• Embody, Inc. / Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. v. Lifenet HealthSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 4, 2026 · IPR2025-00249 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 4–8 are unpatentable: claims 1 and 4–6 as obvious over Huang2 and Kuo, and claims 7–8 as anticipated by Huang2; claims 2–3 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “(“POSITA”) “would be a Ph.D. student with a minimum of two years of experience in their faculty advisor’s laboratory” and would have an understanding of “electrospinning fibers, including for tissue engineering, tissue engineering techniques, and using/performing FFT analysis.” Pet. 20– 21 (citing Ex. 1003 § II.C7). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal but specifies the set of disciplines within which the Ph.D. would have been earned, namely “bioengineering, chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, or a related engineering discipline.” PO Resp. 6. We adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposal as clarified by Patent Owner regarding the Ph.D. discipline.” slip op. at 7

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

    “At the outset, we agree with Patent Owner that the Specification purports to define “major peaks” in the following sentence: “The ‘major peaks’ herein refer to peaks higher than the average of the peaks in the result.” Ex. 1001, 13:28–29. We determine that this language satisfies at least two of the criteria set forth in Alnylam. Specifically, the sentence at “refers to” to explain what qualifies as major peaks. That is not the end of the inquiry, however, as we find there is still some ambiguity as to whether the patentee intended to define “major peaks” so as to require so-called “minor peaks” in the claimed invention. See Bell Atlantic, 262 F.3d at 1268 (“[T]he intrinsic evidence must ‘clearly set forth’ or ‘clearly redefine’ a claim term so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the patentee intended to so redefine the claim term.”). Importantly, the Specification does not treat the existence of minor peaks as prerequisites for the existence of major peaks. Indeed, the Specification does not discuss “minor peaks” at all. See generally Ex. 1001. Likewise, none of the claims of the ’227 patent, whether challenged or unchallenged, recites “minor peaks” or any additional peaks beyond the disputed “major peaks.” Id. at 23:30–24:42. Nor does the Specification include an example of FFT analysis results in which the average of the peaks therein is calculated and those higher than the average are identified as major peaks.8” slip op. at 9

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

    “Petitioner has the better position. Huang2 teaches crosslinking and provides a reason for doing so (stability). In particular, Huang2 states: “To better mimic skin ECM, electrospun collagen fibers have been fabricated, however, the rapid degradation and poor mechanical properties determine that either crosslinking or combination with other materials is necessary to obtain a stable scaffold.” Ex. 1005, 1791 (emphasis added). It is true that, in describing work actually carried out, Huang2 states that blending with PCL was performed and does not mention crosslinking. See id. at 1792 (“Nanofibrous matrices of PCL and Collagen at a weight ratio of 3:1 were fabricated using electrospinning as previously described.”). However, the prior art – here, Huang2 – is not limited to that which it describes having created. See In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651 (C.C.P.A. 1972) (“a reference is not limited to the disclosure of specific working examples”); see also In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009 (CCPA 1968) (“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.”); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“It is well settled that a prior art reference is relevant for all that it teaches to those of ordinary skill in the art.”). Huang2 teaches two stabilization methods when using collagen in scaffolds. Huang2 states that one or the other “is necessary to obtain a stable scaffold” (when using collagen), but it does not preclude or teach away from using Patent Owner-cited testimony of Dr. Mikos is not as definitive as Patent Owner suggests; Dr. Mikos’s testimony is that a person of ordinary skill in the art “typically would not have done both.” Ex. 2015 ¶64 (emphasis added). The bottom line is that Huang2 teaches the person of ordinary skill in the art two ways to stabilize scaffolds/matrices comprised of collagen, provides a reason for doing so (stability), and does not teach away from using both. We are persuaded that a “scaffold comprising crosslinked fibers comprising collagen” would have been obvious in view of the cited teachings of Huang2.” slip op. at 33

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We are not persuaded by Appellant’s citations to either reference. As discussed above, Petitioner’s Ground 1 is premised on a person of ordinary skill in the art altering the native flat sheet structure of Huang2 by rolling it into a jelly-roll structure as taught by Kuo. See Pet. 41 (Beginning its claim 2 arguments with the following: “Claim 1 is obvious for the reasons expressed above in § X.A., supra, which are incorporated herein.”); see also Pet. Reply 17 (“[B]ased on the explicit teaching of Kuo, a POSA would have been motivated to take the electrospun flat scaffold made by the techniques of Huang2, seed it with the desired cells, and roll it to treat a tendon and ligament.” (emphasis added)). Indeed, the paragraphs of Kuo that Petitioner cites for disclosing “scaffold sheets,” explicitly describe rolling them into jelly-roll like structures. See Ex. 1018 ¶7 (stating that “the sheet is spirally contacting a scaffold sheet of fibrous material with a cell; and rolling the scaffold sheet in a jelly-roll like manner to form a spirally wound tissue construct”), ¶22 (describing a method comprising “forming a tissue construct by contacting a scaffold sheet of fibrous material with a cell; and rolling the scaffold sheet in a jelly-roll like manner to form a spirally wound tissue construct” and implanting it in a patient). Petitioner fails to argue that that “one or more elongated sheets” recited in claim 2 would encompass the rolled structure of its proposed modification. Nor does Petitioner articulate a claim construction argument that could support such an argument. Petitioner has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 2 would have been obvious over Huang2 and Kuo.” slip op. at 42

  Patent outcomesUS 11,318,227 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Markman · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,318,227
• Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte Ges.M.B.H. v. Advanced Bionics AGSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 2, 2021 · IPR2020-00190 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 4–7 are unpatentable as obvious over Dooley and von Ilberg 1999; claims 3 and 8 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In the Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, stating it was “consistent with the evidence at this stage of the proceeding, including the asserted prior art.” Dec. Inst. 21. In its Response, Patent Owner notes that “Dr. Zeng explains that he would particularly emphasize experience relating to designing or developing cochlear implants and hearing aids, or systems for fitting such prostheses to patients,” but indicates that it does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of this proceeding. PO Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2014 ¶ 66). Based on our review of the complete record, we continue to apply the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted in the Decision on Institution. We” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner asserts that the Specification of the ’747 patent defines the term “electric-acoustic processor.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1001, 10:65–67, 11:1–7). In the Decision on Institution, we determined that it was not necessary to construe “electric-acoustic processor” at that stage of the proceeding. Dec. Inst. 22 (citing Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Patent Owner agrees the term “electric-acoustic processor” does not require construction for purposes of this proceeding. PO Resp. 14. Accordingly, we do not expressly construe “electric-acoustic processor” for this Decision.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “that “configured to generate or apply . . . acoustic stimulation signals to the acoustic sensing organs of the ear” means more than simply being capable of applying acoustic stimulation signals. Dec. Inst. 28. In its Response, Patent Owner argues that the term should be given its plain meaning and does not require explicit construction. PO Resp. 15–16. Patent Owner adds that: To the extent there is a dispute, Patent Owner agrees with the Board’s reasoning that the “configured to” language does not merely reflect an intended use and requires more than a device that is simply “capable of” generating or applying the recited acoustic or electric stimulation in different or separate configurations. Id. at 16 (citing Dec. Inst. 28). Petitioner does not respond to Patent Owner’s assertion that “configured to generate or apply” should be given its plain meaning but does indicate that it disagrees with our “construction” of the term “configured to.” Pet. Reply 14–15 (citing Dec. Inst. 27–28). Petitioner, however, does not present any reasoning supporting its assertion the Board was wrong or offer any argument regarding how “configured to” should be construed. See generally Pet. Reply. We did not expressly construe “configured to” or “configured to generate or apply” in the Decision on Institution, but, as noted above, we did determine that that “configured to generate or apply . . . acoustic stimulation signals to the acoustic sensing organs of the ear” means more than simply being capable of applying acoustic stimulation signals. Dec. Inst. 28. Based on the complete record, we still are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that “configured to” should be construed as merely “capable of,” and for the reasons in the Decision on Institution, which we adopt here, we determine acoustic sensing organs of the ear” means more than simply being capable of applying acoustic stimulation signals.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Anderson discloses an embodiment (“the acoustic embodiment”) in which earpiece 10 includes speaker 15 that generates acoustic waves (i.e., acoustic signals) to stimulate the user’s ear. Ex. 1003, 3:58–60, 4:33–35, 5:18–21, 6:63–67, Figs. 1, 2. Anderson also discloses in Figure 10 a different embodiment (“the cochlear implant embodiment”) that combines earpieces 10’ and 10” with a cochlear implant system. Id. at 27:25–45, Fig. 10. In this embodiment, “[s]peakers 15 in the left and right earpieces serve no purpose in the cochlear implant application, as the user is profoundly deaf, and may be disconnected to conserve power.” Id. at 27:52– 55. Because Anderson discloses that the speakers serve no purpose in the cochlear implant embodiment and could be disconnected from power, we determine that the speakers are not used in this embodiment. In addition, Petitioner does not direct us to—nor are we aware of—any disclosure in Anderson indicating that speaker 15 of the cochlear implant embodiment receives a signal that causes the speaker to generate acoustic output. In contrast, Anderson discloses that earpiece headset 21 of Figure 2, which is functionally equivalent to speaker 15 of the acoustic embodiment, receives a modified speech signal and converts this signal to acoustic waves. Ex. 1003, 4:33–35, 5:18–21; see also id. at 6:63–67 (disclosing that speaker 15 produces a processed acoustic signal that corresponds to the ambient acoustic signal detected by microphone 12). embodiment cannot generate or apply acoustic stimulation signals. For these reasons, we determine that speakers 15 in the cochlear implant embodiment are not configured to generate or apply acoustic stimulation signals.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 8,155,747 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,155,747
• Google Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 20, 2015 · IPR2014-00787 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 19–22 and 24–30 are unpatentable as anticipated by Gough; claims 1–3, 5, 7–10, 12–14, and 21 are not shown unpatentable over the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner. Although Figures 4 and 5 of the ’960 patent show keys that are partially surrounded by shadowing or shading, there is no suggestion in the Specification that the “blended shadow” recited in the claims should be limited to only this shadowing. The claim language itself, referring to a blended shadow of the representation of at least one key and the main image (see claim 24), indicates explicitly that the blended shadow incorporates both the key image and the main image and, thus, should not be limited to the shadowing surrounding the keys. Accordingly, based on the full record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of “blended shadow” as “a portion of a composite image in which the main image is visible through the overlaid image as a result of combining the data from corresponding pixels from the main and overlaid images” for the purpose of this Final Written Decision. B.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner does not explain adequately where the detailed analysis set forth in the Reply is made in the Petition, and, in any event, we do not find the arguments persuasive. “A patent claim is anticipated if a single prior art reference expressly or inherently discloses every limitation of the claim.” DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1252 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Here, Petitioner does not describe sufficiently how Gough expressly discloses using logical operators to accomplish the blending process.6 We do not agree that either Gough’s description of the blending process depicted in Figures 10a–10f (Ex. 1007, 10:23–41) or Gough’s description of using the color look-up table (id. at 14:9–19) expressly discloses using logical operators, and such express disclosure is required for anticipation. At best, Petitioner’s arguments suggest how Gough could be envisioned as using logical operators, but do not explain adequately where or how Gough expressly discloses using logical operators to carry out the blending process. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 1, and claims 2, 3, 5, 7–10, and 12–14 depending therefrom, are anticipated by Gough.” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “3. Harrison Petitioner also argues Harrison teaches certain limitations. Pet. 44, 48, 52–55. Petitioner does not explain what Harrison adds to what is taught by Buxton. See id. at 48 (“[t]o the extent that these features may not be fully disclosed in Buxton, they are clearly disclosed in Harrison”). For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we determine the teachings of Harrison are cumulative to the teachings of Buxton, and therefore, do not address Harrison further.7 4. Claims 1–3, 5, 7–10, and 12–14 Petitioner argues that “Buxton discloses nearly all of the elements and limitations” of the challenged claims. Pet. 42. With respect to claim 1, Petitioner argues that Buxton discloses using alpha blending in accordance with the equation I = αI1 + (1-α)I2, where I is the resulting color intensity, I1 is the color intensity of the foreground image pixel, I2 is the color intensity of the background image pixel, and α is the specified transparency level between 0 and 1. Id. at 43–44 (citing Ex. 1009, 17:17–28). Petitioner argues that Buxton’s alpha blending “permits pixels to be ‘dedicated simultaneously’ to both images in order to produce a composite image” and is an “example of an operation using logical operators to provide different blending effects.” Id. at 44 (citing Ex. 1009, 16:63–17:4). Petitioner contends that although “Buxton may lack explicit disclosure of . . . a touchactivated device (required in claims 1 and 26),” Bier discloses that a touch screen is interchangeable with a mouse. Id. at 44–45. Petitioner also contends that Bier discloses a keyboard superimposed over a display. Id. at 7 Because the asserted ground includes Harrison, we continue to include it as part of our overall analysis.” slip op. at 23

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “After considering all evidence and arguments, we agree with Patent Owner. In particular, we determine that Petitioner’s arguments do not persuade us that Buxton’s alpha blending equation uses operators that manipulate binary values at the bit level, consistent with our construction of “logical operators.” The alpha blending equation unquestionably involves arithmetic operations, which we find differ from logical operations. Furthermore, Petitioner has not shown persuasively whether any logical operations overlap with any arithmetic operations. Therefore, we agree with Patent Owner’s contention that Buxton’s alpha blending equation does not use logical operators.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 6,121,960 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 6,121,960
• C&D Zodiac, Inc. v. B/E Aerospace, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 26, 2015 · IPR2014-00727 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–7, 9, 10, 12–14, 16–19, 21, 22, 24–29, 31, and 33–37 are unpatentable as obvious over Betts; claims 8, 20, 30, and 38 were not shown unpatentable over Betts and the Orange Book.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “The term “enclosure unit” encompasses lavatories, aircraft closets, and aircraft galleys. Given the grounds of unpatentability that Petitioner raises, there is no need to further construe this term. 2. “lavatory stall unit” Whereas independent claim 1 recites “enclosure unit,” independent claim 9 recites “lavatory stall unit.” Patent Owner proposes the latter be construed as “a single room, enclosed on all sides, having a toilet and washbasin and large enough to fit a person inside.” PO Resp. 12. For reasons similar to those with respect to “enclosure unit,” we reject Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “lavatory stall unit.” Further, given the grounds of unpatentability that Petitioner raises, there is no need to provide an express construction for this term. More specifically, Petitioner does not rely on any particular prior art lavatory. Indeed, Petitioner does not rely on either of the asserted references to teach a “lavatory stall unit,” instead relying on the knowledge and skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “These proposed constructions would render the claim language “in a vertical plane” meaningless because tilting a seatback between an upright position and another position would have no effect on the shape of the aft surface of the seatback. Therefore, we do not adopt them. See Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (proposed construction that rendered a portion of the claim language meaningless held improper). Rather, we construe “in a vertical plane” according to its ordinary and customary meaning and consistent with the specification, which contrasts a forward wall in a vertical plane (see Fig. 1—the prior art) against a recessed forward wall (see Fig. 2—an embodiment of the claimed invention). In sum, the full limitation at issue encompasses an aft portion (in the case of claim 1) and an aft portion with an exterior aft surface (in the case of claims 9, 21, and 31) that has a flat shape but which is not within a vertical plane. This is within the broadest reasonable construction in light of the Specification, which discloses a substantially conforming recessed forward wall positioned behind the seat (see Ex. 1001, Fig. 2), as opposed to a wall that is flat in a vertical plane (see id. at Fig. 1). 4. “forward wall portion is shaped to substantially conform to the shape of the” slip op. at 10

  • BurdenFwd mixedMixed

    “As discussed below, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 3–7, 9, 10, 12–14, 16–19, 21, 22, 24–29, 31, and 33–37 of the ’838 patent are unpatentable as obvious over Betts. But, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 8, 20, 30, and 38 are unpatentable as obvious in view of Betts and the Orange Book, as Petitioner has not established that the evidence relied upon within the Orange Book is a printed publication.” slip op. at 3

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

    “motivated to efficiently use space on an aircraft, as evidenced by Betts, “to provide more room for passengers.” Id. ¶ 65 (quoting Ex. 1003, 1:6–7). Mr. Anderson further testifies that Betts teaches the person of ordinary skill in the art a recessed forward wall configuration that uses space more efficiently than a flat configuration, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the recessed configuration to other aircraft enclosures, including lavatories. Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been discouraged from attempting to tailor Betts’ divided space design to any lavatory stall unit (or any other enclosure unit) because Betts required separate enclosures divided both functionally and spatially.” PO Resp. 29. But, Petitioner’s ground of unpatentability is not premised on whether it would have been practical or possible to convert Bett’s “divided space” (i.e., its overhead coat compartment and floor luggage space) into a lavatory. Rather, Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to apply Bett’s recessed forward wall design to other aircraft enclosures, including a lavatory. Pet. 19 (“One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of the McDonnell Douglas patent [i.e., Betts] are equally applicable to the forward walls of other enclosure units, such as lavatories or galleys.”) (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 65–68); cf. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (“Etter’s assertions that Azure cannot be incorporated in Ambrosio are basically irrelevant, the criterion being not whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole.”); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the 15 features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”).” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 8,590,838 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,590,838
• Motorola Mobility LLC v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 9, 2015 · IPR2014-00504 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 18 are unpatentable: claims 1 and 2 are anticipated by Boehm, and the challenged claims are obvious over the instituted combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “To remove Boehm as a prior art reference, the record must establish either: (1) a conception and reduction to practice before the filing date of Boehm; or (2) a conception before the filing date of the Boehm 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). Under either approach, however, it must be proven that conception occurred prior to November 4, 2002. See id. “Conception exists when a definite and permanent idea of an operative invention, including every feature of the subject matter sought to be patented, is known.” Sewall v. Walters, 21 F.3d 411, 415 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Furthermore, “[t]he conception analysis necessarily turns on the inventor’s ability to describe his invention with particularity. Until he can do so, he cannot prove possession of the complete mental picture of the invention.” Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Objective evidence that corroborates an inventor’s testimony regarding the conception of the invention is required “because of the danger in post-hoc rationales by an inventor claiming priority.” Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Labs., Inc., 429 F.3d 1052, 1065 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The sufficiency of corroboration is determined according to a “rule of reason.” Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1993). This approach, however, “does not dispense with the requirement for some evidence of independent corroboration.” Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 360 (Fed. Cir. 1985).” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s proposed construction does not take into account properly the “managing the data path” claim language, even given that Petitioner construes only the limitation “a Local Area Network (LAN) routing system” rather than the entire phrase. In any event, we decline to adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction because it erroneously equates a LAN routing system to “a local area network or equivalent circuitry.” We do not view a LAN routing system as being equivalent to a LAN itself or circuitry “equivalent” to a LAN, which Petitioner has not described. We also decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction, which is not supported adequately. Specifically, Patent Owner does not explain sufficiently why managing the data path necessarily is accomplished “by controlling client devices’ access to the Internet and by controlling access to the client devices from the Internet.” Patent Owner asserts that the Specification of the ’771 patent describes managing the data path “by controlling the client devices’ access to the Internet, such as by requiring authentication before permitting access” and preventing “unauthorized access in the opposite direction by ‘allow[ing] all client devices 30 to share a single external Internet address.’” PO Resp. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:1–14); see also Tr. 43:10–14 (stating the Specification “talks about managing as controlling the client devices’ access to the Internet, things like authentication, and controlling access to client devices from the Internet, like sharing a single Internet address”). The Specification, however, does not describe “managing the data path” explicitly, and we are not persuaded that the “managing the data path” claim language necessarily includes the authentication and sharing functions described in the cited passages. As such, Patent Owner’s reliance on the cited passages in its construction seeks to improperly read limitations from the Specification into the claim. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“We have 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.”). Dr. Tewfik testifies that “[i]n computer networking, routing systems allow data to be exchanged between networks by forwarding data to a recipient device in one network from a sending device in another network.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 10. Dr. Tewfik further testifies that, “[i]n the ’771 patent, the LAN routing system is the LAN [R]outer 16,” and the LAN routing system allows data to be exchanged between the short-range local network and the Internet. Id. ¶ 11. This testimony is not dissimilar to Dr. Roy’s testimony that a LAN routing system “routes (i.e. communicates) data between a client device that is accessible via a short-range wireless interface and the Internet that is accessible [via] a long range Internet access interface.” Ex. 1012 ¶ 18. Thus, Dr. Tewfik and Dr. Roy essentially are in agreement that a routing system directs (i.e., exchanges, routes, or communicates) data between networks. This meaning is consistent with the Specification of the ’771 patent, which describes LAN Router 16 as “direct[ing] traffic from the access point 12 to the Internet 20 via the fixed WAN interface 18.” Ex. 1001, 3:33–34. Therefore, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in light of the Specification, we interpret the phrase “a Local Area Network (LAN) routing system managing the data path between said wireless access point and said Internet access interface” to mean “a system that directs data between a local area network and the Internet by managing the data path between a wireless access point and an Internet access interface.”” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “3. “stand-alone system” In the Decision on Institution, we interpreted “stand-alone system” to mean “a system capable of operating independently of any other system.” Dec. on Inst. 8–9. The parties do not dispute this interpretation (PO Resp. 10; Pet. Reply 13), and we see no reason to modify this interpretation in light of the record developed at trial. Accordingly, we adopt this interpretation for this Final Written Decision. B.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Regarding claim 1, Petitioner argues that Boehm discloses (1) the recited short-range, high-speed wireless access point in the form of wireless access point 325; (2) the recited long-range, wireless Internet access interface in the form of interchangeable network interface 350; and (3) the recited LAN routing system in the form of router 330. Pet. 13. Petitioner also argues that Boehm discloses the recited stand-alone system without the need to access an external service controller server, because Boehm discloses “performing DHCP and network address translation locally rather than by requiring an external server accessible via a long-range network connection to do so.” Id. at 13, 16. With respect to claim 2, Petitioner argues that Boehm discloses using 802.11b wireless communication technology. Id. at 16 (quoting Ex. 1005 ¶ 21).” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,382,771 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 7,382,771
• Motorola Mobility LLC v. Intellectual Ventures I LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 9, 2015 · IPR2014-00501 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 7, 9–12, and 16–18 were held unpatentable; claims 4–6, 8, 13–15, and 19–21 were patentable because the cited art did not disclose the required transmission behavior.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “With respect to entitlement to any earlier effective priority date, a party must identify, specifically, the disclosure in ancestral applications “which do not share the same disclosure,” and which allegedly show § 112 support for the relied-upon priority date. See, e.g., Polaris Wireless, Inc. v. TruePosition, Inc., Case IPR2013-00323, slip. op. at 29 (PTAB Nov. 15, 2013) (Paper 9). To link the Ayyagari Provisional with Ayyagari ’508, Petitioner relates the claims of the ’392 patent to Ayyagari ’508, and then, separately, relates the claims of the ’392 patent to the Ayyagari Provisional. This triangulation does not meet Petitioner’s burden of showing that Ayyagari ’508 is entitled to the earlier filing date of the Ayyagari Provisional. Specifically, while the cited portions of the Ayyagari Provisional and Ayyagari ’508 may each disclose a certain claim limitation, the disclosures may be in different embodiments or contexts such that the cited portion of the Ayyagari Provisional does not provide an adequate ancestral basis for the cited portion of Ayyagari ’508. Petitioner should not expect the Board to search the record and cull the evidence necessary to support Petitioner’s arguments. Amazon.com, Inc. v. Personalized Media Comm., LLC, Case IPR2014-01533, slip op. at 6 (PTAB April 20, 2015) (Paper 16); cf., DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866–67 (7th Cir. 1999) (“A brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archeologist with the record.”). Petitioner has not, in its case-in-chief, linked the Ayyagari Provisional disclosure with the Ayyagari ’508 disclosure in a sufficient manner to meet its burden. Petitioner has not shown that Ayyagari ’508 is entitled to a priority date any earlier than its actual filing date of February 22, 2001.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “explain the alleged reduction to practice embodied in Exhibit F. In evaluating a Patent Owner’s reliance on a declaration, we take into consideration whether Petitioner has had an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. Amneal Pharms., LLC v. Endo Pharms. Inc., Case IPR2014- 00360, slip op. at 4 (PTAB December 3, 2014) (Paper 39). If Patent Owner does not produce a declarant for cross-examination, we will give that declaration little to no weight. See Mexichem Amanco Holdings S.A. de C.V. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., Case IPR2013-00576, slip op. at 3 (PTAB Sept. 5, 2014) (Paper 36). Petitioner, upon requesting deposition availability for Mr. Wentink, was informed by Patent Owner that “[w]ith respect to Mr. Wentink, Patent Owner does not believe it is required, under the rules, to produce Mr. Wentink for deposition.” Ex. 1017 (corrected), 1. No further explanation of Patent Owner’s interpretation of the rules, or regarding availability of Mr. Wentink for deposition, is before us. Although we have no reason to question Dr. Tewfik’s credentials, his value as a witness is compromised heavily by his distance from and post hoc evaluation of the circumstances of the alleged reduction to practice of the invention. Patent Owner is correct that it was not required, under the rules, to make Mr. Wentink available for cross-examination. Under these circumstances, however, we accord Mr. Wentink’s declaration little weight.” slip op. at 12

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedReference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “Although the ultimate determination of whether a document is a printed publication is a question of law, it is a question that is closely based on the underlying facts and circumstances surrounding the disclosure of a document to members of the public. Suffolk Techs., LLC v. AOL Inc., 752 F.3d 1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014); SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1192 (Fed. Cir. 2008); In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Public accessibility is a key question in determining whether a document is a printed publication and is determined on a case-bycase basis. Suffolk Techs., 752 F.3d at 1364. To qualify as a printed publication, a document “must have been sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art.” In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “A given reference is ‘publicly accessible’ upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” SRI Int’l, 511 F.3d at 1194 (quoting Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).” slip op. at 16

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “The moving party has the burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). A motion to exclude is neither a substantive sur-reply, nor a proper vehicle for arguing whether a reply or supporting evidence is of appropriate scope. Zynga Inc. v. Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC, IPR2013-00162, slip op. at 3 (PTAB Aug. 28, 2013) (Paper 15); Berk-Tek LLC v. Belden Tech., Inc., IPR2013-00057, slip op. at 3 (PTAB Oct. 31, 2013) (Paper 39). Patent Owner’s objections to Exhibits 1005, 1006, 1010, 1013, 1014, and 1017 go more to the weight that the information disclosed therein should be afforded, rather than to its admissibility. It is within our discretion to assign the appropriate weight to be accorded to the information in Exhibits 1005, 1006, 1010, 1013, 1014, and 1017. The Board, sitting as a non-jury tribunal with administrative expertise, is well-positioned to determine and assign appropriate weight to evidence presented. Gnosis S.P.A. v. S. Ala. Med. Sci. Found., IPR2013-00118, slip op. at 43 (PTAB June 20, 2014) (Paper 64); see also Donnelly Garment Co. v. NLRB, 123 F.2d 215, 224 (8th Cir. 1941) (“One who is capable of ruling accurately upon the admissibility of evidence is equally capable of sifting it accurately after it has been received.”). We, thus, decline to exclude Exhibits 1005, 1006, 1010, 1013, 1014, and 1017. Moreover, we agree with Petitioner that Exhibits 1010, 1013, and 1014 are evidence that properly responds to arguments made by Patent Owner in its Response. Resp. to Mot. to Excl. 11, 12–14; 37 C.F.R. § 42.23. Regarding Exhibit 1006, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that the testimony of Mr. Worstell (Ex. 1010) authenticates Exhibit 1006. Resp. to Mot. to Excl. 7–8. Similarly, we are persuaded that Exhibit 1010, paragraphs 13–15, reflect testimony based on Mr. Worstell’s personal knowledge and should not be excluded. Accordingly, the Motion to Exclude is dismissed as to paragraphs 23 and 59 of Exhibit 1008, paragraph 6 of Exhibit 1019, and Exhibit 1016, and denied as to Exhibits 1005, 1006, 1010, 1013, 1014, and 1017.” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 7,136,392 mixed
  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 7,136,392
• Square, Inc. v. Rem Holdings 3, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 7, 2015 · IPR2014-00312 · APJ Denise M Pothier · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 10–17 are unpatentable under §103 over Lekernel and Padilla, alone or with Wallner; claims 3–5, 8, and 9 are not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “We agree that the McLaughlin declaration does not outline specific qualifications of one skilled in the art. Ex. 1015 ¶ 9. However, Dr. McLaughlin states, and we agree, that “the level of ordinary skill in the art is evidenced by the prior art references.” Id. and Pet. Reply 3 (citing In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). We also agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner has unduly narrowed the qualifications of one of ordinary skill. See Pet. Reply 1. In particular, and in contrast with the above assertions, Patent Owner describes Mr. Bourdeauducq as an expert in the relevant field. PO Resp. 1 (stating “Sebastien Bourdeauducq (See Exhibit 2033), (and an actual expert in the Relevant Field)”). Yet, Mr. Bourdeauducq lacks several of the purported qualifications of an ordinarily skilled artisan that Patent Owner asserts. Pet. Reply 2. For example, Mr. Bourdeauducq was about eighteen years old when he wrote the Lekernel article, had no engineering degree, had about one week of experience with magnetic stripe card readers, and had a general consumer understanding of credit card processing. Id. (citing Ex. 1064, 12:14–15:20). Based on the record, we determine that the level of skill in the art is more aligned with a high school or first-year engineering student taking a class covering the topic of basic circuit analysis and having a general, consumer knowledge of magnetic card readers.4 Mr. Bourdeauducq, Dr. McLaughlin, Dr. Morley, and Mr. Wood all have these qualifications. Ex. 2033 ¶ 3 (referring to Exhibit A) and Ex. 1064, 15:16–20; Ex. 1015 ¶ 2 and Ex. 2035, 88:15–18; Ex. 2031 ¶¶ 6, 9; Ex. 2032 ¶¶ 7–8. As such, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions, we disagree that the McLaughlin declaration should be given no weight. PO Resp. 11. Also, regardless of whether Dr. McLaughlin has immediate knowledge of certain details about magnetic card readers (e.g., card reader manufacturers, frequency characteristics of a read head signal when a card is swiped), we disagree that he is not qualified as an ordinarily skilled artisan. See PO Resp. 16, 19 (quoting portions from Ex. 2035); see Pet. Reply 1–2.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert creditedMixed

    “We agree that the McLaughlin declaration does not outline specific qualifications of one skilled in the art. Ex. 1015 ¶ 9. However, Dr. McLaughlin states, and we agree, that “the level of ordinary skill in the art is evidenced by the prior art references.” Id. and Pet. Reply 3 (citing In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). We also agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner has unduly narrowed the qualifications of one of ordinary skill. See Pet. Reply 1. In particular, and in contrast with the above assertions, Patent Owner describes Mr. Bourdeauducq as an expert in the relevant field. PO Resp. 1 (stating “Sebastien Bourdeauducq (See Exhibit 2033), (and an actual expert in the Relevant Field)”). Yet, Mr. Bourdeauducq lacks several of the purported qualifications of an ordinarily skilled artisan that Patent Owner asserts. Pet. Reply 2. For example, Mr. Bourdeauducq was about eighteen years old when he wrote the Lekernel article, had no engineering degree, had about one week of experience with magnetic stripe card readers, and had a general consumer understanding of credit card processing. Id. (citing Ex. 1064, 12:14–15:20). Based on the record, we determine that the level of skill in the art is more aligned with a high school or first-year engineering student taking a class covering the topic of basic circuit analysis and having a general, consumer knowledge of magnetic card readers.4 Mr. Bourdeauducq, Dr. McLaughlin, Dr. Morley, and Mr. Wood all have these qualifications. Ex. 2033 ¶ 3 (referring to Exhibit A) and Ex. 1064, 15:16–20; Ex. 1015 ¶ 2 and Ex. 2035, 88:15–18; Ex. 2031 ¶¶ 6, 9; Ex. 2032 ¶¶ 7–8. As such, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions, we disagree that the McLaughlin declaration should be given no weight. PO Resp. 11. Also, regardless of whether Dr. McLaughlin has immediate knowledge of certain details about magnetic card readers (e.g., card reader manufacturers, frequency characteristics of a read head signal when a card is swiped), we disagree that he is not qualified as an ordinarily skilled artisan. See PO Resp. 16, 19 (quoting portions from Ex. 2035); see Pet. Reply 1–2.” slip op. at 12

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

    “§§ “Requisites,” “Hardware,” and “Improvements” and Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 39–42). Patent Owner does not dispute these findings related to Padilla or reasons to combine the references. See generally PO Resp. The record also reflects that conditioning signals within a circuit to achieve a desired result was known and, given the combined Lekernel/Padilla system, one skilled in the art would have conditioned signals sent from the card reader to the microphone input based on the cell phone’s characteristics. See Dec. on Inst. 12, 14–15 (citing Pet. 17–18 (discussing proving an analog signal in an acceptable processing range) and citing Ex. 1015 ¶ 29). In the Decision to Institute, we discussed cell phone characteristics, such as Padilla’s, and how these characteristics relate to whether signal attenuation is needed for the phone’s input. See Dec. on Inst. 14 (citing Ex. 1015 ¶ 29). For example, Padilla suggests using phones other than “the Siemens MC60” to turn a mobile phone into a magnetic stripe reader. Ex. 1010 § “Foreword.” Accordingly, based on the cell phone selected and its characteristics, we determine that one skilled in the art would have recognized that conditioning signals inputted and received by a cell phone’s microphone input may be necessary. Dec. on Inst. 12 (citing Pet. 17), 14. Specifically, we concluded that “an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that the characteristics of the cell phone’s microphone input impact whether attenuation between the read head and the cell phone’s microphone input is needed.” Dec. on Inst. 14; see also Pet. 21–22, 24–25. The record includes two particular examples where one skilled in the art would have added resistance to Lekernel’s circuit and attenuated the signal received by the phone of the combined Lekernel/Padilla system. See Dec. on Inst. 14 (citing to Ex. 1015 ¶ 29). First, Dr. McLaughlin describes a known technique of providing the microphone input an acceptable level for the cell phone using a voltage divider by placing a resistor at the output of coil 24 or the read head. Ex. 1015 ¶ 16. To be clear, in this scenario, the resistor would be added outside Figure 2’s amplifier in Lekernel to achieve a voltage drop and to “to ensure the signal falls within a range of signals detectable and usable by a cell phone,” preventing damage to a recipient device. See Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 9, 14. Dr. McLaughlin further discusses impedance matching the card reader circuit with the cell phone’s microphone input when the cell phone has internal amplification. Dec. on Inst. 14 (citing Ex. 1015 ¶ 29); Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 28–29. Given the background knowledge of an ordinary artisan, one skilled in the art would have understood to add resistance to the combined Lekernel/Padilla system (e.g., after the amplifier in Lekernel’s Figure 2) for attenuating the signal sent to the microphone input in order to achieve an acceptable level for the cell phone and/or to impedance match the read head device with the cell phone.” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “In the context of this proceeding, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s contention that when the marketed product embodies and is coextensive with the claimed features, a secondary consideration factor (e.g., commercial success) is a presumptively attributed to the claimed invention. PO Resp. 49–50. For example, In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135 (Fed. Cir. 1996) states “that [commercial] success is relevant in the obviousness context only if there is proof that the sales were a direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention-as opposed to other economic and commercial factors unrelated to the quality of the patented subject matter.” Id. at 140 (emphasis added); see also In re Huai-Hung Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (indicating there is no nexus where the evidence results from something other than what is both claimed and novel in the claim). Thus, in establishing a nexus with a secondary consideration in this proceeding, Patent Owner needs to show a specific feature of the claim is attributable to the commercial success of Square’s card reader and not just that the device is coextensive with the claimed features. Patent Owner points to an interview of Mr. Jack Dorsey, described as Square’s CEO. PO Resp. 51–52. In the interview and in response to asking what Square was, Mr. Dorsey states “OK, well [ah] Square is [ahh] a very simple little device that plugs into your iPhone or Android device and allows anyone to accept credit card immediately wherever they are.” PO Resp. 52 (citing Ex. 2047). Patent Owner asserts that this discussion establishes a nexus to the claimed “output plug” feature. Id. Yet, this statement just describes the plug and does not relate the plug itself to any of Square’s commercial success. The statement is also vague as how the device plugs into a phone, such that there is an insufficient tie to the recited “output plug, adapted to be inserted into a jack associated with a microphone input associated with a cell phone” in claim 1. Ex. 1001, 6:66– 67 (emphasis added). Although stating the reader is “very simple” and “little,” Patent Owner has not demonstrated these features are claimed and are a novel or unique feature of the claims — a requisite needed to outweigh the case for obviousness based on commercial success.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 8,584,946 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,584,946
• Athena Automation Ltd. v. Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 23, 2014 · IPR2013-00290 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4–16, and 20–22 are unpatentable as anticipated by Arend; claims 2, 3, 17, and 19 were not shown unpatentable, and the motion to amend was denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner. We are not persuaded that the ’536 patent limits the required movement of the “rod that is movable” to axial movement of the entire rod. For its proposed construction, Patent Owner relies on figures and description from the ’536 patent that are explicitly described as exemplary embodiment or embodiments. PO Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 6C, 7B, 8B, 12:59–64); PO Resp. 26 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 7A, 10:26–30, 13:30–37). The ’536 patent, however, clearly identifies Figure 7A (and the rest of the figures), as well as the corresponding description, as exemplary embodiments of the invention, stating explicitly that “[r]eference herein to details of the illustrated embodiments is not intended to limit the scope of the claims.” Ex. 1001, 16:4–8; see also 7:20–25. The testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant, George Markus, is based on these same portions of the ’536 patent that describe exemplary embodiments. Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 34–38. Patent Owner does not, however, point us to any language of the ’536 patent that evidences a clear intention to limit the claims to an exemplary embodiment. Thus, we are not persuaded that the language in the specification pointed to by Patent Owner limits the scope of the term at issue here. See, e.g. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323 (“[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.”); DSW v. Shoe Pavilion, 537 F.3d 1342, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[W]hen claim language is broader than the preferred embodiment, it is well-settled that claims are not to be confined to that embodiment.”).” slip op. at 17

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed petitioner constructionDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s proposed modifications improperly limit the claim terms. See Reply 6–9. Petitioner asserts, and we agree, that while the patent discloses that it is preferable to engage the lock member teeth in a lower flex zone, it does not restrict the invention to that situation. Id. at 7. For example, Mr. Markus admits that there is some benefit of reduced wear even if only some, but not all, of the teeth of the lock members engage in the relatively lower flex zone. Id. (citing deposition testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Markus, Ex. 1011, 219:14–22, 222:2–12; 224:7–11, 225:12–25). Thus, a broader interpretation of the term “relatively higher flex zone” is also consistent with the ’536 patent’s stated objection to reduce wear. Even more telling, the ’536 patent itself states, in its description of an exemplary embodiment, “the complementary lock member 512 is lockably engaged with the lock member 510 at a position that is proximate, at least in part, to the zone 514.” Ex. 1001, 14:11–16 (emphasis added). We, therefore, are not persuaded that the ’536 patent “specifically disavows” engagement outside the relatively higher flex zone, as asserted by Patent Owner. See PO Resp. 36–37. To the contrary, we are persuaded that the ’536 patent explicitly contemplates that the teeth may, at least in part, not engage within the relatively higher flex zone. We also agree with Petitioner that the claim language does not require comparison of adjacent flex zones. Id. (citing Ex. 1011, 227:10–24, 230:10–231:3). While the word adjacent is recited in the claims (e.g., “the relatively lower flex zone of the platen being a portion of the platen adjacent to the rod”) it refers to a flex zone being adjacent the rod, not another flex zone. See Ex. 1011, 227:10–24. Patent Owner’s reliance on Figure 8D as supporting the proposed restriction does not persuade us otherwise. As discussed above, Figure 8D describes an exemplary embodiment, and Patent Owner does not point to any language indicating that the claims should be limited to this embodiment. We also are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s unexplained and unsupported statement that “[o]nly by comparing zones that are adjacent, can such location of the engagement [in the lower flex zone] be accurately pinpointed.” PO Resp. 38 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 45–47).5” slip op. at 22

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “member is engagable with the lock member within a relatively lower flex zone of the platen” (“the engagement limitation”).6 In the Decision to Institute, we adopted a broadest reasonable construction of this term encompassing the situation in which the complementary lock member and the lock member are capable of interlocking or meshing at least in part within or proximate to a relatively lower flex zone of the platen. Dec. to Inst. 10–12. Neither party explicitly addresses the broadest reasonable determine which is the relatively high flex zone and which is the relatively low flex zone.”). The other cited paragraphs are not related to the statement they are cited to support. See id. ¶¶ 46–47. Nor could we find, upon review of the complete declaration, any other support for Patent Owner’s assertion. 6 Independent claims 1 and 12 recite this limitation as quoted. Independent claim 18 includes a similar limitation, “engaging a lock member associated with the rod with a complementary lock member associated with the platen at a position located proximate to a relatively lower flex zone of the platen.” construction of this claim term in their post-institution briefing. We conclude that no additional construction of the term is necessary.” slip op. at 24

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

    “reference—in order to anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102—must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements arranged as in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, an anticipatory reference must show all of the limitations of the claims “arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claims.” Id. at 1370; see Finisar Corp. v DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1334–37 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Ecolochem, Inc. v. Southern California Edison Co., 227 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Petitioner asserts that Choi’s teeth 38 correspond to the claimed lock member, teeth 48 correspond to the claimed complementary lock member, and tie bar 20 corresponds to the claimed rod. Pet. 36. In addition, according to Petitioner, Choi’s securing/clamping assembly 22 corresponds to the claimed clamp assembly. Id. Petitioner reasons that these elements of Choi are part of the machine disclosed in Glaesener because of the following sentence: “The tie-bar nuts can be secured to the rear wall 16 by any appropriate mechanism, such as the pineapple and toothed-ring mechanism described in [Choi].” Pet. 25, 36. Petitioner, however, does not explain how the relied upon elements of Choi’s device secure the tie-bar nuts of Glaesener to rear wall 16 of Glaesener’s platen. In fact, Petitioner does not direct us to any disclosure in Choi of tie-bar nuts or their equivalent. See Pet. 32–41. Moreover, there is no dispute that Choi does not use the term “pineapple and toothed-ring mechanism.” Tr. 16:7–10. And Petitioner does not provide persuasive evidence as to what part of Choi is included in the term “pineapple and toothed-ring mechanism.” See Tr. 16:7–12 (arguing for the first time that what “pineapple and tooth mechanism” in Glaesener refers to is Figure 3A in Choi with no reference to the record); Tr. 60:14–22 (explaining that Petitioner does not provide evidence of what the pineapple and toothed-ring mechanism is). Without such explanation and supporting evidence, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden to show that the various portions of Choi and Glaesener, on which it relies, are combined in the same way as recited in the challenged claims. See Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (holding that although the prior art reference could be said to contain all of the elements of the claimed invention, it did not anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102 because it “disclose[d] an entirely different device, composed of parts distinct from those of the claimed invention, and operating in a different way to process different material differently.”). The Federal Circuit has expressly warned against treating patent “claims as mere catalogs of separate parts” without regard for the “part-to-part relationships set forth” therein. NetMoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1370 (quoting Lindemann, 730 F.2d at 1459).” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 7,670,536 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 7,670,536

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.