- Ricetec, Inc. v. BASF SEInstitutedPTAB · Mar 11, 2022 · PGR2021-00113 · APJ Tina E Hulse · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–15 because Petitioner showed it is more likely than not that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable over Hinga or Hinga2013.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), which provides that a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . ., if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” Upon considering the arguments and evidence presented by the parties, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“We find Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the “effective amount” limitation of each of the challenged claims is not adequately supported by the Mankin Application. Although the Mankin Application does generally describe herbicidal compositions that “comprise an herbicidal effective amount” of at least one ACCase herbicide (Ex. 2034 ¶ 233), that generic disclosure is not sufficient written description support for the specific effective amounts recited in the claims. Indeed, we agree with Petitioner that the Mankin Application does not disclose any effective amounts of any of the recited herbicides within the claimed ranges, let alone one that causes less than 10% injury. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 90, 91. 94; Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 128, 237 (Table 1), 248, Fig. 17. description is satisfied because the Mankin Application’s disclosure of an herbicide tolerance study for a DIM herbicide would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to the specific effective amounts of the FOP herbicides recited in the claims. Prelim. Resp. 72–73. Nor are we persuaded that there is adequate written description support because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to ascertain the effective amounts for each herbicide based on the knowledge in the art. Id. at 73. That is not the test for written description. “It is not sufficient for purposes of the written description requirement of § 112 that the disclosure, when combined with the knowledge in the art, would lead one to speculate as to modifications that the inventor might have envisioned, but failed to disclose.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Rather, “[e]ach application in the chain must describe the claimed features.” Id.” slip op. at 15
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)EnabledNot shown unpatentable
“We note that Petitioner does not appear to consider the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art in evaluating the amount of guidance needed to enable the claimed invention. As our reviewing court states, “[a] patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art.” Falkner v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). Although the ’345 patent does not provide a specific working example of the G2096S mutation, we are not persuaded on this record that that necessarily weighs heavily in favor of undue experimentation given the prior knowledge in the art that that mutation confers herbicide tolerance to rice plants and the deposit of the G2096S mutation seed, as taught by Hinga and Hinga2013. Ex. 1003 ¶ 21; Ex. 1004 ¶ 54.” slip op. at 26
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“Analysis Anticipation requires that “each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). “To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence ‘must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill.’” Id. (citation omitted). Moreover, to anticipate, a prior art reference must “disclose[] within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008).” slip op. at 31
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,096,345 - New World Medical, Inc. v. The Regents Of The University Of CaliforniaAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 11, 2022 · IPR2021-00066 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–11 are unpatentable: claims 1–11 are anticipated by Quintana and obvious over Quintana; the Board did not reach the Jacobi ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Patent Owner filed a motion to exclude evidence (Paper 38); Petitioner opposed (Paper 41); and Patent Owner filed a reply in support of its motion (Paper 43). Petitioner also filed a motion to exclude evidence (Paper 39); Patent Owner opposed (Paper 40); and Petitioner filed a reply in support of its motion (Paper 42). We addressed (and denied) the parties’ motions to exclude in Paper 49.” slip op. at 3
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedOther
“We “conclude[d] that the better course is to have a complete record of the evidence,” and, therefore, denied Petitioner’s Motion, but also explained that “to the extent that Dr. Condon’s testimony and Patent Owner’s reliance thereon ventures into areas the witness has conceded he either does not understand or has inadequately analyzed,” we would accord it little weight, as distinguished “from that relating to Dr. Condon’s technical expertise in, for example, anatomy, eye surgery, and his own reading of evidence.” Order 13. Therefore, it is through this lens that we consider and analyze Dr. Condon’s testimony here.” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 24). On page 18 of our Institution Decision, we provisionally accepted Petitioner’s proposed definition, which was not opposed by Patent Owner, and is consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’544 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). As Patent Owner expressly agrees with our analysis, we apply Petitioner’s proposed definition here. See PO Resp. 11, n.4. C.” slip op. at 25
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for petitioner
“1. “A device useable to create an opening in the trabecular meshwork of the eye” Independent claim 1 is directed to “[a] device useable to create an opening in the trabecular meshwork of the eye” and having a “foot member . . . advanceable, tip first, through Schlemm’s Canal to facilitate performance of a surgical procedure using the surgical instrument.” Ex. 1001, 23:4–5, 23:18–20. As an initial matter, we consider the preamble of claim 1 limiting here because a device that “create[s] an opening in the trabecular meshwork” recites or, at a minimum, implies, “essential structure or steps” required for the insertion and advancement of the instrument through Schlemm’s Canal as set forth in [1.d]. See Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002).8” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 9,999,544 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,999,544 - Allgenesis Biotherapeutics Inc. v. Cloudbreak Therapeutics, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 15, 2022 · IPR2020-01438 · APJ Ulrike W Jenks · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 4 and 5 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence, including unexpected results, did not establish obviousness over the asserted prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner
“to the earliest effective filing date of June 6, 2015, the filing date of the ’063 provisional application, Allgenesis PCT thereby does not qualify as prior art against the ’820 patent. See above II.D. Accordingly, Petitioner has not met the burden of establishing that the claims are unpatentable as obvious over Allgenesis PCT. F.” slip op. at 59
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“the reasoning to combine the references, and the evidence of secondary considerations in the form of surprising unexpected results, we determine that Petitioner has not shown that claims 4 and 5 of the ’820 patent are unpatentable. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 4 and 5 of the ’820 patent are unpatentable.” slip op. at 78
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundNot shown unpatentable
“equivalent for another. See In re Omeprazole Patent Litig., 483 F.3d 1364, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[T]his court finds no . . . error in [the] conclusion that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one ARC [alkaline reactive compound] for another.”). “Conclusive proof of efficacy is not necessary to show obviousness. All that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.” Hoffman-La Roche Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 748 F.3d 1326, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2014).” slip op. at 69
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Unexpected resultsObjective indicia with nexusObjective indicia outweighedDecided for patent owner
“Ex. 1001, 11. Table 2 shows three observation days comparing 0.05% sunitinib TID with 0.05% nintedanib. On all three days, 0.05% nintedanib TID shows significant improvements over 0.05% sunitinib TID. For example, on day 12, the 0.05% nintedanib TID group had a negative value (indicating a reduction in neovascular area), while the 0.05% sunitinib TID group had a positive number (indicating a growth in neovascular area) and the difference between the two is also statistically significant with a P value of 0.016. The comparative data of measuring the reduction in neovascularization in an established animal model as shown the ’820 patent provides a sufficient nexus to the claimed method of reducing hyperemia. The data presented in Table 2 (shown above) shows that nintedanib functions unexpectedly better than sunitinib. The ’820 patent further explains that nintedanib inhibits three kinase targets, FGFR4, Lyn and Src, that are not inhibited by sunitinib, pazopanib, or other common kinases inhibitors. Ex. 1001, 12:14–17; see also id. at 11 (Table 1). In addition, “nintedanib’s potencies on FGFRl-3 are substantially higher than that of sunitinib that may also contribute to the superior efficacy of nintedanib in the cornea suture rabbit model.” Id. 12:17–20. Given these surprising and unexpected results that nintedanib has improved efficacy and a better safety profile compared to sunitinib as reported in the ’820 patent specification convinces us that on balance the weight of the evidence supports a finding that claims 4 and 5 have not been shown to be unpatentable.” slip op. at 77
Patent outcomesUS 10,149,820 not shown unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 10,149,820 - PTAB · Feb 14, 2022 · IPR2021-01324 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all asserted grounds for claims 1–20, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“Because the art in the Petition is the same or substantially the same as that previously presented to the Office, we move to part two of the Advanced Bionics analysis. See Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 7–8 (spacing added). For purposes of the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s proposal. Prelim. Resp. 14. Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed on this record, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“[A]s a general rule preamble language is not treated as limiting.” Arctic Cat Inc. v. GEP Power Prods., Inc., 919 F.3d 1320, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citations omitted). Exceptions arise where, for example, the preamble (1) “recites essential structure or steps”; (2) provides antecedent basis for terms in the claim body; or (3) was relied on during prosecution to distinguish the claimed invention from prior art. Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “[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 slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for patent owner
“On this record, we disagree with Petitioner that claim 3 does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the claim. Stated differently, claim 3 appears to permit some manipulative differences in the steps of the claim. For example, claim 3, by virtue of its dependency from claim 1, recites a range of doses (about 0.1 mg to about 2.4 mg), and Petitioner has not established that all of the claimed doses would provide a plasma epinephrine concentration that is efficacious for the treatment of anaphylaxis in all claimed mammals. Petitioner contends that the Specification “confirms that the claimed dosage contains a ‘therapeutically effective amount’ of epinephrine,” but fails to specifically cite any particular portion of the Specification to support this contention. See Pet. 17–18 (merely citing “Supra.”12); cf. Bristol-Myers Squibb, 246 F.3d at 1375 (finding that the specification described the claimed dosages as “antineoplastically effective”). Claim 3 also embraces a variety of aqueous nasal spray pharmaceutical formulations. The record reflects that the composition of the intranasal formulation could affect the absorption of epinephrine. See, e.g., Ex. 1006, 4 (“Another issue that could affect IN [intranasal] absorption is the nasal spray formulation.”); Ex. 1002 ¶ 146; Ex. 1003 ¶ 419. Thus, claim 3 permits manipulation of the epinephrine dose and formulation to achieve the recited result, and on this record Petitioner has not established that despite such manipulations, the claimed method would nevertheless result in a plasma epinephrine concentration that is efficacious for the treatment of anaphylaxis. This conclusion is supported by the doctrine of claim differentiation. See Bristol-Meyers Squibb, 246 F.3d at 1376 (noting that the doctrine creates 12 To the extent Petitioner’s use of “[s]upra” is intended to point to the previous citation, the previously-cited material, i.e., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 64–65 and Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 64–65, also does not point to any portion of the Specification that specifically ties the claimed dosage range and formulations to either therapeutically effective amounts of epinephrine, or to plasma epinephrine concentrations that are efficacious for the treatment of anaphylaxis, in the claimed mammals. a presumption that each claim in a patent has a different scope). Petitioner recognizes that “the intended plasma epinephrine concentration efficacious for the treatment of anaphylaxis of claim 3 is the distinction between claim 1 and claim 3.” Pet. 18. Petitioner argues, however, that claim differentiation is not a “hard and fast rule of construction,” and “cannot save a non-limitation.” Id. (quoting Bristol-Meyers Squibb, 246 F.3d at 1376; citing Copaxone, 906 F.3d at 1023). But unlike the claims in Bristol-Meyers Squibb and Copaxone, claim 3 here does appear to permit a manipulative difference in the claimed steps, and thus “limit[s] the options covered by the subject matter” of claim 1 “to options that produce the concretely specified results.” L’Oréal USA, Inc. v. Olaplex, Inc., 844 F. App’x 308, 324 (Fed. Cir. 2021).” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,682,414 - PTAB · Jan 27, 2022 · PGR2021-00107 · APJ Robert A Pollock · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claim 3, finding it more likely than not unpatentable as anticipated by Gille503, Gille501, and Mohl.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of post-grant review is authorized by statute only when “the information presented in the petition . . . demonstrate[s] that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. Upon considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the additional briefing, and the cited evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has satisfied its burden under 35 U.S.C. § 324 to show that it is more likely than not that claim 3 is unpatentable. A.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityOther
“Real Parties-in-Interest Petitioner identifies itself as the real party-in-interest. Pet. 3. Patent Owner identifies itself as the real-party-in-interest. Paper 6, 1. B.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have “an M.D. or a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering or a similar field, as well as two or more years of work experience with catheters or similar medical devices” or would have “a Ph.D. in mechanical or biomedical engineering, or in a similar field.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 72). Patent Owner asserts that “[b]ecause no issue that must be decided by the Board depends on the level of ordinary skill, the Board need not decide (and the Patent Owner, without waiver or disclaimer, does not address) it.” Prelim. Resp. 8. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill to determine whether it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail with respect to claim 3. The parties are welcome to revisit this definition at trial. G.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“At this stage of the proceeding, we determine that construction of the identified claim terms is not necessary for purposes of this Decision. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803 (only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy). As is evident in sections II.D and II.E, below, however, Patent Owner implicitly construes language of the asserted claims when responding to Petitioner’s anticipation arguments. We consider the meaning of that language in connection with the parties’ anticipation arguments. Although, for the purpose of institution, we provisionally apply the plain and ordinary meaning to all disputed terms, the parties are encouraged to formally address the construction of any disputed terms at trial.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,926,069 - Genus PLC v. Inguran, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Dec 14, 2021 · IPR2021-01027 · APJ Ulrike W Jenks · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–5 on all three grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would be anticipated or obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a)(2020). Inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The Supreme Court held that a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least “an undergraduate or graduate degree in genetics, genomics, and/or animal breeding, along with several years of relevant applied research and/or industry work experience in the same fields, including in swine” and “would have been well-acquainted with methods of commercial breeding of lines and breeds within a genetic nucleus for the purpose of promoting genetic progress, the use of sex-selected semen in breeding schemes, including those within the genetic nucleus, genetic evaluation of livestock for desirable and undesirable traits, and the use of genetic markers, e.g., SNPs, and various other genotype data, to guide selection strategies to 1 The relevant sections of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (Sept. 16, 2011), took effect on March 16, 2013. Because the priority application from which the ’734 patent issued was filed before that date, our citations to Title 35 are to its pre-AIA version. 2 Petitioner contends that claims 1–5 are anticipated by Dekkers, as evidenced by either Maxwell, Garner, or Kim. Pet. 26–41. Alternatively, Petitioner contends that claims 1–5 are obvious over Dekkers and either Maxwell, Garner, or Kim. Pet. 41–45. 3 In the table identifying ground III, Petitioner does not list Kim. Pet. 4. However, in the arguments provided for this ground in regard to claim 5, Petitioner includes Kim. Pet. 48. improve desirable traits and/or minimize undesirable traits.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 22). Patent Owner states, “[s]olely for purposes of this Preliminary Response, Patent Owner and its expert apply this portion of Petitioner’s proposal, while reserving the right to dispute it later.” Prelim. Resp. 17. On this record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art as Patent Owner also does. We also note that the prior art itself demonstrates the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. 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 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). B. Principles of Law” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“would not find the additional language in Petitioner’s proposed definition accurate in describing a genetic nucleus. Prelim Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 21). Patent Owner contends “that the plain and ordinary meaning of ‘genetic nucleus’ is ‘an animal herd comprising one or more lines and positioned at the top of a multi-level pyramidal hierarchy of herds in a commercial herd breeding structure.’” Id. (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 24 (“The ’734 Patent does not specify this additional requirement as part of the meaning of ‘genetic nucleus,’ nor would the additional language be accurate in describing every genetic nucleus.”). On the present record, Petitioner has the better argument. The ’734 specification describes pig breeding as pyramid with the “nucleus herd” at the top of the pyramid and commercial farms at the bottom. Ex. 1001, 9:43– 44. “A nucleus herd is typically comprised of 12 to 15 lines, although any number of lines may be represented, with each line comprising a number of desirable traits. . . . Only the offspring with the highest measured selection index are retained in the nucleus herd.” Id. at 9:47–49. The retention of offspring with the most desirable features in the nucleus herd reasonably implies that these individuals are selected to propagate the desirable trait in the nucleus heard. Accordingly, at this stage of the proceeding, we construe “genetic nucleus” as “an animal herd comprising one or more lines and positioned at the top of a multi-level pyramidal hierarchy of herds in a commercial herd breeding structure, wherein certain offspring of the herd are used for breeding within the herd.”” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“the context of artificial insemination for the purpose of directing piglet production toward creating predominantly male or female offspring. Petitioner’s expert explains that the state of the art at the time the invention was made required at least an 80% or better sex sorted semen in order to be able to use the sorted semen in to skew the piglet production in a littler to be either predominantly female or male offspring. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 113. Specifically, Petitioner’s expert avers that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that “[f]rom a commercial pig production perspective, using semen with less than 80% sex skew (i.e., purity for X or Y chromosomes) would not be efficient or economical, and consumers (e.g., pig producers) would not purchase such poorly enriched samples.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 113. Petitioner’s expert testimony is supported by the teachings of Maxwell (Ex. 1005) and Garner (Ex. 1006), both of which are expressly cited in Dekkers as evidencing “sperm sexing technology . . . for the production of either male or female offspring for sire or dam lines.” See Ex. 1004, 396, 420, 422. In particular, Maxwell teaches that “[i]n combination with the orientating nozzle and changes in the design of the sorter electronics, this allowed significant increases in sorting rates (15 million spermatozoa per hour) to be achieved while maintaining more than 85% purity.” Ex. 1005, 81. In addition, Gardner teaches that “acceptable sperm sexing efficiency, usually at 90% accuracy.” Ex. 1006, Abstract. Based on the current record, Petitioner’s expert testimony reasonably supports the position that Dekkers application of sex sorting technology at the level of the nucleus or multiplication tiers would require at least an 80% sex sorting efficiency. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner is improperly relying on Maxwell and Garner in order to support its anticipation argument over Dekkers. Prelim. Resp. 26 (citing Callaway Golf Col. v. Acushnet Co., 576 F.3d 1331, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). On the record at the stage of the proceeding, Petitioner has made an adequate showing to supports its anticipation argument. In particular, Dekkers disclosure of using sex sorted semen to allow for the production of either male or female offspring for sire or dam lines, reasonably suggests that the sorted sperm is at a sufficient purity level to achieve the stated result. Ex. 1004, 396. Petitioner relies on the testimony of its expert to establish that at the time the invention was made one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that 80% or better sex sorted semen is a necessary level in order to skew the sex of the litter. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 113. Here, Petitioner’s expert testimony is supported by the teachings of either Maxwell (Ex. 1005) or Garner (Ex. 1006) to establish the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Dekkers publication. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that Petitioner is improperly relying on Maxwell and Garner. Accordingly, having considered the arguments and evidence presented by the parties at this stage, Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that Dekkers discloses the claim limitations of element 1c.” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,542,734 - PTAB · Nov 18, 2021 · IPR2021-00854 · APJ Wesley B Derrick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–35 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is anticipated by Birnboim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows that there is “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The Federal Circuit has interpreted the statute to require “a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition.” PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018). For the reasons provided below, we determine Petitioner has satisfied the threshold requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Thus, based on the information presented, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–35 of the ’240 patent on all grounds.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that A person of ordinary skill in the art . . . would have had (1) a Ph.D. in microbiology, molecular biology, biochemistry, or related discipline; (2) at least two years of post-graduate experience in the area of nucleic acid extraction and analysis; and (3) experience with the development or use of nucleic acid 10 Koller, WO 91/02740, published Mar. 7, 1991. Ex. 1016. 11 Robert E. Farrell, Jr., Ph.D., “RNA Methodologies: A Laboratory Guide for Isolation and Characterization,” (3rd Ed., 2005). Ex. 1026. extraction formulations, and the literature concerning nucleic acid extraction and analysis. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 38). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition at this stage. Prelim. Resp. 7. For purposes of this Decision, at this stage of the proceeding, we accept Petitioner’s proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art, which is not substantively opposed by Patent Owner and appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’240 patent. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). B. Claim Construction” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner offer any position on the construction of any claim term. See Pet.; Prelim. Resp. 7. On this record, and for purposes of this Decision, we decline to construe any claim terms beyond the limited extent we do so below in our analysis, because it is not necessary to do so in reaching our decision on institution. C. Principles of Law” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“and particularly claim 1. Petitioner provides a detailed analysis of where each element of claim 1 is found in Birnboim. Pet. 13–19. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that Birnboim’s Example 3 discloses an aqueous composition comprising the one or more chaotropes, one or more detergents, one or more reducing agents, one or more chelators, and one or more buffers, as recited in the claim. Id. at 13–18. Petitioner also asserts that “Birnboim’s reagents are present in an amount sufficient to perform the claimed functions.” Id. at 18–23 (heading capitalization normalized and underlining omitted).” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,669,240 - PTAB · Oct 19, 2021 · IPR2020-00847 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 10, and 14 are unpatentable as obvious over Kurganov-262 and Chakrabarti; the Board did not reach the alternative grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“Turning now to obviousness, Petitioner identified disclosure within Kurgonov-262 and Chakrabarti which teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1. Pet. 11–21. Furthermore, Petitioner identified multiple reasons that would have prompted the skilled artisan to combine the teachings of Kurganov-262 and Chakrabarti to arrive at the subject matter of claim 1. Id. at 21–22. Because Patent Owner focused its arguments solely on the issue of whether Kurganov-262 is prior art, Petitioner’s assertions regarding the substantive teachings of Kurganov-262 and Chakrabarti remain unrebutted on the complete record. PO Resp. 31–34; Sur-reply 1–3. Patent Owner likewise failed to substantively address Petitioner’s proffered reasons why the skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine these teachings. PO Resp. 31–34; Sur-reply 1–3. We have reviewed the disclosures of Kurganov-262 and Chakrabarti relied on by Petitioner, as well as the explanations provided by Mr. Lipoff, and are persuaded that the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed in the prior art. Pet. 11–21; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 103–109; Ex. 1004; Ex. 1008. Petitioner also persuades us that the skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply Chakrabarti’s techniques for web crawling to Kurganov-262’s system, and would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully doing so, thus arriving at the subject matter of claim 1 of the ʼ084 patent. Pet. 21–23; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 110–114. Therefore, Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of claim 1 of the ʼ084 patent would have been obvious over the combined disclosures of Kurganov-262 and Chakrabarti.” slip op. at 24
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner describes a person having ordinary skill in the art as having “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science or a related field, and at least two years of experience with voice interfaces and information processing. More education could substitute for less experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 41–47). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition of the skilled artisan. See generally, PO Resp. Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.’”); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (finding that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not err in concluding that the level of ordinary skill in the art was best determined by the references of record). Thus, on the complete record, we accept Petitioner’s assessment of the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. C. Asserted Obviousness based on Kurganov-262 and Chakrabarti” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Rather, on the complete record, Patent Owner makes inadequately supported assertions regarding what the skilled artisan “would understand” based on the ʼ084 patent’s disclosure. See PO Resp. 33–34. For example, Patent Owner asserts that “[a] POSITA would understand that” polling or pinging “describes a process where by existing and new devices and/or websites are discovered,” and that “‘polling’ includes asking for information from a website, including a listing of URLs or asking a website of a search engine to provide new website information.” Id. at 34 (citing Ex. 2059 ¶¶ 154–155). We reject this line of argument because we afford minimal weight to Patent Owner’s reliance on paragraphs 153–155 of Exhibit 2059. PO Resp. 33–34. These declaration paragraphs provide little detail beyond what is argued in the Patent Owner Response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65 (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 22
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable
“We are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that sufficient written description support does not exist in the ʼ996 application for “limitation 1.i” which requires the computing device to be “configured to periodically search via the one or more networks to identify new web sites and to add the new web sites to the plurality of web sites.” Pet. 6–11. Thus, we determine that Kurganov-262 is available as prior art against the challenged claims. On the complete record, Patent Owner fails to direct us to specific disclosure within the ʼ996 application that evinces written description for limitation 1.i. Rather, Patent Owner’s citations to the ʼ084 patent fail to describe with adequate precision a computing device configured to periodically search the network(s) to identify new web sites and add such new web sites to the plurality of web sites that are accessed. See PO Resp. 31–34.” slip op. at 20
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,451,084 - Commonwealth Scientific And Industrial Research Organisation v. BASF Plant Science Company GmbHAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 1, 2021 · PGR2020-00057 · APJ Robert A Pollock · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–17 are unpatentable based on lack of written description, lack of enablement, and anticipation or obviousness over Bauer, Napier, and Petrie I; the Petrie II obviousness ground was not proven.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“Although the precise definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art is not dispositive of Petitioner’s grounds, we find it useful in framing the field of the invention. While we agree with Petitioner’s emphasis on plant recombinant DNA techniques, Patent Owner’s focus on plant genetics and plant lipids is well taken. As noted in the Patent Owner Response, the challenged claims are “directed to plant seed oils produced by a transgenic 10 Petitioner does not contest Patent Owner’s assertions regarding the similarities between the subject matter of the ’870 patent and the patents at issue in the Virginia litigation but asserts that its arguments in the Virginia litigation differed from those presented here, that those arguments were not accepted by the judge, and that “CSIRO ended up giving BASF a covenant not to sue on every single patent that had the language ‘at least a number with no upper limit.’” See Ex. 2005, 5–16; Ex. 2003, 14–16; Tr. 75:25– 76:11. plant,” whereas the portions of the Specification most relevant to those claims describe “genetically modified plants capable of producing certain oils, lipids, and fatty acids, and the genetic techniques related thereto.” PO Resp. 24–25 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶ 54); see also section I.D, above. Considering the above, as well as the ’870 patent and cited art, we view a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art as having a working knowledge of plant recombinant DNA techniques, a Ph.D. in plant molecular biology, lipid biochemistry, or lipid metabolism, and three years of work experience (excluding Ph.D. thesis studies) in lipid biochemistry or lipid metabolism as applied to plants. B.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“In light of the above, the many variables affecting DHA production render the functional upper bound of “at least 1% docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)” a moving target. We thus return to the intrinsic evidence and the plain language of the independent claims. Applying the ordinary and customary meaning in accord with Phillips, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of “at least 1% docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)” as covering amounts of DHA from 1% to 99% (since the claims also require a minimum amount of 1% EPA). See Pet. 30; Ex. 1002 ¶ 57. For similar reasons, and because Patent Owner does not expressly argue the meaning of the remaining terms, we further adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of “a ratio of DHA to [DPA] of at least 2,” as covering a ratio from 2 up to infinity; and “a conversion rate of DPA to DHA of at least 75%,” as covering a conversion rate of 75% to 100%. See Pet. 30–31; Ex. 1002 ¶ 57; Dec. 13–14. We further adopt Petitioner’s uncontested explanation that the “ratio of DHA to DPA of 2.9” recited in claims 6 and 15 indicates “an implicit upper limit of 73.6% DHA.” See Pet. 56 n.15.” slip op. at 29
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable
“We consider, first, the evidence of record under our construction of “at least 1% docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)” as covering amounts of DHA from 1% to 99% (since the claims also require a minimum amount of 1% EPA). Patent Owner argues that such levels are “impossible” and does not contest Petitioner’s assertion that the challenged claims are unpatentable for lack of written description under this construction. PO Resp. 27, 28. Indeed, Dr. Sederoff admitted that the ’870 patent neither describes nor enables one 15 The arguments and evidence adduced in this proceeding do not address whether the conversion of 18:2 and 18:3 to DHA could be accomplished using a subset of the enzyme activities shown in Figure 1 by omitting some of the enzymes that permit formation of alternative intermediates. To the extent this is possible, it would not alter the thrust of our reasoning throughout this Decision. of ordinary skill in the art to make a transgenic Brassica plant (as recited in claims 5 and 13) that produces more than 50% DHA. Ex. 1016, 64:23–66:2, 67:24–68:4. But although reaching the upper limit of “at least 1% docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)” may be impossible under any of the constructions considered herein, the Federal Circuit “repeatedly and consistently has recognized that courts may not redraft claims, whether to make them operable or to sustain their validity.” Chef Am., Inc. v. Lamb- Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (collecting cases). For the above reasons, we find that a preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s contention that claims 1–17 do not comply with the written description requirement as set forth in Ground 1 under our construction of “at least 1% docosahexaenoic acid (DHA),” with respect to any plant including Arabidopsis. Considering claims 5 and 13, in particular, the ’870 patent does not describe a transgenic Brassica plant that produces more than 50% DHA.” slip op. at 35
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not enabledUnpatentable
“In view of the above, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that even in high copy number lines, unpredictable effects such as gene silencing could prevent the accumulation of high levels of enzymes such as those listed in Table 4 of the ’870 patent. Moreover, even if high enzyme levels were achieved, the extent to which those enzymes would catalyze the desired reactions would have been unknown. Accordingly, from a quantitative standpoint, the evidence adduced points to a high level of unpredictability in the art. Focusing on the last step of the pathway illustrated in Figure 1 of the ’870 patent, Patent Owner also asserts that the ordinarily skilled artisan “knew how to introduce multiple additional copies of the key enzyme responsible for the rapid and efficient conversion of DPA to DHA, the Δ4 desaturase from Emiliana huxleyi, to achieve ratios of DHA to DPA approaching infinity, and conversion rates approaching 100%.” Sur-reply 21 (citing Ex. 2021 ¶¶ 136, 142 (stating that “no technical limitation prevents reaching a ratio nearing infinity,” i.e., 100% conversion of DPA to DHA)). Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 100, 113, 136, 142. Although we accept that the ordinarily skilled artisan could understand how and why to carry out those steps, the evidence discussed above persuades us that achieving the stated conversion efficiency for this step alone would have entailed undue experimentation. Considering that Patent Owner’s proposed construction requires, not just one, but every step of the pathway illustrated in Figure 1 proceed with (or at least near) 100% efficiency, the evidence of record persuades us that it would have required undue experimentation to achieve the claimed invention under any construction of “at least 1%” DHA advanced in this proceeding. In light of the above, and considering all the evidence, we find that a” slip op. at 61
Patent outcomesUS 10,351,870 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,351,870 - Favored Tech Corporation v. P2i LtdNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 23, 2021 · IPR2020-00478 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Final written decision
Favored Tech did not prove claims 1–17 unpatentable: Baalmann did not anticipate the asserted claims, and the obviousness grounds lacked adequate disclosure or motivation with a reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionNo construction neededGranted
“After considering Petitioner’s arguments regarding claim 9, Patent Owner’s silence regarding claim 9, and the language in the ’070 patent itself (e.g., Ex. 1001, 11:45–52, 12:60–61), we agree with Petitioner that the term “1H, 1H, 2H, 3H-heptadecafluorodecylacylate” in claim 9 should be construed to correctly recite HDFDA (1H, 1H, 2H, 2H-heptadecafluorodecylacrylate). The error Petitioner identifies is conspicuous and undisputed, and the intrinsic record does not suggest a different interpretation. Fitbit, Inc. v. Valencell, Inc., 964 F.3d 1112, 1119–20 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Novo Industries, L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Additionally, after reviewing the parties’ remaining claim construction arguments and evidence, we determine that we do not need to expressly construe any other terms for purposes of this Decision because, as addressed in detail below, we find Petitioner’s showings deficient for reasons that do not depend on the construction of any claim term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing 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 6
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’070 patent would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in a field such as chemistry, physics, or chemical engineering, as well as at least two years of experience with plasma-polymerization techniques.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 26–31). Patent Owner agrees with this proposed definition “with the understanding that ‘experience with plasma-polymerization techniques’ includes plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) techniques.” PO Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2010 ¶ 20; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 12, 63). In light of the record before us, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. As Patent Owner points out, Dr. Gleason states that PECVD is a form of plasma polymerization, and thus the parties agree that experience with plasma-polymerization techniques would include PECVD. PO Resp. 9; Ex. 1002 ¶ 63. The level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate adequately that each and every element in claim 1, arranged as recited in the claim, is found in a single prior art reference. NetMoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1369; Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Here, Petitioner combines several different teachings from Baalmann to support its anticipation argument. For example, Petitioner relies on the “evacuable chamber with a volume of 1 m3” from Baalmann’s Example 1, but not the power (2kW) expressly disclosed as being used with that reactor of Example 1. Ex. 1004 ¶ 47. With regard to power density, Petitioner relies on Baalmann’s general disclosure that “[t]he electrical power input per chamber volume is set between 0.5 kilowatt/m3 and 5 kilowatt/m3.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 20. As Patent Owner points out, however, that power density range is not tied to any particular reactor volume or plasma zone volume. PO Resp. 19. Baalmann also fails to expressly disclose the plasma zone volume of the reactor in Example 1. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 47–48. To attempt to overcome this absence of an express disclosure, Petitioner argues that, for the reactor used in Example 1, the plasma zone volume and reactor volume are the same based on the configuration of the electrodes in the reactor. Pet. 24–25. Baalmann, however, does not expressly disclose the electrode configuration of the reactor in Example 1. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 47–48. Instead, Petitioner relies on Baalmann’s general disclosure of an embodiment wherein one electrode is formed by the chamber wall itself. Pet. 24–25; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 35, 61. In so doing, Petitioner ignores the fact that Baalmann also states that “[t]wo opposite rod-shaped electrodes may also be used.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 35. In view of this, we disagree with Petitioner’s conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that chamber to be configured as described throughout the rest of the specification: with the chamber wall serving as one of the electrodes.” Pet. 24. Even if we were persuaded by Petitioner’s argument, the fact remains that Petitioner’s anticipation challenge is based on the combination of different features disclosed in separate portions of Baalmann. “Such picking and choosing . . . has no place in the making of a 102, anticipation rejection.” In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587–88 (CCPA 1972) (cited with approval in Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 550 F.3d 1075, 1083 (Fed. Cir. 2008)); see also Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti, Inc., 878 F.3d 1052, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that anticipation is not proven by multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“For all of the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have inferred the volume of the plasma zone10 in Coulson is 470 cm3 based on Coulson’s disclosure of a “glow discharge reactor” having a volume of 470 cm3. Pet. 38; Reply 15–16. In view of this, we are likewise not persuaded that Coulson discloses a power density of 85.1 W/m3, because Petitioner’s 9 Dr. Gleason confirmed that she did not perform any experiments to verify her opinions regarding Coulson’s plasma zone. Ex. 2017, 80:10–18. 10 As noted above, Petitioner presented its argument in the context of its proposed construction of plasma zone. Petitioner did not present an alternative argument supported by sufficient evidence addressing the volume of Coulson’s plasma zone based on Patent Owner’s proposed construction of plasma zone. Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner’s assertion that we do not need to expressly construe the term plasma zone to resolve this issue. Sur-reply 1. argument that Coulson discloses this power density is based on its assertion that Coulson has a plasma zone volume of 470 cm3. Pet. 38. This finding is fatal to Petitioner’s obviousness challenge of claim 1 based on the combined teachings of Baalmann and Coulson because Coulson’s purported disclosure of using a power density of 85.1 W/m3 is an essential component of Petitioner’s obviousness challenge. An obviousness determination requires finding both “that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art . . . and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367-68 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In attempting to establish a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Baalmann and Coulson, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, Petitioner repeatedly refers to using Coulson’s optimized reaction conditions, including power density, in Baalmann’s larger reactor. Pet. 48 (stating that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to maintain the same or similar reaction conditions within a larger reaction chamber that were present in Coulson’s chamber during Coulson’s reported plasma polymerization reactions, including power density and pressure, to preserve the same effective results.”), 48–49 (“That would have included motivation to maintain Coulson’s disclosed power density when scaling up to a larger reaction volume to preserve the beneficial results Coulson reported at that optimized power density.”); Reply 23 (referring to the “straightforward, compelling obviousness case set forth in the petition” that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have expected to succeed performing Coulson’s reactions on a larger scale in view of Baalmann”); 23 (“The petition explained why a POSA would have modified Baalmann to use Coulson’s HDFDA monomer and reaction conditions to produce coatings with a reasonable expectation of success” ), 24 (stating the Petition “explained why a POSA would have expected success using known parameters from Coulson in an established large-scale apparatus”). During the oral hearing, counsel for Petitioner confirmed its obviousness positions depend on using Coulson’s power density. Tr. 20:10–21:16. Accordingly, Petitioner’s failure to demonstrate adequately that Coulson discloses or suggests a power density of 85.1 W/m3 undermines its reason to combine and reasonable expectation of success arguments. Petitioner’s argument that Baalmann discloses the claimed power” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 8,389,070 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,389,070
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.