• Ravin Crossbows, LLC v. MCP IP, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Sep 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00522 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–4 and 7–19 based on Darlington and Islas, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). See 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2024) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “would have had (i) a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering, materials science, or a similar technical field; (ii) a working knowledge of and/or experience with projectile weapon (e.g., archery bow) operation and performance; and (iii) two to four years of experience with designing and manufacturing of consumer products. Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 25–28). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s definition. See generally Prelim. Resp. For the purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s uncontested definition because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’989 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed

    “contemporaneous knowledge of the activities of Mr. McPherson in or around 2008 or the bows that are pictured in Exhibits 2002 and 2003. See generally Ex. 2007. Rather, Dr. Reinholtz testifies “that the 2009 model year Mission Menace bow and the 2009 Mathews McPherson Series Monster bow embodied the claim limitations of the ’989 patent” based on his comparison of the disclosure in the Krenz articles “to the claims of the ’989 patent . . . from the perspective of a” person of ordinary skill in the art. Id. ¶ 32. Due his lack of personal contemporaneous knowledge, his testimony cannot corroborate Mr. McPherson’s testimony concerning reduction to practice and we give it no weight in that regard.13 We turn first to the Krenz articles. Mr. Ozanne14 holds the position of” slip op. at 21

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedDecided for petitioner

    “reduction to practice, the applicant must have: (1) constructed an embodiment or performed a process that met all the limitations of the claim and (2) determined that the invention would work for its intended purpose.” Steed, 802 F.3d at 1318. “That is, to reduce any particular claim to practice, the applicant must have constructed an operational embodiment within the scope of that claim.” Nintendo of America Inc. v. iLife Technologies, Inc., 717 Fed. Appx. 996 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (addressing Steed’s above, two-prong standard). The Board may find an actual reduction to practice based on, for example, “testimony of the inventors, corroborating witnesses, and corroborating documentary evidence” (id. at 1002) if “[t]his evidence, taken together, is sufficient for a reasonable mind to conclude that the prototype created by the inventors . . . was within the scope of claims . . . and would work for its intended purpose” (id. at 1003). But if “[t]he prototype has not been shown to meet all the limitations of the[] claims, . . . the record thus lacks evidence sufficient to support the . . . conclusion [of an actual reduction to practice].” Id. at 1004 (citing Steed, 802 F.3d at 1318). “[A]n inventor’s testimony alone is insufficient to establish an earlier reduction to practice. Medichem[, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L.], 437 F.3d [1157,] 1169–71.” “In the final analysis, each corroboration case must be decided on its own facts with a view to deciding whether the evidence as a whole is persuasive.” Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Berges v. Gottstein, 618 F.2d 771, 776 (C.C.P.A. 1980)).” slip op. at 20

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,683,989
• Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc. / Lululemon USA Inc. v. Nike, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00180 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 11–14, 19, and 20 are unpatentable: Johnson anticipates claims 11–13 and 19; Sutton anticipates claims 11, 19, and 20; and Sutton with Fry renders claim 12 obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner “does not dispute [Petitioner’s] proposed level of skill in the art” in this case. PO Resp. 9–10; see also Ex. 2001 ¶ 37 (Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Stone, accepting and applying Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill). In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art also is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Considering the subject matter of the ’220 patent, the background technical field, the prior art, and Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the skilled artisan, we apply the level of skill set forth above.” slip op. at 10

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

    “then save.” PO Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 48–56). According to Patent Owner, “[m]erely saving data is not enough.” Id. Petitioner disagrees, contending that Patent Owner’s proffered interpretation of “record” is inconsistent with the Specification, which “repeatedly distinguishes between ‘record’ and ‘measure’” and uses “‘record’ in connection with saving/storing and ‘measure’ in connection with sensing.” Reply 2–3 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:28–34, 8:51–53, 11:61–62, 11:65–67, 13:5–6, 15:18–24, 15:41–45, 20:2– 6; Ex. 1017 ¶¶ 13–19). Based on our review of the parties’ argument and cited evidence, we find that “record” means “save” and does not encompass “measure or capture” as Patent Owner argues. The Specification describes the act of measuring as being performed by various sensors or other devices. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 8:51–53 (“sensors for measuring”), 11:65–67 (“accelerometers . . . for measuring”), 15:18–24 (“Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) navigation device” for measuring distance traveled and an “EKG monitor” for “measuring the electrical activity of the user”). The Specification also expressly distinguishes the act of measuring from the act of recording when discussing how the location of a user is measured and recorded. The Specification states: The inclusion of GPS device 713 and accelerometer 715 in a single mobile device 700 allows device 700 to record athletic activity data in multiple workout settings. . . . If, . . . the individual is running outdoors such that the individual moves from one location to another, the GPS device 713 or recording of data therefrom (e.g., GPS device is always active, but recording is turned on and off) may be activated and used instead [of the data measured by accelerometer 715]. Id. at 19:59–20:6 (emphasis added). Even though GPS “is always active” and measuring the location of the user, “recording is turned on and off.” Accordingly, the Specification expressly distinguishes that act of measuring from the act of recording.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner persuasively contends that the Specification discloses at least six additional ways for a user to select an option to share athletic information that would be excluded under Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation. Reply 11–12 (citing Ex. 1001, Figs. 53F, 53S, 53V, 54C, 77, 82, and accompanying text at 45:22–44, 46:23–28, 47:42–44, 47:63–48:15, 53:27–52). Petitioner also persuasively argues that portion of the Specification cited by Patent Owner fails to sufficiently express intent to limit the scope of “sharing option selection” to “a user command or confirmation.” Id. at 13 (citing Thorner v. Sony Comp. Entm’t Amer. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (lexicography requires “clear” expression of intent to redefine the term (emphasis omitted))). Patent Owner’s attempt in the Sur-reply to cite cases for the proposition that claims need not cover all embodiments is unavailing because we discern no clear intent in the Specification to limit the claim to one specific embodiment. For all these reasons, we reject Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation of “the sharing option selection” 8 and instead read it according to its plain meaning, which encompasses, for example, the 8 The phrase “sharing option selection” is introduced in element 11D, and we conclude that phrase carries the same meaning as it does in element 11E. selection of an option to automatically share athletic information in advance of a workout.” slip op. at 15

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

    “Patent Owner argues that Johnson’s device 601 “does not ‘record’ (i.e., measure or capture, and then save) athletic activity.” PO Resp. 23. Patent Owner contends that “Johnson’s device 601 merely receives and displays pre-recorded athletic activity data that it ‘receives’ from a separate ‘collection’ device” [501], which is the device that “records” the athletic activity. Id. at 24. Patent Owner argues that “writing” data to memory is not “recording” data because it “does not include capturing or measuring the athletic activity itself, only saving it.” Id. Patent Owner concedes that Johnson’s device 601 stores the user’s athletic activity. PO Resp. 24; Sur-reply 8. Patent Owner’s argument that Johnson fails to describe element 11C depends upon us ruling in its favor on the meaning of element 11C. As explained in Part V.A above, we reject Patent Owner’s argument that “record” as used in element 11C also requires the apparatus to “measure or capture” athletic activity. Accordingly, based on Petitioner’s argument regarding element 11C, which we adopt as our own, and the evidence cited in support, we find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of evidence that Johnson describes the limitations of element 11C.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 10,232,220 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,232,220
• Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Dexcom, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 2, 2023 · IPR2022-00914 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 105 and 106 are unpatentable as obvious over Heller and Mastrototaro; Abbott did not prove claims 49, 80, 81, 85, or 86 unpatentable on the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “on the general knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art to disclose the predictive relationship limitation of claim 49 not taught by Heller are legally deficient. Resp. 28–38. We agree in that Petitioner’s contentions in the Petition amount to no more than a conclusory assertion that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have known” the predictive relationship limitation. See Pet. 38–39. Petitioner’s arguments in the Petition are divorced from any analysis of Heller and fail to articulate why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Heller to teach the predictive relationship in light of what was purportedly known more generally in the art. Merely asserting that a particular limitation was “known in the art” does not constitute a legally sufficient basis for establishing obviousness. See, e.g., Deere, 383 U.S. at 17–18. While Petitioner purports to identify multiple references that teach a predictive relationship, Petitioner circumvents a legally sufficient obviousness analysis by choosing not to assert any of the references in combination with Heller, but to instead argue they all collectively show that “predictive relationships” were broadly known in the art. See Pet. 28–33. Rather than establish some broad understanding by persons of ordinary skill in the art concerning the predictive relationship limitation, Petitioner’s arguments make clear that each reference uniquely addressed the relationship between a particular sensor and the in vivo performance of the sensor. For example, Petitioner asserts Gross teaches a sensor for which “the pre-insertion, factory-determined in vitro performance curve and” slip op. at 32

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

    “level in Gross is a “measure of sensor current, not ‘analyte concentration’ is contrary to the express disclosure of Gross. Gross expressly discloses a calibration method that requires, after insertion the in vivo measurement of a saturation level G1 “which can be measured by the sensor and which is of importance for the calibration method.” Ex. 1004, 13:3–18 (further stating that a “voltage V1 (FIG. 4C) applied at time t1 gives a current I1, (FIG. 4B) which corresponds to the saturation level G1 (FIG. 4A) of the enzyme”). Gross explains that “the predetermined stimulus is adapted to saturate the sensor such that the first signal is a maximum signal,” and “[w]hen a sensor is such that it can be saturated by a sufficiently large stimulus, it can be preferable to use this phenomenon in calibrating the sensor as it enables a reproducible first predetermined stimulus, i.e. a saturation stimulus to be provided in all cases, thereby removing uncertainty as to whether the means for providing a predetermined stimulus will in fact achieve exactly the right level of uncertainty.” Id. at 3:17–26.” slip op. at 45

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached

    “of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective evidence of nonobviousness. 5 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). An obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. However, Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead, Petitioner must articulate a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the prior art references. In re NuVasive, 842 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Pers. Web Tech., LLC, v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 993–94 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention”) (quoting Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) (alteration in original).” slip op. at 15

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “In light of the foregoing multiple critical misrepresentations, Petitioner’s MTE is denied regarding sufficiency of Dr. Baura’s qualifications because Petitioner did not timely object to the evidence on the basis asserted in the MTE, fails to refute Patent Owner’s showing that Dr. Baura is sufficiently qualified (see MTE Opp. 3–7; Ex. 2010 ¶ 30), and abandons its argument in its Reply to the MTE.” slip op. at 57

  Patent outcomesUS 11,000,213 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,000,213
• Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Dexcom, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 2, 2023 · IPR2022-00913 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 20, and 21 are unpatentable as anticipated by Heller; the evidence does not establish claims 4–6, 8, or 23–26 unpatentable on the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “In opposition, Patent Owner first argues, and we agree, that Petitioner failed to timely object to Dr. Laura’s declaration with sufficient particularity. MTE Opp. 1–3 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)). Our Rule requires that an “objection must identify the grounds for the objection with sufficient particularity to allow correction in the form of supplemental evidence.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)). Petitioner’s objection to Dr. Baura’s testimony identifies hundreds of paragraphs from her declaration followed by an objection stating her “testimony is based on insufficient facts or data, is not the product of reliable principles and methods, and does not reliably apply the appropriate principles and methods to the fact of the case.” Paper 25, 2. Petitioner’s boilerplate objection is woefully insufficient to show that Petitioner objected with sufficiently particularity to allow correction in the form of supplemental information, as our Rule requires. We further agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s arguments in the MTE are no more than a “transparent attempt to . . . circumvent the word-count limits of its merits briefing by injecting merits arguments in its evidentiary motion.” MTE Opp. 9. In short, Petitioner’s arguments go to the weight to be afforded Dr. Baura’s testimony, not to its admissibility, and are, therefore, an improper basis for seeking the exclusion of hundreds of paragraphs Dr. Baura’s declaration. Accordingly, Petitioner’s MTE is denied.” slip op. at 63

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill. Resp. 9. Dr. Baura, in support of Patent Owner, states that she applied Petitioner’s “definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, because,” in her opinion, Petitioner’s “and Dr. Smith’s conclusions are incorrect even under this definition.” Ex. 2010 ¶ 29. Thus, Dr. Baura neither adopts as proper nor refutes Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill. We find that the ’213 patent and the cited prior art references reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of appropriate skill reflected in these references and the ’213 patent is consistent with the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 17

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

    “In view of the issues we address below, including how the claimed subject matter is alleged to have been taught or disclosed in the prior art, we determine that it is not otherwise necessary to address the express interpretation of any claim term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”).” slip op. at 20

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s anticipation argument is insufficiently supported by Heller or the other evidence Petitioner relies upon. Petitioner directs us to no evidence in Heller expressly addressing a predictive relationship between in vitro and in vivo sensitivity, much less any disclosure in Heller of a particular relationship. Instead, Petitioner seeks to stretch a thin disclosure in Heller that “calibration data may simply be factory-determined calibration measurements” to necessarily mean “prior sensitivity information is derived at least in part from a predictive relationship between an in vitro sensor sensitivity to glucose and an in vivo sensor sensitivity to glucose,” as required by claim 23. Pet. 36; Ex. 1005, 77:14–15. Notably, Dr. Smith does not identify any “predictive relationship” disclosed by Heller. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 148–149. We give little weight to Dr. Smith’s conclusory assertion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have simply “recognized” Heller’s “factory determined calibration measurements” were necessarily “derived at least in part from a predictive relationship between an in vitro and an in vivo sensor sensitivity to glucose,” particularly where Heller does not expressly preclude in vitro measurements from its “factory determined calibration measurements.” See id. Further, in reply, Petitioner argues again that “(1) Heller discloses that calibration data can ‘simply be factory determined calibration measurements’ . . . and (2) a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have recognized that this ‘discloses that factory (in vitro) determined sensitivity adequately predicts in vivo sensitivity.’” Reply 6. From Heller’s disclosure preponderance of the evidence that Heller expressly teaches any predictive relationship, even one in which in vitro and in vivo sensitivity are the same. that calibration data can “simply be factory determined calibration measurements,” Petitioner provides no more than speculation to suggest that there necessarily must be some relationship between in vitro measurements and in vivo measurements. See Reply 6–8. Because Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Heller discloses all of the limitations of clam 23, we determine Petitioner has not shown that Heller anticipates claim 23.” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 11,000,213 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,000,213
• Abbott Diabetes Care Inc v. Dexcom, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 1, 2023 · IPR2022-00909 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 19, and 23 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 5 and 12 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “including a “predictive glucose value,” nowhere do we find the written description or drawings to have delineated such a second function expressly as “the present invention.” See, generally, Ex. 1001; see also Evolusion Concepts, Inc. v. HOC Events, Inc., 22 F.4th 1361, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“We have repeatedly held that ‘it is not enough that the only embodiments, or all of the embodiments, contain a particular limitation to limit claims beyond their plain meaning.’”) (citation omitted). And, regardless of the exact wording, the concern we have is that without a persuasive, express, indication in the specification that the “second function” is specifically limited to “predicting glucose values,” it is a disfavored path to read limitations into the claims. Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import limitations into a claim that are not expressly part of may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The facts and written description here appear to fall more squarely into the category of cases where it is not enough to simply point to embodiments in the specification including the unrecited claim limitation. See Rambus Inc. v. Infineon Techs. Ag, 318 F.3d 1081, 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Even in cases where a “present invention” statement is provided, the Federal Circuit has explained that ‘[w]hile clear language characterizing ‘the present invention’ may limit the ordinary meaning of claim terms, . . . such language must be read in context of the entire specification and the prosecution history.”) (citation omitted); see also In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Absent claim language carrying a narrow meaning, the PTO should only limit the claim based on the specification or prosecution history when those sources expressly disclaim the broader definition.”).” slip op. at 15

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

    “is any disagreement about the meaning of “a second function” apart from the argument by Patent Owner that the second function should be understood to include “a predictive glucose value.” We are not apprised of any reason for Petitioner to provide an express construction for “second function” in this case. The plain and ordinary reading of limitation 1b is a method step of “evaluating sensor data using a second function to determine whether a parameter indicative of glucose value meets one or more non user settable second criteria.” Ex. 1001, 48:39–41. As far as “second function” goes, the claim language is clear on its face that the second function “determine[s] whether a parameter indicative of glucose value meets one or more non user settable second criteria.” Id. Patent Owner has not offered any construction, nor apart from criticizing Petitioner, indicated in any manner that the “second function” as recited in claims 1 and 19 requires a construction. Our understanding of “second function” is consistent with the specification of the ’215 patent. A plain reading of the specification reveals that the first criteria relates to the claimed “first function,” and the “second criteria” relates to the claimed “second function.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001 3:44–49 (The ’215 Patent describing “a processor configured to: evaluate sensor data using a first function to determine whether a real time glucose value meets one or more first criteria; evaluate sensor data using a second function to determine whether a predicted glucose value meets one or more second criteria.”). The specification description is therefore mostly consistent with the recitations in claim 1 with respect to the first and second functions and relative first and second criteria. Compare id., with Ex. 1001, 48:36–41.” slip op. at 35

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

    “second function.” PO Resp. 19. However, neither did Patent Owner provide an express construction. See generally id. is any disagreement about the meaning of “a second function” apart from the argument by Patent Owner that the second function should be understood to include “a predictive glucose value.” We are not apprised of any reason for Petitioner to provide an express construction for “second function” in this case. The plain and ordinary reading of limitation 1b is a method step of “evaluating sensor data using a second function to determine whether a parameter indicative of glucose value meets one or more non user settable second criteria.” Ex. 1001, 48:39–41. As far as “second function” goes, the claim language is clear on its face that the second function “determine[s] whether a parameter indicative of glucose value meets one or more non user settable second criteria.” Id. Patent Owner has not offered any construction, nor apart from criticizing Petitioner, indicated in any manner that the “second function” as recited in claims 1 and 19 requires a construction. Our understanding of “second function” is consistent with the specification of the ’215 patent. A plain reading of the specification reveals that the first criteria relates to the claimed “first function,” and the “second criteria” relates to the claimed “second function.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001 3:44–49 (The ’215 Patent describing “a processor configured to: evaluate sensor data using a first function to determine whether a real time glucose value meets one or more first criteria; evaluate sensor data using a second function to determine whether a predicted glucose value meets one or more second criteria.”). The specification description is therefore mostly consistent with the recitations in claim 1 with respect to the first and second functions and relative first and second criteria. Compare id., with Ex. 1001, 48:36–41. slip op. at 34

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Institution Decision we determined, in accordance with Petitioner’s proposal, that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’215 patent [w]ould have had a Bachelor’s degree in biomedical engineering, mathematics, statistics, or computer science (or a related or equivalent field), and two or more years of experience researching, developing, designing and/or evaluating (or supervising the same) medical devices for measuring analyte levels, e.g., analyte sensors, including at least some experience in researching, developing, designing and/or evaluating (or supervising the same) methods, systems, or algorithms for providing indicators (e.g., alerts, alarms or other indicators) of analyte levels to users, or equivalent experience. A person with less or different education but more relevant practical experience, or vice versa, may also meet this standard. Inst. Dec. 8; Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 24–26). Patent Owner states that “DexCom does not challenge Petitioner’s POSA definition (Petition, 9-10) because the Petition fails even if it is adopted.” PO Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 20–23). ordinary skill in the art, and because Petitioner’s assessment is consistent with the ’215 patent and the asserted prior art, we continue to rely on Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 10,702,215 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,702,215
• Early Warning Services, LLC / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Wepay Global Payments LLCAdverse judgment
  PTAB · Feb 9, 2023 · PGR2022-00045 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · PGR · Adverse judgment

  The Board entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner and cancelled claim 1 based on statutory disclaimers; alternatively, it held claim 1 unpatentable on every asserted ground.

  RulingsAdverse judgment

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted

    “first embodiment, including Figures 1 and 2. Ex. 1106; Paper 32, 2. On January 26, 2023, Patent Owner filed a statutory disclaimer of the second embodiment, including Figures 3, 4, and 5. Ex. 1107; Paper 32, 2. Patent Owner successfully paid the statutory disclaimer fees in connection with both disclaimers. Ex. 1106, 4; Ex. 1107, 4; Paper 32, 2–3. Based on the information presented, we find that Patent Owner, by disclaiming all figures and embodiments described in the ’702 patent, has disclaimed the entire scope of the sole design claim at issue, such that no challenged claim remains in this proceeding. Specifically, in that regard, the ’702 patent claims and describes two embodiments, where the first embodiment is depicted in Figures 1 and 2, and the second embodiment is depicted in Figures 3, 4, and 5. Ex. 1001, code (57). The statutory disclaimers, taken together, disclaim both embodiments and all five figures set forth in the ’702 patent. Exs. 1106, 1107. Accordingly, we determine that adverse judgment against Patent Owner based on the disclaimers is warranted. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.73(b)(1), 42.73(b)(2); Paper 32, 3.8” slip op. at 6

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

    “In particular, we find that Reddy discloses a design having substantially the same overall appearance as the claimed design, as shown in Petitioner’s comparison illustration reproduced below. Paper 22, 10 (citing Pet. 63). The above illustration compares the claimed design in the upper half to Reddy’s design in the lower half. Both designs include an image of a Three Square Arrangement9 followed by an image of “a $0.00 in practically identical style and font.” Id. at 10–11 (quoting Pet. 64). We determine that Petitioner proves by a preponderance of the evidence, moreover, “that ‘the overall visual effect of the claimed design,’ when compared to ‘the design disclosed in Reddy[,] would be substantially the same to an ordinary observer.’” Id. at 11 (alteration in original) (citation omitted); Pet. 64–67 (and evidence cited therein). Based on the full trial record, we agree with Petitioner and find that “there is no material difference” slip op. at 8

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

    “To the extent “any ‘slightly different spacing of the squares,’ as between the claimed and prior art designs,” is not de minimus, we find “that the ordinary designer would have modified Reddy’s design to mirror the claimed design” in order “to increase the amount of data” contained in the code. Paper 22, 13 (quoting Pet. 72 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 97)). The ordinary designer, considering Reddy alone, “would find the claimed ‘design as a whole has substantially the same overall visual appearance as the Reddy design,’ as so modified.” Id. (quoting Pet. 73 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 99)). Based on the full trial record, we determine that Reddy renders the challenged claim unpatentable as obvious.” slip op. at 9

  • BurdenUnpatentable

    “We conclude that Patent Owner has forfeited any arguments opposing the information advanced in the Petition with respect to the other asserted grounds of invalidity. We adopt the reasoning set forth in the Petition with respect to those grounds. See Pet. 23–45 (arguments and evidence directed to publication and accessibility of SGQR, GrabPay, Digital Debit Video, and Digital Debit Patent), 73–88 (arguments and evidence directed to the grounds that assert SGQR, GrabPay, Digital Debit Video, and Digital Debit Patent). On this record, Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of the challenged claim would have been obvious based on the other grounds asserted in the Petition. Id.” slip op. at 9

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
• Early Warning Services, LLC / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Wepay Global Payments LLCAdverse judgment
  PTAB · Feb 9, 2023 · PGR2022-00031 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · PGR · Adverse judgment

  Adverse judgment was entered after Patent Owner disclaimed the sole claim; alternatively, the claim was held unpatentable on the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.

  RulingsAdverse judgment

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted

    “On October 5, 2022, Patent Owner filed a statutory disclaimer of the first embodiment, including Figures 1 and 2. Ex. 1106; Paper 32, 2. On January 26, 2023, Patent Owner filed a statutory disclaimer of the second embodiment, including Figures 3, 4, and 5. Ex. 1107; Paper 32, 2. Patent Owner successfully paid the statutory disclaimer fees in connection with both disclaimers. Ex. 1106, 4; Ex. 1107, 4; Paper 32, 2–3. Based on the information presented, we find that Patent Owner, by disclaiming all figures and embodiments described in the ’702 patent, has disclaimed the entire scope of the sole design claim at issue, such that no challenged claim remains in this proceeding. Specifically, in that regard, the ’702 patent claims and describes two embodiments, where the first embodiment is depicted in Figures 1 and 2, and the second embodiment is depicted in Figures 3, 4, and 5. Ex. 1001, code (57). The statutory disclaimers, taken together, disclaim both embodiments and all five figures set forth in the ’702 patent. Exs. 1106, 1107. Accordingly, we determine that adverse judgment against Patent Owner based on the disclaimers is warranted. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.73(b)(1), 42.73(b)(2); Paper 32, 3.8” slip op. at 6

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

    “In particular, we find that Reddy discloses a design having substantially the same overall appearance as the claimed design, as shown in Petitioner’s comparison illustration reproduced below. Paper 22, 10 (citing Pet. 63). The above illustration compares the claimed design in the upper half to Reddy’s design in the lower half. Both designs include an image of a Three Square Arrangement9 followed by an image of “a $0.00 in practically identical style and font.” Id. at 10–11 (quoting Pet. 64). We determine that Petitioner proves by a preponderance of the evidence, moreover, “that ‘the overall visual effect of the claimed design,’ when compared to ‘the design disclosed in Reddy[,] would be substantially the same to an ordinary observer.’” Id. at 11 (alteration in original) (citation omitted); Pet. 64–67 (and evidence cited therein). Based on the full trial record, we agree with Petitioner and find that “there is no material difference” slip op. at 8

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

    “To the extent “any ‘slightly different spacing of the squares,’ as between the claimed and prior art designs,” is not de minimus, we find “that the ordinary designer would have modified Reddy’s design to mirror the claimed design” in order “to increase the amount of data” contained in the code. Paper 22, 13 (quoting Pet. 72 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 97)). The ordinary designer, considering Reddy alone, “would find the claimed ‘design as a whole has substantially the same overall visual appearance as the Reddy design,’ as so modified.” Id. (quoting Pet. 73 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 99)). Based on the full trial record, we determine that Reddy renders the challenged claim unpatentable as obvious.” slip op. at 9

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
• Valve Corporation v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 26, 2023 · IPR2017-01928 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Remand

  Claims 1, 2, 9, 11–17, and 21–24 are unpatentable over Burns with Uy or AlphaGrip; claim 10 was not shown unpatentable because Burns does not teach detachable paddles.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “rendered claims 3–8 and 18–20 unpatentable. Valve, 8 F.4th at 1381. The Federal Circuit reversed our determination that Burns was not prior art. Id. at 1381. The Federal Circuit also vacated our determination that Valve had failed to prove that collectively claims 1, 2, 9–17, and 21–24 were unpatentable as obvious in view of Burns in combination with either Uy or AlphaGrip. Id. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit remanded the case to us to consider Valve’s challenges to the patentability of claims 1, 2, 9–17, and 21–24 of the ’229 patent as obvious based on the combinations of prior art listed in the table below. Claims6 35 U.S.C. § References 1, 2, 9, 10, 14–17, 21–24 103 Burns, Uy 1, 2, 9–17, 21, 22 103 Burns, AlphaGrip Id. C. Remand Background On remand, we authorized the parties to concurrently file an opening brief and then concurrently file responsive reply briefs. Paper 44, 4. The parties agreed, and we concurred, that no new evidence would be submitted during the remand proceeding. Id. at 3. Accordingly, we decide the issues on remand based on the record that was submitted during the original trial.” slip op. at 4

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. Valve contends that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have: a bachelor’s degree in an industrial design or engineering field, and approximately two years of relevant experience, for example. Alternatively, the same or an equivalent level of skill in the art could be obtained by end users or hobbyists who have substantial experience modifying or creating customized game controllers that include features to better suit their needs, even without any college education. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 11). Ironburg, without expressly defining the level of ordinary skill, contends that a college degree of the type identified by Valve is not required. See Supp. PO Resp. 4–6. Ironburg notes that the level of ordinary skill is “relatively low” and the technology involved “is simple and straightforward.” Id. at 4 (citing Ex. 2016 ¶ 21). Ironburg’s contentions regarding the level of ordinary skill are consistent with Valve’s position, id. at 6, which we apply in our analysis. D. Whether AlphaGrip Is a Prior Art Printed Publication” slip op. at 11

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

    “We find Ironburg’s critique of Mr. Willner’s testimony unavailing. Valve persuasively responds that Mr. Willner testifies that he personally recalls reviewing AlphaGrip on the internet during 2006, which significantly predates the filing of the oldest application in the priority chain of the ’229 patent, May 22, 2013, by at least six years. Compare Ex. 1009 ¶ 3 (testifying that online publication of AlphaGrip happened in 2006), with Ex. 1001, code (60) (identifying provisional application filed May 22, 2013, as earliest-filed priority application). Mr. Willner testifies that he is the inventor and designer of the controller that is reviewed in AlphaGrip, which we find to qualify him as an ordinarily skilled artisan. Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 1–3. Besides expressly testifying that he viewed AlphaGrip online during 2006, Mr. Willner also testifies in some detail about his recollection of his interactions with the author of AlphaGrip, Ryan Paul, and the events surrounding the publication of Mr. Paul’s review on Arstechnica’s website. Id. ¶¶ 4–5. Mr. Willner also reviews the version of AlphaGrip that Valve submitted as prior art and testifies that it is a true and correct copy of the review that he remembers seeing online during 2006. Id. ¶¶ 6–7. We find Mr. Willner’s testimony to be reliable in part because he recalls being “delighted” by the praise Mr. Paul lavished on the AlphaGrip controller. Id. ¶ 8. The publication of AlphaGrip marked an important event for Mr. Willner’s company. Mr. Willner states that he immediately posted a link on his own company’s website to Arstechnica’s AlphaGrip review in 2006, and his company maintains the link to Arstechnica’s review of AlphaGrip “to this day.” Id. We find that all these facts increase the probative value of Mr. Willner’s testimony on the issue of whether AlphaGrip was published and could easily have been found by interested persons during 2006. Although Mr. Willner may not have been a webpage manager for Arstechnica or be able to testify about precisely how many people accessed AlphaGrip in 2006, we find his testimony, as one of skill in the art himself to be compelling. Not only has Ironburg failed to refute any of Mr. Willner’s testimony with countervailing evidence, Ironburg did not cross-examine Mr. Willner to test his memory of the specific events set forth in his testimony. See PO Resp. 16–18 (failing to provide countervailing evidence or cite cross examination testimony).” slip op. at 12

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “We also disagree with Ironburg that we should exclude as hearsay or irrelevant Dr. Rempel’s testimony on how flexible the Burns’ paddles were or the extensive body of objective evidence cited and relied upon by him to support his testimony.9 Mot. 12–13. To the contrary, we agree with Valve that Dr. Rempel may properly rely upon the cited exhibits even if they would otherwise be inadmissible hearsay because they constitute the types of information upon which an expert would reasonably rely under Fed. R. Evid. 703. Opp. 10. Accordingly, we deny-in-part the Motion to the extent that it seeks to strike or exclude testimony in Dr. Rempel’s second declaration or Exhibits 1020, 1025, 1026, 1031, 1036, 1042 cited by Dr. Rempel in support of his analysis.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 9,352,229 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,352,229
• Boston Scientific Corp. And Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corp. v. Nevro Corp.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 14, 2022 · IPR2020-01563 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 and 9–21 are unpatentable as anticipated by Bradley857 and obvious over Bradley857, Bradley384, and Meadows; claim 8 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “At the outset, we find that the plain language of clauses 1[i], 12[k], and 18[e], in isolation, requires only that the displayed image of one lead is aligned with the displayed image of the other lead without requiring any “repositioning” of previously displayed images. However, Patent Owner argues that other language recited in each independent claim requires first “establishing” the positions of the first and second leads, which necessarily means that “aligning” the images of the first and second leads refers to repositioning them on the display. Sur-reply 2–3. However, Patent Owner’s argument fails to recognize the distinction between establishing the physical “position” of the leads relative to a physical frame of reference and aligning computer-based images of those leads. For example, clauses 18[b] and 18[c] of independent claim 18 recite: “[b] establishing a first positional relationship between a location of a first signal delivery device and an anatomical feature of a patient” and “[c] establishing a second positional relationship between a location of a second signal delivery device and at least one of the location of the first signal delivery device or the anatomical feature of the patient.” Ex. 1001, 40:34–41. None of clauses 18[b] or 18[c] or the substantively identical clauses 1[d], 1[f], 12[h], 12[i]5 from the other independent claims mentions displaying an image of either lead on a computer screen. Rather, these clauses encompass establishing the spatial position of each of the first and second physical leads relative to a physical frame of reference (e.g., an anatomical feature of a patient or another lead). These limitations may be met without displaying leads on a computer screen at all. Accordingly, we reject Patent Owner’s argument that the claims first require positioning images of the leads on a display before aligning those images on the display. Rather, we find that a plain reading of “align” or” slip op. at 10

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsNot reached

    “II. PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO AMEND Patent Owner filed a contingent motion to amend claims. Paper 25. Patent Owner affirmatively withdrew its motion, Paper 36, after we issued Preliminary Guidance on the motion, Paper 32. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s motion to amend is moot, and we do not reach any issue presented in that motion.” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition of the ordinary level of skill. PO Resp. 17. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s undisputed definition. We also find that Petitioner’s proposed definition is consistent with the level of skill demonstrated in the cited prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). E. CLAIMS 1–21: ANTICIPATION BY BRADLEY857” slip op. at 17

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “which electrodes are selected for delivering therapy. Reply 10. Petitioner also responds that Bradley857’s reference to Meadows incorporates Meadows method for determining whether an electrode is “available” to the user for delivering therapy by first confirming that impedance of the electrode is within a pre-established range. Id. For example, Meadows indicates that the “number of implanted and available electrodes is typically automatically determined by impedance measurements during hardware interrogation,” Ex. 1006, 34:57–59, and that impedance of an electrode “is a general measure of the fitness of the system to perform its required function,” id. at 46:61–64. Dr. Stone, Patent Owner’s expert, agrees that Meadows’s system does not deliver therapy to an electrode if the measured impedance for that electrode is too high or too low, that is, outside a pre-established range. Ex. 1040, 82:8–87:8.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 10,076,665 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,076,665
• Nested Bean, Inc. v. Big Beings USA Pty Ltd And LB Online & Export Pty Ltd D/B/A Love To Dream Online And ExportsSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 24, 2022 · IPR2020-01234 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2–16 are unpatentable; claims 1, 17, and 18 were not shown unpatentable, principally because the cited combinations did not establish claim 1’s arm-retention limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Generally, a preamble is not limiting.” Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 802 F.3d 1283, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Whether a preamble is limiting is “determined on the facts of each case in light of the overall form of the claim, and the invention as described in the specification and illuminated in the prosecution history.” Applied Materials, Inc. v. Advanced Semiconductor Materials Am., Inc., 98 F.3d 1563, 1572–73 (Fed. Cir. 1996). A preamble limits the claimed invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality” to the claim. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999). A preamble is not limiting, for example, if the patentee “defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention.” Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002). And, a preamble is generally not limiting unless there is “clear reliance on the preamble during prosecution to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.” Id. A preamble can be limiting if it recites “additional structure or steps underscored as important by the specification,” is “essential to understand limitations or terms in the claim body,” or provides necessary structure absent from the claim body. Id. at 808–09. We agree with Petitioner that the preamble is not a limitation. The term “swaddling suit” is merely a descriptive name for the apparatus that is covered by the claims. IMS Tech, Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (Terms in the preamble are not limiting if they “merely give[] a descriptive name to the set of limitations in the body of the claim that completely set forth the invention.”). It is well-established that “[a]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir 1990). For example, in Cochlear Bone Anchored Solutions AB v. Oticon Med. AB, the Federal Circuit held that a statement of intended purpose in the preamble—“for rehabilitation of unilateral hearing loss”—was not limiting, because the claimed apparatus was fully structurally claimed in the body of the claim, and its structure would allow it to function identically whether or not used for its stated intended purpose. See 958 F.3d 1348, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2020). We find that this is the case here. The bodies of claims 1 and 2 recite structurally complete inventions, which would function identically whether or not they are used for its stated intended purpose. Indeed, if the term “swaddling suit” were replaced by the word “garment,” it would not change the nature of the claim. This interpretation is consistent with the Specification that The invention has been developed primarily for use as a means for swaddling infants for safe sleeping. However, it will be appreciated that the invention is not restricted to this particular use. Ex. 1001, 1:7–10; see also id. at 11:6–11 (the alleged invention “is not restricted to these particular fields of use and it is not limited to particular embodiments or applications described herein”). slip op. at 11

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

    “meaning. But we further agree with Patent Owner that the plain and ordinary meaning for that term is simply “to hold or to keep.” See Ex. 2022. Petitioner’s argument that the Specification uses “retain” to mean that the wing portions are closed, as opposed to having open ends like sleeves reads retain out of context. The portion of the Specification identified by Petitioner states The ends of the wing portions 140 may be open, allowing the hands to extend through the opening end as shown in FIG. 5E. Alternatively, the ends of the wing portions 140 may be closed so that the hands are retained within the wing portions 140 as shown in FIGs. 5C and D. Ex. 1001, 10:3–7 (emphasis added). We do not read this passage as creating a special meaning for “retained,” as Petitioner suggests. Reply 7–8. Petitioner focuses on the portion of this statement that “the ends of the wing portions . . . may be closed so that the hands are retained. . .” to argue that the Specification uses the term “retained” to mean “closed.” However, this argument ignores the end of the sentence that “the ends of the wing portions . . . may be closed so that the hands are retained within the wing portions.” When considered in its full context, we agree with Patent Owner that this passage is consistent with Patent Owner’s construction. See Sur-Reply 11. Indeed, the passage simply uses “retained” in its ordinary sense—i.e., “the ends of the wing portions 140 are closed so that the hands are [held or kept] within the wing portions.” Accordingly, we determine that “retain” has its plain and ordinary meaning, i.e., “to hold or retain.”” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill would have had either formal or informal training in fashion or clothing design with at least 1 year of experience. A person of ordinary skill in the art would likely have had experience designing, producing, or working with clothing for infants, either in a formal or informal setting, including as a new parent or expected parent. Pet. 22–23. Patent Owner does not dispute this definition of a person of ordinary skill. See generally PO Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill as it appears to be consistent with the level of skill reflected by the specification and in the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art). E. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART” slip op. at 18

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

    “limitations of claims 1 and 2, including: (a) “a swaddling suit,” (of limitations [1P] and [2P] above), (b) “wing portions extending laterally from a bodice portion” (limitations [1E] and [2E] above), (c) “wing portions” that have “a wing tip at an uppermost portion of each of the wing portions that is positioned above a level of the neck hole of said suit” (limitations [1F] and [2F]), and (d) “wing portions” that “retain an infant’s arm and hand in a hand-raised and elbow-bent position” (limitation [1G]) and “wing portions” that “retain an infant’s arm” (limitation [2G]). PO Resp. 14–29. On the full record and as we explain in detail below, we agree with Patent Owner that Parks fails to disclose “wing portions” that “retain an infant’s arm and hand in a hand-raised and elbow-bent position” (limitation [1G]). iii. Undisputed Limitations With respect to the undisputed limitations, we have reviewed the record and determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Parks discloses limitations [1A]–[1D], [1H], [2A]–[2D], and [2H]. We consider the arguments regarding the disputed limitations below.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 9,179,711 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,179,711

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.