• Cook Group Incorporated / Cook Medical LLC v. Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 28, 2018 · IPR2017-00435 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–18, and 20 were not shown unpatentable over Malecki; the contingent motion to amend was denied as moot.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “construction more persuasive because it is grounded in, and most consistent with, the specification of the ’731 patent. Contrastingly, Petitioner does not offer a specific interpretation of “inner walls” and its arguments are generally based on extrinsic evidence, including claim charts from the related district court litigation (Pet. 15), arguments from related proceedings (Pet. Reply 3), and the prior art reference (Malecki) relied on to challenge the claims (id. at 3–4). Petitioner criticizes the Patent Owner’s position but provides no express interpretation of “inner walls of the first and second clip arms;” instead, Petitioner argues why Patent Owner’s proposed construction is wrong. Pet. Reply 4–5. Dr. Nicosia does not expressly define or otherwise persuasively explain the definition of “inner walls” in his declarations either. See generally Exs. 1037, 1095, and 1109.” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the time of the filing of the application that became the ’731 patent would have possessed the knowledge and skill of an engineer or similar professional 5 The parties have not introduced evidence of secondary considerations in this proceeding. with at least an undergraduate degree in engineering, or a physician having experience with designing medical devices. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1037 ¶ 11). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal, and we adopt it based on the final record before us. It is also consistent with the level of skill evidenced by the references.” slip op. at 15

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Based on the final trial record, including our interpretation of “inner walls of the first and second clip arms” to mean “the exterior surfaces of the first and second clip arms that are inward-facing relative to the longitudinal axis of the clip,” Petitioner has not persuasively established that Malecki Embodiment #1 discloses this limitation. We find persuasive the testimony of Dr. Vaitekunas, that “[t]he jaws of Malecki Embodiment #1 have four walls,” and a person of ordinary skill in the art “would understand Figure 28A to illustrate links 404, 406 connecting to the side walls of jaws 308C, 310C on the side or lateral wall opposite (or underneath) the one shown in Figure 28A.” Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 66, 68. We agree with Dr. Vaitekunas that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider side or lateral walls as “inner walls” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of that term. Thus, the portion of the jaw identified by Petitioner as shaded in green (Pet. 26) is a portion of the side/lateral wall, not an inward-facing wall. See Ex. 2010 ¶ 68. Petitioner has also not persuasively established that linkages 404, 406 contact any outside portion of the inner wall. As noted by Patent Owner above, Petitioner’s expert admits that Malecki does not disclose links 404, 406 contacting the radially inward-facing walls. See Ex. 2012 at 274:12–23. We also do not find persuasive Petitioner’s pin engagement theory. First, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Nicosia persuasively establish that a slot and pin channel (Pet. 15) is used in Malecki Embodiment #1. See Ex. 1095 ¶ 27. As pointed out by Dr. Vaitekunas, Petitioner’s theory that an engagement between a pin and a pin hole satisfies the “engaging the inner walls of the first and second clip arms” limitation is based on structure that is simply not disclosed in Malecki. Ex. 2010 ¶ 69. Further, we agree with Dr. Vaitekunas that “[e]ven if contact does occur between a pin and a pinhole, the contact occurs in the pin hole, not the exterior surface of a radially inward-facing wall.” Id.” slip op. at 25

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

    “Based on the final trial record, including our interpretation of “inner walls of the first and second clip arms” to mean “the exterior surfaces of the first and second clip arms that are inward-facing relative to the longitudinal axis of the clip,” Petitioner has not persuasively established that Malecki Embodiment #1 discloses this limitation. We find persuasive the testimony of Dr. Vaitekunas, that “[t]he jaws of Malecki Embodiment #1 have four walls,” and a person of ordinary skill in the art “would understand Figure 28A to illustrate links 404, 406 connecting to the side walls of jaws 308C, 310C on the side or lateral wall opposite (or underneath) the one shown in Figure 28A.” Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 66, 68. We agree with Dr. Vaitekunas that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider side or lateral walls as “inner walls” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of that term. Thus, the portion of the jaw identified by Petitioner as shaded in green (Pet. 26) is a portion of the side/lateral wall, not an inward-facing wall. See Ex. 2010 ¶ 68. Petitioner has also not persuasively established that linkages 404, 406 contact any outside portion of the inner wall. As noted by Patent Owner above, Petitioner’s expert admits that Malecki does not disclose links 404, 406 contacting the radially inward-facing walls. See Ex. 2012 at 274:12–23. We also do not find persuasive Petitioner’s pin engagement theory. First, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Nicosia persuasively establish that a slot and pin channel (Pet. 15) is used in Malecki Embodiment #1. See Ex. 1095 ¶ 27. As pointed out by Dr. Vaitekunas, Petitioner’s theory that an engagement between a pin and a pin hole satisfies the “engaging the inner walls of the first and second clip arms” limitation is based on structure that is simply not disclosed in Malecki. Ex. 2010 ¶ 69. Further, we agree with Dr. Vaitekunas that “[e]ven if contact does occur between a pin and a pinhole, the contact occurs in the pin hole, not the exterior surface of a radially inward-facing wall.” Id. Finally, Petitioner seems to recognize that a modification would be” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 9,271,731 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,271,731
• Cook Group Incorporated / Cook Medical LLC v. Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 15, 2018 · IPR2017-00135 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–5, and 10 are unpatentable as obvious over Kimura (claims 1, 3–5) and Kimura with Sackier (claim 10); claims 7, 11–15, and 17 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the time of the filing of the application that became the ’371 patent would have possessed the knowledge and skill of an engineer or similar professional with at least an undergraduate degree in engineering, or a physician having experience with designing medical devices. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1029 ¶ 11). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal, and we adopt it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 15

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

    “The issue we have with Patent Owner’s contentions, as pointed out by Petitioner, is that Patent Owner does not establish persuasively how its claims require the “reversible open/close” feature and the “tactile feel features.” See Pet. Reply 27–29. Even presuming that these features did indeed drive tremendous commercial success and industry praise for the commercial products, Patent Owner does not adequately explain in its analysis how the claims of the challenged patent require these particular features that drive commercial success. Patent Owner seems to suggest that a break section in the control wire will fracture and that this feature in the commercial product relates to the tactile feel. PO Resp. 57 (citing Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 91–93) (“After the yoke has disengaged, if the handle spool is moved further proximally, a break section in the control wire will fracture, leaving the ball within the yoke and uncoupling the control wire from the distal components of the device.”). This “break section in the control wire” is not, however, claimed or covered in claim 1, the claim that purportedly embodies the commercial product. The claims alleged to cover the product do not specifically require any “tactile feel feature.”3 Likewise, while the claims may allow for an opening and closing of the clip assembly, there is no requirement in these claims that the clip assembly, as “demanded” by physicians, repeatedly open and close. Thus, both of the drivers of commercial success and industry praise are not commensurate in scope with the claims of the patented invention. See Ex. 1046 ¶¶ 23–29 (explaining how features are not claimed).” slip op. at 16

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

    “district court proceeding, Petitioner contends that “coupled to the sheath” means “slideable inside the sheath” and “the sheath confines the bushing.” Pet. 9. Petitioner provides no additional support. The district court tentatively rejected this broad interpretation. See Ex. 2003, 27–28 (“[T]he Court recommends that ‘coupled to the sheath’ be construed as ‘linked together, connected, or joined, but not slidable inside the sheath.’”). Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s proposed construction of “coupled to the sheath” is “unreasonably broad,” but provides little citation to the intrinsic record before us. Prelim. Resp. 13–14. Instead, Patent Owner notes that the plain and ordinary meaning of coupled is “linked together, connected, or joined,” citing to an unrelated Federal Circuit decision as well as the related district court determination. Id. at 14; Ex. 2003, 28. In our proceeding, Petitioner has not provided persuasive evidence or argument to support its claim interpretation by merely pointing to what Patent Owner purportedly argued in district court. Based on the final record before us, “coupled to the sheath” means “linked together, connected, or joined” to the sheath. Our construction is consistent with the district court’s analysis and reflects the common understanding of the term “coupled” in the mechanical arts to require more than simply abutting or contacting. See generally Ex Parte Paul Robert Homrich, Appeal 2014-005786, 2016 WL 3541285, at *3 (PTAB, June 27, 2016) (“When used in mechanical systems, the plain and ordinary meaning of ‘coupled’ means to link together or connect,” and coupled requires more than contact or abut.).” slip op. at 10

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

    “We are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently that Adams discloses “a bushing extending between a proximal end coupled to the sheath,” (Ex. 1027, 17:4–5) as required by claim 1 of the ’371 patent. Based on the final record, Petitioner’s contention that retainer 110 [bushing] is slidable inside the sheath, or confined by the sheath, does not establish persuasively that the proximal end of the bushing is coupled to the sheath as required by claim 1. The claimed coupling must be “proximal coupling” and Petitioner can only point to distal coupling via distal tabs 118, 119 (Pet. Supp. Reply 6) – this is not “proximal” coupling. Further, for the bushing and the sheath to be coupled requires them to be “linked together, connected, or joined” in some manner and Petitioner has not established any such connection for proximal coupling. Petitioner also has failed to establish a persuasive reason for linking or connecting retainer 110 and sheath 112 – indeed, doing so would negatively impact the ability of retainer 110 to freely slide out of sheath 112. See Prelim. Resp. 27. Adams suggest that when control wire 108 is actuated and the clip is locked into the lock sleeve, retainer release 109 pulls retainer 110 back, disengaging retainer tabs 118, 119 from the two retainer holes as depicted in Figure 4.” Ex. 1023, 7:26–44 Finally, we note that our decision would not change if we adopted the district court’s claim interpretation. The district court adopted a claim construction of “a bushing extending between a proximal end coupled to the sheath” as “linked together, connected, or joined, but not slidable inside the sheath.” Ex. 2003, 28 (emphasis added). Should the district court’s interpretation be the correct one, Patent Owner’s position is much stronger whereas Petitioner’s theory is based on slidable movement. See Pet. 9 (arguing for “slideable inside the sheath” and “the sheath confines the bushing”); Pet. Supp. Reply 6. Having now considered the evidence in the complete record established during trial, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been anticipated by Adams. Petitioner has not established persuasively that Adams discloses “a bushing extending between a proximal end coupled to the sheath.” For this reason, Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Adams anticipates claim 1.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 8,974,371 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,974,371
• Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. v. Emerachem Holdings, LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · Jul 13, 2016 · IPR2014-01555 · APJ James T Moore · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied the Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving claims 1, 2, 7–12, 14–17, 19, 21–24, 31–42, and 44 unpatentable, and corrected the judgment to include claim 44.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “A. Rehearing Requests A rehearing request for a final decision is governed by 37 CFR § 42.71 (d), which provides that a party dissatisfied with a decision must specifically identify all matters believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed.5 We therefore consider Patent Owner’s request for rehearing to determine whether we misapprehended or overlooked a matter, and whether it makes a difference to our determination in the Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 5

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

    “In our final written decision we observed that “‘intimately and entirely coated’ mean[s] exactly what it says. In other words, it means the embodiment shown in Figs. 1a through 1c of the ʼ558 patent drawings and associated discussion in the written description portion of the specification.” Paper 50, 23. In doing so, we relied principally on the intrinsic evidence of record in the specification. On rehearing, Patent Owner asserts that the claim interpretation used by the Board is not part of the record and was not presented by Petitioner. Reh’g Req. 3. We are not persuaded by this argument. First, the Patent Owner itself advocated in the Patent Owner’s response that Kinoshita did not contain oxidation catalyst species “intimately and entirely coated with an absorber.” Paper 29, 19–20. Second, the Board is not bound by the Petitioner and Patent Owner’s interpretation of the claim language, which may have inherent favoring of a particular interpretation for strategic reasons, as discussed in the final written decision. See Paper 50, 23. Patent Owner states that it has had no opportunity to address the claim construction and that it is fundamentally unfair and unreasonable that Patent Owner has not had a chance to address this claim construction. Reh’g Req. 2–3. We take such a statement seriously. However, we are unable to discern how the Board overlooked or misapprehended any fact or argument, let alone how the claim interpretation adversely affected the outcome of this proceeding for the Patent Owner.” slip op. at 8

  • BurdenDecided for petitioner

    “loading, Hoekstra has insufficient catalyst to form a continuous layer, and there is no evidence the method of Hoekstra results in all platinum being entirely covered. Id. at 11–12. As we have not interpreted claim 1 as requiring a continuous catalyst layer, we are unpersuaded by the first assertion. As to the second, we relied upon evidence from Hoekstra example 1, Dr. Crocker, and Dr. Farrauto. For example, Dr. Farrauto testified that barium oxide completely coated the platinum group metal. Ex. 1003A. More specifically, Dr. Farrauto testified: 39. Hoekstra also discloses that prior to calcining the platinum group metal-impregnated carrier material, the composite is further impregnated with a compound of an alkaline earth metal in solution with a reducing agent. Ex. 1005 at col. 3, ln. 51-55. The reducing agent prevents the leaching of the platinum group metal component from the carrier into the alkaline earth metal solution. See Ex. 1005 at col. 1, ln. 37-59; col. 3, ln. 55-59; col. 5, ln. 4-8. 40. Because the platinum group metal component does not leach from the carrier, the alkaline earth metal compound will be coated over the platinum group metal component. Ex. 1003, 11–12. We also specifically noted that Hoekstra describes this prevention of leaching. Hoekstra explicitly states in describing the result of process steps described in Example 1 that “[t]his example demonstrates that the inclusion of a reducing agent, e.g., hydrazine hydrate, obviates leaching of the platinum group metal component from the carrier material during the second impregnation step [i.e., adding a barium oxide layer].” Ex. 1005, col. 5:4–8 (italics added).” slip op. at 10

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

    “evidence that claims 1, 7, 8, 12, 14, 21, 22, 32–35, and 38–42 of the ʼ558 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and claims 9–11 and 23 of the ʼ558 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (Ground 2, Hoekstra). Paper 50, 78. We also determined that Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 33–40, 42, and 44 of the ʼ558 patent are anticipated by Kinoshita. (Ground 3, Kinoshita). Id. at 79. We additionally determined that Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 2, 7–10, 14, 15, 17, 19, 24, 31, 33–37, 39, and 40 of the ʼ558 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). (Ground 4, Inui). Id. We finally determined that Petitioner established that claims 1, 7, 8, 14–17, 19, and 31 of the ʼ558 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and that claims 21–23 of the ʼ558 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (Ground 5, Stiles). Id.” slip op. at 4

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 5,451,558
• Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. v. Emerachem Holdings, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 22, 2016 · IPR2014-01556 · APJ Fred E Mckelvey · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–7, and 9–16 are unpatentable under § 103(a) over the combined prior art; the anticipation grounds do not establish unpatentability.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “(a) A party may request oral argument on an issue raised in a paper at a time set by the Board. The Trial Practice Guidelines advise as follows: A party may rely upon evidence that has been previously submitted in the proceeding and may only present arguments relied upon in the papers previously submitted. No new evidence or arguments may be presented at the oral argument. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48768 (col. 2) (Aug. 14, 2012) (italics added). The rationale in support of the Rule and Guideline is fundamental fairness to an opponent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) (Part 42 “shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.”) It is not just to an opponent for a party to raise an argument not based on the Petition, Opposition, or Reply, or to discuss evidence not in the record. Why? There is no meaningful opportunity for the opponent to rebut the argument or address the evidence. Likewise, the Board is at a disadvantage because judges do not prepare for oral argument based on arguments and evidence not present in the record. To the extent that arguments and discussions took place at oral argument in this case contrary to the principles set out above, those arguments and discussions have not been considered in rendering a decision on the merits.” slip op. at 5

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

    “We disagree with Petitioner’s “comprising” position. While the regeneration gas can “comprise” elements not set out in parts [A1] and [A2] of claim 1, as reproduced above, part [A2] is restricted to an inert carrier gas. According to the ʼ911 patent, the regeneration gas is substantially oxygen free, albeit the regeneration gas can contain up to one percent oxygen. Ex. 1001A, col. 3:27–29. A regeneration gas containing more than one percent oxygen would cease to be a regeneration gas within the meaning of claim 1. Any reasonable interpretation of “regeneration gas,” consistent with the Specification, would require that the regeneration gas have no more than up to one percent oxygen. In reaching our conclusion, we have not added a limitation from the Specification into claim 1 of the ʼ911 patent; rather, we interpret the meanings of “regeneration gas” and “inert carrier gas” as set out in the claim.” slip op. at 16

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

    “to doubt that the NOx released by the [Hirota] absorbent . . . [would] be reduced . . . by . . . [the Hirota] process” “provid[ed] there is sufficient reductant present.” Ex. 1056, page 89:18–21. However, Dr. Crocker’s cross-examination testimony does not establish that the Hirota process anticipates the process of claim 1 of the ʼ911 patent. The issue here is not whether Hirota is operative; rather, it is whether Hirota operates with “an inert carrier gas” within the meaning of claim 1 of the ʼ911 patent. During oral argument, Petitioner called attention to the wording of Hirota, with emphasis on the fact Hirota does not use the word “shall” or “must” but rather uses the word “is.” Transcript of Oral Argument, Paper 56, page 4:7 through page 5:15. According to Petitioner, under a broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the regeneration gas of claim 1 should be interpreted broadly. Id. at page 5:12–15. But, Petitioner previously had agreed that it makes no “difference what the claim construction is here,” (id. at page 3:20–23). We view the “shall,” “must,” and “is” discussion as a formalistic wordsmithing side-show given that the meaning of the regeneration gas is clear from its description in the Specification. We find that Hirota does not describe the subject matter of claim 1 of the ʼ911 patent. Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to prove that Hirota anticipates claim 1 of the ʼ911 patent.” slip op. at 22

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

    “Likewise, Land justifies a holding that joint inventors Guth and Campbell (Ex. 1004A) are separate entities vis-à-vis joint inventors of the Guth, Campbell, and Wagner ʼ911 patent (Ex. 1001A). Patent Owner maintains that Guth ʼ758 and Campbell’s “work may not be used against [them] unless there is a time bar under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).” Paper 28, page 19 (quoting MPEP § 2136.05 (7th ed. July 1998)). However, Guth and Campbell’s work is not being used against them; it is being used against the inventive entity of the ʼ911 patent: Guth, Campbell, and Wagner. At oral argument, counsel for Patent Owner stated “[s]o what I’m saying is I agree that Land probably applies.” Transcript of Oral Argument, Paper 56, page 14:19–20. On the record before us, there is insufficient evidence that Wagner contributed to, or is a joint inventor of, the subject matter described and/or claimed in the ʼ911 patent.” slip op. at 39

  Patent outcomesUS 5,953,911 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 5,953,911
• Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. v. Emerachem Holdings, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 22, 2016 · IPR2014-01555 · APJ Fred E Mckelvey · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–2, 7–12, 14–17, 19, 21–24, and 31–42 are unpatentable based on the grounds sustained in the final written decision.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “Unlike Corning, the inherency theory matured during cross- examination of Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Crocker. Ultimately, in our view, Dr. Crocker agreed that no platinum migrated to the alkali metal layer—based on an analysis with a correct “0.018” number. The Reply evidence, consistent with Dr. Crocker’s testimony, agreed that a correct number is “0.018” and on that basis, Petitioner’s witness agreed with Dr. Crocker. Further, unlike Corning, a whole new theory of anticipation did not arise in the first instance with the Reply; rather, it was essentially developed during cross-examination of Patent Owner’s witness.” slip op. at 74

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “The fact that evidence is filed with a reply does not mean the evidence is per se inadmissible. The exhibits relate to the issue of whether there is a typographical error in Example 1 of Hoekstra, i.e., is “2.018” a typographical error which should be “0.018.” In presenting the Petition, Petitioner’s witness Dr. Farrauto explained why he felt Hoekstra’s Example 1 anticipates claim 1 of the ʼ558 patent. Dr. Crocker, Patent Owner’s witness, disagreed with Dr. Farrauto’s explanation.” slip op. at 73

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert creditedMixed

    “While the matter of assigning the weight to be given to the testimony of the two witnesses in this case is a close call, based on the direct and crossexamination testimony with respect to Kinoshita and its Example 3, and to the extent that there is a conflict between Dr. Crocker’s testimony and that of Dr. Farrauto, we credit the testimony of Dr. Crocker over that of Dr. Farrauto. However, even if one were to find the testimony of Dr. Crocker and Dr. Farrauto evenly balanced, then a preponderance of the evidence on inherency does not emerge. Under those circumstances, the party with the burden of proof cannot be said to have proved its case. See Yamaha Int’l Corp. v. Hoshino Gakki Co., 840 F.2d 1572, 1580 n.11 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (where a party is under a burden to establish a fact by a preponderance of the evidence and where the evidence is so evenly balanced that no preponderance emerges, the party having the burden of persuasion necessarily loses). We are also concerned that Example 3 does not describe enough detail to indicate clearly whether there is enough potassium to cover the platinumimpregnated alumina. Ex. 2002 ¶ 32.” slip op. at 51

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

    “We hold that “intimately and entirely coated” mean exactly what it says. In other words, it means the embodiment shown in Figs. 1a through 1c of the ʼ558 patent drawings and associated discussion in the written description portion of the specification. We appreciate why both parties would prefer a broader construction, i.e., “intimately and entirely coated” means (1) coated with a monolayer where catalytic action would occur through diffusion (our construction) as well as (2) direct contact with the combustion gas without diffusion. Petitioner would favor a broader construction because Takeshima anticipates a direct contact embodiment. Patent Owner would favor a broader construction because more “material” might infringe claim 1. Takeshima Figs. 5(A) and 5(B) describe an embodiment where the exhaust gas directly contacts the catalyst. A direct contact embodiment does not fall within the scope of claim 1 of the ʼ558 patent. Accordingly, Takeshima does not describe the “intimately and entirely coated” limitation of claim 1.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 5,451,558 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 5,451,558
• Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. v. Emerachem Holdings, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 22, 2016 · IPR2014-01558 · APJ Fred E Mckelvey · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14 and 16–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Campbell, Saito, and Stiles; the Board found the Hirota, Takeshima, and Saito anticipation grounds insufficient.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We see no need to repeat that discussion here, and adopt it as written therein. Petitioner has failed to establish that Hirota describes a regeneration gas falling within the scope of the regeneration gas of claim 1 of the ʼ758 patent. Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to satisfy its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 1 of the ʼ758 patent is anticipated by Hirota.” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableDecided for petitioner

    “Whenever a ground based on obviousness is involved, the preferred manner of setting out differences is to state “the subject matter of claim x differs from the reference in that (1) …, (2) …., and (n) ….” Vague statements or hints of differences not only burdens the Board, but puts a patent owner at somewhat of a disadvantage with having to guess what any differences a petitioner believes may exit. Reluctance on the part of counsel to “admit” to and identify a difference is hard to understand, given the fact that a difference does not mean the subject matter claimed is non-obvious. Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230 (1976) (mere existence of differences between the prior art and an invention does not establish the invention’s non-obviousness).4 Campbell appears to differ from the subject matter of claim 1 of the ʼ758 patent in that Campbell does not describe an in situ regeneration.” slip op. at 40

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

    “4. Discussion While Campbell does not describe in situ regeneration, and assuming arguendo that claim 1 of the ʼ758 patent requires in situ regeneration, in situ regeneration is a well-known technique described by Saito and Stiles. An in situ regeneration in Campbell makes sense because it eliminates a need to discard spent catalyst and permits one skilled in the art to reuse catalytic material. The reuse of catalytic material would have been recognized as significant due to the expense of platinum. Ex. 1056, page 13:20–23. Patent Owner maintains that the catalytic material of Saito and Stiles “is very different from that of the ʼ758 patent.” Paper 29, 4 Petitioner’s failure to clearly identify differences is not consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) and 42.104(b)(5), as well as 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3), which require identifying the grounds “with particularity.” The Petition must specify where each element of a challenged claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2). page 29. “There is nothing in either Saito or Stiles to suggest . . . that the regeneration methods of these two references might be succesfully used for regenerating the catalyst/absorber of Campbell.” Id. at page 30.” slip op. at 41

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

    “balance in favor of non-obviousness, both in the courts and the PTO. Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45 (1923); Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co., 185 U.S. 403 (1902); The Barbed Wire Patent, 143 U.S. 275 (1892); Webster Loom v. Higgins, 105 U.S. 580 (1881); Ex parte Artsana USA, Inc., Appeal 2014-004116, 2014 WL 4090808 (PTAB Aug. 18, 2014); Murata Mfg. Co. v. Synqor, Inc., Appeal 2014-001167, 2014 WL 1397381 (PTAB Apr. 10, 2014); Ex parte Whirlpool Corp., Appeal 2013-008232, 2013 WL 5866602 (PTAB Oct. 30, 2013). However, in this case, we are unable to credit much, if any, weight, to Patent Owner’s evidence of long-felt need and commercial success. For long-felt need and commercial success to be convincing, there must be a “nexus” between (1) the long-felt need/commercial success and (2) the claimed subject matter. In re Fielder, 471 F.2d 640, 646 (CCPA 1973). Patent Owner’s evidence is bottomed on Patent Owner’s experience with what is referred to as a “SCONOx catalytic absorption system.” Ex. 2006A ¶ 4 (direct Declaration testimony of Thomas Girdlestone). Patent Owner characterizes the claimed method as embodying a SCONOx system. Paper 29, page 37:3–4. According to Mr. Girdlestone, the effectiveness of reducing NOx in a SCONOx system was tested at a turbine facility run at EmeraChem’s then-affiliate Sunlaw Energy in California. Ex. 2006A, ¶ 5. Further according to Mr. Girdlestone, both the EPA and the Cal EPA” slip op. at 46

  Patent outcomesUS 5,599,758 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 5,599,758
• Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. v. Emerachem Holdings, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 22, 2015 · IPR2014-01554 · APJ Fred E Mckelvey · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 and 11 are unpatentable because Joy, Tauster, and Rieck each anticipate them.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “On the record before us, we find that Dr. Farrauto is qualified to testify on the subject matter involved and to offer scientific opinions concerning that subject matter. Ex. 1007A ¶ 1–6. His testimony is consistent with the disclosures of the three references upon which his scientific opinions are based.” slip op. at 8

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

    “C. Anticipation To establish anticipation, a party must show by a preponderance of the evidence that a prior art reference expressly or inherently describes each claim limitation arranged as in the claim said to be anticipated. Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1334–35 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008 ).” slip op. at 7

  Patent outcomesUS 6,037,307 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 6,037,307
• International Business Machines Corporation v. Intellectual Ventures II, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 23, 2015 · IPR2014-00587 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 1 was not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not establish that Hughes and Abraham qualify as prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “construction, in light of the Specification, of “contents of the packet” in step c is the header and/or payload of the packet. Petitioner’s construction is supported, sufficiently, by the ’694 patent, itself, which discloses embodiments of selecting access rules based upon the header and/or payload of the packet. The ’694 patent discloses a first embodiment in which the firewall selects a rule based on header parameters only, and discloses that, based on the header parameters, the packet may be passed or dropped. See Ex. 1004, col. 2, ll. 35–37, 40–43, col. 3, ll. 10–12, Fig 1 (path formed by steps 101, 102, 103, and 104). The ’694 patent also discloses that an access control proxy selects a rule based on an analysis of the payload of a single or multiple packets. Id. at col. 3, ll. 4–8, 18–22, 30–32, col. 4, ll. 28–34, 38–40, Fig. 1 (path formed by steps 106 and 107). The ’694 patent further discloses alternate embodiments in which the “access control proxy selects an access rule that pertains to the packet based both on an analysis of the payload and the header parameters of the packet” (Ex. 1004, col. 3, ll. 38–41) and the “access rule is retrieved based upon a combination of the contents and header parameters of the packet” (id. at col. 4, ll. 36–38).” slip op. at 9

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

    “To establish an actual reduction to practice, the patentee must prove that he (1) constructed an embodiment or performed a process that meets all the claimed limitations of the invention, and (2) determined that the invention worked for its intended purpose. Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “The essential inquiry here is whether the advance in the art represented by the invention . . . was embodied in a workable device that demonstrated that it could do what it was claimed to be capable of doing.” Scott v. Finney, 34 F. 3d 1058, 1063 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Farrand Optical Co. v. United States, 325 F.2d 3278, 333 (2d Cir. 1963)). “In order to establish an actual reduction to practice, an inventor’s testimony must be corroborated by independent evidence. . . . [A] ‘rule of reason’ analysis is applied to determine whether an inventor’s testimony regarding reduction to practice has been sufficiently corroborated.” Cooper, 154 f.3d at 1330 (citation omitted); see also Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 79 F.3d 1572, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (corroboration requirement “arose out of a concern that inventors testifying in patent infringement cases would be tempted to remember facts favorable to their case by the lure of protecting their patent or defeating another’s patent”). The sufficiency of corroboration is determined according to a “rule of reason.” Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1993). This, however, does not dispense with the requirement that some independent evidence provide corroboration. Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 360 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The requirement of “independent” corroboration requires evidence other than the inventor’s testimony. In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1291–92 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” slip op. at 12

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

    “of the evidence, that the challenged claim is unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). This burden includes, inter alia, showing that any reference on which it relies is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102. See Mahurkar, 79 F.3d at 1576 (holding that accused infringer “bore the burden of persuasion . . . on all issues relating to the status of [the asserted reference] as prior art”). Hughes and Abraham presumptively constitute prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) or 102(e) because their filing dates are prior to the ‘694 patent’s earliest effective filing date, giving rise to Patent Owner’s burden of coming forward with evidence supporting a date of invention before September 9, 1998. Mahurkar, 79 F.3d at 1576–77; see Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (finding that when party challenging validity came forward with art that is prior to the challenged patent’s application date, the patentee has the burden of going forward with evidence that “the asserted claim is entitled to the benefit of a filing date prior to the alleged prior art”). Upon consideration of the all the evidence, we are persuaded that Patent Owner has met its burden of coming forward with sufficient evidence to corroborate independently inventor Mr. Dutta’s testimony that the inventors of the ’694 patent reduced to practice the claimed invention “at least as early as early 1996 but no later than June 11, 1996” (PO Resp. 36). Thus, we are not persuaded that Hughes and Abraham are prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) or 102(e). C. Obviousness over Hughes and Abraham Petitioner fails to demonstrate that claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because Petitioner has not demonstrated that Hughes and Abraham are prior art.” slip op. at 18

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “under Federal Rule of Evidence (“FRE”) 602. Pet. Mot. 4–5; Pet. Mot. Reply 1–3. FRE 602 states that “[a] witness may testify to a matter only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may consist of the witness’s own testimony.” Fed. R. Evid. 602. Exhibit 2006 is the Declaration of Partha Dutta. According to Petitioner, in paragraphs 22, 23, and 26, Mr. Dutta testimony contains statements that require an understanding of the proper legal scope of the ’694 patent, but there is insufficient evidence to support a finding Mr. Dutta has personal knowledge of that proper legal scope of the ’694 patent. Id. at 4. We dismiss Petitioner’s motion to exclude paragraphs 22, 23, and 26 paragraphs of Exhibit 2006 as moot because we do not rely upon the statements made in these paragraphs that Petitioner alleges to require an understanding of the proper legal scope of the ’694 patent in reaching our decision. Although we cite to paragraphs 22, 23, and 26 of Ex. 2006 above, we only rely upon other statements in those paragraphs, which do not address the legal scope of the ’694 patent, such as “the prototype code is no longer available.” Ex. 2006 ¶ 26.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 6,826,694 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,826,694
• Compass Bank / Commerce Bancshares, Inc. et al. v. Intellectual Ventures II, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 23, 2015 · IPR2014-00786 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated by Rubin and obvious over Norman and Rubin; Cunningham was not shown to anticipate claim 1.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “construction, in light of the Specification, of “contents of the packet” in step c is the header and/or payload of the packet. Petitioner’s construction is supported, sufficiently, by the ’694 patent itself, which discloses embodiments of selecting access rules based upon the header and/or payload of the packet. The’694 patent discloses a first embodiment in which the firewall selects a rule based on header parameters only, and discloses that, based on the header parameters the packet may be passed or dropped. See Ex. 1004, col. 2, ll. 35–37, 40–43, col. 3, ll. 10–12; Fig 1 (path formed by steps 101, 102, 103, and 104). The ’694 patent also discloses that an access control proxy selects a rule based on an analysis of the payload of a single or multiple packets. Id. at col. 3, ll. 4–8, 18–22, 30–32; col. 4, ll. 28–34, 38–40; Fig. 1 (path formed by steps 106 and 107). The ’694 patent further discloses alternate embodiments, in which the “access control proxy selects an access rule that pertains to the packet based both on an analysis of the payload and the header parameters of the packet” (Ex. 1004, col. 3, ll. 38–41) and the “access rule is retrieved based upon a combination of the contents and header parameters of the packet” (id. at col. 4, ll. 36–38).” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Given the above, we determine that the broadest reasonable construction, in light of the Specification, of step b is to choose the access rule based upon the contents of the payload of the received packet. Likewise, the broadest reasonable construction, in light of the Specification, of step c is the access rule is chosen based upon a combination of the contents of the received packet and another packet. The broadest reasonable construction of these steps does not require selecting the rule by choosing the access rule from set of rules or preclude selecting the access rule by choosing whether or not the rule is pertinent. Although the Specification discloses selecting a rule from a set of rules (Ex. 1004, col. 3, ll. 10–12, 30–32, col. 4, ll. 47–59), claim 1 does not set forth a set of rules or require that the rule is selected from a set of rules. Limitations appearing in the Specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claims must be interpreted “in view of the specification” without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily).” slip op. at 14

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner

    “This burden includes, inter alia, showing that any reference on which it relies is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102. See Mahurkar, 79 F.3d at 1576 (holding that accused infringer “bore the burden of persuasion . . . on all issues relating to the status of [the asserted reference] as prior art”). Cunningham presumptively constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because its September 9, 1998 filing date is prior to the ’694 patent’s earliest effective filing date, giving rise to Patent Owner’s burden of coming forward with evidence supporting a date of invention before September 9, 1998. Mahurkar, 79 F.3d at 1576–77; see Technology Lic. Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (finding that when party challenging validity came forward with art that is prior to the challenged patent’s application date, the patentee has burden of going forward with evidence that “the asserted claim is entitled to the benefit of a filing date prior to the alleged prior art”). Upon consideration of Patent Owner’s proffered evidence, as discussed above, we are persuaded that Patent Owner has met its burden of coming forward with sufficient independently corroborated evidence showing that the inventors of the ’694 patent reduced to practice the claimed invention “at least as early as early 1996 but no later than June 11, 1996” (id. at 40). Thus, upon consideration of all of the evidence, we are not persuaded that Cunningham is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).” slip op. at 25

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityReference is prior artPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “was publicly accessible in February 1997 and, thus, qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The determination of whether a given reference qualifies as a prior art “printed publication” involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public. In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The key inquiry is whether the reference was made “sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art” before the critical date. In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 226 (CCPA 1981). “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.” Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). Dr. Aviel Rubin testifies that Rubin is a true copy of the paper, which was presented by his co-author David Martin at the Symposium on Network and Distributed System Security, held on February 10–11, 1997. Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 1–2, 6. Dr. Rubin also testifies that he personally attended the symposium and that he observed that copies of Rubin were freely available to the several hundred attendees. Id. ¶¶ 3, 8–9. Dr. Rubin further testifies that Rubin was published in the Proceedings of the Symposium on Network and Distributed System Security, which are handed out to participants at the symposium. See id. ¶¶ 1, 13. Dr. Rubin’s testimony is consistent with Rubin itself, which states that it was “[r]eprinted from The Proceedings of the 1997 Symposium on Network and Distributed Systems Security.” Ex. 1009, n. 1. Given the above, we determine that Rubin was a printed publication publicly available as of February 1997 and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). See Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. AB Fortia, 774 F.2d 1104, 1109 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (paper orally presented at a scientific meeting open to all persons interested in the subject matter, with written copies distributed without restriction to all who requested, is a printed publication). Thus, Rubin cannot be overcome by proving prior invention.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 6,826,694 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,826,694
• Flir Systems, Inc. v. Leak Surveys, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 3, 2015 · IPR2015-00065 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–28 and 30–58 of the ’813 patent and claims 1–7 and 9–20 of the ’496 patent are unpatentable as obvious under § 103.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “construction of “leak” deviates from the ordinary meaning of the term. PO Resp. 31–33. LSI relies on extrinsic evidence to supports its contention that the ordinary meaning of “leak” as recited in the ’813 and ’496 patents is limited to unintended or fugitive emissions. PO Resp. 33. LSI’s contention fails to recognize and distinguish the express teaching that chemicals of interest from flares, exhausts, vents or blow off valves are expressly described as uses of the claimed invention. Ex. 1001, 12:17–25. Indeed, one portion of the specification that LSI relies on to distinguish known versus unknown emissions, indicates that the invention is used to survey known emissions of gas from vents. Ex. 1001, 20:28–31; see PO Resp. 34. Although LSI admits that exhaust valves and flares will have known emissions and that the invention is used to survey these structures (PO Resp. 32), LSI argues that the term “leak” does not include the known emissions from these structures, as the ordinary use of the term is limited to fugitive or unknown emissions. We disagree, concluding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the specification describes a chemical of interest that is present in valves and exhausts that have known emissions. Ex. 1001, 12:22, 20:28–32.15 Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, LSI’s extrinsic evidence does not persuade us that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “leak” as used in the specification and claims is limited to only unknown or fugitive emissions. Accordingly, on the full record, we maintain our construction of “leak” as including both fugitive and non-fugitive emissions.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Decided for petitioner

    “PO Resp. 27. Specifically, LSI argues that “in the context of the full claims, this limitation should be construed to mean that an infringing method must operate to image gas leaks under real-world field conditions, without taking steps to artificially control any variables such as background temperature, wind, etc.” Id. at 25. LSI does not provide any argument or evidence that the patent describes the range of “real-world” versus “artificially controlled” conditions. Instead, LSI’s construction merely seeks to eliminate any conditions obtained in a lab or test setting from ambient conditions in other settings. We are not persuaded that the patent claims’ references to variable ambient conditions are limited to “real-world” conditions. As we previously noted, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the claimed system and method would typically be used outdoors, where environmental conditions change, at the point where a leak may occur. Dec. ’411, 18. For example, in the summer, a chemical of interest may be present at higher temperature than the same chemical of interest in the winter. Id. Similarly, exhaust temperature may vary depending on conditions. LSI admits that “the claim does not specify what the normal operating conditions would be” under given circumstances. Oral Argument Transcript (“Tr.”) 62:23–24. LSI also admits that a smokestack, for example, would have “a different range of normal operating conditions.” Tr. 63:6–8. Because these conditions vary and the ’813 and ’496 patent specifications are silent on the range or limits of normal operating conditions, we are not persuaded by LSI’s attempt to exclude controlled environments from the claimed ambient conditions. See PO Resp. 26–27. We find no support for LSI’s contention that “variable ambient conditions” or “normal operating in variable ambient conditions” is limited to those instances that are not constrained or controlled in some artificial manner. Id. On the full record, we maintain our constructions of “produce a visible image of the chemical emanating from the component under variable ambient conditions of the area around the leak” as meaning “being able to produce a visible image under the ambient conditions of the area around the leak.”” slip op. at 13

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

    “We are not persuaded by LSI’s arguments. The case LSI relies on, Virginia Innovation, is neither binding authority nor persuasive authority. The facts in Virginia Innovation can be distinguished from the facts of the present case, as the prior art in question in Virginia Innovation was not sufficiently shown to be generally on sale to the interested public, and was instead “restricted” to members of a publishing organization, which required membership dues for access. See 983 F. Supp. 2d at 737–38. Indeed, the district court in Virginia Innovation noted that there was no evidence that the document was available for sale to the general public outside of the publishing organization members. Id. In the present case, no membership fee or organization membership is required for access to the Merlin User’s Guide, which testimony shows was available and sold to the interested public as early as late 2000. See Ex. 1026 ¶¶ 17–19; Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 12–14; Ex. 1016 ¶ 12. Based on the complete record, we find by a preponderance of the evidence that distribution of the Merlin User’s Guide with the sale of the Merlin MID camera shows sufficient public accessibility and distribution. The cost to obtain the camera does not negate the evidence that the camera and accompanying user’s guide was available to the interested public. The testimony evidence shows that the Merlin User’s Guide was available for sale and distribution to the interested as early as 2000. Thus, FLIR has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the Merlin User’s Guide was a publicly available printed publication.” slip op. at 22

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “relevant experience with passive IR (infrared) systems in addition to the requisite engineering or physics education. Paper 2, 10–11 (IPR ’065); Reply 19–20. LSI contends that in addition to the requisite physics or optical science/engineering education a person of ordinary skill the art would have experience developing IR camera systems generally. PO Resp. 22. LSI’s contention is that FLIR’s definition of a person of ordinary skill is too narrowly focused on passive IR systems and is evidence of hindsight bias. PO Resp. 23. LSI’s arguments are contradictory and confusing; asserting not only that FLIR’s person of ordinary skill in art is overly narrow and defined as a “specialist in the [’813 and ’496 patents’] specific solution to the problem being solved,” but also that FLIR’s artisan “would not [] have been familiar with the technical problem being addressed by the invention.” PO Resp. 22 (emphasis omitted). Regardless, FLIR argues that the invention would have been obvious under either FLIR’s or LSI’s proposed person of ordinary skill in the art. Reply 20. Based on the full record, we find that the level of ordinary skill in the art is evidenced by the prior art references and the type of problems and solutions described in the ’813 and ’496 patents (Ex. 1001, 1:25–2:34), and includes experience in imaging of chemical gases using IR camera systems generally in addition to the requisite engineering, physics or optical science education. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Moreover, and apart from any differences of opinion between FLIR and LSI on the precise background and knowledge of one skilled in the art, the prior art itself is highly indicative of the level of skill. See id. (“the level of ordinary skill in the art . . . was best determined by appeal to the references of record”). In any event, we do not find that a person of ordinary skill’s understanding of the teachings of the prior art would differ if an ordinarily skilled artisan possessed knowledge of both active and passive IR systems rather than knowledge of passive IR systems alone. See PO Resp. 22–24.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,426,813 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,426,813

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.