• Innoscience (Zhuhai) Technology Company, Ltd. / Innoscience America, Inc. v. Efficient Power Conversion CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 25, 2025 · IPR2023-01384 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 are unpatentable as obvious over Yoshida and Saxler; the Board did not reach the alternative grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “In light of the record before us, we determine that we do not need to reach a specific finding regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “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)).” slip op. at 13

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

    “In the Institution Decision, we declined to adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of the “side surfaces” limitation and determined that it was not necessary to further construe this term because “[t]he parties do not dispute that the language ‘side surfaces extending horizontally’ encompasses a gate material with sloped side surfaces as depicted in Figure 5 of the ’335 patent.” Inst. Dec. 11–16 (citing Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)). We invited the parties to address this limitation further during the course of this trial, but neither party provided additional evidence or argument regarding the “side surfaces” limitation. Inst. Dec. 16; see generally PO Resp.; Reply; Sur-reply. Accordingly, we maintain our determination from the Institution Decision that we do not need to construe the “side surfaces” limitation. Inst. Dec. 15– 16.” slip op. at 14

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

    “This evidence, particularly the language in the ’335 patent itself, undermines Patent Owner’s argument that “[t]he process for forming gate ledges using separate masks instead of the self-aligned process disclosed in the ’335 patent cannot produce ledges that are ‘substantially symmetric.’” PO Resp. 39 (emphasis added); see also PO Resp. 42–43 (arguing that a gate structure with ledges having substantially equal widths is “not achievable” without using a single photo-mask process). We have considered the evidence presented by Patent Owner and Dr. Schubert in support of Patent Owner’s arguments. PO Resp. 38–43; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 49–51. We, however, are unable to discern sufficient evidence supporting a conclusion that using separate masks cannot produce ledges that are substantially symmetric, particularly when the ’335 patent suggests otherwise. See Ex. 1001, 4:60– 63 (referring only to the “possibility of misalignment”). Even if, as Patent Owner and Dr. Schubert contend, misalignment “naturally” occurs when using a two-mask process, that does not foreclose the possibility that the” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “It is well settled that “[a] reference does not teach away . . . if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not ‘criticize, discredit or otherwise discourage’ investigation into the invention claimed.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Furthermore, “teaching that a composition may be optimal or standard does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 10,312,335 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,312,335
• Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2023-01363 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 10–13 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of Holmberg, Battey, Blankenship, and Cowen.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least 1 year of experience related to communication networks or the equivalent.” Pet. 7. Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–31). Dr. Eldering agrees that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least one year of experience related to communication networks or the equivalent.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 24. According to Dr. Eldering, “[a] person with less relevant practical experience but with additional experience would also qualify.” Id. Patent Owner contends that” slip op. at 9

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

    “Although Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s construction, it contends “the Board need not resolve this claim construction dispute because Petitioner’s proposed grounds 1-5 are all insufficient under either construction.” PO Resp. 19. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and the prior art of record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). For example, we discuss below in Section III.G why we do not reach the claim construction issue presented by Petitioner.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We find that Holmberg expressly contemplates using its wall box within multi-dwelling units, notes that multi-dwelling wall boxes in the prior art were “typically provided” on every floor, and discloses that the multi-dwelling wall boxes would contain optical couplings for each resident on a given floor. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 7, 34; Pet. Reply 8–10. In view of these disclosures, we credit the testimony of Dr. Kiaei that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to use Holmberg’s wall box in multi-dwelling units and would have seen a need to access the area behind spice tray 230 to connect and disconnect subscribers. Ex. 1003 ¶ 92; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 7–8. Moreover, even if Holmberg were limited to mid-span locations and distributing drop cables, as opposed to distribution cables for individual subscribers, as asserted by Patent Owner, Patent Owner does not dispute that a technician would still need periodic access to the area behind splice tray 230 in these mid-span devices. Tr. 38:3–39:1 (counsel agreeing that one would need to access the area behind splice tray 230 in Holmberg, albeit in “rare occasions”); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 90–92; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 7–8. Thus, whether used in the manner contemplated by Petitioner or Patent Owner, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that access to the space behind splice tray 230 in Holmberg would be necessary. With access behind splice tray 230 required, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would have seen a benefit to replacing Holmberg’s fasteners or screws with a hinged connection, such as that disclosed in Battey, to allow easier access to the area behind the splice tray. Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 39 (disclosing that a rotatable splice tray or shelf would “provide[] full and convenient access to the splice tray”)). First, Petitioner and Dr. Kiaei persuasively demonstrate that once the fibers of Holmberg are routed from behind splice tray 230 and the distribution cables spooled on this tray, a technician could not reasonably access fiber optic cables stored behind splice tray 230 without releasing or opening splice tray 230. Pet. Reply 14–15 (citing Ex. 1023, 60:20–61:15); Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 31–32. Second, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that without a hinged connection, the technician would have to either hold the splice tray of Holmberg with one hand while performing the necessary routing and splicing steps, two screws would need to remain in place (essentially replicating a hinge), or the tray would have to be left to dangle, supported only by the routed and spliced fibers. Pet. Reply 19–20.” slip op. at 22

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “Allegedly New Arguments on Reply Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s arguments regarding the benefits of a hinged connection when performing the splicing and routing steps should be dismissed or ignored because they were improperly raised for the first time on reply. Sur-reply 19–20. We disagree. The Petition asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to add a hinged connection, such as that disclosed in Battey, in Holmberg and would have seen a benefit to so doing. Pet. 40–44. Petitioner did not change its proposed combination or its stated rationale in its Reply. Rather, in response to Patent Owner’s counter-arguments, Petitioner expands upon the benefits of its proposed combination, i.e., the substitution of a hinged connection in place of fasteners. Pet. Reply 15–21. This is permissible, as a reply may properly expand on or extend previously raised arguments relating to the motivation to make the proposed changes to the prior art. See Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., 76 F.4th 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (explaining that the reply arguments properly relied on the same legal ground, the same prior art references, and same legal argument—the motivation to make the proposed changes to the prior art reference).” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 9,008,483 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,008,483
• Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01350 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 5–10 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 11–14 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish the claimed capacity retention after 400 cycles.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have held a Bachelor’s degree in chemistry or chemical engineering, with at least 4 years of experience in cell design, electrochemical techniques, and battery materials development.” Pet. 4. Petitioner further contends that a “Master’s Degree can substitute[] for some of the relevant experience,” and “[e]quivalent training with battery specific experience can accommodate other degreed fields.” Id. 9 The parties here do not address objective evidence of nonobviousness. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan. PO Resp. 20. We adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the ’641 patent, the prior art of record, and the parties’ arguments.” slip op. at 6

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

    “The parties agree that the term “charge cut-off voltage” is “the maximum voltage to which the battery is configured to be charged.” PO Resp 21–22; Pet. Reply 1. The parties dispute, however, whether the “charge cut-off voltage” is a “battery property” or “the voltage applied to the battery during charging.” PO Resp. 21–24; Pet. Reply 1–6. We need not resolve the precise meaning of “charge cut-off voltage” because there is no dispute that Yamaki discloses this limitation under either party’s interpretation of the claim term. Upon review of the prior art and the parties’ arguments, we determine that no terms of the ’641 patent require express construction. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))); Pet. Reply 1 (asserting that the challenged claims are unpatentable under either parties’ construction of “charge cut-off voltage”).” slip op. at 7

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

    “Patent Owner’s arguments do not persuasively undermine Petitioner’s position. Sakamoto expressly discloses setting the ratio of negative to positive electrode active material in the range of 1.05 to 1.30. Ex. 1005 ¶ 8. Sakamoto also explains why this range is preferable, i.e., if the ratio is roughly equal “the charge-discharge cycle performance is insufficient due to significant deterioration from charging and discharging,” and if the ratio is 10 Citations to the prosecution history of Yamaki are to the page numbers added to the lower right corner of the document. too high “too much of the compound does not participate in charging and discharging.” Id. ¶¶ 6, 8. These disclosures are sufficient to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the ratios disclosed in Sakamoto in Yamaki. Id. ¶ 8 (providing a secondary battery with a capacity ratio between 1.05 and 1.30 and noting that by setting the ratio within this range the resulting secondary lithium battery is “safe due to low risk of heat being generated and an explosion occurring”). We also disagree that Sakamoto teaches away from elevated voltages or from increasing the amount of lithium in circulation. See PO Resp. 29. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, Sakamoto provides no general teaching against using a charge cut-off voltage above 4.2 V, or against increasing the level of lithium in circulation. Nor does Sakamoto “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” the claimed invention. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Rather, Sakamoto warns against setting the reversible capacities of the positive and negative electrode substantially equal as this may result in excess lithium plating on the surface of the electrode. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 8. We agree with Petitioner that this disclosure would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to design a battery with a higher capacity in the negative electrode active material than the positive electrode active material. Pet. 11–12.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “We also disagree that Sakamoto teaches away from elevated voltages or from increasing the amount of lithium in circulation. See PO Resp. 29. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, Sakamoto provides no general teaching against using a charge cut-off voltage above 4.2 V, or against increasing the level of lithium in circulation. Nor does Sakamoto “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” the claimed invention. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Rather, Sakamoto warns against setting the reversible capacities of the positive and negative electrode substantially equal as this may result in excess lithium plating on the surface of the electrode. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 8. We agree with Petitioner that this disclosure would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to design a battery with a higher capacity in the negative electrode active material than the positive electrode active material. Pet. 11–12.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,749,641
• Opticis Co., Ltd. v. Inneos LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 29, 2025 · IPR2023-01256 · APJ Terry J Owens · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 9 are unpatentable as obvious over Kurita and Lemoff, with the Board declining to reach the remaining grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “We accept the level of ordinary skill in the art stated by Petitioner and agreed with by Patent Owner with the exception of the open-ended language appears consistent with the ’416 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 7

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

    “describe elements that are not affirmatively recited in the claims, and in view of the “bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent define the invention,” we conclude that none of the unrecited limitations identified by Patent Owner are required by the claims. See Thorner v. Sony Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (explaining that the standard for disavowal is “exacting,” and the use of “the present invention” is not necessarily sufficient to meet this standard).” slip op. at 12

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

    “art would not have modified Kurita in view of Lemoff because Lemoff positions the signal emitters near the fiber to emulate WDM without the need for an external optical multiplexer or a similar device and discourages using optical wavelength multiplexers for short distances because the complexity of the design is often cost prohibitive (PO Resp. 47–48), Lemoff does not appear to limit the usefulness of the fiber connector to any particular optical signal transmission distance. Petitioner relies upon Lemoff for a suggestion to combine Lemoff’s fiber connector configuration teachings with Kurita’s multiplexer teachings to enable fibers to be plugged Fig. 2) (Pet 29, 31; Reply 17–18). Regarding Patent Owner’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Lemoff’s receptacle and ferrule with discrete components in Kurita because the fiber would need to be manually fixed and aligned with or without a ferrule and, therefore, would serve no purpose (PO Resp. 48), Lemoff’s fiber connector appears to fix and align the fiber adequately for wavelength division multiplexing without manual fixation or alignment being required (Ex. 1006, 5:65–6:2, Fig. 2; Reply 18). The challenged claims do not require any greater degree of fixing and alignment than that provided by Lemoff’s fiber connector. Regarding Patent Owner argument that Lemoff’s device is not physically combinable with Kurita’s WDM multiplexer due to Lemoff’s device’s small size (PO Resp. 47–48; Reply 17–18), “[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art” (In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument.” slip op. at 26

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

    “stopped single optical fiber because fixing it in place does not passively align it with the optical components (PO Resp. at 35–37) is not persuasive because fixing Kurita’s fiber (40) in place in accord with Lemoff’s teaching regarding the ferrule (255) inserted until being stopped by the receptacle (260) (Ex. 1006, 5:50–6:15, Fig. 2) would align Kurita’s optical array (20), and lens (30)) (Ex. 1004 Fig. 3) passively in the same manner that Lemoff’s ferrule (255), after being inserted until stopped by the receptacle (260), passively aligns the optical fiber (250) with the optical components (optical imaging element 220 and light emitters within emission apertures 120) (Ex. 1006, 5:50–6:15, Fig. 2; Reply 15–16). Regarding Patent Owner’s argument that the light from each of Kurita’s lasers (11) depicted in Figure 3 cannot pass through a separate focusing lens (30) pie shaped sector because the lasers (11) and collimating lenses (21) are arranged linearly rather than being arranged about a circular axis (PO Resp. at 37–42), we do not agree. Claim 1 requires “focusing means having n separate radial sectors on its surface, and each of said n collimated beams passes through a separate one of said n sectors of said focusing means” (Ex. 1001, 5:34–37), claim 2 requires “four lasers and four collimating lenses are each formed in a two-dimensional, two by two array [centered on the focal axis of lens 30], wherein said focusing means is a single focusing lens, and wherein each radial sector is a pie-shaped quadrant” (id. at 5:41–44), and claim 7 requires “focusing means having four separate quadrants on its surface, and each of said four collimated beams passes through a separate one of said quadrants of said focusing means” (id. at 6:35–38). Kurita meets those claim requirements. Kurita’s two by two array (10A) of lasers (11), collimating lens (21) array (20), and focusing lens (30) are shown in Kurita’s Figure 3 (cropped) as follows: The image is a portion of Kurita’s Figure 3 showing Kurita’s laser array, collimating lens array, and focusing lens (30). Relative to a point at the center of the laser array (10A) or the collimating lens array (20), each laser (11) and each collimating lens (21) is in a separate quadrant that can be a quadrant of a circle (pie-shape) on lens 30 (Reply 12– 13, Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85–91).” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 7,198,416 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,198,416
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2025 · IPR2024-00597 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2–4 and 6–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Abe and Guyomard, with claims 9–10 also obvious over Iwaizono; claims 1 and 5 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Master’s degree in material science, chemical engineering, chemistry, or similar field with four years of experience designing testing, and building secondary lithium batteries.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of “(1) positive electrode materials, (2) negative electrode materials, (3) separators, (4) electrolytes, (5) charge-discharge parameters, and (6) protection circuits, as well as ‘battery failure modes’ such as plating and the formation of dendrites.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 50–51). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 17. Upon review of the prior art of record and the parties’ arguments, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’641 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We also agree with Patent Owner that the charge cut-off voltage is not necessarily the applied voltage during charging. PO Resp. 20. Rather, depending on the charging protocol used and when in the charging cycle the voltage is applied, the applied voltage could be higher than the battery voltage. Ex. 2013; Ex. 2006 ¶ 91. For example, as discussed in more detail below with respect to the Uemura grounds, when fast charging using constant current is used and the charging rate is not slow, the applied voltage will be higher than the battery voltage when the constant current charging phase is stopped. Ex. 2006 ¶ 91; Ex. 2013. Likewise, during constant current/constant voltage charging, the applied voltage approximates the battery voltage only when the battery is nearly completely charged. Ex. 2013; Ex. 2006 ¶ 91. Thus, the applied voltage may be, but is not necessarily, the charge cut-off voltage. In view of the foregoing, we construe “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 as “the maximum value to which the battery is configured to be charged.” PO Resp. 18; Ex. 2008, 217:6–11; Pet. Reply 5. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, however, we do not understand the phrase “configured to be charged” to necessarily represent a single voltage for the battery that is determined based on the structure and chemistry of the battery. Pet. Reply 4–5. Rather, the charge cut-off voltage is a selected potential, or voltage, of the battery or cell at the end of charging that is controlled by a circuit or device, such as a charger or control circuit within the battery. Ex. 1001, 9:50–55; Ex. 1048, 2, 7–8; Ex. 1008, 3:9–13. And, for the reasons discussed herein, the charge cut-off voltage may be, but is not necessarily, the same as the applied voltage during charging. PO Resp. 20.” slip op. at 15

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

    “charge cut-off voltage “greater than 4.2 V but less than 5.8 V” and calculating a specific or theoretic capacity “with a charge cut-off voltage limited to 4.2” (claim 1) or “with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V” (claim 5). Ex. 1001, 16:56–61, 17:6–11. Although the parties dispute the precise scope of these claim terms, the parties agree that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 refers to the potential of the battery as a whole (between the cathode and the anode), and not a half-cell voltage using lithium metal as a counter electrode.10 Tr. 17:1–3 (agreeing 10 With respect to the phrase “as calculated by a theoretic capacity with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V,” the parties in fact appear to be in that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claim 5 refers to a full-cell voltage); Sur-reply 5; PO Resp. 22. We need not further construe the claims to resolve the disputes between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Given Mr. Juzkow’s unambiguous testimony that Uemura uses constant current charging that would stop when the applied voltage reached 11 The chart is reproduced from SAFT, Charging your lithium-ion batteries: 5 expert tips for a longer lifespan, (https://www.saft.com/energizing-iot/charging-your-lithium-ion-batteries-5-expert-tips-longerlifespan#:~: text=When%20the%20battery%20provides%20current,This%20restore s%20the%20battery's%20capacity). 4.3 V, as well as Dr. Yao’s persuasive testimony that Uemura’s constant charging rate is not slow, we credit the testimony of Dr. Yao that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the internal voltage to which the battery of Uemura was charged is less than 4.3 V. Ex. 2006 ¶ 119. In particular, Dr. Yao persuasively testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have believed that the charge cut-off voltage was no more than 4.2 V, and most likely equal to “about 4 V.” Id. ¶¶ 119–122.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,749,641
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2025 · IPR2023-01183 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2–4 and 6–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Abe and Guyomard, with claims 9 and 10 also obvious over Iwaizono; claims 1 and 5 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Master’s degree in material science, chemical engineering, chemistry, or similar field with four years of experience designing testing, and building secondary lithium batteries.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of “(1) positive electrode materials, (2) negative electrode materials, (3) separators, (4) electrolytes, (5) charge-discharge parameters, and (6) protection circuits, as well as ‘battery failure modes’ such as plating and the formation of dendrites.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 50–51). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 17. Upon review of the prior art of record and the parties’ arguments, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’641 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 9

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

    “constructions. First, we agree with Petitioner that the ’641 patent indicates that the charge cut-off voltage selected for a particular battery need not be a fixed property of the battery or something that is set by the design and chemistry of the battery. Consistent with this conclusion, the ’641 patent discloses that a “charging device controls the charge cut-off voltage of the single lithium-ion cell within a range from 4.3 V to 5.8 V.” Ex. 1001, 9:50– 55. This strongly suggests that the charge cut-off voltage is controlled by the charger and is not necessarily an inherent property of the battery. Patent Owner contends that this is merely an unclaimed embodiment, but the relevant disclosure states that the charging device for the “present invention” may be any type of device “with the proviso that said charging device controls the charge cut-off voltage.” Id. at 9:50–53.” slip op. at 12

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

    “charge cut-off voltage “greater than 4.2 V but less than 5.8 V” and calculating a specific or theoretic capacity “with a charge cut-off voltage limited to 4.2” (claim 1) or “with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V” (claim 5). Ex. 1001, 16:56–61, 17:6–11. Although the parties dispute the precise scope of these claim terms, the parties agree that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 refers to the potential of the battery as a whole (between the cathode and the anode), and not a half-cell voltage using lithium metal as a counter electrode.10 Tr. 17:1–3 (agreeing 10 With respect to the phrase “as calculated by a theoretic capacity with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V,” the parties in fact appear to be in that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claim 5 refers to a full-cell voltage); Sur-reply 5; PO Resp. 22. We need not further construe the claims to resolve the disputes between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Given Mr. Juzkow’s unambiguous testimony that Uemura uses constant current charging that would stop when the applied voltage reached 11 The chart is reproduced from SAFT, Charging your lithium-ion batteries: 5 expert tips for a longer lifespan, (https://www.saft.com/energizing-iot/charging-your-lithium-ion-batteries-5-expert-tips-longerlifespan#:~: text=When%20the%20battery%20provides%20current,This%20restore s%20the%20battery's%20capacity). 4.3 V, as well as Dr. Yao’s persuasive testimony that Uemura’s constant charging rate is not slow, we credit the testimony of Dr. Yao that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the internal voltage to which the battery of Uemura was charged is less than 4.3 V. Ex. 2006 ¶ 119. In particular, Dr. Yao persuasively testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have believed that the charge cut-off voltage was no more than 4.2 V, and most likely equal to “about 4 V.” Id. ¶¶ 119–122. Petitioner argues that because the battery of Uemura is charged “to” a maximum voltage of 4.3 V, Uemura discloses the claimed charge cut-off voltage under either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s construction of the term. Pet. Reply 11–12 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 81; Ex. 1044 ¶¶ 56–59). This argument is not persuasive because Mr. Juzkow unambiguously testified that charging in Uemura stopped when the applied voltage reached 4.3 V, and Uemura discloses that the battery was charged “at” a voltage ranging from 4.3 V to 2.0 V, not “to” such a voltage. Ex. 1009 ¶ 81; Ex. 2008, 113:2–13; Ex. 2006 ¶ 119 n.64; Sur-reply 9. In view of the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Uemura anticipates independent claims 1 and 5 of the ’641 patent.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,749,641
• Nespresso USA, Inc. v. K-Fee System GmbHAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 10, 2024 · IPR2023-00485 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 are unpatentable as obvious over the combined disclosures of Yoakim, Jarisch, Rossi, and Castellani.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “have a bachelor’s degree in engineering plus five years of experience in design of mechanical beverage systems, or similar products.” Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 40). In the Institution Decision, we preliminarily determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have a bachelor’s degree in engineering plus five years of experience in design of mechanical beverage systems, or similar products, as well as experience with sensors for recognizing an identifier.” Inst. Dec. 8 (emphasis added). Neither party disputes this conclusion. PO Resp. 9; see generally Pet. Reply. As such, we adopt our preliminary definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan for purposes of this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “designing medical devices and components, and that those experiences represent work designing products similar to mechanical beverage systems, Patent Owner fails to direct the Board to evidence sufficient to establish that this experience, in the aggregate, amounts to at least “five years” or involved “experience with sensors for recognizing an identifier.” Inst. Dec. 8 (adopting Patent Owner’s own proposed definition of one of ordinary skill in the art); see Sur-reply 3–4 (citing Ex. 1066, 34:16–35:9; Ex. 1067, 101:3– 12, 102:20–104:9; Ex. 2017 ¶¶ 3–4, 8–10) (failing to establish adequately, if at all, how Dr. Howle’s qualifications include the requisite minimum five-year period of relevant design experience). Accordingly, we determine that Dr. Howle is not qualified to offer expert testimony from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art in this proceeding.10 See Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 22 F.4th 1369, 1376–77 (Fed. Cir. 2022). The Federal Circuit has explained that “[t]o offer expert testimony from the perspective of a skilled artisan in a patent case,” including the issue of patent “validity,” the “witness must at least have ordinary skill in the art.” Id. (Board’s emphasis). “Without that skill, the witness’[s] opinions are neither relevant nor reliable.” Id. at 1377.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Second, Patent Owner and Dr. Howell assert that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood upon reading the second German application that the capsule features described would be intended to be combinable with each of the described embodiments.” PO Resp. 40; Ex. 2017 ¶ 61. But Patent Owner and Dr. Howell do not explain how a barcode could be used in the devices depicted in Figures 16–18, which place the detection means 2.4.2 on the outer circumference of the flange (not its underside) and rely on toothed-rings physically interacting with either the chamber, retaining arms, or a pinion. Ex. 1047, 12:22–31, 13:8–18. Indeed, the second German priority application explains that means 2.4.2 physically interacts with retaining arms 30 (embodiments of Figures 16 and 17) or a pinon (embodiment of Figure 18), and if means 2.4.2 were not present in these embodiments the capsule would either “drop through into a waste container” or could not be inserted through the insertion shaft. Id. at 12:22– 27, 13:9–12, 13:16–35 (noting that in the embodiment disclosed in Figure 18 a pinon interacts with means 2.4.2 and only when means 2.4.2 “is formed complementary to the teeth of the means” can the capsule be inserted). At no point does the second German application identify means 2.4.2 as a barcode or suggest a barcode could be used as the detection means. The second German application also states that A person skilled in the art is also aware that for example the insertion shaft may also contain a sensor, for example a camera, clear, however, that element 27 is part of the brewing chamber, and not the capsule. Ex. 1047, 12:27–31, 13:5–8, 13:21–26, 15:36. Thus, we are not persuaded that the toothed ring is in fact on the bottom side of the flange. which senses the shape of the means 2.4.2. For example, it would be possible, in the present case, for the shape of the teeth and/or the spacing between the same to be sensed. This signal, in turn, is passed to a control means, which frees, for example, the brewing chamber if the capsule is the correct one. Ex. 1047, 14:11–19. Again, despite using a camera to determine if a capsule is “the correct one,” the second German application does not suggest using a barcode in place of the toothed-ring structure, or suggest moving the location of the detection means 2.4.2 from the outer surface to the underside of the flange. This reinforces that the inventors did not contemplate using a barcode in the embodiments depicted in Figures 16–18.” slip op. at 23

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

    “As asserted by Petitioner, Jarisch teaches how to move a code in a centrifugal brewing system to the bottom of the flange and how to configure a light-conductive material so that the detector’s light source will reach the bottom of the flange. Pet. 48–49; Pet. Reply 23–24 (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 184–185; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 82–84, Fig. 5). And, although Figure 61 of Yoakim discloses a flare in its brewing chamber, bodily incorporation is not required, and we are directed to no persuasive argument or evidence that Yoakim could not be configured with a straight chamber, as generally depicted in Figure 5 of Jarisch. Pet. Reply 24 (noting that Dr. Howle’s testimony on this subject is “conclusory” and depends on “bodily incorporation”). As such, we credit the testimony of Mr. Jobin that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to place the code at the bottom of the flange and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in so doing.17 Ex. 1003 ¶ 184. Patent Owner further contends that Yoakim requires that the capsule holder be capable of receiving a set of multiple volume capsules and that 17 As discussed above, Mr. Jobin has extensive experience in the design of brewing devices. Conversely, Dr. Howle has limited experience in this field and is not one of ordinary skill in the art. Although Mr. Jobin’s testimony is more persuasive regardless of the discrepancy in experience between the two declarants, when this difference in design experience is considered, it only serves to increase the weight we give to Mr. Jobin’s testimony. there is a “snug fit” to avoid “unbalances.” PO Sur-reply 8 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 205, 479, 484, 507, 512). According to Patent Owner, Petitioner does not explain adequately how the use of Jarisch’s “straight chamber” with a capsule holder that does not engage with the side wall of the capsule would allow insertion of the multiple volume capsules or permit a “snug fit.” Id.; PO Resp. 28. Patent Owner’s assertion that Yoakim discloses the use of certain capsules that might not fit into a device with Jarisch’s non-flared structure is ineffective to undercut the sufficiency of Petitioner’s showing on this point. As noted by Patent Owner, Yoakim discloses the use of certain capsules which might not fit into a device with Jarisch’s non-flared structure. But Petitioner is not seeking a bodily incorporation of Yoakim and Jarisch, and other embodiments of Yoakim do not require the type of flared capsule identified by Patent Owner. Ex. 1004, Fig. 63. Moreover, we are directed to no persuasive evidence that Jarisch’s lack of contact between the capsule side wall and the holder would render the device inoperable or even less effective. Id. (citing Ex. 2019, 36:18–37:6; Ex. 1005 ¶ 23 (Jarisch explaining that its device includes a capsule holding means and that the capsule may be successfully driven in rotation). As such, we credit the testimony of Mr. Jobin that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood how to design the chamber of Yoakim to allow reading of a barcode on the underside of the flange and that this design would allow for successfully receiving single-serve capsules and driving them in rotation. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 182–184; Ex. 1005 ¶ 23.” slip op. at 39

  Patent outcomesUS 11,230,430 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,230,430
• Nespresso USA, Inc. v. K-Fee System GmbHAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 10, 2024 · IPR2023-00502 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–16 are unpatentable as obvious over the combined disclosures of Yoakim, Jarisch, and Rapparini.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “To obtain the benefit of the filing date of an earlier application, Patent Owner bears the burden of producing evidence to establish where each limitation of the challenged claims is disclosed in a single priority application. Studiengesellschaft Kohle, 112 F.3d at 1564; NTP, 654 F.3d at 1276. Petitioner identifies limitations of the challenged claims that are missing from each individual German priority application. Pet. 39–42. Patent Owner responds with no evidence or arguments suggesting that the identified limitations are disclosed in a single application. Resp. 10–12. On this record, no challenged claim is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of any of the three German priority applications; therefore, Jarisch qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).” slip op. at 19

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “In other words, even if we accept that Dr. Howle has some experience designing medical devices and components, and that those experiences represent work designing products similar to mechanical beverage systems, Patent Owner fails to direct the Board to evidence sufficient to establish that this experience, in the aggregate, amounts to “at least five years” or involved “experience with sensors for recognizing identifiers.” Dec. 8 (adopting Patent Owner’s own proposed definition of ordinary skill in the art); see Sur-reply 3 (citing Ex. 1066, 34:16–35:9; Ex. 1067, 101:3–12, 102:30– 104:9; Ex. 2017 ¶¶ 3, 4) (failing to establish adequately, if at all, how Dr. Howle’s qualifications include the requisite minimum five-year period of relevant design experience). Accordingly, we determine that Dr. Howle is not qualified to offer expert testimony from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art in this proceeding.12 Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 22 F.4th 1369, 1376–78 (Fed. Cir. 2022). The Federal Circuit has made plain that, “[t]o offer expert testimony from the perspective of a skilled artisan in a patent case,” including the issue of patent “validity,” the “witness must at least have ordinary skill in the art.” 12 To be clear, we are not saying that a witness supplying expert opinions must have satisfied the requirements of the level of ordinary skill in the art on or before the priority date of the challenged patent, which Patent Owner seems to understand. See Sur-reply 4–5. Instead, we evaluate whether Dr. Howle had at least the requisite qualifications of a person having ordinary skill in the art by the time he rendered his opinions. Osseo Imaging, LLC v. Planmeca USA, Inc., Appeal No. 2023-1627, slip op. at 7 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 4, 2024) (“[A]n expert can acquire the necessary skill later and develop an understanding of what a person of ordinary skill knew at the time of the invention,” however, where “the expert was not a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention may well be used during cross-examination to undermine the credibility of the expert.”); see id., slip op. at 5–6 (affirmatively quoting Kyocera). Id. (Board’s emphasis). “Without that skill, the witness’[s] opinions are neither relevant nor reliable.” Id. at 1377. “‘Admitting testimony from a person . . . with no skill in the pertinent art serves only to cause mischief and confuse the factfinder.’” That testimony would ‘amount[ ] to nothing more than advocacy from the witness stand.’” Id. (quoting Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1362, 1364–65 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Alternatively, even if we accept that Dr. Howle possesses “at least five years” of relevant design experience, on this record, we agree with Petitioner that his opinions are entitled to less weight than those of Petitioner’s witness, Mr. Jobin. Reply 27. Unlike Dr. Howle, Mr. Jobin is a designer by profession, with more than 30 years of industry experience. Reply 27 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 5–30). For example, Mr. Jobin designed a home-based beer dispensing system utilizing cartridge identification technologies. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 24). Mr. Jobin also “has substantial experience with sensors for recognizing identifiers.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 19; Ex. 1072, 3712–19, 67:22–70:19). Dr. Howle, by contrast, “has never designed a beverage machine.” Reply 22; see generally Sur-reply (declining to contest that assertion).13” slip op. at 14

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

    “In Petitioner’s contrary view, Jarisch teaches how to move a code in a centrifugal brewing system to the bottom of the flange and how to configure a light-conductive material so that the detector’s light source will reach the bottom of the flange. Pet. 45–46; Reply 21–22 (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 194–195; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 82–84, Fig. 5). Although Figure 61 of Yoakim discloses a flare in its brewing chamber, bodily incorporation is not required, and we are directed to no persuasive argument or evidence that Yoakim could not be configured with a straight chamber, as depicted in Figure 5 of Jarisch. We credit the testimony of Mr. Jobin that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to place the code at the bottom of the flange and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in so doing. Ex. 1003 ¶ 184. For reasons explained above, we assign little or no weight to Dr. Howle’s conflicting testimony because he has little or no experience designing a mechanical beverage system or similar product. See supra 10– 16. Petitioner lays out persuasive reasons why Dr. Howle’s testimony, on this particular point, is “conclusory” and rests on “bodily incorporation” of the references. Reply 24; see id. at 22–24 (pointing out with particularity fundamental flaws in Dr. Howle’s opinions); In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.”); In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”). In addition, Patent Owner contends that Yoakim requires that the capsule holder be capable of receiving a set of multiple volume capsules and that there is a “snug fit” to avoid “unbalances.” Sur-reply 8 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 205, 479, 484, 507, 512). According to Patent Owner, Petitioner does not explain adequately how the use of Jarisch’s “straight chamber” with a capsule holder that does not engage with the side wall of the capsule would allow insertion of multiple volume capsules or permit a “snug fit” in the modified device of Yoakim. Id. at 8–9. Patent Owner’s view that Yoakim discloses the use of certain capsules which might not fit into a device with Jarisch’s non-flared structure is ineffective to undercut the sufficiency of Petitioner’s showing on this point. Petitioner is not seeking a bodily incorporation of Yoakim and Jarisch and, in any event, other embodiments of Yoakim do not require the type of flared capsule identified by Patent Owner. Ex. 1004, Fig. 63. Furthermore, we credit the testimony of Mr. Jobin that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood how to design the chamber of Yoakim to allow reading of a barcode on the underside of the flange. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 187–195. With respect to the argument that the use of Jarisch’s design would not allow a snug fit, we are directed to no persuasive evidence that Jarisch’s lack of contact between the capsule side wall and the holder would render the device inoperable or less effective. Resp. 39–40; see Reply 22 (citing Ex. 2019, 36:18–37:6). Indeed, as Petitioner points out, Jarisch indicates that its device, including its capsule holding means, allows the capsule to be successfully driven in rotation. Reply 22 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 23).” slip op. at 49

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “That argument is not persuasive. A reference need not identify or discuss another prior art patent or application in order for that reference to be deemed relevant or analogous art. Nor do we endeavor to determine why, or why not, a particular reference is discussed in a prior art reference. The analogous art inquiry focuses on reasonable pertinence and involves assessing the similarities between the claimed invention and the prior art, including the problems addressed and the closeness of the subject matter, as viewed by an ordinarily skilled artisan. Donner Tech., LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC, 979 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2020); see Airbus S.A.S. v. Firepass Corp., 941 F.3d 1374, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (relevant analysis focuses on comparing the disclosed embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention to the disclosures of the prior art). Against that backdrop, we reject Patent Owner’s suggestion that the inquiry involves whether the inventors of Jarisch saw a need to discuss Yoakim’s disclosure in Jarisch’s priority document.” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 10,994,923 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,994,923
• Canon U.S.A., Inc. / Canon Inc. v. Slingshot Printing LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 20, 2024 · IPR2022-01541 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 9, 10, 20–22, and 24 are unpatentable as obvious over Hamafuku, Whitman, and Imanaka, with Cleland added for claim 5.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Upon review of the prior art of record, we determine that no claim terms require construction for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Upon review of the prior art of record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the prior art of record, but note that neither party contends the outcome of this case depends on whether a person of ordinary skill could include an individual with a degree in Materials Science.” slip op. at 10

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

    “In this case, there was a known desire to increase nozzle pitch in inkjet printheads, Imanaka’s heater and nozzle configuration had been used in the art to achieve this goal, and there is no suggestion that combining the teachings of Hamafuku, Whitman, and Imanaka was beyond the skill of an ordinarily skilled artisan. See Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Thus, we credit the testimony of Mr. Curley that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to use Imanaka’s heater and nozzle pitch in Hamafuku in order to provide a more compact and higher density printhead. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 404–05. A conclusion of obviousness requires a reasonable expectation of success. Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This inquiry asks whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of combining the references to achieve what is claimed in the patent-at-issue. Id. at 1367. The inquiry does not look to whether unclaimed elements or functions would or would not also be achieved, or whether “one would reasonably expect the prior art reference to operate as those references intended once combined.” Id.” slip op. at 42

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “As noted by Patent Owner, the components of Imanaka are made of silicon-based materials, manufactured using thin film technology. PO Resp. 53–54 (citing Ex. 1008, 6:50–61). We are not persuaded, however, that Imanaka’s preference for silicon-based materials would teach away from, or otherwise discourage, one of ordinary skill in the art from combining Hamafuku, Whitman, and Imanaka. Imanaka does not suggest that failure to use silicon-based materials would result in an inoperable device. Rather, Imanaka states that use of silicon-based materials may “improve the mechanical characteristics” and “reliability” of “the liquid discharge head.” Ex. 1008, 6:50–61. Given the considerable increase in printhead nozzle pitch and print resolution provided by Imanaka’s heater and nozzle pitch configuration, we are not persuaded that a failure to capture the same improvement in mechanical characteristics and reliability from the use of silicon-based materials would prevent one of ordinary skill in the art from implementing Imanaka’s nozzle pitch in Hamafuku and Whitman or counsel against this modification.” slip op. at 41

  Patent outcomesUS 7,152,951 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,152,951
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 7, 2023 · IPR2022-00100 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 8–10 and 15–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Piepgras, Michael, and Butler, with Schultz or Naskali added for claims 16 and 17.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner contends that there is “no meaningful dispute over [the definition of] a POSITA.” Reply 1. We agree. However, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of skill because we are persuaded that it is more consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’583 patent. In particular, Patent Owner’s definition requires experience with LED devices, whereas Petitioner’s definition makes LED experience optional (“experience with LED devices and/or related circuit design”). We note that the outcome of this decision would not have changed had we adopted Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 7

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

    “The parties propose no constructions. Pet. 7; PO Resp 8–9; Reply 1. At institution, we discussed the meaning of the term “array.” Dec. 16 n.12. Patent Owner traverses this construction and submits that “no special construction for ‘LED array’ is needed,” as it does not dispute any limitation reciting an “LED circuit array.” See PO Resp. 9. We agree. Based on our review of the record, no terms need to be construed. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 8

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

    “fails to identify any deficiencies or drawbacks of Piepgras’s two-button remote control because the law does not require Petitioner to identify problems with a reference in order to establish obviousness. See PO Resp. 28–30; In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.”). What the Petition must demonstrate is that there was some reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to combine the elements of the prior art in the manner proposed. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. The Petition provides multiple, persuasive reasons (discussed above) as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to use a touch screen, as disclosed in Butler, to permit user control of a remote control, as disclosed in Piepgras.” slip op. at 21

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues, and we agree, that the Piepgras-Michael-Butler combination discloses that the portable telecommunications device can detect a human touch. Pet. 43. Further, Dr. Baker testifies, and we agree, that a POSITA would have understood that the modified device “would use an LED touch display and thus when touched, the LED(s) of the display would change (e.g., turning on and/or changing interface content).” Ex. 1002 ¶ 141. We credit this testimony by Dr. Baker because it is well-supported by evidence. See, e.g., Exs. 1009 (Hack), 1022 (Gillespie); Pet. 43 (citing same).13 Patent Owner does not offer any contrary evidence that would undermine Dr. Baker’s persuasive testimony that a POSITA would have understood that the modified device would use an LED touch display and that when touched, the LED(s) of the display would change (and thus provide light). See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 105–16 (attacking the sufficiency of Petitioner’s evidence but not disputing Dr. Baker’s core assertion regarding the understanding of a POSITA). It is somewhat ironic that Patent Owner asserts that Dr. Baker’s testimony is “conclusory and not tied to supporting evidence.” Sur-reply 26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 141). In reality, Petitioner supplies ample supporting evidence (e.g., Hack and Gillespie), but Patent Owner denies that we can consider it. See, e.g., Pet. 43 (citing, e.g., Exs. 1009, 1022); PO Resp. 44. Petitioner’s reliance on evidence to show the understanding of a skilled artisan is appropriate because “the obviousness ‘analysis requires an assessment of the . . . background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art.’” Koninklijke Philips, 948 F.3d at 1337. Petitioner does not rely upon references such as Hack and Gillespie to supply a missing claim limitation.14 Rather, Petitioner relies on Butler’s disclosure of a touch screen for this limitation and points to Hack and Gillespie to show that prior art touch screens often included LED displays and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a touch screen would have provided 13 As we explain below, we need not rely on Swartz. 14 For this reason, Petitioner need not have included Swartz, Hack, or Gillespie in its ground listing, and Petitioner need not show a motivation to combine Swartz, Hack, or Gillespie with Piepgras, Michael, and Butler. light based upon detection of human touch. Reply 20; see also Pet. 43. Arendi is therefore inapposite because Petitioner’s detailed explanations and supporting evidence are the opposite of relying on “common sense” as a “wholesale substitute for reasoned analysis and evidentiary support.” See 832 F.3d at 1362.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 10,750,583 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,750,583

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.