- Mobileye Global, Inc. v. Facet Technology Corp.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Apr 22, 2025 · IPR2024-01110 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving institution in place on claim 15 based on the Gallagher–Lumia obviousness challenge.
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 previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined 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. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“or overlooked any matter. As we explained in the Institution Decision, the ’255 patent discloses that the recited characterization profile allows the system to convert the intensity values measured by the intensity sensor into luminance values based on the sensor’s ability to sense the particular color of the measured light. Inst. Dec. 21; Ex. 1001, 11:41–48. The ’255 patent states that “the light intensity sensor’s 280 ability to sense . . . a particular color” is the “the light intensity sensor’s 280 profile for [that] particular color.” Ex. 1001, 11:45–47. The ’255 patent further states that this “[l]ight intensity sensor 280 characterization is essential for high precision computations.” Id. at 11:48–49. Thus, as we stated in the Institution Decision, the recited “characterization profile” refers to a conversion factor used to convert the measured light intensity into luminance. As this conversion factor is based on the light intensity sensor’s ability to sense the particular color of light reflected by the road sign, we agree that it is empirical information. Patent Owner fails to explain adequately how the fact that the ’255 patent discloses storing multiple conversion factors for multiple colors of measured light in a digital look-up-table (see id. at 11:56–59 (“The light intensity sensor characterization 275 is empirical information about the light intensity sensor 280 that is used to create the [look-up table] 475.”)) has any bearing on our interpretation.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Owner to the Institution Decision where we fully addressed Patent Owner’s contentions. See Inst. Dec. 29–31. As we explained, “Petitioner proposes to incorporate Lumia’s teaching of measuring luminance values into Gallagher’s system, and argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success given Gallagher’s disclosure of determining calibration factors for each individual sensor in the array of sensors.” Id. at 30. In other words, Petitioner proposes to use Gallagher’s array of sensors to measure luminance in the manner taught by Lumia. We also explained in the Institution Decision how Lumia discloses using a video camera to measure the luminance of a road sign. Id. at 27–29. We further explained that, in the Petition, “Petitioner sets forth reasoning with rational underpinning to support its contentions that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Gallagher and Lumia” by, for example, “argu[ing] that implementing Lumia’s teaching of determining the luminance of traffic signs in Gallagher’s system would allow Gallagher’s system to calculate the retroreflectivity of road markers as a means of identifying any markers that do not meet minimum acceptable reflectance levels.” Id. at 30–30 (citing Pet. 46). We further explained that Petitioner’s arguments were supported by the testimony of it witness, Dr. Thorpe. Id. at 31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 116).” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,335,255 - PTAB · Feb 9, 2021 · IPR2020-00892 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Wildcat Licensing WI LLC’s rehearing request, finding no abuse of discretion or overlooked matter in granting institution of the challenges.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“When rehearing a decision on institution, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if substantial evidence does not support a factual finding, or if an unreasonable judgment is made in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Also, 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) sets forth, in relevant part that: A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“As we determined in the Decision, Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims in its challenges based on IBM. Petitioner argued that “IBM’s ‘[H]all effect sensor’ indicates tool ‘TORQUE’ to IBM’s controller 6 so that IBM’s controller requires IBM’s tool to achieve the ‘set torque’ at each fastening location in the ‘correct process sequence.’” Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1003, 81– 82). Petitioner also argued that IBM teaches that an operator “must also wait for the set torque to be achieved on each screw before moving onto the next screw.” Id. at 38 (citing Ex. 1003, 82) (emphases added). Petitioner’s declarant opined that “IBM’s microcontroller 6 measures the applied torque with ‘a [H]all effect sensor.’” Ex. 1002 ¶ 111 (citing Ex. 1003, 81–82). Petitioner’s arguments and declarant testimony found support in the preliminary record. As quoted in the Decision, IBM itself states that “controller circuit 6 . . . sense[s] when correct torque is achieved by linking As discussed in the Decision, IBM also states that that “[t]he problem is to ensure that four screws 5 fixing two product parts 3 & 4 together are tightened to a specific torque in a specific sequence.” Dec. 19–20 (quoting from Ex. 1003, 82) (emphasis added); see also Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 52–53 (asserting what IBM teaches). Also, the only figure of IBM shows “TORQUE” being sent to controller circuit 6. Ex. 1003, 81; see also Ex. 1002 ¶ 108 (“IBM diagrammatically illustrates the tool’s sensed ‘TORQUE’ as a signal input being received by IBM’s microcontroller 6 from the torque-sensing ‘[H]all effect sensor in the driver 11’ ([Ex. 1003] p. 82).”). Thus, Petitioner’s arguments, Petitioner’s declarant testimony, and IBM itself sufficiently showed at the preliminary stage that IBM senses or measures correct torque by linking into a Hall effect sensor in driver 11. Pet. 35–36; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 52–53, 108; Ex. 1003, 82. Further, Patent Owner’s arguments for IBM raised a factual question regarding what IBM teaches or suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art, and such issues are best decided on a full record. See Prelim. Resp. 26–49. We agree that Patent Owner does not have a burden to show IBM does not measure torque; however, for purposes of institution, Petitioner sufficiently showed that IBM senses or measures torque.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019- 01469, Paper 6 at 7–11 (PTAB. Feb. 13, 2020) (Decision Denying Institution) (precedential). Req. Reh’g 13–15 (citing Prelim. Resp. 54–64; Dec. 27). Specifically, Petitioner contends that the Decision “conflates or overlooks the two separate requirements in the first part of Advanced Bionics’ framework (art or arguments)” because we concluded “only that ‘Petitioner’s arguments were not previously presented to the Office.’” Id. at 14. However, even assuming arguendo, that substantially the same art was previously presented to the Office, the record and Petitioner sufficiently show that the Examiner materially erred for the reasons discussed in the Board decision reversing the rejection based on Gass alone. The record also shows that the Examiner did not address that error subsequently before allowing the claims. Specifically, the Examiner failed to identify the Office. Additionally, as discussed in the Decision, Petitioner’s demonstration of a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenges based on IBM, as well as the Federal Circuit’s determination in SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018) were considered in our analysis of determining whether to institute review. Dec. 28–29. We determined that our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) was not sufficiently implicated so that § 325(d)’s statutory purpose would be undermined by instituting on all of Petitioner’s challenges. Id. at 28–29. Further, even if exercise of our discretion under § 325(d) to deny the challenges based on Gass was warranted, the record provided no reason for extending our discretion under § 325(d) to the IBM-based challenges to deny the entire Petition under the circumstances presented in this proceeding. Id. at 29.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“The Decision also considered the prior Board decision regarding a rejection based on Gass. Dec. 30 (discussing Ex. 1018). As discussed above and in the Decision, the preliminary record did not indicate that Gass teaches away from the challenged claims. Thus, we do not agree that the Decision overlooked or misapprehended the prior Board decision regarding the rejection based on Gass and overlooked or misapprehended that Petitioner did not establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenges based on Gass.” slip op. at 9
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial - Foursquare Labs, Inc. v. Mimzi, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · May 19, 2020 · IPR2019-01287 · APJ J John Lee · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving institution on claims 1–19 in place because the challenged prior-art and priority arguments did not show an abuse of discretion.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“DISCUSSION 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 all matters it contends were misapprehended or overlooked by the Board. Id. The Board applies an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a decision on a petition for rehearing. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“As an initial matter, we first note that we determined in the Institution Decision that Petitioner had shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its contention that all of the challenged claims are unpatentable as obvious over Ramer3 and Hayashi.4 Inst. Dec. 28–32. Patent Owner does not seek rehearing of that determination. Thus, even were we to agree with Patent Owner that Yoo is not prior art, we conclude that Patent Owner has not shown that the Institution Decision should be modified because we still would have instituted an inter partes review based on the Ramer/Hayashi ground. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (prohibiting institution “unless the Director determines that . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition” (emphasis added)); cf. Chevron Oronite Co. v. Infineum USA L.P., IPR2018- 00923, Paper 9, 10–11 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2018) (informative) (exercising discretion to deny institution because a reasonable likelihood of prevailing was shown for only two dependent claims out of twenty challenged claims); Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR2018-01310, Paper 7, 42–43 (PTAB Jan. 3 Ramer, US 2007/0061302 A1, published Mar. 15, 2007 (Ex. 1004, “Ramer”). 4 Hayashi, US 2007/0255831 A1, filed Apr. 28, 2006, published Nov. 1, 2007 (Ex. 1005, “Hayashi”). 24, 2019) (informative) (exercising discretion to deny institution because a reasonable likelihood of prevailing was shown for only two claims out of twenty-three challenged claims).” slip op. at 4
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportOther
“governing statute was 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) (2013), as amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”). Inst. Dec. 13–19. On the record available at the time, we agreed with Petitioner that the ’981 Patent included claims with an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013, the effective date of the AIA amendment to § 102. See id.; Reply 1–2; AIA § 3(n)(1). Specifically, we determined (preliminarily) that the challenged claims are not adequately supported by the written description of U.S. Patent Application No. 12/181,956 (“the ’956 Application”), and, thus, could not claim priority to the ’956 Application, the only application in the priority chain that was filed before the AIA’s relevant effective date. Inst. Dec. 17–19. Under post-AIA § 102(a)(2), a published patent application of another inventor (like Yoo) is prior art if it “was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.” Yoo was filed on May 6, 2008. Ex. 1003, code (22). Consequently, under post-AIA § 102(a)(2), Yoo would qualify as prior art because its filing date is before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.2 Ex. 1001, code (60). 2 We note that Yoo’s effective filing date precedes all of the possible effective filing dates listed on the face of the ’981 Patent, including the July 29, 2008 filing date of the ’956 Application. See Ex. 1001, code (60). As noted above and discussed further below, however, whether the claims are supported by the ’956 Application relates to the threshold issue of whether post-AIA § 102(a)(2) applies to Yoo.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“As an initial matter, we first note that we determined in the Institution Decision that Petitioner had shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its contention that all of the challenged claims are unpatentable as obvious over Ramer3 and Hayashi.4 Inst. Dec. 28–32. Patent Owner does not seek rehearing of that determination. Thus, even were we to agree with Patent Owner that Yoo is not prior art, we conclude that Patent Owner has not shown that the Institution Decision should be modified because we still would have instituted an inter partes review based on the Ramer/Hayashi ground. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (prohibiting institution “unless the Director determines that . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition” (emphasis added)); cf. Chevron Oronite Co. v. Infineum USA L.P., IPR2018- 00923, Paper 9, 10–11 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2018) (informative) (exercising discretion to deny institution because a reasonable likelihood of prevailing was shown for only two dependent claims out of twenty challenged claims); Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR2018-01310, Paper 7, 42–43 (PTAB Jan. 3 Ramer, US 2007/0061302 A1, published Mar. 15, 2007 (Ex. 1004, “Ramer”). 4 Hayashi, US 2007/0255831 A1, filed Apr. 28, 2006, published Nov. 1, 2007 (Ex. 1005, “Hayashi”). 24, 2019) (informative) (exercising discretion to deny institution because a reasonable likelihood of prevailing was shown for only two claims out of twenty-three challenged claims).” slip op. at 4
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,128,981 - PTAB · Nov 20, 2019 · CBM2018-00006 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving intact its final written decision that claims 1–12 are unpatentable under § 101.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), “[t]he burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, opposition, or a reply.”” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“on this particular issue is timely. Patent Owner has argued that “the institution should never have occurred” and that institution should have been denied outright. Id. However, our Decision on Institution (Paper 19, “Dec.”) was entered on June 22, 2018. Any request for rehearing of our determinations regarding the forum selection clause in that Decision should have been filed 14 days from the entry of that decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)(1). As we noted in the FWD, after institution of the covered business method patent review (“CBM review”), the parties did not present any additional evidence or arguments regarding the forum selection clause issue. FWD 8 (“In the post-institution briefing, neither party has added arguments or evidence to the record regarding this issue.”). Indeed, the Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 28, “PO Resp.”) and Sur-Reply (Paper 39, “Sur.”) and Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 31, “Reply”) did not discuss forum selection. For completeness and clarity of the record, we reiterated our” slip op. at 3
- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“be instructive, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion, that decision has not been designated precedential. Moreover, taking into consideration the discussion by the panel in Global Tel*Link, we are not persuaded that our determination misapprehended or overlooked any arguments or evidence in” slip op. at 9
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionDecided for petitioner
“the abstract idea. Nonetheless, we are not persuaded that this is clear error or deprived Patent Owner of the opportunity to defend its position. Indeed, Patent Owner does not explain why the “rules for playing a bonus wagering game” is substantively different from “allowing bonus wagers in a wagering game,” or, more importantly, the basis for Patent Owner’s contention that this is a “fundamental change.” See Reh’g Req. 11.” slip op. at 11
§ 101 eligibilityPatents in suitUS 7,451,987 - Supercell OY v. Gree, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 26, 2018 · PGR2018-00039 · APJ Lynne H Browne · PGR · Rehearing
The Board denied GREE’s rehearing request, finding no abuse of discretion in instituting PGR of claims 1–8 based on the § 101 challenge.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“limitations. For example, as noted by Patent Owner, the full quotation is “[i]n a conventional battle game, however, during one battle, the user needs to select a command to determine the action of the player character many times . . . .” Ex. 1001, 1:41–43 (emphasis added). And by modeling that behavior in the future, the number of user operations are reduced. Accordingly, while we acknowledge that it is plausible, during trial, that Patent Owner will be able to show that such a disclosure is insufficient evidentiary support for “a second mode for executing the battle with fewer user operations received from the communication terminal than in the first mode,” we disagree that it has no factual bearing on the above limitation.” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“not rest solely on our determination that the claim elements or combinations of elements analyzed on pages 32–39 of the Petition were well-understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan in the field. Rather, our Decision was also based on the sufficiency of Petitioner’s arguments in totality with respect to the second step of Alice, for example, that for some limitations, “the claimed improvements identified by Patent Owner do not improve the technological field. Rather, they improve game play for the user.” Dec. 17. Further, as we explained, “the claims recite the use of conventional computer activity to determine the outcome of the procedure. Such claims ‘defining a desirable information-based result and not limited to inventive means of achieving the result, fail under § 101’” and that “claim 1 merely indicates that these steps are performed by a server without further details.” Dec. 12–13 (citing Elec. Power Group 830 F.3d 1351; Ex. 1001, 19:52–20:11. While that analysis does concern the first step of Alice, it, nevertheless, does have some bearing on the second step as well.” slip op. at 4
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptNot reached
“not rest solely on our determination that the claim elements or combinations of elements analyzed on pages 32–39 of the Petition were well-understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan in the field. Rather, our Decision was also based on the sufficiency of Petitioner’s arguments in totality with respect to the second step of Alice, for example, that for some limitations, “the claimed improvements identified by Patent Owner do not improve the technological field. Rather, they improve game play for the user.” Dec. 17. Further, as we explained, “the claims recite the use of conventional computer activity to determine the outcome of the procedure. Such claims ‘defining a desirable information-based result and not limited to inventive means of achieving the result, fail under § 101’” and that “claim 1 merely indicates that these steps are performed by a server without further details.” Dec. 12–13 (citing Elec. Power Group 830 F.3d 1351; Ex. 1001, 19:52–20:11. While that analysis does concern the first step of Alice, it, nevertheless, does have some bearing on the second step as well.” slip op. at 4
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“address Patent Owner’s countervailing evidence with respect to the above limitations, in particular, paragraphs 24 and 28–34 of Mr. Zyda’s Declaration. Req. 8–9. While we acknowledge that it was not expressly referenced in our Decision, it was taken into account and determined that, while it is worthy of some weight, Petitioner’s evidence and analysis presented a sufficient factual dispute for which trial is warranted. Given the Petition’s adequate analysis, at this stage of the proceeding, about the generic nature of the components recited in the ’308 patent and the lack of inventive means for achieving the results claimed (Pet. 32–39), we are unpersuaded that our Decision granting institution was an abuse of discretion.” slip op. at 5
§ 101 eligibilitycites BerkheimerPatents in suitUS 9,669,308 - Sonos, Inc. v. D&M Holdings Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jan 31, 2018 · IPR2017-01045 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request and left institution in place for claims 1–20 and 25–27.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS Standard of Review When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined 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. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, which includes specifically identifying all matters the party believes we misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Accordingly, after review of Patent Owner’s arguments in the Request for Rehearing, we remain of the opinion that Petitioner provided sufficient evidence and explanation to establish a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims are unpatentable, and thus we decline to change our Decision to institute inter partes review. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Patent Owner has not met its burden of showing an abuse of discretion in our Decision. We, therefore, deny Patent Owner’s request to reverse our determination to institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner demonstrated that Lambourne ’853 is an issued patent (Pet. 13) that has a filing date of September 11, 2007 (Pet. 14), which is before the October 16, 2007 filing date of the ’294 patent (Ex. 1013). Thus, Petitioner established at least a prima facie case that Lambourne ’853 is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). At this point, the burden of production shifted to Patent Owner to show that the ’294 patent is entitled to its provisional application’s filing date of October 17, 2006. Patent Owner did not meet this burden of production, and accordingly, the burden of production never shifted back to the Petitioner to show Lambourne ’853 was entitled to the benefit of the filing date of its provisional application, Lambourne ’407. Thus, we deny Patent Owner’s request for rehearing for this reason.” slip op. at 4
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“Applying these burdens to the present case, the ultimate burden of persuasion was on the Petitioner to show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 claim based on the information presented. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Petitioner also had the initial burden of production to provide argument and evidence to establish a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for at least 1 claim, and chose to do so by relying on Lambourne ’853 in addition to other prior art references. Petitioner demonstrated that Lambourne ’853 is an issued patent (Pet. 13) that has a filing date of September 11, 2007 (Pet. 14), which is before the October 16, 2007 filing date of the ’294 patent (Ex. 1013). Thus, Petitioner established at least a prima facie case that Lambourne ’853 is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). At this point, the burden of production shifted to Patent Owner to show that the ’294 patent is entitled to its provisional application’s filing date of October 17, 2006. Patent Owner did not meet this burden of production, and accordingly, the burden of production never shifted back to the Petitioner to show Lambourne ’853 was entitled to the benefit of the filing date of its provisional application, Lambourne ’407. Thus, we deny Patent Owner’s request for rehearing for this reason.” slip op. at 4
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,987,294 - PTAB · Aug 17, 2017 · IPR2017-00662 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Harvard’s rehearing request, leaving institution in place on anticipation by Buchanan and obviousness over Buchanan and the knowledge of an ordinarily skilled artisan for claims 24, 26, and 29.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“We will grant a request for rehearing of a petition decision if the requesting party demonstrates “an abuse of discretion” in the decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). That party must also “specifically identify . . . the place where each matter [that we misapprehended or overlooked] was previously addressed.” Id. § 42.71(d). After considering Patent Owner’s request for rehearing, our decision, and the evidence currently of record, we determine Patent Owner has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we deny the request for rehearing.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“We are not persuaded that, based on the current record, we have misinterpreted Buchanan’s disclosure. First, Buchanan’s Example 3 does not state, as Patent Owner argues, “that the inventive method can be expanded from forming a multicomponent metal oxide as specifically described in Example 3, to forming a single metal oxide by ‘utilizing one precursor source mixture which contains only one precursor.’” Request 5. Patent Owner leaves out a portion of the statement, which says that the method “can be expanded to include growth of any single component metal, metal oxide, metal nitride or metal silicide film.” Ex. 1005, 20:63–67 (emphasis added). If the statement were to be limited to the use of one of the two precursors discussed in Example 3, it would mean that the method could be expanded only to deposit films containing either zirconium or hafnium, not to films based on “any . . . metal.” It may be that the evidence adduced at trial will show that “any . . . metal” should be interpreted as limited to zirconium and hafnium, but it is not apparent from the present record why this should be the case. If our conclusion on this record that Example 3 can be expanded to include the deposition of films based on any metal is correct, however, then it follows that the use of precursors other than zirconium nitrate and hafnium tertbutoxide is contemplated.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“tetrakis(dimethylamino) hafnium, and tetrakis(diethylamino) hafnium in particular would have been selected as better in Buchanan’s Example 3 than any of the other compounds disclosed by Buchanan.” Request 13–15. As discussed above, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown sufficiently for purposes of instituting review that, at least on the present record, Buchanan discloses using any of its suitable precursors in the method of its Example 3. Given this, Petitioner was not required to show that these particular compounds “would have been selected as better . . . than any of the other compounds disclosed by Buchanan” in order for us to conclude that Petitioner had shown a reasonable likelihood of succeeding in demonstrating the obviousness of claims 24, 26, and 29 over the combination of Buchanan and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. The law does not require that the use of the claimed compound be “better . . . than [the use of] any of the other disclosed compounds,” because “[a] finding that the prior art as a whole suggests the desirability of a particular combination need not be supported by a finding that the prior art suggests that the combination claimed . . . is the preferred, or most desirable, combination.” Bayer Healthcare Pharms., Inc. v. Watson Pharms., Inc., 713 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Instead, it requires only that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the teachings of the prior art. Here, to support its obviousness ground, Petitioner will need to show at trial that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine Buchanan’s teaching in Example 3 of a particular ALD process with Buchanan’s teaching that “tetrakis(dimethylamino), [and] tetrakis (diethylamino) Ti, Zr, Hf, Si, Ge, Sn, or Pb” were suitable precursors for use in an ALD process. In our Institution Decision, we were persuaded that, given Buchanan’s disclosure of using any suitable precursor in the process of Example 3, Buchanan’s disclosure that any of its precursors were suitable for use in any ALD process, and the description of these particular precursors as “preferred” and “highly preferred,” Petitioner had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would succeed in making this showing at trial. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that we abused our discretion in coming to this conclusion.” slip op. at 15
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Banerjee, testified “that a person of ordinary skill ‘would have at once envisaged’ the use of Buchanan’s named precursors in Buchanan’s Example 3.” Paper 11, 9 (quoting Ex. 1003 ¶ 134). Although we noted that this testimony was disputed by Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Gladfelter, we were required to resolve the factual dispute in the light most favorable to Petitioner for purposes of the Institution Decision. Id. (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c); Ex. 2101 ¶ 127). Patent Owner now argues that Dr. Banerjee’s testimony is entitled to no weight because it “is in the form of conclusory statements and fails to adequately explain why one of ordinary skill ‘would have at once envisaged’ the use of Buchanan’s named precursors in Example 3.” Request 10–11. Patent Owner cites to page 21 of its Preliminary Response as the place where it raised this argument previously. Id. at 10. Patent Owner did not previously raise the argument that Dr. Banerjee’s testimony is entitled to no weight, either on page 21, or on any other page, of its Preliminary Response. Under our rules, a party requesting rehearing must “specifically identify . . . the place where each matter [that we misapprehended or overlooked] was previously addressed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Accordingly, we will not grant Patent Owner’s request for rehearing on this basis. Moreover, we note that Dr. Banerjee’s testimony cites to Buchanan’s statement that “[t]he precursor source mixture of the present invention can be used in any CVD or ALD process with any delivery means currently employed” as the reason that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have at once envisaged that the other precursors are applicable to Example 3.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 134 (quoting Ex. 1005, 7:30–34). We need not determine at this point whether this reasoning is sufficient, in light of Dr. Gladfelter’s testimony to the contrary, to establish as a factual matter that a person of ordinary skill in the art actually “would have at once envisaged that the other precursors are applicable to Example 3,” which is an issue to be determined at trial. We do note, however, that, contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, Dr. Banerjee does offer at least some explanation for his opinion.” slip op. at 11
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,969,539 - Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.Com Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jan 3, 2017 · IPR2016-01201 · APJ Stacy B Margolies · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving institution in place for claims 1, 7, 27, 28, 34, 54, 72–74, 92, 93, and 111.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The party challenging a decision in a request for rehearing bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed.” Id. Upon a request for rehearing, the decision on a petition will be reviewed for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“argument that the purported motivation to combine—that allowing users to place calls as if they were dialing from a standard PSTN phone would be desirable—is unsupported by substantial evidence. Reh’g Req. 7–12. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that the Institution Decision relies on testimony from Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Houh, and that that declaration testimony “do[es] not rely upon any evidence for support.” Id. at 10. Patent Owner also argues that the Board overlooked Patent Owner’s argument that Dr. Houh’s testimony should be entitled to little or no weight. Id. at 11–12.” slip op. at 5
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“argument that the purported motivation to combine—that allowing users to place calls as if they were dialing from a standard PSTN phone would be desirable—is unsupported by substantial evidence. Reh’g Req. 7–12. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that the Institution Decision relies on testimony from Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Houh, and that that declaration testimony “do[es] not rely upon any evidence for support.” Id. at 10. Patent Owner also argues that the Board overlooked Patent Owner’s argument that Dr. Houh’s testimony should be entitled to little or no weight. Id. at 11–12.” slip op. at 5
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,542,815 - United Services Automobile Association v. Nader Asghari-Kamrani And Kamran Asghari-KamraniRehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 13, 2016 · CBM2016-00064 · APJ Joni Y Chang · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place institution on claims 1–3, 5–28, and 30–55 based on the showing that those claims were more likely than not obvious over Nicholson and Brown.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“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 previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined 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. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315-16 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“2003/0046591 A1 (Ex. 1017), published on March 6, 2003, and WIPO International Publication No. WO 03/021837 A1 (Ex. 1028), published on March 13, 2003, more than one year before the actual filing date of the ’432 patent (September 15, 2008)—are also prior art under § 102(b), showing what was known in the art and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.4 See In re Van Langenhoven, 458 F.2d 132, 136–37 (CCPA 1972) (citing In re Hafner, 410 F.2d 1403 (CCPA 1969); In re Ruscetta, 255 F.2d 687, 690–91 (CCPA 1958)) (noting that, because the patentee could not claim the benefit of the filing date of any prior-filed application, the patentee’s own prior patent or publication that was published more than one year from the actual filing date of the application at issue was available as prior art under § 102(b)). Therefore, we disagree with Patent Owner that we committed a clear error in determining that claim 1 does not recite a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art, and that we committed a clear error in concluding that Petitioner had demonstrated that the claims at issue are more likely than not unpatentable as obvious over Nicholson and Brown. For the reasons stated above, Patent Owner has not established that we abused our discretion in determining that the ’432 patent is not excluded as a technological invention, and that it is more likely than not that claims 1–3, 4 Petitioner’s asserted ground of unpatentability, on which we instituted a trial, is based on the combination of Nicholson and Brown under § 103(a). See Paper 2, 27–63; Dec. 35. 13 5–28, and 30–55 of the ’432 patent are unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over Nicholson and Brown.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableDecided for petitioner
“was made. Req. Reh’g 13–14 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)). In the Decision (Dec. 18–19), we noted that in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). We further noted in the Decision (Dec. 19) that the prior art of record in the instant proceeding reflects the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art). On this record, Nicholson, which was filed on July 14, 2006, and published on January 25, 2007, predates the actual filing date of the ’432 patent (September 15, 2008) by more than one year.2 Ex. 1034 at [22], [43]. And, Brown, which was filed on June 3, 1996, and issued on April 14, 1998, predates the actual filing date of the ’432 patent (September 15, 2008) by more than one year.3 Ex. 1035 at [22], [45]. Therefore, based on the current record, both Nicholson and Brown are prior art under § 102(b) as to the challenged claims. In addition, on this record, the publications of the first prior-filed application—U.S. Patent Application Publication No.” slip op. at 12
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“demonstrated based on the current record that the benefit claim to the third prior-filed application complies with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120, among which is the requirement that the original disclosure of the third prior-filed application provides written description support for the challenged claims as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. See Dec. 26–27. In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1276–77 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 297 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Once again, Patent Owner’s arguments ignore the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120. As we determined in our Decision, Patent Owner has not shown, at this juncture, that the original disclosure of the second prior-filed application or the original disclosure of the third prior-filed application provides sufficient written description support for each limitation of the challenged claims. Dec. 23–29. Without this showing, the challenged claims are not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of any prior-filed application. Id. Therefore, on this record, “at the time of the invention” is not August 29, 2001, the filing date of the first prior-filed application, as alleged by Patent Owner, but rather, September 15, 2008, the actual filing date of the application that issued as the ’432 patent.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,266,432 - Symantec Corp. v. Finjan, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · May 23, 2016 · IPR2015-01892 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Finjan’s rehearing request and left in place institution on the §103(a) ground over Swimmer for claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14, and 15.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision [i]s based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). A request for rehearing is not an opportunity merely to disagree with the panel’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence, or to present new arguments or evidence. It is not an abuse of discretion to have performed an analysis or reached a conclusion with which Patent Owner disagrees, and mere disagreement with our analysis or conclusion is not a proper basis for rehearing.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“in view of Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper 7, “Prelim. Resp.”), that Petitioner had demonstrated in its Petition a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of each of the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Swimmer. Paper 9 (“Dec. on Inst.”), 12–23. Accordingly, we instituted an inter partes review on that ground. Id. at 34. We also concluded, however, that Petitioner had not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on any of the other grounds asserted, and we declined to institute an inter partes review on any other ground. Id. at 23– 34.” slip op. at 3
- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“function number, arg ( ... [)],ret ( ... )>”)). “In other words, the audit system and/or emulator generates audit records for the Downloadables (i.e., Downloadable security profile data) that identifies and lists functions (i.e., operations) that the Downloadables attempt to invoke,” and “[s]ignificantly, these operations identified by Swimmer’s audit system are the very same types of operations referred to by the applications related to the ‘494 patent as examples of ‘suspicious operations.’” Pet. 17–18. We understand Swimmer’s “activity data,” which, as cited by Petitioner, are each contained within an audit record, to be “Downloadable security profile data,” in the parlance of claims 1 and 10 of the ’494 patent. Moreover, as Petitioner also contends, “Swimmer further discloses that these audit records are stored in a database.” Id. at 19 (emphasis added) (cited by Dec. on Inst. 17). Based on Petitioner’s arguments regarding the recited database limitations of claims 1 and 10, we understand Petitioner to equate the aggregate collection of Swimmer’s activity data/audit records, each recorded according to a structured schema, with the recited “database.” Id. at 13, 19–20 (citing Ex. 1005, 9, Fig. 3); see also Ex. 1005, 7 (disclosing “audit system . . . securely collects system activity data” (emphasis added)).5 Consequently, we do not understand Petitioner to have taken the position that “both ‘security profile data’ and ‘database’ should be redundantly the same” or to have “conflat[ed] the ‘security profile data’ itself with the ‘database’ that stores the ‘security profile data,’” as Patent Owner suggests. Req. Reh’g 5. 5 In the Institution Decision, we state that “[a]s explained by Swimmer, the audit record includes records collected by Swimmer’s VIDES system, organized with a specific ‘canonical format’ to serve the ASAX tool.” Dec. on Inst. 23. We are persuaded on this record that Swimmer’s collection of audit records, so organized, is a database.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Swimmer, the activity data/audit records generated by the VIDES system are organized with a specific “canonical format” to serve the ASAX tool. Ex. 1005, 9–10. We are persuaded on this record that the collection of activity data, so organized, constitutes a database as that term is construed both in the Institution Decision and in the Sophos case as “a collection of interrelated data organized according to a database schema to serve one or more applications.” Dec. on Inst. 11; Case IPR2015-01022, slip op. at 10 (Paper 7). Although Petitioner argued for a different interpretation of “database” in its Petition (Pet. 10–12), we remain persuaded that the arguments and evidence cited in the Petition sufficiently demonstrate that Swimmer teaches a database according to the interpretation adopted by us (see id. at 19–20 (citing Ex. 1005, 1, 2, 9, Fig. 3; Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 108–110)). Moreover, we are satisfied, on the present record, that there is no meaningful distinction between “database schema,” as recited in our interpretation of “database” (Dec. on Inst. 11), and the “structured schema” or “particular schema” referred to in the Petition to describe Swimmer’s canonical format (Pet. 13, 19).” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,677,494
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.