- Stingray Group Inc. / Stingray Music USA, Inc. v. Edwin A. Hernandez-MondragonNo claims unpatentablePTAB · May 29, 2026 · IPR2025-00349 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–21 were not shown unpatentable because Avellan did not disclose the claimed sequence of screen captures used to assemble a media stream.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
“Patent Owner submits a similar definition and does not dispute the Petition’s characterization of the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 22. No express finding is necessary. The level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. Any perceived difference in how each party characterizes a POSITA does not change our analysis or conclusions.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“on ordinary and customary meaning. Pet. 14–15; PO Resp. 22. We determine that construction of claim terms is not necessary to resolve the disputes raised by the parties in this proceeding.” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“c. Analysis “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Avellan does not anticipate claim 1 because it does not assemble a media stream of multimedia items using the recited screen captures. See PO Resp. 26–29. We agree with Patent Owner that the plain language of the claim requires more than transmitting individual media items. Sur-reply 21. To the extent that Avellan captures images, those images do not meet the claimed requirements for a “temporal sequence of screen captures” in the independent claims, which must (1) be of the web page rendered by a browser, (2) “define all the content of the web page at a given time,” (3) “illustrate a dynamic change of at least a portion of the content over time” when two of them are compared, and (4) used to assemble “the at least one media stream.” Rather, the record better supports Patent Owner’s argument that Avellan transmits the multimedia items separate from any media stream assembled from screen captures. PO Resp. 26–29; Sur-reply 21.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“All other challenged claims require the “generating” and “assembling” operations because they depend from claims 1, 12, or 17. Petitioner does not allege that the additional references—Durante, Ma, Suzuki, Wanamaker, Heikens, Matthews, or Wilsher—teach or suggest the “temporal sequence of screen captures” recited in claim 1. Rather, Petitioner’s reasoning in the challenges to the dependent claims pertaining to the screen captures mirror the rationale presented in the independent claim. See, e.g., Pet. 25 (arguing that Avellan’s screen captures correspond to the video content in the challenge to claim 2), 26–27 (arguing that Avellan obtains screen captures from a playback of a video on the webpage in the challenge to claim 4). Petitioner’s argument that Avellan teaches or suggests these operations in the grounds based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 depend on the reasoning and insufficiently supported characterizations of Avellan in the challenges based on 35 U.S.C. § 102, as discussed above. See Pet. 40–60. grounds based on anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or teaches or suggests these operations in the grounds based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Petitioner has not met its burden to show that any challenged claim is unpatentable as anticipated by Avellan or obvious over any of the combinations of Avellan and the other cited references.” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 10,123,074 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,123,074 - Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 15, 2024 · IPR2023-00745 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 and 8–22 were not shown unpatentable because Mills did not disclose the required embedded structure and Markel combined with Mills did not teach it; the revised motion to amend was dismissed as moot.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsNot reached
“Patent Owner’s Revised Contingent Motion to Amend asserts that in “the event the Board finds at least one challenged [Revised Motion to Amend] claim unpatentable, [Patent Owner] respectfully requests that the Board grant this Motion with respect to the corresponding proposed substitute claim(s).” Paper 27, 1. Because we determine that Petitioner has not established that any of the challenged claims 1–4 and 8–22 are unpatentable, Patent Owner’s Revised Contingent Motion to Amend is moot.” slip op. at 61
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is somewhat broader in both education and proposed work experience. Patent Owner’s proposed work experience is somewhat vague and potentially outside the scope of the claimed invention. For example, the requirement that the person of ordinary skill in the art have experience with the “capture and processing of data or information, including but not limited to physiological information,” would seemingly encompass data processing areas that do not relate to the scope of the claimed invention. We adopt Petitioner’s level of the level of ordinary skill in art because it is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). Our analysis and the end result are the same under either proposed definition.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“structure where a lead is embedded in a portion of the enclosure from other embodiments where a lead is merely positioned against or in parallel contact with a portion of the enclosure. See Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 36–37. The Specification describes distinct embodiments such as “lead 472 of the heart sensor can be positioned against the back surface of bezel 460,” or “[a]lternatively, lead 472 can be placed within the thickness of bezel 460 (e.g., in a pocket within the bezel wall), but underneath the outer surface of the bezel.” Ex. 9:44–48. We agree with Patent Owner, and Dr. Kenny, that “[t]his passage distinguishes a lead that is embedded in a portion of the enclosure from a lead that is merely ‘positioned against’ or in parallel contact with a portion of the enclosure.” PO Resp. 6–7 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 33–35). See also Ex. 2008, 31:10–33:18, 109:18–110:19 (Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Oslan, suggesting that a first component or object in parallel contact with and positioned under a second component or object would not necessarily indicate that the first component or object is embedded in the second component or object). Similarly, we also agree that “the claims of the ’257 use the term ‘embedded in’ while also using the word ‘embedded’ in other contexts, which” indicates distinct claim scope for “the term ‘embedded in,’” versus “the broader term ‘embedded.’” Ex. 2003 ¶ 38. For instance, claim 9 distinctly requires “embedded with,” which is a broader term that, according to Dr. Kenny, encompasses embodiments where a lead may be adjacent/parallel to the first portion of the enclosure. Id.” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“under the exterior of the first portion” (see Pet. 21–22, 24–25; Pet. Reply 4); and (3) leaf spring 62 is embedded in housing 12 and electrode 14 (see Pet. 22–24). None of Petitioner’s mappings disclose every element of claim 1 and Petitioner improperly jumps between these various mappings without fully examining a single mapping for each and every limitation of claim 1. See Pet. 18–25. In essence, Petitioner invites the Board to piece together a single theory that meets all claim elements from these disparate theories that each require distinct structure within Mills. See Amazon.com, Inc., et al. v. Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) PTE. LTD., IPR2017-01112, Paper 11, at 13 (PTAB Aug. 23, 2017) (“Petitioner is inviting us to assume the role of archeologist of the record, which invitation we decline.”).” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 10,076,257 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,076,257 - LKQ Corporation / Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 8, 2021 · PGR2020-00055 · APJ Robert L Kinder · PGR · Final written decision
Claim 1 was not shown unpatentable as anticipated by the Leopaard or obvious over the Leopaard alone or with the Equinox.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“designer of ordinary skill analysis whereas the overall claimed design cannot be accurately compared to the Leopaard vehicle. As we discuss in more detail below, there are simply too many aspects of the claimed design that are not adequately disclosed by the images of the Leopard. Although LKQ’s experts project what is likely to be in these evidentiary voids, we do not find estimations of design features on par with an actual showing. LKQ’s anticipation and obviousness theories are based too much on speculation and conjecture about what features might be present in the Leopaard’s skid bar (see, e.g., Pet. Reply 22 (“most likely”)), or that various features can be discounted as “likely barely noticeable” or “unlikely to be noticeable.” Id. at 25, 28. With this understanding, we compare the design claim to the Leopaard, noting both the similarities and difference and also the shortcomings in evidence.” slip op. at 43
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“individual who has at least an undergraduate degree in transportation or automotive design and experience in the field of transportation design, or someone who has several years’ work experience in the field of transportation or automotive design. Pet. 37 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 41–42; Ex. 1004 ¶ 39). GM originally argued for a slightly different standard for the ordinary designer in its Preliminary Response, but for purposes of its Response, GM has acquiesced in LKQ’s definition. See PO Resp. 8. Mr. Peters contends that “I do not discern any relevant differences between these proposals, nor do I have any substantive disagreement with Mr. Gandy’s proposal. My opinion is the same, regardless of which definition is applied.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 27. Based on the final record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the ordinary designer.” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“contentions. As we analyze in detail below, LKQ’s case is not persuasive for several reasons, including its failure to provide sufficient evidence. LKQ has not produced images of the Leopaard that would enable a persuasive comparison with corresponding views of the claimed invention. The evidence produced by LKQ related to the Leopaard simply fails to clearly show several claimed aspects of the design. Because the Petition omits sufficient views of any complete single skid bar (Ex. 2004 ¶ 51), the evidence produced by LKQ related to the Leopaard simply fails to clearly show several claimed aspects of the design. For example, Exhibits 1006– 1009 include front or perspective views that show, at most, only an upper portion of a skid bar. Exhibit 1010 shows slightly more of the skid bar of its vehicle, but also omits a significant portion of the bottom of the skid bar. Ex. 2004 ¶ 51; Ex. 2006, 77:2–21. The exhibits do not show a sufficient bottom view to allow comparison and the exhibits also have obscured side views due to other trim features covering the outsides of the skid bar. For these and other reasons such as the differences between the designs discussed below, LKQ has failed to meet its burden of proof.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petition does propose any other modifications to the Leopaard. LKQ’s obviousness analysis failed to address the differences that contribute to the overall appearance of the ’508 patent’s design. As discussed above, the evidence shows multiple readily apparent differences between the claimed design and the Leopaard. We agree with Mr. Peters that “[t]he differences I discussed above in the context of the ordinary observer are just as significant to the ordinary designer, who would likewise have recognized these readily visible features.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 86. These same differences in the aggregate create an overall ornamental design that is not basically the same between the claimed design of the ’508 patent and the Leopaard. Accordingly, the Leopaard is not a proper Rosen reference. Even before modifications may be considered, LKQ has the burden to show that the Leopaard, as it currently is “in existence,” has design characteristics of which are basically the same as the claimed design. High Point Design, 730 F.3d at 1311. Considering the Leopaard before any proposed modifications, it is not a proper Rosen reference. Ex. 2004 ¶ 84. The Leopaard does not give basically the same visual impression as the patented design because the Leopaard does not teach a substantial vertical front face, bottom surface and edge (continuous surface below the recesses), outwardly projecting top and side surfaces, curvature from side-to-side, deep recesses entirely visible from the front, and outer perimeter shape. See id. ¶¶ 49, 52–85. As Mr. Peters testifies, the Leopaard does not have substantially the same overall appearance because “the respective designs include numerous fundamentally different design characteristics,” which “[t]he Petition does not specifically address.” Id. ¶¶ 83, 84. Without accounting for these differences—and particularly, the significance of these differences to the designer of ordinary skill in the art—the Petition lacks sufficient evidence that the Leopaard is “a single reference that creates basically the same visual impression” as the claimed design. Indeed, the differences described above in the context of the ordinary observer are just as significant to the ordinary designer, who is aware of readily apparent differences when assessing the visual impression of designs. Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 25, 84–86. Thus, we are not persuaded that a designer of ordinary skill would have viewed the Leopaard to give basically the same visual impression as the ’508 patent.” slip op. at 58
Patent outcomesUS D855,508 not shown unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness - Yamaha Golf Car Company v. Club Car, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 2, 2019 · IPR2017-02143 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision
Petitioner did not prove claims 1–11 and 13–20 unpatentable on the asserted grounds; claim 12 was disclaimed.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“In the summon mode, pressing a button to summon the caddie of the ’388 patent triggers an autonomous mode but no specific driving commands are provided to the caddie by the golfer. See Ex. 2015 ¶ 195 (“As the robotic caddy cart is operating autonomously at that point, the user does not input these movement commands.”). We agree that the summon command could not be considered a driver command because “merely defining the destination does not generate any control actions.” Id. ¶ 160. Likewise, a summon command to follow a golfer would not be a driver command because the golfer has no direct control over the route taken, the speed of the caddie, or whether or not a caddie could drive into a restricted area –– the caddie’s system pilots itself to a point near the golfer by generating movement inputs on its own. The system detects that the golfer is in a limited access area and the golfer will not be able to summon the caddie into that area. This restriction is not a driver command being limited because the summon command simply activates internal logic to move the caddie near the golfer, not a driver command to move into a restricted area. Indeed, when operating in autonomous mode, the caddie can never enter such restricted areas. We thus agree with Patent Owner that the summon command cannot be overridden or limited in the ’388 patent because the caddie will always come as close as is allowable under the parameters of the caddie’s programming.” slip op. at 45
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Dec. 11. First, we note that the claim language itself focuses on limiting the ability of a “driver” to move the cart. For example, dependent claim 2 recites “an override of a driver input to the motor.” That the “driver input” needs to be overridden or otherwise restricted presumes that the golf cart is being driven by a person who has independent control of the cart and is susceptible to driving in an unruly manner, in other words, an onboard driver of the cart. This is especially true given the lack of any indication in the claims of remote or autonomous operation of the cart. Numerous other dependent claims include similar references to a driver of the cart, for example, “override of driver input” (claim 3), “driver interface unit” (claim 4), “limits the performance of driver commands” (claim 14), and “driver command” (claim 17).” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner overemphasizes the ’053 Application’s use of the terms “golf cart” and “electric vehicle.” Nowhere does the ’053 Application support the disclosure of a rideable cart. Rather, it describes a golf cart that, when read in the context of the reference as a whole, is a riderless cart, or more specifically, a “caddie cart.” This is evidenced by the fact that the ’053 Application incorporates by reference a caddie cart, as discussed above, in which the only mechanism for actually operating the cart is a “grip lever,” which Petitioner’s own expert acknowledges is not something found in a rideable cart. See Ex. 2016, 94:16–95:11 (conceding “there is no such thing as a rideable golf cart, in [his] experience or in 2003, that has a grip lever”); see also 54:5–12 (essentially same testimony). Further evidence that the ’053 Application contemplates only a riderless caddie cart is its description of the golf cart as “moving the golf bag to a location that is convenient for the play by the golfer.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 2. Nowhere does it describe the cart as moving a golfer or caddy. Even Petitioner’s expert agrees that, while the ’053 Application “does describe a caddy cart,” it “does not describe putting the person in the seat.” Ex. 2016, 92:18–93:1; 88:11–15. And to the extent Petitioner’s expert qualifies that testimony by saying that the ’053 Application doesn’t exclude the possibility of a riding cart and doesn’t preclude putting a person in the seat, that qualification is irrelevant to our analysis of anticipation, which depends on what a reference actually discloses, not what possibilities it could have disclosed. Petitioner’s assertion is that each of independent claims 1 and 6 is anticipated by the ’053 Application – Petitioner has not put forth an obviousness ground for these claims based on the ’053 Application.” slip op. at 24
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Alternatively, Petitioner argues that the ’053 Application’s disclosure of a golfer selecting a destination on an LCD display “inherently teaches” the ability of “overriding a driver command.” Pet. 29–30 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 37). We disagree. The ability to select a travel destination on an LCD display is not the same as the ability to “override” or “restrict” a previous command to travel to a certain destination. As argued by Patent Owner, “[t]he selection of a point on a map is just that—a selection to travel to a point on the map, not to take a particular route to that point.” PO Resp. 34 (citing Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 150–152). Nowhere does the ’053 Application say that the selected point on the display will be disregarded if it is within a prohibited area. Thus, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that the ’053 Application inherently teaches the ability to “override” a driver input. Reply 3, 23–24. In its Petition, however, Petitioner deliberately chose not to rely on the ’053 Application’s manned operating mode in arguing those particular limitations. See Pet. 28–29 (referencing repeatedly “unmanned mode operation” and showing ellipsis “. . .” where “manual traveling mode” would have been discussed in paragraph 34 of the ’053 Application). Petitioner cannot switch positions midstream and raise an entirely new argument in its reply that reasonably could have been made in the petition. See Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 775 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Blizzard, as petitioner, had an opportunity to present this argument in its petition, but chose not to.”). A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding patent owner response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Indeed, in its patent owner response, Club Car carefully notes that the ’053 Application’s manned operating mode is “not relied upon by Petitioner.” PO Resp. 28. Because Petitioner’s assertion in its reply of the ’053 Application’s manned operating mode constitutes new argument outside the scope of a proper reply, we decline to consider it.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 7,480,569 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,480,569 - Yamaha Golf Car Company v. Club Car, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 2, 2019 · IPR2017-02144 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision
The Board found claims 11 and 17–19 not shown unpatentable: claim 11 was entitled to priority over the ’918 Publication, and the obviousness challenge to claims 17–19 was unsupported.
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“slows the speed of the golf car until it returns to the course—“[Y]our cart has been slowed down because you are outside the boundaries of the course. Your car will continue to slow down until you return to the course.” Ex. 1004, 30 (emphases added) (also showing that “Reduce Maximum Speed” may be adjusted to a select speed as similarly set forth in Figure 3 of the ’569 patent). The ’894 Provisional specifies that the Curtis 1510 controller includes a configuration setting for “REVERSE SPEED,” and we find persuasive Mr. Andrews’ testimony that this control setting is separate from the maximum forward speed settings, “M1 MAX SPEED,” “M2 MAX SPEED,” “M3 MAX SPEED,” and “M4 (HIGH) MAX SPEED.” Ex. 1004, 12; Ex. 2009 ¶ 58 (“‘REVERSE SPEED’ is a separate configuration setting that the controller can configure based on GPS location.”). We find that these disclosures in the ’894 Provisional—slowing or stopping the car until it reverses course and separate configurable settings for reverse speed in the motor controller—establish affirmative support for a configuration as claimed where the car’s forward movement is disabled, but the car may still move in a reverse direction, as required by claim 11. Because the maximum forward speed can be set to zero to stop the vehicle from further movement towards the restricted area, but setting the maximum speed to zero leaves the separate “REVERSE SPEED” configuration setting in the motor controller unchanged, Patent Owner has shown how the vehicle is capable of operation only in a reverse direction. See Ex. 1004, 10, 12, 16, 30. From a functional capability, there is simply no difference between the descriptions found in the ’894 Provisional and the claimed limitations. See Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 49–60. Thus, Patent Owner has met its burden of showing adequate written description support for claim 11 in the earlier ’894 Provisional. Accordingly, the ’918 Publication does not qualify as prior art against claim 11. Based on the final trial record before us, Petitioner does not present sufficient arguments and credible evidence to support a finding that claim 11 is anticipated by the ’918 Publication.” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedReference not prior artDecided for patent owner
“slows the speed of the golf car until it returns to the course—“[Y]our cart has been slowed down because you are outside the boundaries of the course. Your car will continue to slow down until you return to the course.” Ex. 1004, 30 (emphases added) (also showing that “Reduce Maximum Speed” may be adjusted to a select speed as similarly set forth in Figure 3 of the ’569 patent). The ’894 Provisional specifies that the Curtis 1510 controller includes a configuration setting for “REVERSE SPEED,” and we find persuasive Mr. Andrews’ testimony that this control setting is separate from the maximum forward speed settings, “M1 MAX SPEED,” “M2 MAX SPEED,” “M3 MAX SPEED,” and “M4 (HIGH) MAX SPEED.” Ex. 1004, 12; Ex. 2009 ¶ 58 (“‘REVERSE SPEED’ is a separate configuration setting that the controller can configure based on GPS location.”). We find that these disclosures in the ’894 Provisional—slowing or stopping the car until it reverses course and separate configurable settings for reverse speed in the motor controller—establish affirmative support for a configuration as claimed where the car’s forward movement is disabled, but the car may still move in a reverse direction, as required by claim 11. Because the maximum forward speed can be set to zero to stop the vehicle from further movement towards the restricted area, but setting the maximum speed to zero leaves the separate “REVERSE SPEED” configuration setting in the motor controller unchanged, Patent Owner has shown how the vehicle is capable of operation only in a reverse direction. See Ex. 1004, 10, 12, 16, 30. From a functional capability, there is simply no difference between the descriptions found in the ’894 Provisional and the claimed limitations. See Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 49–60. Thus, Patent Owner has met its burden of showing adequate written description support for claim 11 in the earlier ’894 Provisional. Accordingly, the ’918 Publication does not qualify as prior art against claim 11. Based on the final trial record before us, Petitioner does not present sufficient arguments and credible evidence to support a finding that claim 11 is anticipated by the ’918 Publication.” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“slows the speed of the golf car until it returns to the course—“[Y]our cart has been slowed down because you are outside the boundaries of the course. Your car will continue to slow down until you return to the course.” Ex. 1004, 30 (emphases added) (also showing that “Reduce Maximum Speed” may be adjusted to a select speed as similarly set forth in Figure 3 of the ’569 patent). The ’894 Provisional specifies that the Curtis 1510 controller includes a configuration setting for “REVERSE SPEED,” and we find persuasive Mr. Andrews’ testimony that this control setting is separate from the maximum forward speed settings, “M1 MAX SPEED,” “M2 MAX SPEED,” “M3 MAX SPEED,” and “M4 (HIGH) MAX SPEED.” Ex. 1004, 12; Ex. 2009 ¶ 58 (“‘REVERSE SPEED’ is a separate configuration setting that the controller can configure based on GPS location.”). We find that these disclosures in the ’894 Provisional—slowing or stopping the car until it reverses course and separate configurable settings for reverse speed in the motor controller—establish affirmative support for a configuration as claimed where the car’s forward movement is disabled, but the car may still move in a reverse direction, as required by claim 11. Because the maximum forward speed can be set to zero to stop the vehicle from further movement towards the restricted area, but setting the maximum speed to zero leaves the separate “REVERSE SPEED” configuration setting in the motor controller unchanged, Patent Owner has shown how the vehicle is capable of operation only in a reverse direction. See Ex. 1004, 10, 12, 16, 30. From a functional capability, there is simply no difference between the descriptions found in the ’894 Provisional and the claimed limitations. See Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 49–60. Thus, Patent Owner has met its burden of showing adequate written description support for claim 11 in the earlier ’894 Provisional. Accordingly, the ’918 Publication does not qualify as prior art against claim 11. Based on the final trial record before us, Petitioner does not present sufficient arguments and credible evidence to support a finding that claim 11 is anticipated by the ’918 Publication.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“sufficiently how the ’918 Publication’s disclosure of a “signal . . . of the violation” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 68) also teaches or suggests the additional claim requirements of “the driver interface unit . . . operable to communicate an alarm to the base station of a controller limiting the performance of a driver command” as required by claim 17. Petitioner recognizes the distinction by arguing “that the system could also provide a message to the course personnel . . . of any remedial corrective measures taken in response.” Pet. 25 (emphasis added). Based on the evidence cited, the ’918 Publication does not provide any such notification. Petitioner cannot suggest that a reference could have a feature that it does not have without some rational basis as to why such a feature would have been suggested by the reference. Mr. Breen’s explanation mirrors Petitioner’s contention (Ex. 1001 ¶ 277) and likewise states “that the system could also provide a message to the course personnel” (emphasis added) but no further explanation is provided as to how this unsupported conclusion was reached. Petitioner has also failed to lay the necessary foundation to establish that “common sense” could fill the gap for the missing limitation, or provide a basis for modifying the ’918 Publication to teach the claim 17 limitation. We recognize that in certain instances “common sense” can be used to supply the missing claim limitation, but only if the art is “unusually simple and the [patented] technology particularly straightforward.” Arendi Sarl v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In this proceeding, we have no testimony or evidence to establish either condition is met. Neither Petitioner nor Mr. Breen explain adequately why the limitations of claim 17” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 7,480,569 not shown unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,480,569 - Cook Group Incorporated / Cook Medical LLC v. Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,271,731 - 3shape Medical A/S v. Sirona Dental Systems GmbHNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 21, 2017 · IPR2016-00481 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 were not shown unpatentable: Mushabac did not anticipate claims 1–5 and 9–10, and the asserted combinations did not render claims 1–8 obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We determine that only the following claim phrase requires explicit construction for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (internal citation omitted)).” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner provides evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) is someone with a D.M.D. (Doctor of Medicine in Dentistry or Doctor of Dental Medicine) or D.D.S. (Doctor of Dental Surgery) and at least several years of experience with 3-D technology used in dental implant treatment, planning, and surgery. Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 63–66). Alternatively, such a person may have a computer engineering degree or be a trained dental laboratory technician having substantial experience with 3-D technology and software applications used in dental implant treatment, planning, and surgery. Id. Patent Owner has accepted Petitioner’s definition of a POSA for purposes of this IPR. We adopt and apply Petitioner’s definition of a POSA in this Decision.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“2. Analysis of “optical measuring of the visible surfaces of the jaw” Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires “the presence in a single prior art disclosure of all elements of a claimed invention arranged as in the claim.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008).” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Dr. Ganz agreed under cross-examination that “Mushabac optically measures the teeth [a]nd then it uses … bone sounding to measure the surfaces of the jawbone.” Ex. 2026, 252:11–20. When directly asked where a three-dimensional optical measuring of visible surfaces of the jaw was “stipulated” in Mushabac, Dr. Ganz could not identify any passage to support that assertion made in paragraph 100 of his Declaration. Id. at 248:16–252:20. We find Dr. Ganz’s cross-examination testimony to be highly persuasive and consistent with the disclosures in Mushabac and the testimony of Dr. Erickson. For the reasons given above, we determine that Mushabac does not expressly disclose an “optical” (light-based) measurement of the “visible surfaces of the jaw” in three dimensions, as recited in claim 1 of the ’006 patent.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 6,319,006 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,319,006
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.