• Google LLC v. Ipa Technologies Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 1, 2023 · IPR2019-00731 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Remand

  Claim 28 is unpatentable under § 103(a) over Martin and Farley; Martin qualifies as prior art because Dr. Moran’s contribution made him a joint inventor of the relied-on disclosure.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “we do not agree with Patent Owner that evidence analogous to that in Duncan Parking is required in this case or for Petitioner to meet its burden by stating which specific aspects of the Facilitator were conceived by Dr. Moran. PO Remand 3–4. As the Federal Circuit stated, the facilitator described in Section 4.5 of the Martin reference plays a central role in the OAA disclosed in the specification of the ’560 patent. Google, 34 F.4th at 1087; see Ex. 1011, 23–24 (Section 4.5); Ex. 1001, 19:14–19:62. In addition, Patent Owner admits that “large portions of the ’560 application and the Martin reference are identical or almost identical.” PO Resp. 1. We find that Petitioner and Dr. Moran have sufficiently identified the facilitator in the Martin reference as his work, and persuasively asserted that Dr. Moran’s background and experience with OAA and distributed software systems support his contribution to the conception of the facilitator in the distributed agent approach of Sections 4.1–4.5. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 23–39. Dr. Moran’s testimony provides sufficient and persuasive detail to support his contribution claim to the facilitator of Section 4.5. Id.” slip op. at 21

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “With respect to Dr. Moran’s contribution to the Martin reference, we find Dr. Moran’s testimony credible over that of Mr. Cheyer and Mr. Martin, because, as the Federal Circuit noted, because the latter testimony conflicts with other evidence of record. Google, 34 F.4th at 1088. Cheyer’s and Martin’s testimony that Dr. Moran’s role was administrative and non-technical with respect to the core infrastructure of OAA is belied by a separate article describing OAA that includes the facilitator and lists Dr. Moran as the lead author. Ex. 1174, 1–2, 4. Indeed, the OAA article lists Dr. Moran and Mr. Cheyer as authors but excludes Mr. Martin. Id. Although Mr. Cheyer disagrees with the article’s description of the origins of OAA and the facilitator (Ex. 2037, 78:23–79:12 (Mr. Cheyer asserting that he “would not agree in the characterization of Open Agent Architecture grew out of [earlier] works” as described in the article)), Mr. Cheyer admits patent]” (id. at 1088), “which is a continuation-in-part of the application that resulted in the ’115 patent” (id. at 1086). in his deposition that Dr. Moran was extremely technical, and probably made technical contributions to OAA (id. at 34:1–20, 64:16–20, 102:2–4). Similarly, Mr. Martin’s testimony also supports that Dr. Moran “may have made contributions to the technological development of either interfaces for use with OAA, agents used with OAA, or systems based on OAA.” Ex. 2038, 116:2–8, 117:7–119:10. When viewed in light of Dr. Moran’s status as a joint inventor on the closely related ’931 patent (Ex. 2002, code (75)) and as a lead author of the substantive paper that discusses OAA’s early development, we find Mr. Martin’s and Mr. Cheyer’s admissions—that Dr. Moran made technical contributions to OAA—undermine their testimony that Dr. Moran’s inclusion as an author on the Martin reference was a matter of administrative respect and not a result of a technical contribution. See PO Remand 11; PO Resp. 50–51. Indeed, we find Cheyer and Martin’s general description of Dr. Moran—as an administrator without technical contributions to the Martin reference—is not supported by the full record, which instead supports Dr. Moran’s contributions to technical work that involves the Martin reference, such as contemporary papers and the ’931 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1174, 2002. In sum, the testimony and contemporary evidence supports Dr. Moran’s testimony that his conception and contribution to the Martin reference, the facilitator, was technical and not merely administrative. Ex. 1007 ¶ 39.” slip op. at 23

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “We disagree with Patent Owner’s contention. Rather, we find that the Petition persuasively explains how Martin discloses a facilitator agent arranged to coordinate cooperative task completion within a distributed computing environment having autonomous service-providing electronic agents. Pet. 39; Ex. 1002 ¶ 100. Further, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that Farley discloses how agent functionality can be distributed across multiple processes. Pet. 39–40; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 101–102. Finally, Petitioner also provides persuasive reasons as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Martin and Farley, including reasons expressly provided by Farley. Pet. 40; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 103–104.” slip op. at 28

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “III. MOTION TO EXCLUDE In our prior Final Written Decision, we denied Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (1) portions of Exhibit 1153; (2) Exhibits 1170, 1171, and 1172; (3) Exhibit 1174; and (4) portions of Exhibits 2037 and 2038; and we dismissed as moot Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (1) Exhibits 1158 and 1159 and (2) Exhibits 1175, 1176, and 1181. Final Dec. 26–30. We maintain these determinations on remand.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 7,069,560 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,069,560
• Google LLC v. Ipa Technologies Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 1, 2023 · IPR2019-00728 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board held claim 63 unpatentable under § 103(a) over Martin and Kohn, finding Martin was prior art because Moran was a joint inventor.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner relies upon is sufficient to establish the degree to which the reliedon portions of the Martin reference were conceived by Dr. Moran, and the significance of those contributions to the overall anticipating disclosure of the Martin reference. See Google, 34 F.4th at 1086–88; Duncan Parking, 914 F.3d at 1358. Contrary to Patent Owner’s contentions, Petitioner is not merely relying on Dr. Moran’s authorship to establish inventorship. PO Remand 8 (citing In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 455 (C.C.P.A. 1982)). Instead, Dr. Moran’s testimony establishes how his background led to his contributions to the multiple facilitator architectures disclosed in Martin and in the ’115 patent specification. Google, 34 F.4th at 1087; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 23– 34 (OAA project), 35–39 (OAA paper). In view of Dr. Moran’s testimony, we do not agree with Patent Owner that evidence analogous to that in Duncan Parking is required in this case or for Petitioner to meet its burden by stating which specific aspects of the Facilitator were conceived by Dr. Moran. PO Remand 3–4. As the Federal Circuit stated, the facilitator described in Section 4.5 of the Martin reference plays a central role in the OAA disclosed in the specification of the ’115 patent. Google, 34 F.4th at 1087; see Ex. 1011, 23–24 (Section 4.5); Ex. 1001, 18:56–19:36. In addition, Patent Owner admits that “large portions of the ’115 application and the Martin reference are identical or almost identical.” PO Resp. 1. We find that Petitioner and Dr. Moran have sufficiently identified the facilitator in the Martin reference as his work, and persuasively asserted that Dr. Moran’s background and experience with OAA and distributed software systems support his contribution to the conception of the facilitator in the distributed agent approach of Sections 4.1–4.5. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 23–39. Dr. Moran’s testimony provides sufficient and persuasive detail to support his contribution claim to the facilitator of Section 4.5. Id. Based on the record, the Federal Circuit’s remand squarely asks whether Dr. Moran’s stated contributions to the conception of the facilitator should be credited over Cheyer and Martin’s conflicting testimony regarding his lack of technical contribution. Google, 34 F.4th at 1088 (stating that “[t]he testimony of Dr. Moran, if credited, might well establish that he was a co-inventor of the particular portions of the Martin reference relied on by Google in, and relevant to, the challenge to particular claims”). When Dr. Moran’s testimony is viewed in combination with the supporting evidence,7 we find that incorporation of the facilitator in general, which is also found in the specification and claims, persuasively supports Dr. Moran’s testimony regarding his inventive contribution to the Martin reference. Specifically, we find Dr. Moran’s testimony persuasively supported and credible over the conflicting testimony and evidence offered by Mr. Cheyer and Mr. Martin. See Pet. Reply 12–13; Ex. 2038, 116:2–8, 117:7–119:10 (Cheyer admission that Dr. Moran made technical contributions to OAA); Ex. 2037, 34:1–20, 64:16–20, 102:2–4.” slip op. at 21

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “Upon weighing the parties’ testimony and evidence, we agree with Petitioner that sufficient evidence supports the technical contributions of Dr. Moran to OAA, including admissions by Mr. Martin that Dr. Moran made such contributions (see Ex. 2038, 116:2–116:8, 117:7–119:10; see also id. at 73:3–73:15); contemporaneous papers showing Dr. Moran’s contribution to the OAA including a facilitator (see Ex. 1170; Ex. 1174, 1– 2), and the ’931 patent (Ex. 2002). See Pet. Reply 5–7, 8, 12–13; Pet. Remand 11. In particular, Dr. Moran’s testimony establishes that he contributed to Section 4.5, the facilitator that plays an essential role in the OAA, that differs from prior art agents, and that is found in the ’115 specification. We find Dr. Moran’s contributions to be significant when measured against the full anticipating Martin reference, and to render him a joint inventor of the Martin reference. Google, 34 F.4th at 1085 (quoting Duncan Parking, 914 F.3d at 1358). 5. Conclusion Based on the full record, we find that Petitioner has provided persuasive evidence by a preponderance of the evidence that Dr. Moran is an inventive entity to the Martin reference. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has established that Martin is “by another” and is prior art under § 102(a) to the ’115 patent. We next turn to the sole remaining ground based on the Martin reference to determine the patentability of the remaining challenged claim.” slip op. at 26

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “combination of Martin and Kohn. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Olsen, provides persuasive testimony and evidence that Martin teaches compound goals and a skilled artisan would have been motivated in view of Kohn to modify Martin’s facilitator agent to interpret a compound goal that includes both local and global constraints. Pet. 32–34; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 49, 77–88. Dr. Olsen’s testimony does not evince hindsight, but instead supports the finding that an ordinarily skilled artisan could use compound goals required in Martin and apply the type of constraints (global and local) disclosed in Kohn. Ex. 2024, 159:4–160:16. In addition, Dr. Olsen testified, the proposed implementation “would have been a mere combination of known components and technologies . . . , according to known methods, to produce predictable results.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 87. We do not agree that this case presents the same technical issues raised in G.B.T. Inc. v. Walletex Microelectronics Ltd., IPR2018-00326, Paper 60 at 16–17 (PTAB June 25, 2019), where the petitioner’s declarant failed to show how the combination would have achieved desired results and features from the combination of the circuits. Here, Dr. Olsen identified known compound goals in Martin to which Kohn’s local and global constraints are applicable. Pet. 32–34; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 49, 77–88. In view of the level of skill in the art and the testimony of Dr. Olsen (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 49, 77–88; Ex. 2024, 159:4–160:16), we find that Petitioner establishes persuasive motivation to combine the software teachings of Kohn’s constraints into the goals of Martin and how the references would have been combined by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 29

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMotion to exclude, grantedMixed

    “III. MOTION TO EXCLUDE In our prior Final Written Decision, we denied Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (1) portions of Exhibit 1153; (2) Exhibits 1170, 1171, and 1172; (3) Exhibit 1174; and (4) portions of Exhibits 2037 and 2038; and we dismissed as moot Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (1) Exhibits 1158 and 1159 and (2) Exhibits 1175, 1176, and 1181. Final Dec. 25–28. We maintain these determinations on remand.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 6,851,115 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,851,115
• Nanofiber Solutions, LLC v. Acera Surgical, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 13, 2022 · IPR2021-01016 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–7, and 13 are unpatentable: claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 13 as anticipated by Johnson, and claims 6 and 7 as obvious over Johnson and Johnson–Liu, respectively.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “Petitioner contends that: A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of filing the ‘228 Patent would have been a person having a bachelor's degree in science or engineering, for example in the fields of chemistry, chemical engineering, or biomedical engineering, with undergraduate research experience, coupled with at least three years of industry experience, that linked the fabrication of fibrous polymeric materials to performance requirements for scaffolds for the promotion of proliferation of biological cells and the growth and/or reconstruction of biological tissues. Pet. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 112–116). In response, Patent Owner notes that all challenged claims recite electrospun fibers but that Petitioner’s proposed level of skill “requires (1) no coursework, training or experience with electrospinning and (2) improperly focuses on scaffolds for the promotion of proliferation of biological cells and the growth and/or reconstruction of biological tissues.” PO Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 2001, ¶¶ 38–39). But Patent Owner then concedes that this “difference is immaterial to deciding the issues raised by the Petition.” Id. at 8.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “construe claims “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Furthermore, we expressly construe the claims only to the extent necessary to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). The parties agree that the terms of the challenged claims should be given their “plain and ordinary meaning” and that no express claim construction is necessary to address Petitioner’s challenges. Pet. 12; PO Resp. 6. We agree that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of resolving the dispute between the parties.” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “Upon review, we are unpersuaded that Petitioner has improperly mixed and matched disclosures from Johnson to arrive at an anticipatory reference. Patent Owner is correct that Petitioner primarily relies on Example 1 as evidence for the method by which its scaffold is made. But the disclosure found in paragraph 98 is not a “distinct” teaching of the type described in Net MoneyIN; rather, it is a general description of the structures that may be created by Johnson’s method: “A scaffold may comprise any number of layers, including about 1 layer, about 2 layers, about 3 layers, about 4 layers, about 5 layers, and so on.” Ex. 1009 ¶ 98. Patent Owner has not directed us to anything in the disclosure of Johnson that indicates that this is a “distinct” teaching or embodiment, instead of a general description of the types of scaffolds that Johnson encompasses. We see no reason why the general disclosures regarding Johnson’s scaffolds should be limited to specific embodiments, or precluded from applying to the method of Example 1.” slip op. at 14

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We are unconvinced by Petitioner’s arguments and evidence. While we recognize that the range of claim 3 is very broad, and it is possible that scaffolds having fiber diameters as set forth in Johnson could have a mean pore size falling within the range, inherency “may not be established by probabilities or possibilities.” Par Pharm., Inc. v. Twi Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor does Petitioner sufficiently explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the process of Example 1 to necessarily result in the claimed mean pore size. We are also persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Boland 2005’s disclosure of a fiber diameter similar to Johnson’s that nevertheless falls outside the claimed mean pore size range. We note that Petitioner never addresses Boland 2005 in its Reply. 4. Conclusion as to Anticipation For these reasons, we find that Petitioner has met its burden of showing that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 13 are anticipated by Johnson, but has failed to meet its burden as to claim 3.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 10,632,228 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,632,228
• Satco Products, Inc. v. The Regents Of The University Of CaliforniaAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,217,916
• Ty Inc. v. Softbelly’S, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,195,831
• Platform Science, Inc. v. Omnitracs, LLCRehearing granted
  PTAB · Sep 3, 2021 · IPR2020-01612 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board granted rehearing and instituted IPR on all petition grounds for claims 1–4, 6–9, 11, 12, and 15, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted

    “II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id. When rehearing a decision on a petition, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “preliminary stage, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to claim 1.” slip op. at 44

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “The only dispute pertaining to claim construction at this stage of the proceeding is whether the phrase “a process for creating said response message,” recited in claim 1, is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.6 Petitioner 6 As noted above, Petitioner raises a second claim construction issue in its Rehearing Request. See Req. Reh’g 12–15 (asserting that the claims require only one instance of copying information from a formatted message to a response message based on which formatted message was received). Petitioner did not raise this issue in the Petition, Patent Owner has not had an contends that the phrase should be interpreted as a means-plus-function limitation, whereas Patent Owner contends that it should not. Compare Pet. 2–7 (advocating for a means-plus-function construction), with Prelim. Resp. 9–11 (advocating for an ordinary and customary meaning). At this stage of the proceeding, the dispute between the parties regarding the construction of this claim phrase does not impact our Decision. Accordingly, we need not construe expressly any claim terms for the purpose of this Decision.” slip op. at 17

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted

    “VI. ANALYSIS Legal Standards – Anticipation “[A] claim is anticipated ‘if each and every limitation is found expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference.’” King Pharm., Inc. v. Eon Labs., Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Celeritas Techs., Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). Anticipation is a question of fact, In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334–35 (Fed. Cir. 2009), assessed from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art, see Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“the dispositive question regarding anticipation [i]s whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer from the [prior art reference’s] teaching that every claim element was disclosed in that single reference” (alteration in original) (quotation omitted)).” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,925,308
• Reg Synthetic Fuels, LLC v. Neste OyjSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 19, 2020 · IPR2018-01374 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 6, 7, 10, 20, and 24 are unpatentable; claims 1–5, 8, 9, 11–19, and 21–23 were not shown unpatentable, because the cited art did not teach the claimed iron-content limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Neste argues that REG’s proposed level of skill in the art is “unreasonably high” and instead proffers that “a person of ordinary skill in the field of biofuel engineering and processing as of Feb. 15, 2011 would have had a degree in chemical engineering or chemistry and at least two to three years of experience with processes for manufacturing hydrocarbons from bio renewable feedstocks.” PO Resp. 6–7 (citing Ex. 2029 ¶ 31). Neither party indicates that the outcome of any arguments made in this case would change depending on the level of ordinary skill in the art. We agree with the parties that the ordinarily skilled artisan, in February 2011, would have had at least a degree in chemical engineering or chemistry and would have had several years of experience in processing and refining biofuels. We need not parse the particular amount of education or experience given that neither party asserts this determination would have had any effect on the arguments or analysis in this case. Further, we find that the prior art of record reflects 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).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “We have again reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, and again decline to import into the claim a requirement that the bio oil must be pre-treated. As we discussed in our institution decision, nothing in the ’185 patent indicates that the definition of bio oil is so limited. And we note that certain dependent claims of the ’185 patent, for example claim 21, specifically recite a pre-treatment step, leading to the conclusion that the bio oils of the independent claims are not limited to only pretreated bio oils. Neste’s new evidence introduced during trial is extrinsic to the patent, based on the testimony of Dr. Klein regarding the criticality of the iron content range. See PO Resp. 3 (citing Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 35–36, 38). In any event, we fail to see how the criticality of the claimed range mandates that the bio oil be pretreated prior to undergoing the claimed process. While Dr. Klein testifies that it is “clear from the ‘185 patent [that] a bio oil feed must be pretreated to render it suitable for commercial hydrotreatment” (Ex. 2029 ¶ 35), the portion of the patent he cites for this proposition states only that “bio-based feedstock (glyceride oil) to be used as feed material for hydrotreatment reaction can be purified to iron content of less than 1 to 0.2 w-ppm.” Ex. 1001, 4:50–55 (emphasis added). But this statement does not address the use of a bio oil that already contains an iron content within the claimed range, which therefore would not need purification. Indeed, the ’185 patent discusses “experiments with palm oil having very low level of impurities.” Ex. 1001, 4:45–46. Based on the foregoing, we maintain our view that the claim term requires no construction beyond its express language. The bio oil to be used in the method of claim 1 may be pretreated to achieve the claimed iron content, but pretreatment is not required by the claim.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner

    “The intrinsic record of the ’185 patent contains no indication that bio oil intermediate was a new term coined to signify a specific class of bio oils, as Neste contends. The written description contains a section devoted to providing specific definitions for terminology, including “bio oil,” “glyceride oil,” and “hydrotreatment.” Ex. 1001, 3:28–4:7. There is no mention of a bio oil intermediate, which would be expected if the inventors had intended to coin a new term. The only use of “intermediate” in the entire written description is as follows: “disclosed is a glyceride oil intermediate, which intermediate consists of glyceride oil from at least one renewable source and the iron content of said glyceride oil is less than 1 w-ppm.” Id. at 4:64–67. The sentence preceding that one states only that the “purification result can be obtained (depending on used feedstock) using pretreatment methods.” Id. at 4:61–62 (emphasis added). As can be seen, there is no mention in this passage that the “glyceride oil intermediate” must be pretreated, and no indication it is a novel term coined by the inventors. In any event, Neste has not given us reason to depart from the general presumption that a claim preamble is not limiting. The body of claim 6 recites a structurally complete invention, defining the bio oil intermediate according to its iron content. There is no reason to rely on the preamble of the claim for any structure, or for antecedent basis for any claim term. Therefore, we conclude that the preamble does not “breathe life and meaning” into the claim, but rather recites an intended use for the structurally complete invention recited in the body of the claim. As such, we decline to adopt Neste’s modified construction of the claim term, and maintain our prior construction of claim 6’s preamble.” slip op. at 14

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableUnpatentableMixed

    “Upon evaluation of the record as a whole, we believe Neste has the better argument, and conclude that the iron content of the bio oil in claim 1 should be determined when the feed is introduced to the catalyst bed. This interpretation is, most importantly, reflected in the structure of the claim. Claim 1 contains a single process step, of “subjecting a bio oil . . . to a hydrotreatment process.” Immediately following this process step is a wherein clause that requires the iron content of “said bio oil” to be within a certain range. The necessary implication of this claim structure is that “said bio oil” is referring to the substance that is being subjected to the hydrotreatment process, meaning the iron content that is relevant to the claim is the iron content at the time of hydrotreatment with a catalyst. The claim, as a comprising claim, does not exclude the presence of other treatment steps such as purification or dilution, but the structure of the claim does imply that these additional steps should be performed prior to determining whether the iron content of the feed is within the claimed range.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 8,742,185 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,742,185
• Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 6, 2020 · IPR2018-01033 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 17 is anticipated by Bednar, and claims 1 and 17 are obvious over Bednar and Gunther; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “requesting institution of inter partes review of claims 1, 4–6, and 17–19 of U.S. Patent No. 8,004,922 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’922 patent”). VLSI Technology LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 12). Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we instituted an inter partes review of all challenged claims. Paper 17 (“Inst. Dec.”).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “to the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. Accordingly, because our preliminary finding is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least (1) an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering (or an equivalent subject), together with three years of post-graduate experience designing power management circuits; or (2) a master’s degree in electrical engineering (or equivalent subject) together with two years of post-graduate experience designing power management circuits.” Inst. Dec. 8–9; see Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 26–27).” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “construction of “memory device,” specifically whether it encompasses a latch. Neither party argues that “memory device” is expressly defined in the ’922 patent. Accordingly, the plain and ordinary meaning of the term controls. And, the standard under which we construe the term is the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” slip op. at 45

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “preponderance of the evidence, that (1) claim 17 is anticipated by Bednar, and (2) claims 1 and 17 would have been obvious over the combination of Bednar and Gunther. For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has not demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) claim 1 is anticipated by Bednar or (2) claims 4–6, 18, and 19 would have been obvious over the combination of Bednar, Gunther, and Willingham. The chart below summarizes our conclusions.” slip op. at 91

  Patent outcomesUS 8,004,922 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,004,922
• Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 6, 2020 · IPR2018-01144 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2, 7, and 8 are unpatentable as obvious over Bednar and Gunther; claim 3 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “to the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. Accordingly, because our preliminary finding is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least (1) an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering (or an equivalent subject), together with three years of post-graduate experience designing power management circuits; or (2) a master’s degree in electrical engineering (or equivalent subject) together with two years of post-graduate experience designing power management circuits.” Inst. Dec. 8; see Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 26–27).” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “construction is erroneous. Accordingly, because the ’922 patent defines “power island,” we maintain and reaffirm that “power island” means a “group of components with similar power requirements.”” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “not to expressly construe “conversion controller” was erroneous or that an express construction is required to resolve any dispute between the parties. Accordingly, we maintain and reaffirm that because the construction of “conversion controller” does not resolve a controversy in the matter before us, we decline to construe it expressly.” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “construction of “memory device,” specifically whether it encompasses a latch. Neither party argues that “memory device” is expressly defined in the ’922 patent. Accordingly, the plain and ordinary meaning of the term controls. And, the standard under which we construe the term is the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” slip op. at 86

  Patent outcomesUS 8,004,922 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,004,922
• Wabco Holdings Inc. / Laydon Composites Ltd. v. Transtex Composites Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 10, 2020 · IPR2018-01319 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5–11, and 15–19 are unpatentable as obvious over Layfield and Rinard; claims 2–4, 12–14, and 20 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Micklow does not explain how or why he proposes a different level of ordinary skill in the art as compared to the level proposed by Petitioner and preliminarily adopted in our Decision on Institution. See generally id. ¶¶ 28–31. Additionally, neither Patent Owner nor Dr. Micklow argues that the difference in the proposed level of ordinary skill in the art affects the outcome of this proceeding; Dr. Micklow, in fact, states the contrary—that his opinions are the same under either level of skill. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 31.7 Nothing in the full record is sufficient to persuade us that our preliminary finding as to the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. Accordingly, because our preliminary finding is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, we maintain and reaffirm our preliminary finding that the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been “a bachelor’s degree in mechanics, aeronautics, materials, or a related field of study, or equivalent experience, and at least two years of experience in the development of components of vehicles, or an equivalent amount of relevant work or research experience.” Inst. Dec. 10–11; see Pet. 10.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Turning to Petitioner’s video (Ex. 1018), Petitioner asserts testing of commercial versions of the Layfield fairing illustrates what one skilled in the art would have understood from Layfield itself, namely that the Layfield strut is adapted to sustain an elastic deformation when a load is applied to the resilient strut when the skirt panel moves away from the configuration reducing air drag about the trailer and to self-recover the resilient strut original shape when the load is removed. Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 102–103).16 We afford this evidence little weight for several reasons. First, the video does not show the strut or the bending of a strut. See Ex. 1018. In fact, the only feature shown is a skirt panel attached to a trailer. that because thermoplastic material is more resilient than aluminum, we should adopt Petitioner’s argument. Pet. Reply 15–16 (citing Ex. 1058, 1– 12; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 77–82). We must base our decision in this case on the arguments and evidence presented. As explained above, the record before us has contradictory evidence in the form of Dr. Micklow’s testimony that was not before the examiner. 16 Petitioner does not cite Exhibit 1018 in the Petition, but instead cites to Mr. Tres’s testimony regarding the exhibit. Id. Thus, from the video, it is unknown whether the skirt panel is attached to the trailer by one strut, multiple struts, or additional features. Second, Petitioner does not identify clearly how the tested system precisely corresponds to the teachings of Layfield. For example, Patent Owner raises a number of issues with the struts and panels in the video to which Petitioner provides either no response or an unconvincing response. For example, Patent Owner argues that each embodiment of Layfield uses trusses 36 to “interconnect each skirt panel and reinforce the panel assembly,” while it is asserted that the skirt panels in the video do not have trusses and are not interconnected. PO Resp. 26. Petitioner argues that the skirt panels in the video were made according to the teachings of Layfield and did include “integral vertical lateral side edges as the connecting mechanism for adjacent panels.” Pet. Reply 19 (citing Exs. 1018, 2003, 2005; Ex. 1004, 18:36–39; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 63–64; Ex. 1055 ¶¶ 37–38). Other than stating that the skirt panels have connecting mechanisms, Petitioner does not address the fact that the panels are not interconnected according to the teachings of Layfield, as Patent Owner correctly pointed out. See generally id. at 19–21.” slip op. at 28

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “components (see, e.g., id. at 17:1–10), Layfield does not contain any express disclosure concerning the flexibility of the struts. Nor does Layfield include any discussion about the desirability of strut flexibility. The closest Layfield comes to discussing flexibility of the struts is by frequently referring to the struts as “support struts” (see, e.g., id. at 18:40) and discussing the use of a “bracket means,” which is on the struts, to “rigidly secure” the skirt panels to the trailer (id. at 6:48–49). Further, Layfield’s detailed discussion of the embodiment of support strut 58 shown in Figure 10, reproduced below, highlights the bracing and reinforcement features. Figure 10, above, shows the construction detail of a support strut 58. Ex. 1004, 15:45. Specifically, Layfield discloses that strut 58 includes “a pair of spaced-apart vertical members 160, which are braced by horizontal cross-members 162” and “reinforcing rectangular lattice 170.” Id. at 15:46– 54. Thus, we agree with Patent Owner’s argument that “Layfield does not expressly teach that the ‘support struts 58’ are ‘resilient.’” PO Resp. 42 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 148–149). We reiterate that Petitioner’s first challenge is based on anticipation. Thus, Petitioner must show that resilient struts are “either expressly or inherently described, in” Layfield. Verdegaal Bros. Inc., 814 F.2d at 631; see also PO Resp. 42. In its Reply Brief and at the oral hearing, Petitioner contends that its challenge is based on express disclosure, not inherency. See Pet. Reply 17–18; Tr. 9:21–11:4 (arguing that “this is not a case of inherency”). Petitioner contends one of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood, based upon Layfield’s express disclosures concerning the material, structure, and connection of the strut, that the Layfield strut is resilient and can sustain significant and substantial elastic deformation.” Pet. Reply 18 (citing REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC v. Neste Oil Oyj, 841 F.3d 954, 960–61 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Whether we analyze Petitioner’s argument based on express disclosure or inherency, we reach the same result. To begin, although we agree with Petitioner that a prior art reference “need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test” (Pet. Reply 17 (quoting In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009))), there is no express statement that Layfield’s strut is resilient or otherwise exhibits a characteristic synonymous with resiliency. Additionally, we do not agree that Petitioner’s reliance on the thermoplastic materials, disclosed by Layfield for construction of the strut, establishes whether the strut is resilient and capable of elastic deformation. The evidence submitted by the parties is contradictory as to whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Layfield’s struts to be resilient based on the material alone.15 Compare Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 74–82 15 Petitioner also points to a finding by the examiner, during prosecution of the ’017 patent application, that an aluminum strut was resilient, and argues (Mr. Tres opining as to the materials disclosed by Layfield), with Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 160–164 (Dr. Micklow contradicting Mr. Tres’s testimony regarding the materials disclosed by Layfield). Further, the evidence is contradictory as to whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the design of Layfield’s strut, specifically the taper design and mechanism by which the strut connects to the trailer I-beam, that the strut is resilient. Compare Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 83–90 (Mr. Tres’s testimony regarding the design and connection mechanism), with Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 165–175 (Dr. Micklow’s contradictory testimony). Turning to Petitioner’s video (Ex. 1018), Petitioner asserts testing of commercial versions of the Layfield fairing illustrates what one skilled in the art would have understood from Layfield itself, namely that the Layfield strut is adapted to sustain an elastic deformation when a load is applied to the resilient strut when the skirt panel moves away from the configuration reducing air drag about the trailer and to self-recover the resilient strut original shape when the load is removed. Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 102–103).16 We afford this evidence little weight for several reasons. First, the video does not show the strut or the bending of a strut. See Ex. 1018. In fact, the only feature shown is a skirt panel attached to a trailer.” slip op. at 26

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “Additionally, Patent Owner similarly contends that the modifications proposed are redundant of Layfield’s “flexible lower panel 20,” which already “allow[s] flexing when impacting a road object.” PO Resp. 59 (citing Ex. 1004, 14:13–18); see PO Sur-reply 26–27. We disagree. Again, the proposed modifications here are to Layfield’s struts. In the context of Petitioner’s anticipation challenge, we agreed with Patent Owner and found that Petitioner had not established sufficiently on the record that Layfield’s struts were resilient. See supra, § II.D.a.i., ii. Therefore, the proposed modification addressed here, to make Layfield’s struts resilient, does not duplicate the objective of Layfield’s flexible lower panel 20 at least because (a) Layfield’s struts are a different structure than lower panel 20 and (b) modification of Layfield’s struts would provide greater impact protection to other panels aside from just lower panel 20. See Pet. Reply 26–27 (One of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to do so because Rinard and Layfield both seek to provide fairing panels with ‘sufficient flexibility’ to bend when encountering objects.” (citing Ex. 1004, 12:67– 13:4; Ex. 1006, 10:43–50; Ex. 1055 ¶ 47)). We determine that Petitioner has shown that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason with rational underpinning to look to other similar types of trailer components that are flexible to make further improvements to Layfield’s design. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”). Third, Patent Owner contends one of ordinary skill in the art “would not have a reasonable expectation of success at achieving the claimed technology by looking to the vertical supports of Rinard’s air scoops to modify the Layfield skirt panels 10 and support struts 58.” PO Resp. 61 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 237–240). Patent Owner asserts that because Layfield’s upper skirt panels are rigid and non-moving one of ordinary skill in the art “would not reasonably expect the hypothetical modified panels (with their reinforcing trusses 36) to move.” Id. Patent Owner also argues that Rinard teaches “an upper skirt panel that is rigid and non-moving” and so it is not reasonable to expect modifying Layfield as proposed would somehow cause Layfield’s fixed skirt panels to be able to move as claimed. PO Sur-reply 27–28 (citations omitted). We disagree for the same reasons discussed above—namely, we find Layfield’s upper skirt panels to be resilient. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in achieving a resilient strut adapted as claimed by modifying Layfield’s strut in light of Rinard, for the reasons proposed by Petitioner. See Pet. Reply 27 (“Applying this solution to the Layfield skirt panel and struts would yield the predictable result of allowing the Layfield skirt panel 10 and struts 58 to absorb greater impacts without having to be repaired or replaced.” (citing Ex. 1021, 7–8, 11–12)).” slip op. at 42

  Patent outcomesUS 8,449,017 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,449,017

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.