- DISH Network, LLC v. TQ Delta, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 10, 2018 · IPR2016-01469 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 11, and 12 are unpatentable over Bowie, Morelli, and ANSI T1.413; claims 4, 14, 16, and 18 are unpatentable over Bowie and Morelli.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Having considered the parties’ arguments and evidence, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s proposed construction that “maintaining synchronization” requires timing synchronization by correcting errors or differences between timing references. The claims of the ’268 patent do not recite “synchronization signal” or “synchronization frame” but refer only to “maintaining synchronization” during low power mode without specification as to the method of synchronization. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 10:6–17 (claims 1 and 2). Indeed, claims 2 and 12 do not recite any particular synchronization signal or synchronization frame as a limitation.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“In light of the arguments and evidence presented, we are not persuaded that this term requires an express construction. Patent Owner’s proposed construction does not add necessary clarity to the claims, as it merely replaces “full power mode operation” with “transmission and/or reception of data during normal operation.” The parties, however, do not dispute the meaning of “full power mode operation.” Accordingly, an express construction is not necessary to resolve the disputes between the parties.” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelOther
“We determine that no express finding on a specific corresponding level of technical education and experience is necessary. Here, the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by 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 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner notes, Morelli expressly discusses the receiver receiving while the transmitter is in low power mode. Reply 8–9; Ex. 1005, Fig. 6A (block 102), 15:46–52; 16:29–34). Thus, Morelli does not disclose mere boilerplate language that is not specific or nonenabling, but specifically discloses a transmitter 12 and receiver 16 in Figures 6A–9 where the receiver remains on while the transmitter is off. Reply 7–8. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument regarding Morelli’s Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI). PO Resp. 31–32, 33–34 (discussing RSSI). We do not agree with Patent Owner that Morelli’s teaching regarding using RSSI to determine whether to enter or exit a low power (“sleep”) (Ex. 1005, Abstract) could indicate that the receiver in Morelli is performing the RSSI function to determine when data is “available to be received,” but not actually using the receiver to receive data during the transceiver’s low power mode. Id. Such speculation is belied by the express teachings of Morelli. As Petitioner argues, Morelli states that “it is equally possible to have either the transmitter 12 or receiver 16 be designed to enter a sleep mode as described herein while the other is always in an active mode” (Ex. 1005, 21:51–54). Pet. 23, 40–41. We are also persuaded by Petitioner’s argument and evidence that Morelli is enabling, as it discloses in Figures 6A–9 and accompanying embodiments that the data received by the receiver is provided to MAC 30 to determine if the received packet requires a response necessary to switch the transmitter from sleep to active mode. Reply 9; Ex. 1005, Figs. 1 (control signal on line 38), 6A (block 102), 15:46–52, 15:59–62, 16:29–34; see also Pet. 40–41 (citing Ex. 1005, 1:45–50, 6:43–51, 8:16–20, 8:46–59, Fig. 2, 8:60–9:57, Fig. 3, 14:6–64, 19:7–10, 21:51–54). As Petitioner argues, in the case when Morelli determines that a response is not required, the receiver in Morelli is on and actively receiving data to make the determination based on the data received, while the transmitter is off or sleeping. Reply 8–9; Ex. 1005, Fig. 5A, 15:46–52; see also Pet. 40–41. We also note that Petitioner has provided testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to configure a circuit in accordance with the operation of Morelli and Bowie combined. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 152–153; Pet. 41; Reply 8–9. Accordingly, we determine that Morelli provides sufficient detailed disclosure teaching of a receiver in full power mode and the transmitter in low power mode as required in the challenged claims.” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 9,094,268 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,094,268 - Arris Group, Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 13, 2017 · IPR2016-01160 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 were not held unpatentable because the asserted combination did not teach the construed synchronization signal.
RulingsFinal written decision- Prior constructionPrior construction not adoptedOther
“Owner that our construction in the Decision to Institute is overly broad to the extent it encompasses a synchronization frame. Petitioner relies heavily on column 5, lines 50 to 52 of the ’404 patent, but that disclosure does not unambiguously support Petitioner’s proposed construction. The paragraph, which we reproduce below for context, describes “normal (non-sleep mode) operation”: During normal (non-sleep mode) operation, a phase-lock loop (PLL) 62 receives from the FFT 56 a timing reference signal 62a (see FIG. 1A) via a line 62b. The timing reference signal 62a is transmitted from the transmitter with which the receiver 16 communicates (e.g., the CO transmitter). This signal is advantageously a pure tone of fixed frequency and phase which is synchronized with the Master Clock in the transmitter; its frequency defines the frame rate of the transceivers. Other forms of timing signal may, of course, be used, but use of a pure tone has the advantage of simplicity and reliability even when portions of the transceiver are powered down in accordance with the invention. The PLL 62 locks itself to this signal and drives clock 30 in synchronism with the Master Clock in the driving transmitter. This also synchronizes frame counter 34 of the CPE transceiver to the corresponding frame counter of the CO transceiver. Control of the receiver section is provided by the controller 32. Ex. 1001, 5:37–53 (emphasis added to 5:50–52). Rather than read “this” as referring to timing reference signal 62a, as Petitioner contends, we read “this” as referring to what is disclosed in the preceding sentence—i.e., driving clock 30 in synchronism with the Master Clock in the driving transmitter. The synchronism of clock 30 with the Master Clock in the driving transmitter is what “synchronizes frame counter 34 of the CPE transceiver to the corresponding frame counter of the CO transceiver.” Ex. 1001, 5:50–52.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Having considered the arguments and evidence, we are not persuaded that this term requires an express construction. Patent Owner’s proposed construction merely replaces “full power mode operation” with “transmission and/or reception of data during normal operation.” The parties, however, do not dispute the meaning of “full power mode operation.” As a result, an express construction of this term is not necessary in order to resolve the parties’ dispute.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelOther
“We determine that no express finding on a specific corresponding level of technical education and experience is necessary. Here, the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by 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 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“We agree with Patent Owner. The contentions in the Petition are based upon Petitioner’s proposed construction of “synchronization signal” as encompassing a synchronization frame—i.e., “allowing for frame synchronization.” See, e.g., Pet. 24, 37–38. We have not adopted that construction, however, for the reasons discussed above. Because our construction of “synchronization signal” excludes a synchronization frame, we are not persuaded that the argument and evidence in the Petition shows that the combination of Bowie, Vanzieleghem, and ANSI T1.413 teaches transmitting/receiving, in full power mode, a “synchronization signal.” Moreover, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s reliance, in the Reply, upon the teachings of a pilot tone in Vanzieleghem and ANSI T1.413 constitutes a change in theory and, therefore, is beyond the scope of a proper reply. Notwithstanding the mention of “a pilot tone” in paragraph 58 of Dr. McNally’s declaration, the Petition itself unambiguously identifies the synchronization frame, not a pilot tone, as the recited “synchronization symbol.” See, e.g., Pet. 37–38 (citing Bowie’s and ANSI T1.413’s teachings of synchronization frame). We, therefore, do not address whether the pilot tone taught in Vanzieleghem and in ANSI T1.413 teaches the recited “synchronization signal.” As a result, Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–20 would have been obvious over Bowie, Vanzieleghem, and ANSI T1.413.” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 8,611,404 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,611,404 - PTAB · Nov 14, 2017 · IPR2015-01802 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Rehearing
Granted rehearing and held claims 2, 4, and 6 unpatentable as obvious over Rabinovich because the wireless-network limitation encompasses a connection through a wireless hub.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. With this in mind, we address the arguments presented by Petitioner.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Ex. 1002, 3:41–49. Thus, the ’680 patent itself does not limit the recited “wireless network” to an ad hoc network. Moreover, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that our construction of “computer unit” requires limiting the recited “wireless network” to an ad hoc network. Specifically, dependent claims 2 and 4 each recite “wherein the at least one computer unit and the at least two data storage units are connected over a wireless network.” Dependent claim 6 recites a similar limitation. We construed “computing unit” to encompass any computing device. Dec. 6. We did not, as Patent Owner contends, “construe[] both the ‘computer unit’ and ‘data storage units’ as hosts” (PO Br. 3). Although our construction encompasses Rabinovich’s hosts, it does not require the recited “computer unit” and “data storage units” to be hosts. Moreover, even assuming that both units are Rabinovich’s “hosts,” dependent claims 2, 4, and 6 require only that they be “connected over a wireless network,” not “between” or “directly connected to each other,” as Patent Owner contends (PO Br. 3). Thus, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that two hosts “connected over a wireless network” necessarily requires a wireless connection “between” two hosts. Id. Based on our review of the ’680 patent, we construe “connected over a wireless network” as broad enough to encompass a connection through a wireless hub.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Ex. 1002, 3:41–49. Thus, the ’680 patent itself does not limit the recited “wireless network” to an ad hoc network. Moreover, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that our construction of “computer unit” requires limiting the recited “wireless network” to an ad hoc network. Specifically, dependent claims 2 and 4 each recite “wherein the at least one computer unit and the at least two data storage units are connected over a wireless network.” Dependent claim 6 recites a similar limitation. We construed “computing unit” to encompass any computing device. Dec. 6. We did not, as Patent Owner contends, “construe[] both the ‘computer unit’ and ‘data storage units’ as hosts” (PO Br. 3). Although our construction encompasses Rabinovich’s hosts, it does not require the recited “computer unit” and “data storage units” to be hosts. Moreover, even assuming that both units are Rabinovich’s “hosts,” dependent claims 2, 4, and 6 require only that they be “connected over a wireless network,” not “between” or “directly connected to each other,” as Patent Owner contends (PO Br. 3). Thus, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that two hosts “connected over a wireless network” necessarily requires a wireless connection “between” two hosts. Id. Based on our review of the ’680 patent, we construe “connected over a wireless network” as broad enough to encompass a connection through a wireless hub. Because we determine that the “wireless network” recited in dependent claims 2, 4, and 6 need not be an ad hoc network, Patent Owner’s argument that Rabinovich’s replication method would have been unsuitable for use over an ad hoc network does not persuasively rebut Petitioner’s showing. Having considered the arguments and evidence of both parties, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that dependent claims 2, 4, and 6 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Rabinovich.” slip op. at 7
- ExcludeNot reached
“We decline to assess the merits of Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude. Even without excluding the identified evidence, we have concluded that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 2, 4, and 6 are unpatentable. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,904,680 - Department Of Justice v. Discovery Patents, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 9, 2017 · IPR2016-01041 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 11, 12, 14, 16–18, and 20–31 are unpatentable over Monroe ’183; claims 15 and 19 were not shown unpatentable over Monroe ’183.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“A petition for inter partes review may be considered only if, inter alia, “the petition identifies all real parties in interest.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). The Office Patent Trial Practice Guide provides guidance regarding factors to consider in determining whether a party is a real party in interest. 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759–60 (Aug. 14, 2012). Considerations may include whether a non-party “funds and directs and controls” an IPR petition or proceeding. Id. at 48,760. Additional relevant factors include: the non-party’s relationship with the petitioner; the non-party’s relationship to the petition itself, including the nature and/or degree of involvement in the filing; and the nature of the entity filing the petition. Id. Whether a party who is not a named participant in a given proceeding is a real party in interest to that proceeding “is a highly fact-dependent question.” Id. at 48,759. There is no “bright line test.” Id. Courts invoke the term real party in interest to describe relationships and considerations sufficient to justify applying conventional principles of estoppel and preclusion. Id. A non-party’s participation with a petitioner may be overt or covert, and the evidence may be direct or circumstantial, but the evidence as a whole must show that the non-party possessed effective control over the petitioner relating to the inter partes review. Zoll Lifecor Corp. v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp., Case IPR2013-00609, slip op. at 10 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2014) (Paper 15). We have considered Patent Owner’s and Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, and we determine that Petitioner was not required to identify the Third Parties as real parties in interest because there is insufficient evidence that any of these companies exercised, or could exercise, control over Petitioner with respect to this proceeding. Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the motion practice before the Court of Federal Claims and notification of that action to the Third Parties does not reflect otherwise. Although we acknowledge that the existence of the above-identified indemnification clauses supports Patent Owner’s argument, we are unaware of any inter partes review decision in which a real party in interest finding was based solely on evidence of an indemnification clause, and we decline to do so here.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Decided for petitioner
“We decline to consider Patent Owner’s constitutional challenge as, generally, “administrative agencies do not have jurisdiction to decide the constitutionality of congressional enactments.” See Riggin v. Office of Senate Fair Employment Practices, 61 F.3d 1563, 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1995); see also Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1705, 1710 (TTAB 1999) (“[T]he Board has no authority . . . to declare provisions of the Trademark Act unconstitutional.”); Amanda Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc., 111 USPQ2d 1080 (TTAB 2014), rev’d on other grounds, 284 F. Supp. 2d 96 (D.D.C. 2003); but see Am. Express Co. v. Lunenfeld, Case CBM2014- 00050, slip op. at 9–10 (PTAB May 22, 2015) (Paper 51) (“for the reasons articulated in Patlex [Corp. v. Mossinghoff, 758 F.2d 594 (Fed. Cir. 1985)], we conclude that covered business method patent reviews, like reexamination proceedings, comply with the Seventh Amendment”).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. The ’980 patent states that “the term ‘secured location’ may refer to residences, commercial properties, public venues, such as hospitals and sports arenas, government facilities, military installations and any other location, outside or inside, which is protected by a security alarm system.” Ex. 1003, 3:20–24. This definition is non-limiting and does not exclude a changeable area or region. Based on the record developed during this proceeding, we maintain that the broadest reasonable construction in light of the ’980 patent of “secured location” is “any location, outside or inside, which is protected by a security alarm system.”” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. Although the Specification of the ’980 patent gives examples of “response agency,” e.g., Ex. 1003, 1:41–43 (“an emergency response agency (e.g., the police department, the fire department or an emergency medical team)”), Patent Owner does not identify, and we do not find, a definition in the specification limiting “response agency” to 911, police, or fire departments. Patent Owner also does not identify, and we do not find, anything in the entire disclosure of the ’980 patent requiring a “response agency” to be distinct from the “surveillance system infrastructure.” Accordingly, we decline to limit “response agency” to 911, police, or fire departments, or construe it to be distinct from surveillance system infrastructure.” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 7,323,980 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,323,980 - SK Hynix Inc. / SK Hynix America Inc. et al. v. Netlist, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 30, 2017 · IPR2017-00730 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Petitioner’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution on claims 1–5, 12–14, and 19–20 over Saito and Swain, and claims 3 and 13–14 over Saito, Swain, and Kim.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. When rehearing a decision on a petition, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be indicated if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Not reached
“Ex. 1005 ¶ 101. Paragraph 101 describes Figure 7. See id. ¶¶ 100, 101. Recognizing that the timing of signals DQ-Pre (between memory controller and data buffer 300 on connectors 120) and the timing of signals DQ-Post (between data buffer 300 and memory chips 200 on data lines L1 or L2) is “off” because “data DQ is buffered by the data register buffer 300,” Saito teaches that “it is required to perform a timing adjustment between the memory chips 200 and the data register buffer 300 and a timing adjustment between the data register buffer 300 and the memory controller in a separate manner.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 101. This paragraph, therefore, does not teach that retiming from CL=5 to CL=6 is based on “time intervals from the leveling operations,” as Petitioner contends. Req. Reh’g 7. To the contrary, it explicitly teaches the necessity of a “separate manner” for adjusting timing between a data buffer and memory chip (i.e., for “signals received by the each respective buffer circuit during a memory write operation,” as recited in claim 1) and adjusting timing between a data buffer and a memory controller (i.e., for “transmission of a respective set of read data signals received from the respective group of memory devices,” as recited in claim 1).” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“We disagree. Neither paragraph teaches that the re-timing from CL=5 to CL=6 is “based on signals received by the each respective buffer circuit during a memory” read or write “operation,” as required by the claims. Paragraph 101 of Saito is reproduced below. Although the data DQ-Pre and the data DQ-Post have the same content, because the data DQ is buffered by the data register buffer 300, the timing is off between the data DQ-Pre and the data DQ-Post. The same is true for a relationship between the data strobe signal DQS-Pre and the data strobe signal DQS-Post. Therefore, in the present embodiment, it is required to perform a timing adjustment between the memory chips 200 and the data register buffer 300 and a timing adjustment between the data register buffer 300 and the memory controller in a separate manner. Details on the timing adjustments will be described later. Ex. 1005 ¶ 101. Paragraph 101 describes Figure 7. See id. ¶¶ 100, 101. Recognizing that the timing of signals DQ-Pre (between memory controller and data buffer 300 on connectors 120) and the timing of signals DQ-Post (between data buffer 300 and memory chips 200 on data lines L1 or L2) is “off” because “data DQ is buffered by the data register buffer 300,” Saito teaches that “it is required to perform a timing adjustment between the memory chips 200 and the data register buffer 300 and a timing adjustment between the data register buffer 300 and the memory controller in a separate manner.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 101. This paragraph, therefore, does not teach that retiming from CL=5 to CL=6 is based on “time intervals from the leveling operations,” as Petitioner contends. Req. Reh’g 7. To the contrary, it explicitly teaches the necessity of a “separate manner” for adjusting timing between a data buffer and memory chip (i.e., for “signals received by the each respective buffer circuit during a memory write operation,” as recited in claim 1) and adjusting timing between a data buffer and a memory controller (i.e., for “transmission of a respective set of read data signals received from the respective group of memory devices,” as recited in claim 1).” slip op. at 3
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDenied
“These arguments were not in the Petition so we could not have misapprehended or overlooked them. To the extent that Petitioner is arguing that these paragraphs of our Decision indicate a misapprehension of what was argued in the Petition, we disagree. Specifically, we are unpersuaded by Petitioner’s contention that Saito’s teaching to use time A to time reception of read data by “input buffer circuit INB and the like” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 149) teaches using that same interval “to time transmission” of read data, as claimed, merely because data is received by that input buffer circuit before, at some later point, being transmitted to the memory controller. Req. Reh’g. 8–9. We also are not persuaded that Saito’s use of “and the like” extends to the timing of the output of read data from buffer 300 in the manner argued. Req. Reh’g 9–11. This argument is particularly unpersuasive because, as our Decision points out (Dec. 13–14), Saito discloses an alternative to timing the output of read data from data buffer 300, which is a read leveling operation by the memory controller. Thus, although “Petitioner does not rely on those data buffer-memory controller operations for any of its arguments” (Req. Reh’g 13), they are nevertheless relevant because they corroborate that Saito does not teach its data buffer 300 using a time interval “based on signals received by [it]” for the purpose of “tim[ing] transmission of a respective set of read data signals.”” slip op. at 5
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,128,632 - Fieldpiece Instruments, Inc. v. Twin Rivers Engineering, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 9, 2017 · IPR2017-00362 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 2, 3, 6, 7, and 9 were obvious over the asserted references.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments because Petitioner does not point to sufficient evidence or explain how Wong, Wallack, Sibley, Horiba, Johnson Controls, and Moyer teach or suggest the “without . . . secondary tracer” limitations recited in claims 2, 6, 7, and 9. In the present proceeding, citing to these references generally, particularly without citation to specific portions, is insufficient to meet Petitioner’s burden of persuasion. See DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866–67 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“A brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archeologist with the record.”). Moreover, we disagree with Petitioner’s contention that the silence of the references regarding the “without . . . secondary tracer” limitations teaches or otherwise suggests the negative limitation recited in claims 2, 6, 7, and 9. See Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Negative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation.”); see also Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“We hold that Santarus did not create a heightened written description standard for negative claim limitations and that properly described, alternative features are sufficient to satisfy the written description standard of § 112, paragraph 1 for negative claim limitations.”)” slip op. at 13
- BurdenInstitution denied
“We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments because Petitioner does not point to sufficient evidence or explain how Wong, Wallack, Sibley, Horiba, Johnson Controls, and Moyer teach or suggest the “without . . . secondary tracer” limitations recited in claims 2, 6, 7, and 9. In the present proceeding, citing to these references generally, particularly without citation to specific portions, is insufficient to meet Petitioner’s burden of persuasion. See DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866–67 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“A brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archeologist with the record.”). Moreover, we disagree with Petitioner’s contention that the silence of the references regarding the “without . . . secondary tracer” limitations teaches or otherwise suggests the negative limitation recited in claims 2, 6, 7, and 9. See Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Negative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation.”); see also Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“We hold that Santarus did not create a heightened written description standard for negative claim limitations and that properly described, alternative features are sufficient to satisfy the written description standard of § 112, paragraph 1 for negative claim limitations.”)” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments because Petitioner does not point to sufficient evidence or explain how Wong, Wallack, Sibley, Horiba, Johnson Controls, and Moyer teach or suggest the “without . . . secondary tracer” limitations recited in claims 2, 6, 7, and 9. In the present proceeding, citing to these references generally, particularly without citation to specific portions, is insufficient to meet Petitioner’s burden of persuasion. See DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866–67 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“A brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archeologist with the record.”). Moreover, we disagree with Petitioner’s contention that the silence of the references regarding the “without . . . secondary tracer” limitations teaches or otherwise suggests the negative limitation recited in claims 2, 6, 7, and 9. See Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Negative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation.”); see also Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“We hold that Santarus did not create a heightened written description standard for negative claim limitations and that properly described, alternative features are sufficient to satisfy the written description standard of § 112, paragraph 1 for negative claim limitations.”) Furthermore, Wong at least suggests “introducing or mixing a secondary tracer within the leak detector,” which is directly contrary to the negative limitations at issue. Specifically, Wong discloses The chamber 104 that is to be tested is filled with a test gas and preferably is pressurized with the test gas so as to accelerate the leakage, if any, of the test gas from the chamber. The chamber is surrounded by an ambient gas which may be the air of the atmosphere, or, alternatively, the chamber 104 may be placed within a larger chamber so as to permit the chamber 104 to be surrounded by a chosen ambient gas other than air. In another embodiment, shown in FIG. 3 a localized region on the surface of the chamber may be flooded by a chosen ambient gas that temporarily displaces the air that otherwise would be present. Ex. 1004, 3:52–62 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner’s Declarant, Mr. Laub, testifies that “Wong discloses a hand-held portable infrared leak detector . . . which detects leaks without introducing or mixing a secondary tracer,” but fails to cite any underlying record evidence supporting his testimony.2 Ex. 1003 ¶ 103. Mr. Laub also fails to address the disclosure of Wong described above. Mr. Laub presents similarly unsupported testimony with respect to Wallack and Sibley. See id. ¶¶ 107, 113. We do not find persuasive Mr. Laub’s conclusory and unsupported testimony regarding the disclosure of Wong, Wallack, and Sibley. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). With respect to claim 6, Mr. Laub supports his testimony by citing portions of Moyer. Id. ¶ 172 (citing Ex. 1010, 3:43–45, 3:53–56, 4:22–25). We have reviewed the cited portions of Moyer and disagree that they disclose or suggest the “without . . . secondary tracer” limitations recited in independent claims 2, 6, 7, and 9. 2 Petitioner does not actually cite to this specific portion of Mr. Laub’s testimony. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) (requiring petitions to include a statement of the precise relief requested, including “identifying specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge . . . [t]he Board may exclude or give no weight to the evidence where a party has failed to state its relevance or to identify specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge”). It is unnecessary to invoke rule 104(b)(5) here because even considering this portion of Mr. Laub’s testimony, we do not find its contents persuasive.” slip op. at 14
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,022,993 - Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · May 25, 2017 · IPR2016-00303 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 7–10, 12–16, 18–22, 25, and 28–31 are unpatentable as obvious over Huey and ATM UNI; claim 2 was not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“PO Mot. 13–14. A motion to exclude is the wrong vehicle to challenge public availability, which is a substantive issue that goes to the sufficiency of the evidence, not to admissibility at issue here. FLIR Sys., Inc. v. Leak Surveys, Inc., IPR2014-00411, slip. op., Paper 113 at 4 (PTAB September 3, 2015) (“A motion to exclude is not a vehicle for addressing the weight to be given evidence.”); see also 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“A motion to exclude . . . may not be used to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to prove a particular fact.”). For the reasons above, we do not exclude Exhibit 1028.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 898–99 (Fed. Cir. 1986). To qualify as a prior art printed publication, the reference must have been disseminated or otherwise made accessible to persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter to which the document relates prior to the critical date. Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008).” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“References within the statutory terms of 35 U.S.C. § 102 qualify as prior art for an obviousness determination only when analogous to the claimed invention.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (finding both hair brush art and toothbrush art to be analogous to a claim to a hair brush) (citing In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). “Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Id. (citations omitted). The scope of the field of endeavor is a factual determination based on the scope of the application's written description and claims. Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1326. slip op. at 27
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“There are two problems with Petitioner’s assertion. First, Petitioner has not shown a reason to combine Kogge with Huey and the ATM UNI Specification. Second, to the extent this reference is used to show the scope and content of the art at the time of the invention, Kogge makes it clear that parallelism and pipelining are different concepts that are “generally discernably different in their general approach.” Ex. 1033, 1. Petitioner has not explained how Kogge shows that putting packets through the pipeline without waiting for the previous packet to finish would be considered operating in parallel given that this reference distinguishes parallel operation from pipeline operation. Petitioner argued at the oral hearing that Patent Owner was advocating “a particular flavor of parallelism, as opposed to what’s understood by normal parallel pipelining.” Tr. 41:6–14. However, neither Petitioner nor its declarant has explained what “normal parallel pipelining” is or what the basis is for us to define “normal parallel pipelining.” Thus, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Huey to meet the limitation of performing at least two of said steps “in parallel using a pipeline.”” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 6,377,577 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,377,577 - Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. William Beaumont HospitalNo claims unpatentablePTAB · May 4, 2017 · IPR2016-00162 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–14, 16–29, 33, and 35–38 were not held unpatentable because the strong evidence of industry praise and long-felt need, with other objective evidence, outweighed the obviousness showing.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other
“its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S.Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016) (affirming that USPTO has statutory authority to construe claims according to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)). Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). For the purposes of this Decision, we determine that only the following claim terms need express interpretation. See 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.”). 7 A.L. Boyer, Laser “cross-hair” sidelight, Med. Phys., 5:58-60 (1978) (Ex. 1108, “Boyer”).” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“dimensional information” appears facially to be co-extensive with any information relevant to three dimensions. We discern that “length, width, and depth” are just such information. We have considered Patent Owner’s above-cited portions of the ’502 Patent, but are unpersuaded that those portions narrow “three dimensional information” with sufficient “reasonable 8 In evaluating the assertions set forth in the Declaration of James Balter, Ph.D., in Support of Petitioner’s Reply (Ex. 1500), we considered Patent Owner’s Motion for Observations on the Cross-Examination of Dr. James Balter (Paper 48) and Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observations on Cross-Examination (Paper 56). 9 In the Decision on Institution, we preliminarily agreed with Petitioner’s proposed construction of “three dimensional information.” Dec. 7–8. clarity, deliberateness, and precision” such that one of ordinary skill would have understood “three dimensional information” as co-extensive with Patent Owner’s proffered construction. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). For example, column 2, lines 42–48 and 51–55 certainly disclose that “volume” is desirable, but does not provide any equivalence between “three dimensional information” and “volume.” Indeed, column 2, lines 54–55 disclose “provide information regarding the location of soft-tissue target volumes,” indicating that “information” is a subset of “volume.” In another example, column 3, lines 40–43, mentions “three-dimensional (3- D) images,” which we agree would appear to require “volumetric” data; however, the claim limitation at issue is the broader term “three dimensional information.” In a further example, column 9, line 62, through column 10, line 5, clearly refers to “volumetric data,” but does not indicate its relation to “three dimensional information.” In yet another example, column 16, lines 43–45 and 58–62, do not recite “three dimensional information,” instead disclosing “3-D structure” and “3-D nature” in relation generally to “volumetric data,” but, again, not in a manner sufficient to indicate a particular relationship. Finally, in regard to assertions set forth in the Declaration of Dr. Hashemi, we discern some merit in his assertion that when reading the claim limitation “three dimensional information” in conjunction with another claim limitation “cone-beam computed tomography,” “a CBCT image is a volumetric image that provides the location, shape, and spatial orientation of the target volume in all directions, not just its length, width, and depth.” Ex. 2080 ¶ 85. The claim limitation at issue, however, reads “an image of said object, wherein said image contains at least three dimensional information of said object based on one rotation of said x-ray source around said object” (emphasis added). Accordingly, the claim limitation does not preclude an image having more information than “information concerning three dimensions of an object (such as length, width, and depth),” such as “a volumetric image of an object generated by reconstructing 2-D projection images.” Under Patent Owner’s construction, however, the image would be required to have such information. We are unpersuaded that such information is required under a proper construction of “three dimensional information” for the reasons set forth supra. We construe “three dimensional information” as “information concerning three dimensions of an object (such as length, width, and depth).”” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for patent owner
“In the Institution Decision, we preliminary determined that “we are not persuaded that the term ‘computer’ fails to recite sufficiently definite structure. As a result, we decline to construe this limitation as a means-plusfunction limitation in accordance with § 112 ¶ 6.” Dec. 10. In its Response, Patent Owner agreed with the Board’s preliminary determination. PO Resp. 11. Petitioner did not address this construction in its Reply. See generally Pet. Reply 1–4. After considering our preliminary determination anew, in light a complete trial record, we remain unpersuaded that the term “computer” fails to recite sufficiently definite structure. Accordingly, we decline to construe this limitation as a means-plus-function limitation in accordance with § 112 ¶ 6.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Dr. Balter, Petitioner’s expert, proffers that a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art, with respect to and at the time of the’502 patent, would have the following qualifications: “a medical physicist with a Ph.D. (or similar advanced degree) in physics, medical physics, or a related field, and two or more years of experience in radiation oncology physics and image processing/computer programming related to radiation oncology applications.” Ex. 1102 ¶ 13. Dr. Hashemi, Patent Owner’s expert, essentially agrees, with the only major differences to the above being that an M.S. is acceptable in lieu of a Ph.D, and that three years of experience is preferred. Ex. 2080 ¶ 17. Nominally, we accept Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art based on Dr. Balter’s more complete explanation. We note, however, that neither party has explained substantively any significance that the difference in the proffered levels of ordinary skill in the art would have in the obviousness analysis. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966); Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he level of skill in the art is a prism or lens through which a judge, jury, or the Board views the prior art and the claimed invention.”); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.”). To that end, we note that the prior art itself often reflects an appropriate skill level. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 10
Patent outcomesUS 6,842,502 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,842,502 - Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. William Beaumont HospitalNo claims unpatentablePTAB · May 4, 2017 · IPR2016-00163 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 43–46, 48–55, 57, 59–66, and 68 were not held unpatentable because Petitioner did not establish that the Jaffray references were prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ordinary skill in the art, with respect to and at the time of the’502 patent, would have the following qualifications: “a medical physicist with a Ph.D. (or similar advanced degree) in physics, medical physics, or a related field, and two or more years of experience in radiation oncology physics and image processing/computer programming related to radiation oncology applications.” Ex. 1202 ¶ 13. Dr. Hashemi, Patent Owner’s expert, essentially agrees, with the only major differences to the above being that an M.S. is acceptable in lieu of a Ph.D., and that three years of experience is preferred. Ex. 2080 ¶ 17. Nominally, we accept Petitioner’s proffered level because it is based on Dr. Balter’s more complete explanation. We note, however, that neither party has explained substantively any significance that the difference in the proffered levels of ordinary skill in the art would play in the obviousness analysis. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966); Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he level of skill in the art is a prism or lens through which a judge, jury, or the Board views the prior art and the claimed invention.”); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu- Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.”). To that end, we note that the prior art itself often reflects an appropriate skill level. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 12
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner
“Owner that the ’590 Application provides sufficient written description support for “controlling [said path of / a radiation therapy treatment plan involving] said radiation source based on said image.” In particular, we credit the testimony of Dr. Hashemi that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the ’590 Application that components of the disclosed system were computer-controlled based upon, e.g., the depiction of an Elekta SL-20 in Figure 3 of the ’590 Application and from the depiction of an electronic portal imaging device. (Ex. 2080 ¶¶ 109–116, 125–132). Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive because, even assuming that controlling the source path and controlling a radiation therapy treatment plan are “an entirely different class of control step” from controlling patient position (Pet. Reply 8–9), Petitioner has not explained why the portions of the ’590 Application relied upon by Patent Owner do not disclose controlling the source path or controlling a radiation therapy treatment plan.” slip op. at 19
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedNot shown unpatentable
“Owner that the ’590 Application provides sufficient written description support for “controlling [said path of / a radiation therapy treatment plan involving] said radiation source based on said image.” In particular, we credit the testimony of Dr. Hashemi that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the ’590 Application that components of the disclosed system were computer-controlled based upon, e.g., the depiction of an Elekta SL-20 in Figure 3 of the ’590 Application and from the depiction of an electronic portal imaging device. (Ex. 2080 ¶¶ 109–116, 125–132). Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive because, even assuming that controlling the source path and controlling a radiation therapy treatment plan are “an entirely different class of control step” from controlling patient position (Pet. Reply 8–9), Petitioner has not explained why the portions of the ’590 Application relied upon by Patent Owner do not disclose controlling the source path or controlling a radiation therapy treatment plan.” slip op. at 19
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Applicant-admitted prior artReference not prior artNot shown unpatentable
“[t]he content and nature of the printed publication, as well as the circumstances surrounding its publication” (Katz, 687 F.2d at 455), we are not persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of persuasion by showing sufficiently that the portions of Jaffray 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO on which it relies are the work “others.” Unlike in Katz, where the question was “the sufficiency of applicant’s showing to establish that the subject disclosure was his original work, and his alone” (687 F.2d at 455), the question before us is the sufficiency of Petitioner’s showing to establish that the subject disclosure was the work of the non-inventor coauthors of Jaffray 13 Both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion. 14 At oral argument, counsel for Petitioner indicated that, in his view, it does not matter who has the burden. Tr. 20:9, 20:16–17. 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378 (“In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the petitioner to prove ‘unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence,’ 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), and that burden never shifts to the patentee.”); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In the context of the present case, however, the notion of burden-shifting is inapposite because the patentee’s position is that the patent challenger failed to meet its burden of proving obviousness.”); see also Duncan Parking Techs., Inc. v. IPS Group Inc., Case IPR2016-00067, slip op. at 8–13 (PTAB Mar. 27, 2017) (Paper 29). slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 6,842,502 not shown unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,842,502 - Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. William Beaumont HospitalNo claims unpatentablePTAB · May 4, 2017 · IPR2016-00170 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–13 and 20–31 were not held unpatentable because the strong evidence of industry praise and long-felt need, with supporting evidence of commercial success and copying, outweighed the obviousness showing.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Dr. Balter, Petitioner’s expert, proffers that a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art, with respect to and at the time of the’765 Patent, would have the following qualifications: “a medical physicist with a Ph.D. (or similar advanced degree) in physics, medical physics, or a related field, and two or more years of experience in radiation oncology physics and image processing/computer programming related to radiation oncology applications.” Ex. 1102 ¶ 13. Dr. Hashemi, Patent Owner’s expert, essentially agrees, with the only major differences to the above being that an M.S. is acceptable in lieu of a Ph.D., and that three years of experience is preferred. Ex. 2080 ¶ 17. Nominally, we accept Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art based on Dr. Balter more complete explanation. We note, however, that neither party has explained substantively any significance that the difference in the proffered levels of ordinary skill in the art would have in the obviousness analysis. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966); Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he level of skill in the art is a prism or lens through which a judge, jury, or the Board views the prior art and the claimed invention.”); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.”). To that end, we note that the prior art itself often reflects an appropriate skill level. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyNot shown unpatentable
“In our Decision on Institution, we were not persuaded that the terms “computer” (claim 1), “controller” (claim 7), “structure” (claim 20), and “support table” (claim 26) fail to recite sufficiently definite structure, and, therefore, we declined to construe these terms as means-plus-function limitations in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. Dec. 10‒12. Neither Patent Owner nor Petitioner provide any more argument or evidence to disturb our interpretation of these terms. See PO Resp. 12. Accordingly, we do not construe these terms as means-plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. See SAS Institute, Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC., 825 F.3d 1341, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (The Board may not change a claim interpretation from the institution decision where neither party anticipated that “already-interpreted terms were actually moving targets.”).” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We begin first with the claim language, and note that “three- dimensional information” appears facially to be co-extensive with any information relevant to three-dimensions. We discern that “length, width, 6 In evaluating the assertions set forth in the Declaration of James Balter Ph.D. in Support of Petitioner’ Reply (Ex. 1500), we considered Patent Owner’s Motion for Observations on the Cross-Examination of Dr. James Balter (Paper 48) and Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observations on Cross-Examination (Paper 56). 7 In the Decision on Institution, we preliminarily agreed with Petitioner’s proposed construction of “three-dimensional information.” Dec. 9–10. and depth” are just such information. We have considered Patent Owner’s above-cited portions of the ’765 patent, but are unpersuaded that those portions narrow “three-dimensional information” with sufficient “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision” such that one of ordinary skill would have understood “three-dimensional information” as co-extensive with Patent Owner’s proffered construction. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). For example, column 2, lines 44‒56 certainly disclose that “volume” is desirable, but does not provide any equivalence between “threedimensional information” and “volume.” Indeed, column 2, lines 55–56 disclose “provide information regarding the location of soft-tissue target volumes,” indicating that “information” is a subset of “volume.” In another example, column 3, lines 41–56, mentions “three-dimensional (3-D) images,” which we agree would appear to require “volumetric data;” however, the claim limitation at issue is the broader term “three-dimensional information.” In a further example, column 9, line 54‒64, clearly refers to “volumetric data,” but does not indicate its relation to “three-dimensional information.” In yet another example, column 16, lines 23–25 and 38–42, do not recite “three-dimensional information,” instead disclosing “3-D structure” and “3-D nature” in relation generally to “volumetric data,” but, again, not in a manner sufficient to indicate a particular relationship. Finally, in regards to assertions set forth in the Declaration of Dr. Hashemi, we discern some merit in his assertion that when reading the claim limitation “three-dimensional information” in conjunction with another claim limitation “cone-beam computed tomography,” “a CBCT image is a volumetric image that provides the location, shape, and spatial orientation of the target volume in all directions, not just its length, width, and depth.” Ex. 2080 ¶ 85. Furthermore, the claim limitation does not preclude an image having more information than “three-dimensional information concerning said object” (such as length, width, and depth), “based on a plurality of two-dimensional projection images.” Under Patent Owner’s construction, however, the image would be required to have such information. We are unpersuaded that such information is required under a proper construction of “three-dimensional information” for the reasons set forth supra. We construe “three-dimensional information” as “information” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We are unpersuaded for several reasons. Primarily, we are unpersuaded because a fundamental assumption made by Patent Owner is that the patient must remain unrestrained. Patent Owner makes this assumption based on the assertion that “the primary goal of the Adler/Depp systems is to permit a patient to be relatively unrestrained during the radiotherapy procedure.” PO Resp. 33. We have reviewed Patent Owner’s supporting evidence, and are unpersuaded that the evidence supports Patent Owner’s assertion that “the primary goal of the Adler/Depp systems is to permit a patient to be relatively unrestrained during the radiotherapy procedure.” For example, Patent Owner cites to certain paragraphs of Dr. Hashemi’s Declaration, which in turn cite to certain portions of Depp. Ex. 2080 ¶¶ 117, 133, 136 (citing Ex. 1104, 11:66–12:23, Fig. 9). We have reviewed those portions of Depp, and find that while they do disclose that target location and treatment periods are on the order of seconds, they do not mention anything about “the primary goal of the Adler/Depp systems is to permit a patient to be relatively unrestrained during the radiotherapy procedure.”11 Accordingly, absent such an evidentiary foundation, we do not find credible Dr. Hashemi’s assertions concerning this matter. Even without explicit analysis by Patent Owner, we logically understand the connection between longer image acquisition and processing times, and the higher likelihood of interim patient movement. Absent the aforementioned “primary goal,” however, we are unclear as to why the converse of that goal would not be correct, i.e., that one of ordinary skill would have resolved the timing consideration by restraining the patient. Indeed, in opposition, Petitioner asserts, and we agree, that “POSA would understand that in the majority of radiotherapy treatment settings, patients are in fact restrained to some degree.” Pet. Reply 7‒8 (citing Ex. 1500 ¶¶ 33–35; Ex. 2080 ¶¶ 54–55; Ex. 1502, 142:23–143:19). In particular, we are persuaded by the consistency of Dr. Balter’s and Dr. Hashemi’s testimony that molds were used in 2000 to minimize unwanted patient motion during treatment. Ex. 1500 ¶ 35; Ex. 2080 ¶ 55.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 7,471,765 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,471,765
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.