- Hesai Technology Co., Ltd. v. Ouster, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 13, 2025 · IPR2023-01422 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1–2, 4–9, 11–14, 16–17, and 19–25 not shown unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds, principally because the combinations lacked claimed limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“Considering the applicable factors in light of the parties’ contentions, we adopt the following level of ordinary skill in the art, which we apply in this Decision: A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical or electrical engineering and two to three years of work experience with electro-optical and electro-mechanical devices or systems, relevant to light ranging systems. Less work experience would have been compensated by a higher level of education or vice versa. The work experience would have included at least one year relevant to light ranging systems including LIDAR with a rotor-stator structure. We determine that this level of skill is consistent with the problems and solutions identified in the ’515 patent and the prior art. See, e.g., Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Ex. 1001, 1:30–3:48; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 3–10; Ex. 1005, 1:1–2:31; Ex. 1006, 1:1–2:60; Ex. 1007, 1. We also determine that the proposed level of skill is reflective of the education and experience a person of ordinary skill would have had. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 39–41; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 67–68.” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We determine that the claimed “stator circuit board” and “stator assembly” are separate and distinct elements in claims 1 and 14 because they are set forth as separate elements in these claims. See Ex. 1001, 48:27–29, 48:37–42, 50:8–10. Similarly, claim 22 recites “a stator circuit board assembly” that includes as subcomponents “a first circuit board,” “a second circuit board,” and a “stator assembly” which are separate and distinct subelements. Id. at 51:49–59. “Where a claim lists elements separately, ‘the clear implication of the claim language is that those elements are ‘distinct component[s]’ of the invention.” Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Gr., LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Gaus v. Conair Corp., 363 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 96 F.3d 1398, 1404–05 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). This construction is confirmed by the ’515 patent’s specification. For example, the specification states that stator assembly 644 is affixed to circuit board 622, and, consistent with this statement, Figures 6A and 6D show them as separate elements joined together. Ex. 1001, 28:28–31, 30:16–24. Contrary to Petitioner’s contention, the specification’s stating that the stator elements are “built onto” or “integrated on” circuit boards (or assemblies containing them) does not mean that the stator assembly and circuit board are the same thing. Pet. Reply 1 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:19–22, 4:28–31). Rather, the specification describes the stator elements as part of the stator assembly which is coupled to a circuit board, as follows: VII. Integrated Electric Motor According to certain embodiments, an electric rotary motor can be integrated directly onto the circuit boards. The motor can have a "pancake" or "axial" design having a planar rotor assembly on a rotor board that opposes a planar stator assembly on an opposing stator board. The stator and rotor assemblies of the electric motor can be integrated onto the boards of the rotary actuator 608, i.e., the elements of the electric motor are one of many components on the surface of the printed circuit boards and thus a separate motor module is not required for LIDAR system 600. For example, referring back to FIG. 6D, stator assembly 644 can include an annular arrangement of multiple stator elements 644(i), e.g., vertically oriented solenoids (having their longitudinal axes perpendicular to the surface of the board) that are affixed (e.g., using an adhesive) to a board of the lower circuit board assembly 620 (e.g., board 622) or to a soft magnetic core that is then affixed to the lower circuit board assembly 620. Ex. 1001, 30:16–22. Thus, the ’515 patent’s specification expressly states that the stator elements of the stator assembly can be affixed to a printed circuit board, and thus the stator assembly is not the same thing as the board. Other parts of the specification are consistent with this view. See, e.g., id. at 4:54–57, 5:14–18, 6:50–53, 16:22–25.” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We have construed claim 1’s limitation 1(g) to require “stator circuit board” and “stator assembly” that are separate and distinct elements. See § III.C.1, supra. Johnson discloses coil windings that are formed by patterning interleaved structures in a multi-layered printed circuit board (PCB) forming the stator platform 330, and interconnecting them in groups with vias filled with conductive material. Ex. 1005, 11:66–13:57. Figs. 3C–3D; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 138–139. We agree with Patent Owner that a POSITA would have considered the coil windings to be subcomponents of Johnson’s stator platform 330, which do not define a separate and distinct “stator assembly . . . coupled to a stator circuit board.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 139. In other words, the “printed” conductive tracks and traces would have been considered part of the PCB, not something separate. Id. Although Petitioner contends that Johnson discloses other embodiments in which a stator assembly is comprised of wires wound around a magnetic core (Pet. Reply 14–15 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:30–39, 4:56– 5:7; Ex. 1050 ¶ 30)), Petitioner does not show that Johnson discloses that those embodiments are coupled to a stator circuit board as recited in claim 1’s limitation 1(g). Petitioner did not rely on Pacala, Pardhan, nor Zhang to cover the deficiencies of Johnson. Accordingly, for the above reasons, we determine that Petitioner has” slip op. at 41
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Patent Owner’s arguments are persuasive. Johnson, Pardhan, and Zhang all disclose transformer coils positioned inside of the rotor/stator elements of the motor. Specifically, Johnson’s Figure 3B shows a transformer coil 310b positioned inside rotor elements (magnets 320, 322, 324, 326), and Figure 3C shows the corresponding transformer coil (unnumbered) inside of the stator coils defined by conductive structures. Ex. 1005, 11:51–60, 13:26–40. Similarly, Pardhan shows in Figure 7B a transformer 740a, 740b positioned inside of rotor/stator elements 738a, 738b, and suggests that a smaller rotary transformer is desirable. Ex. 1006, 20:64–21:13. Likewise, Zhang’s Figures 2 and 3 show an electrical power transmission unit including first coupling coil (5) and second coupling coil (unnumbered) positioned inside of motor coil (2). Ex. 1007, 4–5. Against the teachings of Johnson, Pardhan, and Zhang, Petitioner argues that putting the transformer coils outside of the stator coils would have been an obvious design choice. Pet. 50–51, 54–55. However, as Patent Owner noted, “merely stating that a particular placement of an element is a design choice does not make it obvious.” PO Resp. 50 (citing Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1067–70, 1069 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Ex. 2004 ¶ 186). That Johnson, Pardhan, and Zhang all disclose the transformer coils inside of the rotor/stator elements of the motor suggests that there were good reasons for doing this in their configurations. Zhang expressly teaches that one such reason is to avoid interference with power transmission.15 Ex. 1007, 3. Thus, according to Zhang, moving transformer coils outside of the rotor/stator elements in Petitioner’s combination would undesirably interfere with power transmission such that a POSITA would not have pursued the combination. Accordingly, we find that claim 22’s limitation 22(h) is missing from the combination of Pacala, Johnson, Pardhan, and Zhang.” slip op. at 53
Patent outcomesUS 11,287,515 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,287,515 - Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2023-01363 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, and 10–13 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of Holmberg, Battey, Blankenship, and Cowen.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least 1 year of experience related to communication networks or the equivalent.” Pet. 7. Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–31). Dr. Eldering agrees that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least one year of experience related to communication networks or the equivalent.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 24. According to Dr. Eldering, “[a] person with less relevant practical experience but with additional experience would also qualify.” Id. Patent Owner contends that” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Although Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s construction, it contends “the Board need not resolve this claim construction dispute because Petitioner’s proposed grounds 1-5 are all insufficient under either construction.” PO Resp. 19. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and the prior art of record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). For example, we discuss below in Section III.G why we do not reach the claim construction issue presented by Petitioner.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We find that Holmberg expressly contemplates using its wall box within multi-dwelling units, notes that multi-dwelling wall boxes in the prior art were “typically provided” on every floor, and discloses that the multi-dwelling wall boxes would contain optical couplings for each resident on a given floor. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 7, 34; Pet. Reply 8–10. In view of these disclosures, we credit the testimony of Dr. Kiaei that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to use Holmberg’s wall box in multi-dwelling units and would have seen a need to access the area behind spice tray 230 to connect and disconnect subscribers. Ex. 1003 ¶ 92; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 7–8. Moreover, even if Holmberg were limited to mid-span locations and distributing drop cables, as opposed to distribution cables for individual subscribers, as asserted by Patent Owner, Patent Owner does not dispute that a technician would still need periodic access to the area behind splice tray 230 in these mid-span devices. Tr. 38:3–39:1 (counsel agreeing that one would need to access the area behind splice tray 230 in Holmberg, albeit in “rare occasions”); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 90–92; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 7–8. Thus, whether used in the manner contemplated by Petitioner or Patent Owner, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that access to the space behind splice tray 230 in Holmberg would be necessary. With access behind splice tray 230 required, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would have seen a benefit to replacing Holmberg’s fasteners or screws with a hinged connection, such as that disclosed in Battey, to allow easier access to the area behind the splice tray. Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 39 (disclosing that a rotatable splice tray or shelf would “provide[] full and convenient access to the splice tray”)). First, Petitioner and Dr. Kiaei persuasively demonstrate that once the fibers of Holmberg are routed from behind splice tray 230 and the distribution cables spooled on this tray, a technician could not reasonably access fiber optic cables stored behind splice tray 230 without releasing or opening splice tray 230. Pet. Reply 14–15 (citing Ex. 1023, 60:20–61:15); Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 31–32. Second, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that without a hinged connection, the technician would have to either hold the splice tray of Holmberg with one hand while performing the necessary routing and splicing steps, two screws would need to remain in place (essentially replicating a hinge), or the tray would have to be left to dangle, supported only by the routed and spliced fibers. Pet. Reply 19–20.” slip op. at 22
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“Allegedly New Arguments on Reply Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s arguments regarding the benefits of a hinged connection when performing the splicing and routing steps should be dismissed or ignored because they were improperly raised for the first time on reply. Sur-reply 19–20. We disagree. The Petition asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to add a hinged connection, such as that disclosed in Battey, in Holmberg and would have seen a benefit to so doing. Pet. 40–44. Petitioner did not change its proposed combination or its stated rationale in its Reply. Rather, in response to Patent Owner’s counter-arguments, Petitioner expands upon the benefits of its proposed combination, i.e., the substitution of a hinged connection in place of fasteners. Pet. Reply 15–21. This is permissible, as a reply may properly expand on or extend previously raised arguments relating to the motivation to make the proposed changes to the prior art. See Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., 76 F.4th 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (explaining that the reply arguments properly relied on the same legal ground, the same prior art references, and same legal argument—the motivation to make the proposed changes to the prior art reference).” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 9,008,483 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,008,483 - Howard Industries, Inc. v. Capsa Solutions LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01274 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 3 and 4 are unpatentable: claim 3 as obvious over Clark, Manner, and Santoro; claim 4 as obvious over Clark and Manner.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“have at least a four-year college degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, industrial design, or a closely related field and at least one year of experience in product development and design for commercial workstations and work platforms.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 17–18). Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience could substitute for formal education.” Id. Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in a pertinent discipline involving mechanical product design, such as mechanical engineering, with 2-3 years experience in in [sic] the design, manufacture, or analysis of mechanical devices.” PO Resp. 18. Patent Owner alternatively argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “with a 2-year mechanical engineering diploma and . . . 4-6 years of experience in in [sic] the design, manufacture, or analysis of mechanical components and devices.” Id. Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner submits a somewhat different, and broader, definition” of a person of ordinary skill in the art than Patent Owner’s definition because Petitioner’s definition includes industrial design which is a field that does not require the same level of hard sciences as Patent Owner’s definition. Id. Patent Owner further contends that “the Petition should be denied under either party’s definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art] as Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.” Id. at 18–19 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 45–47). We apply Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’668 patent and the prior art. Our Decision would not be affected if we were to apply Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionOther
“We have considered the parties’ respective arguments concerning the construction of this claim term and, for the following reasons, we adopt Patent Owner’s construction of “compartment” as “an enclosed space for containing an item.” First, Petitioner does not dispute that it agreed to adopt Patent Owner’s construction in the district court proceeding between the parties. Pet. Reply 5; Tr. 8:14–21. Second, Petitioner cites to several Board Decisions in which the panels construed claim terms even though the parties agreed to constructions in parallel litigation and argues that the agreement between Petitioner and Patent Owner in the parallel district court proceeding has no bearing on this proceeding. Id. (citing Cook Grp. Inc. v. Cook Med. LLC, IPR2017-00135, Paper 7 at 7–8 (PTAB May 16, 2017); Arris Int’l PLC v. Sony Corp., IPR2016-00834, Paper 54 at 26–29 (PTAB Sept. 28, 2017); Apple Inc. v. VirnetX Inc., IPR2015-00810, Paper 44 at 18–19 (PTAB Aug. 30, 2016)). But, those cited decisions are not precedential and two of them were decided under the “broadest reasonable interpretation standard,” not the Phillips standard, thereby rendering a stipulation between the parties in district court less informative to the panels’ determinations. See Apple, IPR2015-00810, Paper 44 at 18; Cook Grp., IPR2017-00135, Paper 7 at 7. More importantly, given Petitioner’s agreement with Patent Owner’s construction in the district court, we see no reason to apply a different construction here simply because Petitioner proposed that construction prior to agreeing to the construction with Patent Owner in district court. Tr. 11:21–25.8” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“There are two exceptions to the general rule that claims “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365. First, “when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer” or second, “when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Id. (citing Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1580). In order for the patentee to act as his or her own lexicographer, the patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning . . . [i]t is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must ‘clearly express an intent’ to define the term. Id. Further, in order to establish disavowal of claim scope, the specification must “make[] clear that the invention does not include a particular feature . . . even though the language of the claims, read without reference to the specification, might be considered broad enough to encompass the feature in question.” Id. As noted above, the underlying premise of Patent Owner’s proposed construction is that the language “disposed in” is broad enough to encompass compartments not “entirely in” or “contained in” the recited portion of the work platform.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“For the following reasons, we determine that the portions of the prosecution history of the ’650 patent relied on by Patent Owner do not “prov[e] the existence of a ‘clear and unmistakable’ disclaimer that would have been evident to one skilled in the art.” Trivascular, 812 F.3d at 1063– 64.14 Patent Owner argues that the prosecution history redefined the term forward “by disclaiming workstations that are mounted on top of or over the height adjustment mechanism.” PO Resp. 29. Claims 3 and 4 recite “a work platform including a work surface and compartments for containing items” not a “workstation.” It is unclear what Patent Owner is referring to as the “workstation,” i.e., the recited “work platform,” the recited “work surface,” or the combination of “work platform,” “work surface,” and the recited “compartments.” Patent Owner injects further ambiguity by rephrasing the disclaimer, as “Applicant explicitly disclaimed carts having work stations mounted entirely to the top of the height adjustment mechanism (e.g., carts like Clark and Reeder).” Id. at 30 (emphasis added). Regardless of these 14 Because of our determination that the requirements for a clear and unmistakable disclaimer are not met by the cited portions of the prosecution history of the ’650 patent, we need not and do not reach the question of relevance of the statements in the prosecution of the ’650 patent to the claims of the ’668 patent. ambiguities, Patent Owner misinterprets the statements in the prosecution history. The applicant’s primary argument was that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have incorporated moveable work surfaces above the “compartment” of Clark. Ex. 1033, 137–38. The applicant’s arguments, thus, do not support Patent Owner’s argument here that “workstations” should not be mounted “over or on top of the height adjustment mechanism.” See id.” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 7,594,668 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,594,668 - Howard Industries, Inc. v. Capsa Solutions LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01275 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5, 6, and 8 are unpatentable as obvious over Clark and Manner (claims 1–3, 5, 8) and Clark, Manner, and Hartman (claim 6).
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have at least a four-year college degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, industrial design, or a closely related field and at least one year of experience in product development and design for commercial workstations and work platforms.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 17–18). Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience could substitute for formal education.” Id. Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in a pertinent discipline involving mechanical product design, such as mechanical engineering, with 2-3 years experience in in [sic] the design, manufacture, or analysis of mechanical devices.” PO Resp. 17–18. Patent Owner alternatively argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “with a 2-year mechanical engineering diploma and . . . 4-6 years of experience in in [sic] the design, manufacture, or analysis of mechanical components and devices.” Id. at 18. Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner submits a somewhat different, and broader, definition” of a person of ordinary skill in the art than Patent Owner’s definition because Petitioner’s definition includes industrial design which is a field that does not require the same level of hard sciences as Patent Owner’s definition. Id. Patent Owner further contends that “the Petition should be denied under either party’s definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art] as Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.” Id. at 18–19 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 45–47). We apply Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’668 patent and the prior art. Our Decision would not be affected if we were to apply Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther
“i. “actuator” Petitioner contends in district court that the term “an actuator for controlling the driver” is indefinite for invoking means-plus-function claim language without providing corresponding structure. Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1023, 36–40; Ex. 1024, 28–32). For the purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner adopts the construction Patent Owner presented in the district court, i.e., “a mechanism to activate or control equipment, e.g., by use of pneumatic, hydraulic, or electronic signals.” Id. at 10 (quoting Ex. 1012, 3–4). Patent Owner does not address this term in this proceeding. See generally PO Resp.; Sur-reply. Because it is uncontested in this proceeding, we apply Patent Owner’s construction from the district court proceeding as presented here by Petitioner.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningOther
“Although not dispositive to our Decision, we apply the plain and ordinary meaning of this term, which does not require the work surface to be curved.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“There are two exceptions to the general rule that claims “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365. First, “when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer” or second, “when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Id. (citing Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1580). In order for the patentee to act of his or her own lexicographer, the patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning . . . [i]t is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must ‘clearly express an intent’ to define the term. Id. Further, in order to establish disavowal of claim scope, the specification must “make[] clear that the invention does not include a particular feature . . . even though the language of the claims, read without reference to the specification, might be considered broad enough to encompass the feature in question.” Id. As noted above, the underlying premise of Patent Owner’s proposed construction is that the language “disposed in” is broad enough to encompass compartments not “entirely in” or “contained in” the recited portion of the work platform. We start our analysis with the claim language. Claim 1 recites “wherein the work platform includes a portion projecting, relative to the height adjustment mechanism, in a forward direction . . . the compartment is disposed in the portion of the work platform projecting in the forward direction.” Ex. 1001, 14:39–43. By reciting “a portion projecting, relative to the height adjustment mechanism,” the claim language implies that the entire work platform is not required to project in the forward direction. We also note that nothing in claim 1 requires any particular size of the compartment. The only recitation in the claim regarding location of the compartment is that it “is disposed in the portion of the work platform projecting in the forward direction,” but that language on its face does not require or suggest that the compartments are “entirely in” or only “contained in” the recited portion of the work platform. In other words, nothing in the claims expressly restricts the compartments from being disposed in the “portion” recited as well as another portion of the work platform that does not project in the forward direction. Turning to the Specification, Patent Owner does not direct us to any” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 8,215,650 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,215,650 - PTAB · Feb 13, 2025 · IPR2024-00978 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–17 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Dolan renders at least one challenged claim obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“letter stipulating that if the Board institutes this IPR petition on the grounds presented therein, then Samsung will not pursue in the above-captioned litigation any grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in the IPR. For the sake of clarity, this stipulation does not extend to co-petitioner Google, which is not a party to the above-referenced litigation.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached
“Electronics, America, Inc.; and Google LLC as real parties in interest. Pet. 61. Petitioner explains that “Google LLC is a subsidiary of XXVI Holdings Inc., which is a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc.” Id. at 61 n.10. Petitioner asserts that “XXVI Holdings Inc. and Alphabet Inc. are not real parties-in-interest to this proceeding.” Id. Patent Owner identifies Cerence Operating Co. and Cerence, Inc. as real parties in interest. Paper 5, 1. Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner, contending Alphabet Inc. is also a real party in interest. Id. At this stage of the proceeding, we need not determine whether Alphabet Inc. is a real party in interest to Petitioner since neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner has identified any effect that determination would have on the outcome of this proceeding. To the extent Patent Owner seeks to maintain this contention, it should raise the issue in its Patent Owner response.” slip op. at 3
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not currently take a position on the relevant level of ordinary skill in the art, but believes that “the Board could assume Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill for purposes of deciding whether to institute.” Prelim. Resp. 3. At this stage of the proceeding and on the present record, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested, proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which we find consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’078 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons given below, on this record, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of the Challenged Claims on all grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,395,078 - Nike, Inc. v. Sherrywear LLCInstitutedPTAB · Feb 12, 2025 · IPR2024-01129 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 11 because Nike showed a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Spagna.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“1. Petitioner’s Burden “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to the patent owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art 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) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Petitioner asserts the following: A POSA4 at the relevant time would have had at least two years of experience working in the design and or/construction of women’s exercise apparel, intimate apparel, and/or sports bras and bras, specifically. . . . Formal education in a relevant field, such as fashion and textile design, may compensate for less experience. Id. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 155). Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction We interpret the ’510 patent claims “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). This “includ[es] construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id. Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner propose any construction for any claim term in this proceeding. Accordingly, we apply the ordinary and customary meaning to the claim terms without special construction.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“On the present record, Petitioner presents evidence (1) that Spagna discloses bra materials that a POSA would have understood to be stretchable; (2) that stretchable materials for bras were general knowledge and well known to the POSA; and (3) that a POSA would have been motivated to use stretchable materials to allow the bra pocket to conform to the object’s shape. Ex. 1001 ¶ 1138. In response to Petitioner’s evidence, Patent Owner relies on attorney arguments, which are not evidence. Icon Health and Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Patent Owner’s attorney arguments do not undermine Petitioner’s evidence. Petitioner shows sufficiently for institution that Spagna suggests claim 1’s limitation 1E.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,869,510 - Nike, Inc. v. Sherrywear LLCInstitutedPTAB · Feb 12, 2025 · IPR2024-01126 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–14 on all three obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Barg and Pintor.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“In evaluating arguments under § 325(d), we use a two-part framework to assess: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8. In applying the two-part framework, we consider the non-exclusive factors set forth in Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential in relevant part) (“Becton, Dickinson”), which “provide useful insight into how to apply the framework” under § 325(d). Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 9. Those non-exclusive factors include: (a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art or Patent Owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. Becton, Dickinson, Paper 8 at 17–18. “If, after review of factors (a), (b), and (d), it is determined that the same or substantially the same art or arguments previously were presented to the Office, then factors (c), (e), and (f) relate to whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office.” Advanced Bionics, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 10.4” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“(xiii) Conclusion for Claim 1 Based on the evidence and arguments of record at this stage of the proceeding, we determine that Petitioner has shown that each element of claim 1 of the ’550 patent is disclosed by the combination of Barg and Pintor. Since Petitioner did not assert that Pintor discloses any limitation of claim 1, we determined that Petitioner did not need to establish a motivation to combine Pintor or reasonable expectation of success in doing so for claim 1. Lastly, Patent Owner’s objective indicia did not relate to claim 1. Accordingly, Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over the combination of Barg and Pintor.” slip op. at 41
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner asserts the following: A POSA9 at the relevant time would have had at least two years of experience working in the design and or/construction of women’s exercise apparel, intimate apparel, and/or sports bras and bras, specifically. . . . Formal education in a relevant field, such as fashion and textile design, may compensate for less experience. Id. Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 155). Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art is consistent with the ’550 patent and the asserted prior art except that we set the level to “two . . . years of experience” because the qualifier “at least two” may render the level ambiguous. Otherwise, we agree with and will use Petitioner’s proposed level for this Institution Decision.” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner propose any construction for any claim term in this proceeding. Accordingly, we apply the ordinary and customary meaning to the claim terms without special construction.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,219,550 - Nike, Inc. v. Sherrywear LLCInstitutedPTAB · Feb 11, 2025 · IPR2024-01127 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–8, 12, 13, and 15–18 based on the asserted §103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Preliminary Reply, the Preliminary Sur-reply, and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’551 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–8, 12, 13, and 15–18 of the ’551 patent on the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“cumulative of Boatright. During prosecution of the ’878 patent (which is a parent of the ’551 patent at issue in this proceeding), Boatright was distinguished because it did not have an upper edge of the cup that lies “along a same edge line as at least a portion of a top edge of the chest strap,” as required by claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2066, 105). Vidal shows “an upper edge of the side patch lying along a same edge line as at least portion of the top edge of the chest strap” (as required by claim 1) in that Vidal’s Figure shows such alignment. Moreover, Vidal states that the shape of its pocket (i.e. side patch) “can be adapted to the shape of the side strap.” Ex. 1027, 3:19–20. Given these disclosures, Vidal is not cumulative of Boatright. As to Sherwood and Gentry, Patent Owner’s arguments that these references relate to bras with pockets such that Vidal is cumulative to them are unconvincing as Vidal is relied upon to teach more than a bra with pockets. For these reasons, part one of the Advance Bionics framework is not satisfied for Vidal. Both parties agree that Handras was presented to the Office in an Information Disclosure Statement. Pet. Reply 1; Prelim. Resp. 15. Accordingly, the first part of the framework is satisfied for Handras.” slip op. at 15
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of skill in the art “would have had at least two years of experience working in the design and or/construction of women’s exercise apparel, intimate apparel, and/or sports bras and bras, specifically.” Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 155). Petitioner asserts further that “[f]ormal education in a relevant field, such as fashion and textile design, may compensate for less experience.” Id. Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, as it is consistent with the ’551 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (as amended Oct. 11, 2018). Our rule adopts the same claim construction standard used by Article III federal courts, which follow Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), and its progeny. Under this standard, the words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would have to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. In construing claims in accordance with their ordinary and customary meaning, we take into account the specification and prosecution history. Id. at 1315–17. The parties do not present any claim constructions, and we determine that no formal claim construction is necessary for this decision. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”)” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,219,551 - Nike, Inc. v. Sherrywear LLCInstitutedPTAB · Feb 11, 2025 · IPR2024-01125 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–10 and 18 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the York–Pintor and Handras–Pintor obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons provided below, we determine Petitioner has satisfied the threshold requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we institute inter partes review of all challenged claims based on all the grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“substantially the same as Pintor, for purposes of this Decision, we need not address this issue.10 As discussed below, even if the asserted references are substantially the same, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated, under the second prong of the Advanced Bionics framework, that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability. To determine whether Petitioner has sufficiently shown material error, we look at, for example, “the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection.” Advanced Bionics, 9. As explained above, during prosecution of the ’288 patent, the examiner rejected the then-pending claims over Newman in view of Pintor. Ex. 1004, 151–52. Petitioner argues, however, that the examiner considered Pintor “only as a secondary reference to Newman.” Pet. 96. According to Petitioner, the examiner “overlooked how a POSA would have understood Pintor’s disclosures and what a POSA would have been motivated to do with them, especially in light of references like Barg, York, and Handras.” Id. at 10. On this record, we find Petitioner’s argument persuasive. Patent Owner does not dispute that Pintor discloses “a bra with left and right cups, shoulder straps, and a chest strap,” and “additionally discloses the bra cups 10 Patent Owner further asserts that the examiner “considered several other patents and patent applications relating generally to bras with pockets, both as provided in an IDS and as a result of the Examiner’s own searching, including U.S. 7,585,200 to McLaren, and U.S. 5,496,205 to Lee.” Prelim. Resp. 17. Patent Owner does not explain the relevance of McLaren and Lee. See generally Prelim. Resp. Such a bare bone assertion is insufficient to show those other patents and patent applications are cumulative to the prior art asserted in the Petition. comprised of polyurethane and the pockets made of elastic material.” Prelim. Resp. 18. The examiner, however, relied on Pintor for teaching a single limitation, that is, Pintor’s pocket “holds the claimed items therein.” Ex. 1004, 152. Patent Owner is correct that, when rejecting the pending claims over Sherwood, the examiner did not have to repeat Pintor’s teachings of the limitations taught in Sherwood. The examiner, however, failed to consider Pintor’s teaching in its entirety after the applicant distinguished the pending claim over Sherwood. Ex. 1006, 92 (the applicant arguing “Sherwood teaches a front padding that is stitched in place” in contrast to the pending claims’ requirement that “the opening is capable of repeated receiving and removal of items when the bra is being worn by the user”). That, in our opinion, is material error.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“b. Evidence Related to Nike Products Patent Owner argues that there is “a high degree of correspondence between features of [Nike’s] Swoosh on the Run and the claims of the ‘036 patent.” Prelim. Resp. 29 (citing Ex. 2053). The evidence, however, do not support a conclusion that Nike’s Swoosh on the Run is coextensive with the ’036 patent’s claimed invention. Indeed, Patent Owner submits claim charts allegedly showing that Nike’s Swoosh on the Run infringes not only the ’036 patent (Ex. 2053), but also four other patents in the family (Exs. 2054–2057). Those other claim charts demonstrate that Swoosh on the Run includes many features not claimed in the ’036 patent. See e.g., Ex. 2055 (showing Swoosh on the Run has a back pocket). Thus, on this record, Patent Owner has not persuasively shown a rebuttable presumption of nexus between Nike’s Swoosh on the Run and the challenged claims. Patent Owner asserts that “there is significant evidence that NIKE copied the patented application in the ‘036 patent.” Prelim. Resp. 28–29. According to Patent Owner, “NIKE received copies of patents and sample products from [the named inventor of the ’036 patent] Ms. Goff prior to filing its patents or marketing any of the allegedly infringing products.” Id. at 29. Patent Owner alleges that “each of the Swoosh Pocket Bra, the Swoosh Bra, and the Swoosh on the Run has several points of similarity both to the product depicted and described in Ms. Goff’s patents as supplied to NIKE and to the product samples Ms. Goff sent to NIKE.” Id. Ms. Goff testifies that she corresponded with Nike about her Pocket Bar and submitted examples of her products. See Exs. 2001, 2035. Patent Owner’s evidence, however, does not sufficiently demonstrate that a specific product was replicated. See Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[C]opying requires the replication of a specific product.”). In addition, neither Ms. Goff’s testimony nor the Nike Idea Submission is specific to the ’036 patent’s claimed invention. See generally Exs. 2001, 2035. For example, none of the pictures in the Nike Idea Submission sufficiently shows certain feature of the ’036 patent’s claimed invention, which includes “the upper edge of the patch being offset from an upper edge of the cup.” See, e.g., Ex. 2035, 2–4. On this record, Patent Owner has not presented sufficient evidence of copying.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › CopyingDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner asserts that “there is significant evidence that NIKE copied the patented application in the ‘036 patent.” Prelim. Resp. 28–29. According to Patent Owner, “NIKE received copies of patents and sample products from [the named inventor of the ’036 patent] Ms. Goff prior to filing its patents or marketing any of the allegedly infringing products.” Id. at 29. Patent Owner alleges that “each of the Swoosh Pocket Bra, the Swoosh Bra, and the Swoosh on the Run has several points of similarity both to the product depicted and described in Ms. Goff’s patents as supplied to NIKE and to the product samples Ms. Goff sent to NIKE.” Id. Ms. Goff testifies that she corresponded with Nike about her Pocket Bar and submitted examples of her products. See Exs. 2001, 2035. Patent Owner’s evidence, however, does not sufficiently demonstrate that a specific product was replicated. See Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[C]opying requires the replication of a specific product.”). In addition, neither Ms. Goff’s testimony nor the Nike Idea Submission is specific to the ’036 patent’s claimed invention. See generally Exs. 2001, 2035. For example, none of the pictures in the Nike Idea Submission sufficiently shows certain feature of the ’036 patent’s claimed invention, which includes “the upper edge of the patch being offset from an upper edge of the cup.” See, e.g., Ex. 2035, 2–4. On this record, Patent Owner has not presented sufficient evidence of copying.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,808,036 - Nike, Inc. v. Sherrywear LLCInstitutedPTAB · Feb 11, 2025 · IPR2024-01123 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–4, 11, and 12 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the obviousness challenge based on Barg and Pintor.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons provided below, we determine Petitioner has satisfied the threshold requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we institute inter partes review of all challenged claims based on all the grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“if the asserted references are substantially the same, we are persuaded Petitioner has demonstrated, under the second part of the Advanced Bionics framework, that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability. To determine whether Petitioner has sufficiently shown material error, we look at, for example, “the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection.” Advanced Bionics, 9. As explained above, during prosecution of the ’288 patent, the examiner rejected the then-pending claims over Newman in view of Pintor. Ex. 1004, 151–52. Petitioner argues, however, that the examiner considered Pintor “only as a secondary reference to Newman.” Pet. 98. According to Petitioner, the examiner “overlooked how a POSA would have understood Pintor’s disclosures and what a POSA would have been motivated to do with them, especially in light of references like Barg, York, and Handras.” Id. at 9.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successInstituted
“Importantly, Petitioner does not solely rely on the design-choice argument. Instead, Petitioner refers to Pintor for “expressly disclos[ing] a patch on the breast cups with a ‘substantially straight’ opening.” Id. (citing Ex. 1022, 6:6–10, Figs. 1, 2, 4, 7). Indeed, Pintor teaches that “[t]he shape of the [pocket opening] 32 is typically determined by the shape of the side 34D, which may be concave, as shown in FIG. 2, or may be substantially straight, convex, or have any combination of curved or linear components defining an aesthetically pleasing design.” Ex. 1022, 6:6–10. Petitioner argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have been motivated to make the top edge of the patch linear for secure holding of a rectangular item, such as an electronic device or rectangular key, ensuring the item is held snugly within.” Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 180). Petitioner further asserts that a linear upper edge would “help ensure the pocket’s visibility is obscured by the cup.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 180). In sum, Petitioner relies on specific teaching in Pintor and unrebutted testimony of Ms. Baran to support its argument that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reason to modify Barg’s patch with a curved upper edge to a linear upper edge. On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we find Petitioner does not resort to impermissible hindsight.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayDecided for petitioner
“Second, a reference teaches away “when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The mere disclosure of alternative designs, however, does not teach away, and “just because better alternatives exist in the prior art does not mean that an inferior combination is inapt for obviousness purposes.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Here, as Patent Owner recognizes (Prelim. Resp. 23), Pintor merely states that “the position, size, angle and configuration of previously proposed pockets may not be optimally designed.” Ex. 1022, 1:45–47 (emphasis added). In other words, although Pintor points out certain shortcomings of prior-art pocket bras, it does not “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed.” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). On this record and for purposes of this Decision, Patent Owner has not shown sufficiently that the references cited here discourage an ordinarily skilled artisan from modifying Barg’s patch having a curved upper edge with Pintor’s patch having a linear upper edge.” slip op. at 18
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,295,288
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.