- Allstate Insurance Company v. Atos, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 7, 2023 · IPR2021-01449 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 5 is unpatentable as anticipated by Kim; claims 1–4 were not shown unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Having considered the parties’ arguments and evidence, we adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner, because it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’174 patent and the prior art of record. We note, however, that neither party contends that any issue in this case turns on the differences between the parties’ definitions of one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that Petitioner’s proposed construction of “rotation vector” is consistent with the ’174 patent’s usage of the term “rotation vector” (or “vector of rotation”). See Ex. 1001, 1:54–2:11. Dr. Kanellakopoulos’s opinion supports that “rotation vector” would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to describe the motion of a body that is rotating around a point. As to the other aspects of Patent Owner’s proposed construction, describing the characteristics of magnitude and direction, we determine that those attributes are not necessary to interpreting how a skilled artisan would understand “rotation vector” in light of the claim language and specification. See Tr. 47:26–48:7 (in Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “rotation vector,” “the magnitude requirement is not particularly important”). We address the parties’ arguments as to differences between a rotation vector and angular momentum vector in Section II.D.2 below, because they underlie Petitioner’s challenges involving Kleppner.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Having considered the parties’ positions as to construction of the term “movement vector” and applicability of the definition of “movement vector” set forth in the ’174 patent specification (Ex. 1001, 2:29–31), we construe the term “movement vector” to mean “a vector derived from the cross product of the centrifugal force vector and the rotation vector.” We adopt the definition set forth in the ’174 specification because we determine patentee acted as its own lexicographer. Cont’l Cirs. LLC v. Intel Corp., 915 F.3d 788, 796 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316) (“When the patentee acts as its own lexicographer, that definition governs.”). We agree with Petitioner that the words “while a vehicle is turning” would be superfluous in the construction, because the step of “detecting a movement vector during the turn” already recites that the vehicle is turning. Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, 842 F.3d 1229, 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Construing a claim term to include features of that term already recited in the claims would make those expressly recited features redundant.”)” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We decline to adopt Patent Owner’s construction because it improperly reads into claim 5 a requirement that the specification and claim language do not support. The specification passages relied on by Patent Owner do not expressly state that a vehicle independent state must be determined while the device is inside a vehicle, and contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, they also do not necessarily imply that. For example, the descriptions of “vehicle independent movement” and “vehicle independent event” in the specification (see Ex. 1001, 1:16, 42) refer to “phone falling to the ground.” “Falling to the ground” implies that the phone may be outside a vehicle, not inside. Further, the specification’s reference to detecting a vehicle dependent state “while also” recognizing a vehicle independent event does not necessarily imply that the vehicle dependent state and vehicle independent event are being detected simultaneously, as Patent Owner argues. In the language of claim 5, a “vehicle independent state” is recited in the determining step (step c), and the requirement that the portable device is located “inside a vehicle” relates to creation of an operation indicator, as part of the detecting step (step b). Patent Owner does not dispute this, and agrees that a portable device “not in the vehicle” can satisfy the determining step (step c). Tr. 73:5–8. Patent Owner, however, argues step c’s recitation that a “vehicle independent state” is based on step b’s “predetermined criteria” creates a link between “vehicle independent state” and step b, and thus an “express requirement” in step c that the device is located inside the vehicle. See Tr. 73:8–26, 76:1–3. We decline to read this requirement into the claim language. Although the claim language states that determining a “vehicle independent state” is based on “predetermined criteria,” and step b describes comparing “predetermined criteria” to an “operation indicator” that is created when the device is inside a vehicle, it does not limit the step of determining a vehicle independent state to a time when the portable device is inside a vehicle. Accordingly, we construe “vehicle independent state” to mean a state triggered when the portable device is moved independently of the movement of the vehicle.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 9,846,174 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,846,174 - Nanofiber Solutions, LLC v. Acera Surgical, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,632,228 - Reg Synthetic Fuels, LLC v. Neste OyjSome claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,742,185 - Alere Inc. v. Rembrandt Diagnostics, LPSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 9, 2018 · IPR2016-01502 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 2 is unpatentable as anticipated by MacKay; claims 3–5 were not shown unpatentable over MacKay and Cipkowski.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Mkt’g Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett–Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). For example, a preamble may be limiting when the disputed preamble phrase provides antecedent basis for a claim term in the body of a claim, the specification underscores that the additional structure recited in the preamble is important, or when the patentee clearly relied upon the preamble during prosecution to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Id. at 808–09. “Conversely, a preamble is not limiting ‘where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention,’” id. at 808, or where the patentee uses the preamble to give “a descriptive name to the set of limitations in the body of the claim,” IMS Tech., Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The phrase ‘control apparatus’ in the preamble merely gives a descriptive name to the set of limitations in the body of the claim that completely set forth the invention.”). The term “device” is not recited in the body of any claim of the ’019 patent,4 the body of claim 1 recites a structurally complete invention, and the preamble phrase “device for collecting and assaying a sample of biological fluid” specifies the intended use of the invention. Thus, we find the claims of the ’019 patent do not support construing “device” as a limitation. See Catalina Mkt’g, 289 F.3d at 808–09.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“device” set forth above requires a single, unitary structure rather than a collection of separate structures that could be used during the test. See id. at 18 (concluding without analysis that the dictionary definition requires a “single, unitary structure”). Indeed, despite the ubiquitous use of the term “device” in patents generally, we are directed to no case in which the term “device,” by itself, was found to require a single, unitary structure. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, Section 2106, I (identifying “devices” as one of the four categories of statutory subject matter); Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson, 712 F.3d 549, 565 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (O’Malley concurring in part) (confirming that, in general, the term “device” is generic). Thus, we are not persuaded that the ordinary meaning of the term “device” requires a “single, unitary structure.” See Ex. 1023 ¶ 66 (Dr. Bohannon testifying that the word device, like the words “apparatus” or “system,” is merely a generic term that does not have a specialized meaning in the art and does not require a single, unitary structure). slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We do not find this argument persuasive. As noted above, we do not construe claim 1 to contain a method step of adding fluid to the container. We construe the first wherein clause of claim 1(c), instead, to require a structure that is capable of allowing liquid to enter the container when the flow control channel is properly disposed therein and is capable of directing this liquid to the sample loading zone of the assay test strip without the liquid having to migrate through an intermediate structure, such as a wicking material. We are persuaded—and Patent Owner does not dispute—that the apparatus of MacKay, as disclosed in Figures 8A–C, has a structure that is capable of achieving both functions. See, e.g., Tr. 26:10–30:20. First, given the open nature of the container, it is evident that liquid may be added to the container when the flow control channel is disposed within the container, and Patent Owner does not assert otherwise. See, e.g., id. Second, even if the fluid present in Figures 8A–C is considered, there is no intermediate structure in the container of MacKay that would prevent additional assay sample fluid from entering the container and being immediately directed to the sample loading zone of the assay test strips.6 Based on the foregoing, we find that MacKay discloses every limitation of claims 1 and 2 of the ’019 patent. Accordingly, Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 2 is anticipated by MacKay.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“discloses the subject matter of claims 3–5 of the ’019 patent. Pet. 26–30. Petitioner also asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to insert the test trip and flow control channel of MacKay in the holder of Cipkowski, in order to prevent “flooding of the test strip as taught in MacKay.” Id. at 29.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 6,548,019 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,548,019 - Neste Oil Oyj v. Reg Synthetic Fuels, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 26, 2017 · IPR2013-00578 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Remand
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 8 are unpatentable as anticipated by Craig; claims 2 and 5 are not proven unpatentable because Dindi is not prior art.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandDecided for patent owner
“To remove Dindi as a prior art reference, the record must establish either: (1) a conception and reduction to practice before the filing date of Dindi; or (2) a conception before the filing date of the Dindi patent combined with diligence and reduction to practice after that date. See Taurus IP, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 726 F.3d 1306, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The Federal Circuit held that the record before us establishes, with sufficient corroboration, that Mr. Abhari conceived of the invention of claims 2 and 5 of the ’804 patent on April 29, 2008. REG Synthetic Fuels, 841 F.3d at 963. It is undisputed that Dindi was filed on June 13, 2008, and that Mr. Abhari filed on December 4, 2008 the application that issued as the ’804 patent. Dindi is not prior art—and, therefore, Neste’s ground of unpatentability fails—if either: (1) Mr. Abhari actually reduced to practice the invention of claims 2 and 5 between April 29 and June 13, 2008, or (2) Mr. Abhari exercised reasonably continuous diligence between June 13 and December 4, 2008, when the invention was constructively reduced to practice by filing of a patent application. Because, as set forth below, we find sufficient evidence of actual reduction to practice, we do not address Mr. Abhari’s alleged diligence.” slip op. at 5
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“To remove Dindi as a prior art reference, the record must establish either: (1) a conception and reduction to practice before the filing date of Dindi; or (2) a conception before the filing date of the Dindi patent combined with diligence and reduction to practice after that date. See Taurus IP, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 726 F.3d 1306, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The Federal Circuit held that the record before us establishes, with sufficient corroboration, that Mr. Abhari conceived of the invention of claims 2 and 5 of the ’804 patent on April 29, 2008. REG Synthetic Fuels, 841 F.3d at 963. It is undisputed that Dindi was filed on June 13, 2008, and that Mr. Abhari filed on December 4, 2008 the application that issued as the ’804 patent. Dindi is not prior art—and, therefore, Neste’s ground of unpatentability fails—if either: (1) Mr. Abhari actually reduced to practice the invention of claims 2 and 5 between April 29 and June 13, 2008, or (2) Mr. Abhari exercised reasonably continuous diligence between June 13 and December 4, 2008, when the invention was constructively reduced to practice by filing of a patent application. Because, as set forth below, we find sufficient evidence of actual reduction to practice, we do not address Mr. Abhari’s alleged diligence.” slip op. at 5
- ExcludeNot reached
“As noted above, the Federal Circuit vacated our decision on Neste’s Motion to Exclude as to Exhibits 2012, 2013, 2057, and 2062, for further consideration of the hearsay objections in light of the decision on appeal, “because [they] may be relevant for diligence and reduction to practice.” REG Synthetic Fuels, 841 F.3d at 965. Upon review, however, we have determined that we need not rely on any of the exhibits in question to reach our decision in REG’s favor. For this reason, Neste’s objections to the exhibits are moot, as we would have found against Neste on the merits regardless of the outcome of the Motion.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 8,231,804 mixed§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 8,231,804 - Atlas Copco Airpower N.V. v. Kaeser Kompressoren SESome claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 23, 2016 · IPR2015-01421 · APJ Erica A Franklin · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–12, and 14–20 are unpatentable; claim 13 was not shown unpatentable, because White did not teach the claimed input-compressor control.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Based upon our review of Dunne and the supporting testimony of Dr. Knaebel, whose opinion, in this regard, we afford persuasive weight, we agree with Petitioner that Dunne discloses each element of claim 1, including inherently disclosing two alternative embodiments wherein a pressure increasing device is provided within the connecting line to increase pressure of the gas flowing from the second discharging line to the second feeding line. In particular, we are persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Dunne teaches that the compression required by paragraph 26 may optionally be provided in either stream 7 or 9, shown in Dunne’s Figure 1. Each of those streams may be seen as “going to the adsorption zone” and providing an opportunity for compression “prior to contacting the adsorbent wheel,” as required by Dunne. Ex. 1002 ¶ 26. Further, compression in any of those streams is consistent with the teaching in paragraph 27 of Dunne that compression may occur “prior to or after the condenser on the regeneration or cooling effluent,” i.e., Figure 1 shows that compression occurs in stream 7 prior to reaching the condenser and in stream 9 after the condenser, wherein each of those streams may be considered a regeneration effluent as they flow from the regeneration sector.” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not provide a statement describing a person of ordinary skill in the art. Nor does Patent Owner provide the testimony of a declarant purported to be such a person. Based upon our review of the record as a whole, we find that Petitioner’s statement regarding the qualifications of a person of ordinary skill in the art is sound and supported by the evidence. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s description. Moreover, we recognize Dr. Knaebel as a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“The Specification explains that the pressure increasing device is provided to “increase the pressure of the gas flowing from the second discharging line to the second feeding line.” Ex. 1001, 3:46–48. The Specification also explains that the pressure increasing device “may be a mechanical compressor, in particular a compressor and/or a fan and/or a pump and/or a side-channel compressor and/or a turbo compressor, e.g., a radial compressor.” Ex. 1001, 5:46–49. Independent claim 1 describes the connecting line by reciting, in part, “the second discharging line being in communication with the second feeding line and thus forming a connecting line.” Based upon our consideration of those descriptions and the Specification as a whole, we construe the phrase “a pressure increasing device provided within the connecting line” broadly to mean a device, such as a mechanical compressor, in particular a compressor, fan, pump, side-channel compressor, and/or a turbo compressor, e.g., a radial compressor, provided within the line formed between the second discharging line and the second feeding line, wherein the device increases pressure of gas flowing from the second discharging line to the second feeding line.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Based upon our review of Dunne and the supporting testimony of Dr. Knaebel, whose opinion, in this regard, we afford persuasive weight, we agree with Petitioner that Dunne discloses each element of claim 1, including inherently disclosing two alternative embodiments wherein a pressure increasing device is provided within the connecting line to increase pressure of the gas flowing from the second discharging line to the second feeding line. In particular, we are persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Dunne teaches that the compression required by paragraph 26 may optionally be provided in either stream 7 or 9, shown in Dunne’s Figure 1. Each of those streams may be seen as “going to the adsorption zone” and providing an opportunity for compression “prior to contacting the adsorbent wheel,” as required by Dunne. Ex. 1002 ¶ 26. Further, compression in any of those streams is consistent with the teaching in paragraph 27 of Dunne that compression may occur “prior to or after the condenser on the regeneration or cooling effluent,” i.e., Figure 1 shows that compression occurs in stream 7 prior to reaching the condenser and in stream 9 after the condenser, wherein each of those streams may be considered a regeneration effluent as they flow from the regeneration sector. Further, Petitioner has shown persuasively, and Patent Owner has not argued otherwise, that streams 7 and 9 depicted in Dunne’s Figure 1 make up a “connecting line in which a condenser 8 is provided” as required by claim 1. Pet. 28–30. Thus, we determine that Dunne’s inherent disclosure of providing a pressure increasing device in either of streams 7 or 9, results in two embodiments of the invention which necessarily meet all of the limitations in claim 1, including providing a pressure increasing device within the connecting line to increase the gas flowing from the second discharging line to the second feeding line.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 8,349,054 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,349,054 - LG Chem, Ltd. v. Celgard, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 5, 2015 · IPR2014-00692 · APJ Donna M Praiss · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–11 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 7–10 over Tojo and claims 1–6 and 11 over Tobishima and Tojo; the other instituted grounds were not proven.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Our reviewing court, however, has “cautioned against reading limitations into a claim from the preferred embodiment described in the specification, even if it is the only embodiment described, absent clear disclaimer in the specification.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Patent Owner does not direct us to any specific disclosure in the Specification of the ’586 patent clearly limiting or defining dendrite blocking as impeding dendrite growth for the entire intended life of a rechargeable battery. Accordingly, because the ’586 patent does not clearly disclaim the scope of dendrite blocking in the manner Patent Owner advances, we are not persuaded that we should limit the claims to the asserted primary goal, or preferred result, of the ’586 patent. We, therefore, decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proffered claim construction.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable
“and Dr. Abraham, as well as the Handbook’s disclosure that separator pores as small as 0.1 µm are effectively barn doors, which cannot prevent electronic shorts caused by dendrite growth, Patent Owner persuades us that Tojo’s porous ceramic composite layer is not capable of hindering, interrupting, or delaying the passage, progress, or course of dendrite growth, with any degree of effectiveness that prevents electronic shorting. That is, Patent Owner persuades us that Tojo’s separators do not include a ceramic composite layer that is adapted to at least block dendrite growth and to prevent electronic shorting, as recited in claim 1 of the ’586 patent.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“As discussed above, Petitioner does not persuade us that it has established that Tojo’s separator includes that feature, because of the pores in Tojo’s ceramic composite layer. Because Petitioner relies on this limitation being inherently present in Tojo as argued with respect to claim 1 (Pet. 19, 23), Petitioner does not provide any evidence to support the obviousness of this limitation. In the context of an obviousness analysis, inherency “‘may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.’” In re Oelrich, 666 F.3d 578, 581 (C.C.P.A. 1981) (quoting Hansgirg v. Kemmer, 102 F.2d 212, 214 (CCPA 1939)). An inherent disclosure is one that is “sufficient to show that the natural result flowing from the operation as taught would result in the performance of the questioned function.” Id.; Par Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[T]he concept of inherency must be limited when applied to obviousness, and is present only when the limitation at issue is the ‘natural result’ of the combination of prior art elements.”) (quoting In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d at 581). As discussed above, the preponderance of the evidence leads us to conclude that Tojo’s disclosure would not necessarily produce pores with a tortuosity sufficient to block dendrite growth. Thus, even if an ordinary artisan were to find it obvious to try one of the specific matrix materials recited in dependent claim 4 (id. at 19), the resulting ceramic composite layer required by both claim 4 and claim 12 would, nonetheless, have the pores that Tojo teaches should be present in that layer. Therefore, a preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that it would have been obvious that the separator disclosed by Tojo would result in a separator having the dendrite-blocking feature required by claims 4 and 12. Accordingly, because Petitioner has not shown that Tojo teaches or suggests all of the features required by claims 4 and 12, we conclude that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 4 and 12 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Tojo.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“Even disregarding the procedural infirmities in Patent Owner’s Response, however, Petitioner persuades us that the evidence of secondary considerations is not entitled to substantial weight, because Patent Owner has not established a sufficient nexus between the merits of the claimed subject matter and that evidence. Petitioner persuades us also that the evidence of secondary considerations is not reasonably commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter.” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 6,432,586 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,432,586 - SK Innovation Co., Ltd. v. Celgard, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 25, 2015 · IPR2014-00679 · APJ Francisco C Prats · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 7–9 are unpatentable as obvious over Tojo and Lundquist, and claim 10 as obvious over Tojo and Kejha; claims 1–6, 11, and 12 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“Our reviewing court, however, has “cautioned against reading limitations into a claim from the preferred embodiment described in the specification, even if it is the only embodiment described, absent clear disclaimer in the specification.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Patent Owner does not direct us to any specific disclosure in the Specification of the ’586 patent clearly limiting or defining dendrite blocking as impeding dendrite growth for the entire intended life of a rechargeable battery. Accordingly, because the ’586 patent does not clearly disclaim the scope of dendrite blocking in the manner Patent Owner advances, we are not persuaded that we should limit the claims to the asserted primary goal, or preferred result, of the ’586 patent. We, therefore, decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proffered claim construction.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable
“It is well settled that the “very essence of inherency is that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a reference unavoidably teaches the property in question.” Agilent Techs., Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., 567 F.3d 1366, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (emphasis added); see also In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981) (“Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.”). Given the evidence discussed above that the pores in Tojo’s ceramic composite layer would allow dendrite growth, Petitioner does not persuade us that, because Tojo’s ceramic composite layer contains the inorganic particles and matrix material required by claim 1, Tojo unavoidably teaches that its ceramic composite layer is adapted to block dendrite growth enough to prevent electronic shorting. See Reply 4–6. Moreover, even assuming for argument’s sake that larger dendrites would be blocked by Tojo’s pores (see id. at 8), Petitioner concedes that dendrites may grow at an atomic scale (id. at 7), and the evidence discussed above supports a finding that Tojo’s pores would not block dendrites of that size from producing an electronic short.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayMotivation foundTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“A reference does not teach away, however, “if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not ‘criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage’ investigation into the invention claimed.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Patent Owner does not direct us to disclosures in Tojo that clearly or specifically criticize or discredit the use of fluoropolymers as the matrix material in its ceramic composite layer. Moreover, as noted above, and as Petitioner points out (Reply 13–14), Tojo’s teaching regarding its matrix material is rather expansive. See 1007 ¶ 22 (“The binders are not particularly limited, as long as they are conventionally in use, and examples include various polyesters, polyolefins, rubbers, acrylic resins, or the like . . . .”) (emphases added). Given this expansive disclosure, we agree with Petitioner that an ordinary artisan would not have viewed Tojo’s failure to include fluoropolymers in its list of binder materials as a teaching away, even in light of the earlier mention of fluoropolymers as known separator materials.” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Because Tojo teaches that essentially any conventional polymeric material used in batteries can be used as its inorganic particle binder material, and because Lundquist, in turn, teaches that PTFE copolymers are useful as a binder material for inorganic particles in a battery separator containing the same two layers contained in Tojo’s separator, we find that that an ordinary artisan would have been prompted to use Lundquist’s PTFE copolymers as the binder material in Tojo’s separator. Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence do not persuade us to the contrary.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 6,432,586 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,432,586 - Facebook, Inc. / Linkedin Corp. et al. v. Software Rights Archive, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 30, 2015 · IPR2013-00480 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 14 was held unpatentable as anticipated by Fox Thesis; claims 1, 5, 15, and 16 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“determine whether “cluster links” means relationships between two nodes, which are represented in data stored in a computer. Claim 1 recites a method of analyzing data in a database with indirect relationships using links and nodes. Claim 14 similarly recites a method for representing the relationship between nodes, using stored direct links, paths, and candidate cluster links. As explained in the ’494 Patent specification, data in the database may be represented as a node. Ex. 1001, 12:29–33. Exemplary nodes include an object or a portion of an object, a document or section of a document, and a World Wide Web page. Id. at 12:35–38. The ’494 Patent specification states that a link is a “relationship between two nodes.” Id. at 12:65–66. The ’494 Patent specification continues, “[a] link [] can be represented by a vector or an entry on a table and contain information for example, a from-node identification [] (ID), a to-node ID [], a link type [], and a weight.” Id. at 13:3–6. As described in the ’494 Patent specification, a link is represented in data stored in a computer. We, therefore, determine that “cluster links” means relationships, which are represented in data stored in a computer and are used for grouping interrelated nodes.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“As described in Fox SMART, the concentration tests that are cited by Petitioner are performed as part of forming the cluster tree. Id. Petitioner does not identify disclosure in Fox SMART of deleting clusters other than those that simply overlap, or duplicate, other clusters. Overlapping clusters are deleted following a routine that identifies plausible clustering with “no limit on overlap.” Id. Additionally, Fox SMART includes code that collects orphans. Id. at 52. Petitioner, however, has not shown that Fox SMART describes a subset which does not include these orphans. Dr. Fox’s supplemental testimony that “Fox SMART teaches that potential (i.e., candidate) clusters are rejected (‘deleted’) if they fail any one of these tests” (Ex. 1028 ¶ 281 (citing Ex. 1005, 51)) suggests that the terms “rejected” and “deleted” are the same. We do not agree. In view of Dr. Fox’s testimony in both of his Declarations and the testimony of Dr. Jacobs, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would have understood Fox SMART as describing deleting overlap that had been generated by the immediately preceding software routine. Additionally, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would have understood Fox SMART as describing that the tests referred to by Dr. Fox are processed during formation of the tree. We, therefore, determine that Dr. Fox’s testimony does not address persuasively the requirement in claim 1 of deriving a subset of the already generated candidate cluster links.” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend to cancel claims 8, 10, 11, 35, and 40 of the ’494 Patent is GRANTED;” slip op. at 24
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“arguments for the first time. Paper 44, 1. A reply may respond to arguments raised in the corresponding patent owner response. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(a). Examples of indications that a new issue has been raised in a reply include new evidence necessary to make out a prima facie case for the unpatentability of a claim. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012). We determine that the evidence presented in the Reply Fox Declaration that is discussed in this Decision properly responds to arguments raised in the Patent Owner Response. Additionally, we do not rely on evidence in the Reply Fox Declaration in our determination that Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 14 is unpatentable. For the reasons given, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude.” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 5,832,494 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipationcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 5,832,494
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.