 6 around the ends of the substrate results in a lower-profile.” PO Resp. 17. According to Patent Owner, “Okamoto already provides the alleged lower-profile benefits of Shimizu, as seen by comparing figure 2 of each reference.” Id. at 18. But Dr. Dupuis supports Petitioner’s contention by stating that a person of ordinary skill in the art would know to use a “chip-type” package instead of a “lead-type” package in applications where a lower profile is needed. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 129–134 (citing Ex. 1017, 8:31–67; Ex. 1016, Fig. 1, 33–35; Ex. 1022, Figs. 1–3, 6–8, 13, ¶¶ 2–14). Also, Okamoto states that Figure 2 is “a planar view of the light source device of” Figure 1. Ex. 1008 ¶ 43. And Figure 1 of Okamoto, reproduced above, clearly shows protruding lead frame 8. Id. at Fig. 1, ¶ 29. Figure 2 of Okamoto, however, does not show lead frame 8. See id. at Fig. 2. Thus, we do not agree with Patent Owner that Figure 2 of Okamoto shows a package with a lower profile. Instead, the record supports Petitioner’s position that the modified device created using the disclosures of Okamoto and Shimizu has a lower profile (i.e., leads wrapped around substrate 2 as opposed to protruding as shown by Okamoto Figures 1 and 8). See Pet. 42–43; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 138–142. Patent Owner argues that “Petitioner ignores Dr. Schubert’s explanation that Shimizu was directed towards general illumination, while Okamoto is directed towards a signaling light source” so a person of ordinary skill would not combine the two references. Sur-Reply 16 (citing Ex. 1044, 93:15–96:13). Because we do not see this argument in Patent Owner’s Response, nor do we see anything in Dr. Schubert’s declaration to support such an argument, we do not agree that Petitioner improperly failed to respond to an argument. See PO Resp. 12–21; Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 112–120. Moreover, we find that both Shimizu and Okamoto disclose methods of creating white light using an LED and, therefore, the evidence supports a finding that both references are relevant to a consideration of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“In order to rely on a reference as a basis for rejection of the applicant’s invention, the reference must either be in the field of the applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned.”). In sum, on the complete record, we find that the combination of Okamoto and Shimizu teaches each limitation of claims 1 and 14, and we find that a skilled artisan would have had reasons, with rational underpinning, to combine Okamoto and Shimizu.” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Upon further review, and in light of the arguments in Petitioner’s Reply (Reply 21–24), we conclude that our preliminary determination in the Institution Decision was in error, to the extent that we agreed with Patent Owner’s arguments that claims 13 and 26 require “all layers” of the LED to be transparent. The claims recite “a plurality of III-nitride layers, including an active region that emits light, wherein all of the layers except for the active region are transparent.” Ex. 1001, 21:46–52. The second half of this phrase, which contains the transparency requirement, recites “the layers,” meaning that it relies on an earlier recitation in the claim for antecedent basis of “layers.” This basis is found in the recitation of “a plurality of III-nitride layers.” In other words, the proper interpretation of “all of the layers” in claims 13 and 26 is that the term refers back to the III-nitride layers, not all of the layers of the LED as a whole (such as, for example, a mirror). And the parties agree that the mirror of a conventional LED is not a III-nitride layer. Tr. 18:15–18; 45:4–13. As a result, our preliminary determination that the non-transparent mirror of the APA LEDs prevented a finding of obviousness was incorrect. We agree with Petitioner that the ’916 patent admits that LEDs having transparent III-nitride layers were conventional in the art, and that these are “all of the layers except for the active region” as required in claims 13 and 26. Notably, during the trial Patent Owner did not attempt to defend against Petitioner’s ground for the same reason it raised in the Preliminary Response; instead, Patent Owner now argues that because of the mirror on conventional LEDs, these devices would not meet the claim limitation that “light is extracted effectively through all the layers.” PO Resp. 21. But this reflects a misunderstanding of Petitioner’s ground of unpatentability, which does not rely on the APA for this limitation. Petitioner’s ground is based on the argument that, while Okamoto discloses an LED without a mirror, it does not “specifically describe the layers of its blue LEDs, other than to say that it is a GaN-based LED.” Pet. 61. Petitioner turns to the APA for this missing information regarding the layers that were conventionally used in LEDs; but notably, the Petition does not rely on the APA’s mirror. Id. All Petitioner concludes from the APA is that a person of skill in the art “would reasonably expect the GaN-based LEDs of Okamoto to include multiple layers, which layers would at least include an active layer sandwiched between a p-side layer and an n-side layer.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 203– 205; Ex. 1001, 10:20–31). Patent Owner’s argument that the application of the APA’s layers to Okamoto would have brought along the mirror of the APA LED’s is therefore misguided and unpersuasive. In sum, we agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to conventional LEDs, such as those admitted to be prior art in the ’916 patent, when determining the layers of Okamoto’s LED. And according to the ’916 patent, these conventional III-nitride layers would have been understood to be transparent to an emission wavelength. As a result, we conclude that claims 13 and 26 would have been obvious over the combined disclosures of Okamoto and Shimizu in light of the APA.” slip op. at 35
Patent outcomesUS 10,217,916 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,217,916 - Autostore System Inc. v. Ocado Innovation LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 8, 2021 · IPR2021-00798 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable over the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“storage locations, but that this grid is defined by a structural framework. Ex. 1001, 14:5–6. Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that the language of claims 1 and 23 strongly suggests that the structural framework defines the grid of storage locations, and not merely that the structural framework provides open areas within which storage containers could be arranged in a grid-like pattern.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, for the reasons set forth below, we are not persuaded that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“As discussed in Section II.A.2 above, we construe “a structural framework defining a grid of storage locations,” as recited in claims 1 and 23, to require that a “structural framework” define the grid of storage locations, as opposed to these locations being defined merely by the orientation or location of stacked containers. Petitioner identifies no Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that independent claims 1 and 23 are anticipated by Lert.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“would have been obvious over Lert. Pet. 21–53. Petitioner’s obviousness arguments with respect to these claims do not resolve the issues noted above with respect to independent claims 1, 13, and 23. In particular, Petitioner provides no persuasive argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Lert to have a structural framework that defines the storage locations or to have delivery containers stored within storage containers and delivered to picking workstations. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–8, 13–20, and 23 would have been obvious over the disclosures of Lert.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,796,080 - PTAB · Sep 24, 2021 · IPR2021-00646 · APJ Michelle N Ankenbrand · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claim 20 based on a reasonable likelihood that Ter-Hovhannisyan anticipates or renders it obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2019). 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 the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the Petition, Preliminary Response, and evidence of record, we determine the information presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect claim 20. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“After the Petition was filed, Patent Owner disclaimed claims 1–19 of the ’816 patent. See Prelim. Resp. 3; Ex. 2001. Thus, this decision addresses only claim 20 of the challenged patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e) (“The patent owner may file a statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. 253(a) . . . disclaiming one or more claims in the patent. No inter partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.”).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“’816 patent would have [had] at least a bachelor’s degree in an engineering discipline and approximately three years of experience working on LED lighting technology and designs, including experience with thermal design and heat dissipation.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 53). Petitioner further asserts that “[r]elevant work experience could substitute for formal education and post-graduate education could substitute for work experience.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 53).” slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Ter-Hovhannisyan discloses the annulus limitation, we consider claim 20’s remaining limitations. Petitioner asserts that Ter-Hovhannisyan discloses or would have rendered obvious claim 20’s remaining limitations. Pet. 43–44, 46 (citing Pet. 12, 20–28, 40–42 (Petitioner’s analysis for similar claim limitations recited in claim 1)). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not separately address these limitations. We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments (in the context of claim 20) and Dr. Bretschneider’s testimony and find that Petitioner shows sufficiently that Ter-Hovhannisyan anticipates or would have rendered obvious claim 20. Thus, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenge.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,985,816 - Satco Products, Inc. v. The Regents Of The University Of CaliforniaAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 15, 2021 · IPR2020-00695 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8–10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 20–22, and 24 are unpatentable, primarily as obvious over the asserted combinations including Okamoto, Shimizu, and Miyahara.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“been knowledgeable regarding conventional designs and fabrication techniques pertaining to LEDs, including LED package designs, and would have had at least 2 years of experience in LED design and fabrication as well as at least a master’s degree in a relevant field (e.g., chemical engineering, materials engineering, or electrical engineering), or alternatively would have an equivalent combination of advanced education and practical experience.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 26–27). Patent Owner contends that the person of ordinary skill “would have had at least a B.S. degree in mechanical or electrical engineering or a related field, and three years of experience in designing semiconductor LED packages.” Prelim. Resp. 2; Ex. 2006 ¶ 25. Patent Owner adds that “a higher level of education or skill might make up for less experience (for example, an M.S. in any of the above fields and two years of practical experience would qualify one as a [person of ordinary skill in the art] (POSITA).” Id. (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 67); Ex. 2006 ¶ 25. Both parties appear to be in general agreement regarding the level of skill, and neither party contends that any differences between their proposals would have any effect on our analysis of Petitioner’s challenges. Although we encouraged the parties to explain any material differences between the two proposals in post-institution briefing (see Institution Dec. 8), neither party addressed the issue. See generally PO Resp.; Reply; Sur-Reply. We, therefore, adopt a level of ordinary skill that encompasses a person with a degree in mechanical or electrical engineering or a related field and the equivalent of several years of experience in designing semiconductor LED packages.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“As detailed below, we disagree with Patent Owner that the term “lead frame,” as recited in the challenged claims, requires that any component lead provide support to the LED chip. Instead, we maintain our construction from the Institution Decision that “lead frame” in this context means a support structure for providing an interface to a semiconductor die, where the lead frame structure, as a whole, provides the support to the semiconductor die.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“would have understood that “white light can be created by combining the three primary colors of light” (PO Resp. 11), we disagree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to use one of the three disclosed LEDs (the blue LED) with phosphor to create white light as disclosed by Shimizu. Ex. 1017, 4:50–67. We find, based on Petitioner’s evidence, that “it was common well before the priority date of the ’529 patent to use appropriate phosphors in combination with blue LEDs to create white light.” Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1007, 246, 248; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 113–114, 117; Ex. 1006); Ex. 1044, 100:23–103:10 (Dr. Schubert acknowledging that using Shimizu’s phosphor technique was well known and commonly used to create white light at the relevant time).” slip op. at 26
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not reached
“We have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions, the testimonial evidence, and the disclosure of Miyahara, and determine that the record provides substantial evidence supporting Petitioner’s assertions of obviousness of claims 1 and 13 over Miyahara. Because we agree with Petitioner that claims 1 and 13 would have been obvious over Miyahara, we do not address whether the claims are anticipated by Miyahara.” slip op. at 43
Patent outcomesUS 9,240,529 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,240,529 - Satco Products, Inc. v. The Regents Of The University Of CaliforniaAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 15, 2021 · IPR2020-00579 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 12, 13, 15, 18, 28, 29, 31, 33, 37, 40, 41, 43, 47, and 56 are unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“Both parties appear to be in general agreement regarding the level of skill, and neither party contends that any differences between their proposals would have any effect on our analysis of Petitioner’s challenges. Although we encouraged the parties to address any material differences between the two proposals in post-institution briefing (see Institution Dec. 8), neither party addressed the issue. See generally PO Resp.; Reply; Sur-Reply. We, therefore, adopt a level of ordinary skill that encompasses a person with a degree in mechanical or electrical engineering or a related field and the equivalent of several years of experience in designing semiconductor LED packages.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“As detailed below, we disagree with Patent Owner that the term “lead frame,” as recited in the challenged claims, requires that any component lead provide support to the LED chip. Instead, we maintain our construction from the Institution Decision that “lead frame” in this context means a support structure for providing an interface to a semiconductor die, where the lead frame structure, as a whole, provides the support to the semiconductor die.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“between Basin’s device and that of the ’789 patent.14 Because, as above, we see no evidence that the only difference between those two devices is whether or not the leads provide support to the LED chip, we do not find Dr. Schubert’s conclusion persuasive. We, therefore, agree with Petitioner that Basin does not support Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Patent Owner also relies on testimony from Dr. Schubert (PO Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 63–69, 75–86)) stating that “[t]he leads either directly support the LED chip (in the absence of a transparent plate) or indirectly support the LED chip through the transparent plate (in the presence of a transparent plate).” Ex. 2006 ¶ 86. However, Dr. Schubert does not cite to any evidence, intrinsic or extrinsic, supporting this statement. Id. In fact, earlier in the same section of his testimony, Dr. Schubert states that (1) “[a] lead frame in the context of LEDs is understood by those of skill in the art as a support structure for an LED chip that comprises at least two conductive leads, an anode lead and cathode lead that are structurally stable and do not require support from another component” (Ex. 2006 ¶ 63); (2) “[t]he term ‘lead frame’ is a very commonly used term in the field of LEDs” that “refers to a frame (support structure) for LEDs that includes leads (electrodes) for making electrical connections between an LED and other structures (e.g., an LED driver or power supply)” (id. ¶ 76); and (3) “[i]n the context of the 14 Dr. Schubert also refers to the devices of Shimizu and Ishizaka, which are similar to the device in Basin in that they allegedly use chip-on-board packaging instead of a lead frame. Id. at 69 (citing Ex. 1017, 8:51–54; Ex. 1016 ¶ 33). However, as with Basin, Dr. Schubert does not address the other differences between the devices of Shimizu and Ishizaka or explain why support provided by leads is the relevant factor distinguishing a lead frame package from a chip-on-board package. Id. claims at issue and in light of the specification, the ’789 Patent (and related patents) teach that the transparent plate, with the leads is involved in the support of the LED chip” (id. ¶ 84). However, all of these statements support a finding that the lead frame supports the LED chip, but they do not require that any leads support the LED chip. Dr. Schubert does not explain the logical step between the requirement of the lead frame providing support and the leads of the lead frame providing support except to state that “[i]n the context of the claims at issue and in light of the specification, the ’789 (and related patents) teach that the transparent plate, with the leads, is involved in the support of the LED chip” and “[t]herefore, in my opinion a POSITA reading the ’789 patent would understand that the lead frame recited in the claims include[s] a transparent plate, where both the transparent plate and conductive leads provide [structural] support to the LED.” Id. ¶¶ 84–85. Because this conclusion is not supported by intrinsic or extrinsic evidence, we are not persuaded that Dr. Schubert’s testimony provides significant support to Patent Owner’s proposed construction.” slip op. at 15
- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 12, 13, 15, 18, 28, 29, 31, 33, 37, 40, 41, 43, 47, and 56 of the ‘789 patent are unpatentable. Claims Claims Not 35 Shown Shown Claim(s) U.S.C. § Reference(s) Unpatentable Unpatentable 1, 9, 29, 37 102(b) Nishida 1, 9, 29, 37” slip op. at 43
Patent outcomesUS 7,781,789 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,781,789 - Ty Inc. v. Softbelly’S, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 10, 2021 · IPR2020-00689 · APJ John E Schneider · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 15 and 16 are unpatentable: claim 15 as anticipated by Ogawa and obvious over Ogawa and Masahiro; claim 16 as obvious over Ogawa with Cherk, and with Masahiro and Cherk.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We have considered the arguments presented by the parties and the evidence of record and are not persuaded that our original definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art was in error. While the claims at issue refer to an optical grade fabric, we note that the fabric is not the invention. Rather, as stated in the Specification, the field of the invention is “cleaning tools for electronic display screens, and more specifically to cleaning tools for computer display screens and the like.” Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 4–6. The claims further narrow the field of the invention to cleaning tools in the form of a doll-like structure. Id. at col. 6, l. 37. Based on the forgoing, we continue to apply the same definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art we used in our Decision on Institution. However, the findings and conclusions set forth below would have been the same had we instead adopted Patent Owner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We have considered the arguments presented by the parties and the evidence of record and conclude that Petitioner has the better position. The term “display screen,” as used in the challenged claims, refers to an intended use of the cleaning tool. As such, it does limit the scope of the claims. We begin by noting that the challenged claims are directed to a device or apparatus. Ex. 1002, col. 2, ll. 8–13. As such, the claims “cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (1990). The preamble of both claims 6 and 11 read in part: “doll-like figure for cleaning or wiping the surface of a display screen.” Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 37–38; col. 7, ll. 1–2. Both claims end with the clause “providing a pliant cleaning tool for wiping a display screen.” Id. at col. 6, ll. 50–51; col. 7, ll. 13–14. These phrases are crafted in terms of a device for performing a specific function or use. This type of phrase has been found to recite an intended use and not a physical limitation. See Marrin v. Griffin, 599 F.3d 1290, 1294–96 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The recitation of the intended use in the body of the claim does not affect our analysis. The term for wiping a display screen still recites a use of the device that does not impart a structural limitation.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We have considered the testimony of both experts and the evidence of record and find Mrs. Ryan’s testimony to be more persuasive. Therefore, we agree with Petitioner that Ogawa discloses a wiping tool which has an inner chamber formed by a strip of optical grade fabric — the wipe portion — and a non-optical grade fabric — the gripping body. We give more weight to Mrs. Ryan’s testimony based on her extensive experience in designing plush toys. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3–5. Mrs. Ryan has worked in the area of plush toy design for over twenty-six years and has taught classes relating to plush toy design. Id. ¶¶ 3–4; page 40. In addition, Mrs. Ryan’s testimony regarding how one skilled in the art would envision the wiping tool of Ogawa is consistent with the evidence of record. For example, King4 teaches that teddy bears are formed by joining pieces of fabric creating an inner pocket into which stuffing is inserted. Ex. 1026, 7–12. Cockrill5 also teaches that teddy bears are traditionally made by cutting out the material, sewing the pieces together, and then stuffing the bears. Ex. 1025, 67.” slip op. at 17
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“We have considered the testimony of both experts and the evidence of record and find Mrs. Ryan’s testimony to be more persuasive. Therefore, we agree with Petitioner that Ogawa discloses a wiping tool which has an inner chamber formed by a strip of optical grade fabric — the wipe portion — and a non-optical grade fabric — the gripping body. We give more weight to Mrs. Ryan’s testimony based on her extensive experience in designing plush toys. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3–5. Mrs. Ryan has worked in the area of plush toy design for over twenty-six years and has taught classes relating to plush toy design. Id. ¶¶ 3–4; page 40. In addition, Mrs. Ryan’s testimony regarding how one skilled in the art would envision the wiping tool of Ogawa is consistent with the evidence of record. For example, King4 teaches that teddy bears are formed by joining pieces of fabric creating an inner pocket into which stuffing is inserted. Ex. 1026, 7–12. Cockrill5 also teaches that teddy bears are traditionally made by cutting out the material, sewing the pieces together, and then stuffing the bears. Ex. 1025, 67. Dr. Adanur’s experience and expertise appears to be primarily focused on textiles. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 8–24. While Dr. Adanur testified that he has some experience in the area of plush toys, that experience appears to be limited to selection of fabric that could be used to manufacture plush toys and making several puppets at home to earn extra money. Ex. 1027, 52, 57–59, 78–79. In addition, Dr. Adanur does not cite to any evidence other than Ogawa to support his opinions as to what one skilled in the art would envision upon reading Ogawa. See Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 84–87. Patent Owner, however, contends that Ogawa is silent as to whether the tool has an inner chamber made from a piece of optical grade fabric and a piece of non-optical grade fabric. PO Resp. 1, 22. 4 King, Make Your Own Teddy Bears, 1985 (Ex. 1026) (“King”). 5 Cockrill, The Teddy Bear Encyclopedia, 1993 (Ex. 1025) (“Cockrill”).” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 6,195,831 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,195,831
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.