• Vista Outdoor Operations LLC v. Liberty Ammunition, LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · Oct 31, 2016 · IPR2016-00539 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing and left in place the denial of institution for claims 1–42 on all six grounds, finding no overlooked or misapprehended matter.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “ANALYSIS The applicable standard for a request for rehearing is set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides in relevant part: 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 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. Furthermore, when rehearing a decision on a motion, the Board will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. Id. at § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2

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

    “The Board found that these embodiments were distinct, and determined that Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of success on its challenges when combining features from these distinct embodiments. See Decision 13–16, 19, 20. With respect to the anticipation ground (Ground 1), the Board explained that “it is not enough that the prior art reference discloses multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.” Id. at 13 (citing Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). With respect to Grounds 2 and 3, the Board determined that Petitioner failed to explain adequately how Woodring’s distinct embodiments are being combined with one another and the cited art to arrive at the claimed invention. Id. at 18, 20.” slip op. at 4

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

    “The Board found that these embodiments were distinct, and determined that Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of success on its challenges when combining features from these distinct embodiments. See Decision 13–16, 19, 20. With respect to the anticipation ground (Ground 1), the Board explained that “it is not enough that the prior art reference discloses multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.” Id. at 13 (citing Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). With respect to Grounds 2 and 3, the Board determined that Petitioner failed to explain adequately how Woodring’s distinct embodiments are being combined with one another and the cited art to arrive at the claimed invention. Id. at 18, 20.” slip op. at 4

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “determined that Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of success on its challenges when combining features from these distinct embodiments. See Decision 13–16, 19, 20. With respect to the anticipation ground (Ground 1), the Board explained that “it is not enough that the prior art reference discloses multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.” Id. at 13 (citing Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). With respect to Grounds 2 and 3, the Board determined that Petitioner failed to explain adequately how Woodring’s distinct embodiments are being combined with one another and the cited art to arrive at the claimed invention. Id. at 18, 20.” slip op. at 4

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,748,325
• Coalition For Affordable Drugs Vi, LLC v. Celgene CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 26, 2016 · IPR2015-01096 · APJ Michael P Tierney · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–32 are unpatentable as obvious over Thalomid PI in view of Cunningham, Keravich, Zeldis, and Mundt.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The prior art references, like the ’720 patent specification, focus on controlling the distribution of a drug. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:13–16 (describing “the distribution to patients of drugs, particularly teratogenic drugs, in ways wherein such distribution can be carefully monitored and controlled”); see generally Exs. 1003, 1006, 1009, 1012, 1018. Consistent with the prior art, Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Fudin, testifies that the types of problems encountered by one of ordinary skill in the art included creating a restricted drug distribution program to prevent adverse side effects, such as teratogenic risks. Ex. 1021 ¶¶ 44–50. Accordingly, the prior art demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would have experience in controlling the distribution of a drug. To the extent a more specific definition is required, we hold, for the reasons provided below, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have several years of experience in risk management relating to pharmaceutical drug products, which encompasses experience as a pharmacist.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “prescription approval code is not provided unless certain conditions are met. Ex. 1001, 13:42–52. The conditions include the prescriber, pharmacy, patient, patient’s risk group and the patient’s informed consent have been properly registered in the storage medium. Id. Specifically, the ’720 patent specification describes “approval code” as follows: In certain embodiments of the invention, the methods may require that the registered pharmacy consult the computer readable medium to retrieve a prescription approval code before dispensing the drug to the patient. This approval code is preferably not provided unless the prescriber, the pharmacy, the patient, the patient’s risk group and the patient’s informed consent have been properly registered in the storage medium. Additionally, depending upon the risk group assignment, generation of the prescription approval code may further require the registration in the storage medium of the additional set of information, including periodic surveys and the results of diagnostic tests, as have been defined as being relevant to the risk group assignment. Id. The specification also states that if a patient’s risk group assignment so indicates, a prescription approval code “generally” will not be generated until specific periodic diagnostic tests have been performed and satisfactory results entered into the storage medium. Id. at 14:37–15:6. As apparent from the specification, the prescription approval code is “preferably” or “generally” not provided unless certain information is properly registered in a storage medium. An affirmative risk assessment, however, is not mentioned in the specification as a mandatory requirement for generation of the prescription approval code.” slip op. at 13

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

    “for close constant monitoring to identify noncompliance or other problems, but concluded by stating that Celgene was committed to making the program succeed and would be willing to make any modifications to the program necessary to ensure its effectiveness. Ex. 1012 at 329. This willingness to make any modifications is consistent with the understanding that the underlying drug remains a safety concern because controlling the distribution of the drug does not negate the actual side effects of the underlying drug. In dealing with such drugs, such as those capable of causing severe birth defects, the highest level of safety is desired. Under such circumstances, consistent with the teachings of Zeldis and the art of record one skilled in the art would understand that where significant safety risks exist with a drug, one would continuously search for safer ways to control the distribution of the drug. Put simply, where significant safety concerns exists, one of ordinary skill in the art would not wait until an accident occurred to seek out improvements.” slip op. at 23

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “limitations recited in independent claims 1 and 28, with the exception of the generation of a prescription approval code to be retrieved by a pharmacy before the prescription is filled. Pet. 52. Petitioner states that one skilled in the art, following the teachings of Thalomid PI and seeking to avoid treating pregnant women with thalidomide, would have implemented the methods disclosed in Cunningham to limit dispensation of a drug associated with adverse effects to certain risk groups. Id. at 54. We understand Petitioner as contending that the challenged claims represent a combination of known prior art elements (identifying patient risk groups, collecting patient information relating to the risk, determining whether the risk is acceptable, and controlling dispensation of the drug using both a prescription and an approval code) for their known purpose (control distribution of drug) to achieve a predictable result (avoid giving patients drugs that have an unacceptable risk of side effects). For the reasons provided below, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are obvious over the cited prior art.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 6,315,720 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,315,720
• Coalition For Affordable Drugs Vi, LLC v. Celgene CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 26, 2016 · IPR2015-01103 · APJ Michael P Tierney · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–32 are unpatentable as obvious over Mitchell and Dishman in view of Cunningham and the additional cited references.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The prior art references, like the ’720 patent specification, focus on controlling the distribution of a drug. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:13–16 (describing “the distribution to patients of drugs, particularly teratogenic drugs, in ways wherein such distribution can be carefully monitored and controlled”); see generally Exs. 1003; 1008; 1011; 2062; 2067. Consistent with the prior art, Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Fudin, testifies that the types of problems encountered by one of ordinary skill in the art included creating a restricted drug distribution program to prevent adverse side effects, such as teratogenic risks. Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 43–50. Accordingly, the prior art demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would have experience in controlling the distribution of a drug. To the extent a more specific definition is required, we hold, for the reasons provided below, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have several years of experience in risk management relating to pharmaceutical drug products, which encompasses experience as a pharmacist.” slip op. at 10

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

    “their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Generally, Petitioner states that the claim terms are presumed to take on the ordinary and customary meaning that they would have to one of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. at 10. Petitioner proposes constructions for several claim terms including “consulted,” “teratogenic effect,” and “adverse side effect.” Id. at 10–11. Patent Owner does not propose distinct constructions of the identified terms. We determine that the identified claim terms should be given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one with ordinary skill in the art, and need not be construed explicitly at this time for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12

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

    “prescription approval code is not provided unless certain conditions are met. Ex. 1001, 13:42–52. The conditions include the prescriber, pharmacy, patient, patient’s risk group and the patient’s informed consent have been properly registered in the storage medium. Id. Specifically, the ’720 patent specification describes “approval code” as follows: In certain embodiments of the invention, the methods may require that the registered pharmacy consult the computer readable medium to retrieve a prescription approval code before dispensing the drug to the patient. This approval code is preferably not provided unless the prescriber, the pharmacy, the patient, the patient’s risk group and the patient’s informed consent have been properly registered in the storage medium. Additionally, depending upon the risk group assignment, generation of the prescription approval code may further require the registration in the storage medium of the additional set of information, including periodic surveys and the results of diagnostic tests, as have been defined as being relevant to the risk group assignment. Id. The specification also states that if a patient’s risk group assignment so indicates, a prescription approval code “generally” will not be generated until specific periodic diagnostic tests have been performed and satisfactory results entered into the storage medium. Id. at 14:37–15:6. As apparent from the specification, the prescription approval code is “preferably” or “generally” not provided unless certain information is properly registered in a storage medium. An affirmative risk assessment, however, is not mentioned in the specification as a mandatory requirement for generation of the prescription approval code.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

  Patent outcomesUS 6,315,720 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,315,720
• Coalition For Affordable Drugs Vi, LLC v. Celgene CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 26, 2016 · IPR2015-01102 · APJ Michael P Tierney · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–32 are unpatentable as obvious over Powell and Dishman in view of Cunningham and the additional cited references.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Based on the record presented, we hold that the cited prior art is representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The prior art references, like the ’720 patent specification, focus on controlling the distribution of a drug. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:13–16 (describing “the distribution to patients of drugs, particularly teratogenic drugs, in ways wherein such distribution can be carefully monitored and controlled”); see generally Exs. 1003; 1008; 1011; 2062; 2066. Consistent with the prior art, Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Fudin, testifies that the types of problems encountered by one of ordinary skill in the art included creating a restricted drug distribution program to prevent adverse side effects, such as teratogenic risks. Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 44–50. Accordingly, the prior art demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would have experience in controlling the distribution of a drug. To the extent a more specific definition is required, we hold, for the reasons provided below, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have several years of experience in risk management relating to pharmaceutical drug products, which encompasses experience as a pharmacist.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “The specification defines prescription approval code such that the prescription approval code is not provided unless certain conditions are met. Ex. 1001, 13:42–52. The conditions include the prescriber, pharmacy, patient, patient’s risk group and the patient’s informed consent have been properly registered in the storage medium. Id. Specifically, the ’720 patent specification describes “approval code” as follows: In certain embodiments of the invention, the methods may require that the registered pharmacy consult the computer readable medium to retrieve a prescription approval code before dispensing the drug to the patient. This approval code is preferably not provided unless the prescriber, the pharmacy, the patient, the patient’s risk group and the patient’s informed consent have been properly registered in the storage medium. Additionally, depending upon the risk group assignment, generation of the prescription approval code may further require the registration in the storage medium of the additional set of information, including periodic surveys and the results of diagnostic tests, as have been defined as being relevant to the risk group assignment. Id. The specification also states that if a patient’s risk group assignment so indicates, a prescription approval code “generally” will not be generated until specific periodic diagnostic tests have been performed and satisfactory results entered into the storage medium. Id. at 14:37–15:6. As apparent from the specification, the prescription approval code is “preferably” or “generally” not provided unless certain information is properly registered in a storage medium. An affirmative risk assessment, however, is not mentioned in the specification as a mandatory requirement for generation of the prescription approval code.” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “We understand Petitioner as contending that the challenged claims represent a combination of known prior art elements (identifying patient risk groups, collecting patient information relating to the risk, determining whether the risk is acceptable, and controlling dispensation of the drug using both a prescription and an approval code) for their known purpose (control distribution of drug) to achieve a predictable result (avoid giving patients drugs that have an unacceptable risk of side effects). For the reasons provided below, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are obvious over the cited prior art.” slip op. at 22

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner states that Cunningham’s pharmacy approval code is part of a method of tracking and managing the dispensing of pharmaceutical trial products and has no connection to patient information at all. Id. at 38. Patent Owner also states that Cunningham’s pharmacy approval code is merely a number or identifier associated with samples of pharmaceutical products. Id. at 39. Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have therefore understood that Cunningham’s pharmacy approval code is not the same as the claimed prescription approval code. Id. at 39–40. Cunningham describes a method of dispensing, tracking, and managing pharmaceutical products whereby prescribers and pharmacies are linked to a central computing station. Ex. 1008, 1:6–11. Certain pharmaceutical drugs, such as thalidomide, were known in the art to require a prescription in order for a patient to be provided the drug whereby a prescriber would authorize a patient to receive a drug from a pharmacy. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. Dr. Fudin testified that the use of an approval code of Cunningham could be like that of a consumer credit card approval code, and is used to track things and the technology should allow you to combine it with other materials that you could track. Ex. 2061 at 412:17–25, 429:18–430:10. Based on the record presented, we hold that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that an approval code used by prescribers and pharmacies to track and manage pharmaceutical products could likewise be used by prescribers and pharmacies to track and manage prescription pharmaceutical products. We further hold that the claimed improvement recited in the challenged claims represents a combination of known prior art elements (identifying patient risk groups, collecting patient information relating to the risk, determining whether the risk is acceptable, and controlling dispensation of the drug using both a prescription and an approval code) for their known purpose (control distribution of drug) to achieve a predictable result (avoid giving patients drugs that have an unacceptable risk of side effects).” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 6,315,720 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,315,720
• Coalition For Affordable Drugs Vi LLC v. Celgene CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 26, 2016 · IPR2015-01092 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over Powell, Mitchell, and Dishman.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “qualifications of an ordinary artisan, over the somewhat different qualifications proposed by Petitioner, would materially alter the obviousness inquiry. The prior art references asserted in the Petition are representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (absence of specific findings on “level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown’” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). To the extent that a more specific definition of the ordinary artisan is required, we hold that the definition encompasses pharmacists and other persons having experience restricting the distribution of teratogenic drugs. Specifically, we find that the prior art references, like the ’501 patent specification, focus on controlling the distribution of a drug. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:13–16 (describing “the distribution to patients of drugs, particularly teratogenic drugs, in ways wherein such distribution can be carefully monitored and controlled”); Ex. 1005, 901 (Powell, disclosing guidelines for restricting the distribution of thalidomide); Ex. 1006, 101 (Mitchell, describing a method for restricting the distribution of the teratogenic drug Accutane); Ex. 1007, 899 (Dishman, describing a national registry for restricting distribution of the psychoactive drug Clozaril). Consistent with the prior art, Dr. Fudin testifies that the types of problems encountered by a person of ordinary skill in the art included creating a restricted drug distribution program to prevent adverse side effects, such as teratogenic risks. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 33–55. The prior art demonstrates that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have experience in controlling the distribution of a drug. We credit Dr. Fudin’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would encompass a pharmacist. Ex. 1002 ¶ 15. We also credit Dr. Frau’s testimony that an ordinary artisan would not be limited to pharmacists but also would encompass persons having at least two years of experience in risk management relating to pharmaceutical products, as pharmacists are not the only persons having restricted drug distribution experience and knowledge. Ex. 2059 ¶ 60. Accordingly, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would include pharmacists and persons having at least two years of experience in risk management relating to pharmaceutical products as pharmacists. Additionally, we determine that, even if we were to adopt verbatim Dr. Frau’s definition of ordinary skill in the art, Patent Owner has failed to present sufficient and credible evidence to persuade us that Patent Owner’s defined person of ordinary skill in the art would be led to a different outcome regarding the obviousness of the challenged claims. Specifically, Dr. DiPiro, testifying for Patent Owner, acknowledged that many” slip op. at 7

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

    “No claim term requires express construction for the purposes of this Decision. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). One issue of claim construction, however, requires some discussion. Patent Owner argues that the term “computer readable storage medium” in claim 1 should be read to require a “centralized” computer readable storage medium—namely “a centralized database that includes all registration information regarding the claimed prescribers, pharmacies, and patients.” Resp. 22, 35. We are not persuaded that the wording of the claim, or the disclosure of the ’501 patent specification, supports Patent Owner’s view.” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “distribution of Accutane and Dishman’s method for controlling distribution of Clozaril—and apply those features to controlling the distribution of another potentially hazardous drug (thalidomide, which Powell discusses as requiring controlled distribution). Patent Owner’s contention that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized or applied the teachings of Mitchell or Dishman to the problem identified in Powell lacks merit. Resp. 49–53. On that point, Patent Owner itself identifies in the Response an article, which explains that Patent Owner’s “plan [for thalidomide] is built on experience with restrictions on such other drugs with severe side effects as Accutane . . . and Clorazil.” Ex. 2063, 1136; see Resp. 6 (quoting Ex. 2063, 1135). Furthermore, both of Patent Owner’s witnesses acknowledged the relevance of the programs disclosed in Mitchell and Dishman to the problem at hand, namely, controlling distribution of thalidomide. Specifically, Dr. DiPiro testified that, “in some of the literature where isotretinoin [Accutane] and clozapine [Clorazil] systems were discussed,” even researchers employed by Patent Owner recognized “that the results from these systems could guide an individual in either direction, as a way to do it or as a way not to do it. So in that sense they are relevant.” Ex. 1066, 326:23–327:5. Dr. Frau similarly acknowledged that the clozapine program was a restricted distribution program (Ex. 1067, 112:7–15; 113:3–8) and, thus, addressed the very same problem that would have been focused upon by a person of ordinary skill in the art. We find unpersuasive Patent Owner’s assertions that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been led to consider the combined disclosures of Mitchell, Dishman and Powell—all of which pertain to controlling the distribution of a drug to a subpopulation of patients likely to suffer serious side effects. Resp. 31–32, 38–41 (arguing that various features of known methods for controlling distribution of Accutane and Clozaril, as disclosed or suggested by the combined prior art, would not have been applied to controlling distribution of thalidomide in the manner claimed). Patent Owner, in essence, argues that an ordinary artisan would understand each applied reference only for its express teachings and would not have applied those teachings beyond the specific uses disclosed in the particular prior art reference. However, “the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. In that regard, we are persuaded that the invention of claim 1 represents the “predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” KSR Int’l, 550 U.S. at 417. Claim 1 is directed to a combination of known steps (registering patients, prescribers, and pharmacies in a computer readable storage medium; identifying and counseling a subpopulation of patients whose access to a teratogenic drug should be restricted; and authorizing drug therapy only for non-pregnant patients) to accomplish a known purpose (prescribing drug only to non-pregnant patients) and achieve a predictable result (preventing fetal exposure to the drug). Pet. 36–41 (claim chart). We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner approaches this dispute as if the ground set for trial was based on anticipation. Reply 14 (pointing out that Patent Owner’s Response “reads as if [the ground set for trial] was based on an anticipation”). For example, Patent Owner focuses on specific features not present in one applied reference, without meeting head on the question whether all the features would have been suggested by the combined disclosures of the prior art. See Resp. 25–29, 31–32, 36–37 (attacking disclosures of each applied reference in isolation). Patent Owner’s attack on the individual disclosures of Powell, Mitchell, and Dishman is ineffective to counter Petitioner’s evidence that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over the combined disclosures of those prior” slip op. at 22

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “As an initial matter, we determine that Petitioner complies with our rules, and precedent of our reviewing court, by presenting Mann as objective support for Dr. Fudin’s opinion testimony. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (opinion testimony that does not disclose underlying facts “is entitled to little or no weight”); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (lack of objective support for expert opinion “may render the testimony of little probative value in a validity determination”). We have considered, but find unpersuasive, Patent Owner’s counterview that the Board should disregard Mann because, according to Patent Owner, the reference is directed “to teratologists or reproductive toxicologists, not pharmacists or [] those focusing on risk management.” Resp. 44. Patent Owner’s position on that point is not persuasive in view of Patent Owner’s own prior reliance on information supplied by teratologists in connection with the controlled distribution of thalidomide. Reply 16–17 (citing Ex. 2094, 7, 130, 137). Taking account of the full record developed during trial, we credit Dr. Fudin’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the desirability of identifying a subpopulation of male patients in view of Mann. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 95–98. We are persuaded that Mann reveals the state of the art at the time of the invention, and supports Dr. Fudin’s testimony that an ordinary artisan would have 7 Passage of Chemicals into Human and Animal Semen: Mechanisms and Significance, Thaddeus Mann and Cecelia Lutwak-Mann, CRC Critical Reviews in Toxicology (1982) 11:1, 1–14 (Ex. 1018, “Mann”). understood the necessity of counseling males, capable of impregnating females, about the risks that attend fetal exposure to a teratogenic drug. Pet. 23 (quoting Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 95–98 (citing Ex. 1018, 7–8) (Mann, suggesting that thalidomide was known to become “strongly adsorbed by spermatozoa” and adversely affect the pregnancy in female rabbits mated to males that were administered thalidomide prior to conception)). We have considered, but are not persuaded by, Patent Owner’s counterview that one would not have considered Mann’s discussion of rabbit sperm to apply to human sperm. Resp. 44–45. As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner previously admitted that studies relating to rabbit sperm were relevant to evaluating the effects of thalidomide on human sperm. Reply 17 (citing Ex. 2064, 951). Dr. Fudin’s opinion—that it would have been “apparent that the sperm of male patients could be damaged by teratogenic drugs and consequently result in birth defects, if the male was to impregnate a female”—is supported by objective factual evidence, namely, Mann. Pet. 23 (quoting Ex. 1002 ¶ 96) (citing Ex. 1018, 7–8)). We recognize that Powell’s Patient Information Sheet, under a heading relating to “side effects,” contains this statement: “No effects on male sperm are recognized.” Ex. 1005, 903; Resp. 45. That isolated statement in Powell, standing alone, does not defeat the sufficiency of Petitioner’s evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the sperm of male patients, treated with teratogenic drugs, could result in birth defects. Pet. 23 (quoting Ex. 1002 ¶ 96) (citing Mann (Ex. 1018, 7–8)). Significantly, the statement in Powell is preceded by a discussion of the necessity of using “adequate contraception throughout the duration of thalidomide therapy.” Ex. 1005, 903. When read in the context of the surrounding disclosure, Powell suggests that no contraceptive “effects on male sperm are recognized” as a side effect of thalidomide therapy. Id.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 6,045,501 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,045,501
• Avx Corporation v. Greatbatch, Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 20, 2016 · IPR2015-00908 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9, 11–22, 24–34, and 36–38 are unpatentable, and the motion to amend is denied, because Stevenson anticipates the claims.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner contends that the relevant field is more specific and narrower than filter capacitors and requires knowledge of electromagnetic interference (EMI) filtering and implantable medical devices (IMDs) and that Petitioner’s declarant lacks such knowledge. Prelim. Resp. 27–30. On the present record, we determine a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, chemistry, and/or physics, along with several years of relevant applied research or industry work experience in the field of filter capacitors, including electromagnetic interference (EMI) filtering and implantable medical devices (IMDs). Our conclusion is supported by Petitioner’s asserted prior art references, which disclose filter capacitors for electromagnetic interference (EMI) filtering and implantable medical devices (IMDs). Ex. 1002, 1:17–24; Ex. 1003, 1:9–14; Ex. 1004, 1:12–21. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art, itself, can reflect the level of skill in the art). On the present record and based upon the stated qualifications of Petitioner’s declarant, Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 2–5; Ex. 1008, we consider Petitioner’s declarant qualified to opine from the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art regarding Petitioner’s asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Wolf’s ground plates 132, 134, and 136 were known alternatives for providing conductive coupling between the interior and peripheral edge of a component in a capacitor assembly. Ex. 1007 ¶ 47; Ex. 1003, 9:17–21, 5:62–6:11, 12:40–61, Figs. 20 and 21; Ex. 1004, 3:64–4:3, 6:66–7:10, 8:38– 42, Fig. 5. We credit the unrebutted testimony of Mr. Galvagni that substituting Wolf’s ground plates for the ground plane of Brendel provides the predictable result of creating a path to ground for the filtering of unwanted signals from the terminal pin of a feedthrough assembly. Ex. 1007 ¶ 48; Ex. 1004, 4:48–56, 7:11–16, 8:28–32; KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“[W]hen a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.” (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976))). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute Wolf’s ground plates for Brendel’s ground plane to avoid manufacturing complexity. Ex. 1007 ¶ 46. More particularly, the unrebutted testimony of Mr. Galvagni establishes that ground plates having a flat profile, as disclosed in Wolf, are more readily manufactured than a ground plane that needs to be sputtered or plated into a small hole for receiving a ground pin, as disclosed in Brendel. Ex. 1007 ¶ 49; compare Ex. 1003, 7:22–32, 12:40–61, Fig. 21 (showing ground plane 430 that has been sputtered into counter-bored hole for receiving ground pin), with Ex. 1004, 9:53–65, 10:19–24, 10:35–40 (describing steps S104 and S114 for forming flat conductive layers). Thus, the evidence establishes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have seen a benefit” to making the substitution proposed by Petitioner. KSR, 550 U.S. at 424.” slip op. at 24

  • BurdenDecided for petitioner

    “Based on the foregoing, we find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Stevenson discloses every element of the challenged claims, arranged as set forth in the claims. See Connell v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“Anticipation requires the presence in a single prior art disclosure of all elements of a claimed invention arranged as in the claim.”). Patent Owner does not present any persuasive argument or objective evidence to refute Petitioner’s showing that claims 1–9, 11–22, 24–34, and 36–38 of the ’076 patent are anticipated by Stevenson. See Paper 13. 3 The identification of this layer by the identifier 282 in Figure 71 appears to be a typographical error. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–9, 11–22, 24–34, and 36–38 of the ’076 patent are anticipated by Stevenson.” slip op. at 16

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

    “Based on the foregoing, we find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Stevenson discloses every element of the challenged claims, arranged as set forth in the claims. See Connell v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“Anticipation requires the presence in a single prior art disclosure of all elements of a claimed invention arranged as in the claim.”). Patent Owner does not present any persuasive argument or objective evidence to refute Petitioner’s showing that claims 1–9, 11–22, 24–34, and 36–38 of the ’076 patent are anticipated by Stevenson. See Paper 13. 3 The identification of this layer by the identifier 282 in Figure 71 appears to be a typographical error. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–9, 11–22, 24–34, and 36–38 of the ’076 patent are anticipated by Stevenson.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 7,035,076 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,035,076
• ZTE USA, Inc. v. Saint Lawrence Communications LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Sep 14, 2016 · IPR2016-00705 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Ozawa did not show the required comparison of pitch prediction errors across signal paths, and the obviousness grounds did not cure that deficiency.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). We have reviewed the Petition and supporting declaration of Dr. Johnson, and these materials do not contain adequate support for Petitioner’s assertion that Ozawa discloses the “a selector for comparing the pitch prediction errors calculated in said at least two signal paths” limitation of claim 1, or the “comparing the pitch prediction errors calculated in said at least two signal paths” limitation of claim 55. Petitioner asserts that “vector selector 22 selects one of the candidate code vectors and one of the gain code vectors that minimize the distortion [i.e., pitch prediction error].” Pet. 18. Petitioner, however, does not cite persuasive evidence that Ozawa discloses calculating the distortion of a pitch codevector in each of at least two signal paths, or that Ozawa’s vector selector 22 performs a comparison between distortions calculated in at least two signal paths. See Pet. 17–19, 37–40, 58. Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Johnson, testifies that vector selector 22 performs one type of comparison “during mode 1, 2, or 3,” and a different type of comparison “during mode 0.” See Ex. 1036 ¶ 98 (citing Ex. 1006, 6:21–40). Dr. Johnson, however, does not offer persuasive testimony or evidence that Ozawa discloses a comparison between distortions (i.e., pitch prediction errors) that were calculated in two different modes (i.e., signal paths). See Ex. 1036 ¶¶ 96–101, 145–147. For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner has not made an adequate showing that Ozawa discloses the “a selector for comparing the pitch prediction errors calculated in said at least two signal paths” limitation of claim 1, or the “comparing the pitch prediction errors calculated in said at least two signal paths” limitation of claim 55. Accordingly, the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on its anticipation challenge to independent claims 1 and 55. For the same reasons, the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on its anticipation challenge to dependent claims 2, 5, 7, 8, 56, 59, and 62, all of which depend from either claim 1 or claim 55. 3.” slip op. at 15

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

    “is . . . used for selecting a single path used for the computation of the codevector distortions” (i.e., the Petitioner-identified pitch prediction error).” Prelim. Resp. 27. “In other words, Ozawa does not calculate pitch prediction errors for subframes for each of the different modes [paths] and select the mode [path] with the lowest calculated pitch prediction error,” as required by independent claims 1 and 55. Id. (emphasis added). On this record, we find Patent Owner’s argument to be persuasive.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “Obviousness of Claims 6, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44, and 60 over Ozawa, G.729, and/or Ordentlich Claims 6, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44, and 60, all depend from either claim 1 or claim 55, and Petitioner’s obviousness arguments regarding these claims all rely on Petitioner’s assertion that Ozawa discloses all limitations of claims 1 and 55. See Pet. 24, 27, 35, 41– 60. Petitioner does not argue that G.729 and Ordentlich individually or collectively cure the deficiencies discussed above in Petitioner’s argument with respect to claims 1 and 55. See id. Accordingly, the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on its obviousness challenges to dependent claims 6, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44, and 60.” slip op. at 16

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,260,521
• The Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd. / Apple Inc. et al. v. Virnetx Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 9, 2016 · IPR2015-01047 · APJ Stephen C Siu · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 6–8, and 12–14 are unpatentable as anticipated by Kiuchi; the Board also addressed obviousness grounds but did not need to rely on the additional references.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Claim 1 recites a DNS request. The DNS request is “sent by a client,” potentially “corresponds to a secure server,” and may result in any one of a return of an IP address of a nonsecure computer or the initiation of an encrypted channel between the client and the secure server. Claim 1 does not appear to recite any other specific features of the DNS request.” slip op. at 6

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “We are cautioned by the Federal Circuit that, with respect to secondary considerations alleged by Patent Owner in response to a prima facie showing of obviousness, “the obviousness inquiry centers on whether ‘the claimed invention as a whole’ would have been obvious.” WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., Appeal Nos. 2015-1038, 2015-1044, slip op. at 15 (Fed. Cir., July 19, 2016). Looking at the “claimed invention as a whole,” we note that claim 1, for example, recites a data processing device that determines whether an intercepted DNS request corresponds to a secure server, forwards the DNS request to a DNS function that returns an IP address of a nonsecure computer (when the intercepted DNS request does not correspond to a secure server), and automatically initiating an encrypted channel between the client and the secure server when the intercepted DNS request corresponds to a secure server. As previously discussed in the record, Kiuchi discloses these features, either taken separately or as a “whole.” Patent Owner does not indicate a portion of the “whole” of the claimed invention that Kiuchi supposedly does not disclose. Not having identified sufficiently a part of the “whole” of the claimed invention that Kiuchi does not disclose, we conclude that Kiuchi discloses the “whole” of the claimed invention. Therefore, Patent Owner fails to show a nexus to its evidence of secondary considerations. While Patent Owner argues that DARPA-sponsored entities were supposedly unable to provide “the ease of use of the solutions provided in the claimed inventions of the ’151 patent,” Patent Owner does not demonstrate persuasively and with credible evidence that Kiuchi, for example, was also unable to provide “the ease of use of the solutions provided in the claimed inventions of the ’151 patent.” As previously discussed, Kiuchi appears to have succeeded in providing such solutions.” slip op. at 18

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

    “preponderance of the evidence that RFC 1034 or [Rescorla] qualifies as a ‘printed publication.’” PO Resp. 40. The determination of whether a given reference qualifies as a prior art “printed publication” involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public. In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). On its face, RFC 1034 is a dated “Request for Comments” from the “Network Working Group,” discussing generally known methods for responding to a query from a client. Ex. 1005, 4. On its face, Rescorla is a dated “Internet-Draft” from the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and described as a “draft document[] valid for . . . six months.” Ex. 1004, 1. Moreover, RFC 1034 explicitly states that “[d]istribution of this memo is unlimited.” Ex. 1005, 1. These indicia suggest that it is more likely than not that both documents were made available to the public (over the Internet). To bolster its showing, Petitioner provides evidence suggesting that RFC 1034 and Rescorla would have been accessible to the interested public. For example, Petitioner provides testimony of Dr. Roch Guerin who explains that “Request for Comment” documents or “RFCs’ or ‘Internet- Drafts’ are “publications [that] are prepared and distributed” and “can be obtained from a number of Internet hosts using . . . document-retrieval systems.” Ex. 1003, 46. Dr. Guerin also testifies that such documents are “published and widely distributed” for “a period for others to provide comments on the document” and that the “publication date of each RFC is contained in the RFC, . . . in the top right corner of the first page of the document [which is] the date it was released for public distribution on the Internet.” Ex. 1003, 44. Ex. 1003 47–48.” slip op. at 24

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner argues that “Petitioner Black Swamp was improperly joined to the 01047 proceeding” because “[e]xpert testimony was required in this case given the complexity of the technology at issue” and Black Swamp supposedly failed to file this allegedly “required” expert testimony. This argument was previously raised by Patent Owner and previously addressed. IPR2016-00167 Prelim. Resp. 7–10; IPR2016-00167 Dec. Inst. 4–5; Paper 38, 3–4; Paper 42, 2–3. We remain unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s re-iterated arguments for at least the reasons previously provided. In response to the question of whether Petitioner is required to rely on expert testimony for purposes of institution, Patent Owner now states that “the Federal Circuit” has held that “Petitioner has both the ‘initial burden of production’ and ‘the burden of persuasion to prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.” PO Resp. 40. Patent Owner, however, does not explain the relevance of this statement, even if assumed to be true, to whether or not a Petitioner is required to rely on expert testimony for purposes of institution. We remain unpersuaded by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 7,490,151 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,490,151
• Lower Drug Prices For Consumers, LLC v. Forest Laboratories Holdings LimitedInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jul 1, 2016 · IPR2016-00379 · APJ Tina E Hulse · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution for claims 1–6 under § 325(d), finding substantially the same prior art and arguments had been presented during prosecution.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “the Petition under § 325(d) because Petitioner’s obviousness challenge is based on (i) the same primary reference addressed during prosecution, including by the Board in an appeal; and (ii) the same arguments regarding that primary reference and how it allegedly would have been modified. Prelim. Resp. 56–60. Upon reviewing the Petition, Preliminary Response, and the prosecution history of the ’040 patent, we agree. During prosecution, the examiner rejected the claims as obvious over Van Lommen. Here, Petitioner also relies primarily on Van Lommen to argue the claims are obvious. We, therefore, find that substantially the same prior art was previously presented to the Office. We also find that substantially the same arguments were previously presented to the Office, including to the Board. Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have selected Compound 84 of Van Lommen as a base compound for investigation and would have been motivated to stereochemically separate the stereoisomers of Compound 84 using the chromatography techniques disclosed in the secondary prior art references. Pet. 33. As Patent Owner notes, however, the examiner repeatedly stated that “the skilled artisan would have seen optical isomer separation as a routine procedure leading to the compounds claimed herein.” Prelim. Resp. 57 (citing Ex. 1002, 48, 73, 88, 113). Thus, Petitioner asserts substantially the same argument that the examiner asserted during prosecution.” slip op. at 9

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

    “The claims recite a composition “consisting of” the claimed compound. The parties agree that the transitional phrase “consisting of” is a term of art in patent law that “closes” the claim and excludes other elements, steps, or ingredients not specified in the claim. Pet. 29–30; Prelim. Resp. 23. 4 Armstrong et al., Separation of Drug Stereoisomers by the Formation of β- Cyclodextrin Inclusion Complexes, 232 SCIENCE 1132–35 (1986) (Ex. 1007). expected impurities or additional components or steps that are unrelated to the invention. Conoco, Inc. v. Energy & Envtl. Int’l, L.C., 460 F.3d 1349, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we determine that the term “consisting of” does not exclude the presence of ordinary expected impurities or the presence of additional components that are unrelated to the invention.” slip op. at 5

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsOther

    “concluding the applicants’ evidence of unexpected results sufficient, and implicitly finding a sufficient nexus between the evidence and the claimed invention. See In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“For objective evidence of secondary considerations to be accorded substantial weight, its proponent must establish a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the claimed invention.”) (quoting Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). Finally, Petitioner argues that it has submitted “ample evidence” that the compounds of claims 1 and 2 would be the intended and expected result of combining the asserted references, and that claims 3–6 would not be an unexpected result of the suggested combination. Pet. 56 (citing Ex. 1050 ¶¶ 50, 56, 66, 73, 74, 81, 93, 106; Ex. 1052 ¶¶ 60–68, 93, 100). But Petitioner’s cited evidence relates to how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered separating and studying the stereoisomers of compound 84 to be ordinary and routine. See, e.g., Ex. 1050 ¶ 73 (“A POSITA at the time would have had an expectation that this stereochemical resolution could be easily achieved using known and commercially available techniques, without undue experimentation.”); Ex. 1052 ¶ 93 (“[I]t is my opinion that a POSITA at the time of the ’040 Patent’s priority date, would have been motivated to carry out standard new-drug investigation on each of the purified stereochemical forms in order to determine the effectiveness of each stereochemical form, to determine whether the drug could be administered as a racemic mixture or whether a purified enantiomer was required, to determine the interactions between stereoisomers if administered together, and to determine the effective amounts of each compound necessary for treatment of hypertension.”). The Board, however, assumed examiner established a prima facie case of obviousness. Ex. 1002, 199. Nevertheless, the Board still found the unexpected results evidence presented by the applicants to be sufficient. Finally, although the prior panel expressly set forth the deficiencies in the examiner’s position with respect to the evidence of unexpected results, the Petition is silent as to those deficiencies. In particular, Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence to show why an ordinary artisan “would have expected the RSSS stereoisomer to have such [potentiating] properties” or to show “that the potentiating property, described in the declaration, is insignificant.” See Ex. 1002, 200. Because Petitioner has not addressed these issues, we are not inclined to reconsider the Board’s prior decision. Accordingly, under the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that readjudicating substantially the same prior art and arguments as those presented during prosecution would not be an efficient use of Board resources.” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 6,545,040
• Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC / Microsoft Corporation Inc. v. Adc Technology Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 1, 2016 · CBM2015-00026 · APJ Michael P Tierney · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 8–14 are unpatentable under §103 as obvious over the instituted prior-art combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “D. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Garry E. Kitchen, testifies that, based on his experience in the commercial software art, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science or a related engineering discipline or equivalent experience or education. Declaration of Garry Kitchen, Ex. 1011 ¶ 33. Patent Owner does not dispute this recitation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art identified by Mr. Kitchen as it is consistent with the prior art of record. See also Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Not reached

    “Petitioner provides specific constructions for each of the interference means appearing in the dependent claims. Pet. 22–24. Patent Owner disagrees that the dependent claims recitation of interference means requires “additional functional limitations piled on top of the disclosed structure.” PO Resp. 7. Specifically, Patent Owner contends that there is only one construction of interference means, namely that which Petitioner provided with respect to the interference means of claim 8. Petitioner disagrees with Patent Owner and contends that the four dependent claims themselves recite specific functions and must further limit the claim from which they depend. Reply 7. We determine that it is unnecessary to determine whether Patent Owner or Petitioner is correct as to the specific construction of the interference means recited in claims 11, 12, 13, and 14 as the claims are unpatentable under either construction. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 10

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

    “Program, Data and Combination of Program and Data Claim 8 contains the recitation “the program, the data, and a combination of the program and data together.” Petitioner contends that the term should mean “the program and/or the data.” Pet. 28; Reply 9. Petitioner, however, contends that Patent Owner was silent as to the meaning of the term during ex parte reexamination. Pet. 29. Patent Owner generally contends that the claim recitation is definite and requires operations to be performed either on “a program, or on data, or on a combination of the program and data.” PO Resp. 8. We adopt Patent Owner’s construction (operations are performed either on “a program, or on data, or on a combination of the program and data”) as it is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term and appears to be substantially the same as Petitioner’s construction. Reply, 9–10, Ex. 1011, ¶ 54.” slip op. at 11

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “The obviousness-type double patenting rejection does not demonstrate that the earlier filed ’995 patent described the invention, with all its claimed limitations. First, the rejection was based on obviousness, not anticipation. See Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). (“One shows that one is ‘in possession’ of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious.”). Second, the Examiner’s identification of “common subject matter” consists merely of that which appears in the preamble of challenged claim 8. Although the Examiner stated that there was no apparent reason why the present claims were not presented in the earlier application, Mr. Kitchen presents credible testimony that the clock means limitation “for keeping a predetermined time period after said executing means starts execution of the program or data processing,” did not appear in the earlier filed applications and written description support for it was added in the continuation-in-part ’784 application via new Figure 12. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 46–47 and 49; compare Ex. 1001, Figures 1–14, with Ex. 1014, Figures 1–11. Based on the evidence of record, we credit Mr. Kitchen’s testimony as it is consistent with the evidence of record and hold that Petitioner has established that claims 8–14 are limited to the July 2, 1998, filing date of the ’784 application, which resulted in the issuance of the ’520 patent.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 6,193,520 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,193,520

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.