• Snap Inc. v. Sanderling Management Ltd.Instituted
  PTAB · Nov 9, 2021 · IPR2021-00778 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–12, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, and 4–12 would have been obvious over Hogeg and claim 3 over Hogeg and Arujunan.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “We agree with Petitioner that this factor weighs against discretionary denial. As Wyze explained, the reason a stay favors institution is because it “allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts.” Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6. Because the [district] court decided an issue that does not overlap with those presented in this proceeding, and the [district] court is not likely to address the obviousness issues before our final written decision (if it addresses the issues at all), the [district] court’s ruling has allayed any concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts between us and the [district] court. Wyze, Paper 14 at 10. The same reasoning applies here. The district court’s judgment of invalidity under § 101 and Patent Owner’s appeal of that judgment virtually assures that the district court will not be considering the same obviousness issues presented in this Petition during the course of this proceeding.” slip op. at 14

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously considered by the Examiner during prosecution of the ’412 patent. There is no dispute that Hogeg was at least considered by the Examiner, even if the Examiner never discussed Hogeg or relied on it in any manner. See Ex. 1002, 63. Although Petitioner correctly points out that Arujunan was not of record during prosecution of the ’412 patent, Petitioner only relies on Arujunan for its challenge to dependent claim 3. See Pet. 10–11, 71. Petitioner relies on Hogeg alone for its challenge to claims 1, 2, and 4–12. See id. at 11. Under these circumstances, we find the first part of the Advanced Bionics satisfied because the prior art before the Examiner was substantially the same as the prior art relied on in the Petition.” slip op. at 22

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

    “review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Section 314(a) of Title 35 of the United States Code provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the briefing thus far, for the reasons below, we determine that the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. We thus institute inter partes review on all challenged claims on all asserted grounds.1” slip op. at 2

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

    “(2) The Remaining Limitations Patent Owner does not offer any arguments specifically addressing the remaining limitations of claim 1 or Petitioner’s reasons to modify Hogeg as proposed. See Prelim. Resp. 18–30; Prelim. Sur-reply. We have reviewed these aspects of Petitioner’s contentions, and determine that the Petition provides a sufficient showing, at this stage of the proceeding, that Hogeg, when modified as proposed, satisfies each limitation and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to modify Hogeg as proposed. For the reasons above, we determine, based on the current record, that the Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in demonstrating that claim 1 would have been obvious based on Hogeg.” slip op. at 40

  § 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,355,412
• Snap Inc. v. Sanderling Management Ltd.Instituted
  PTAB · Nov 9, 2021 · IPR2021-00781 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 3, 18, and 20 were obvious over Hogeg and claims 3, 7, 17, 20, 24, and 34 over Hogeg and …

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “We agree with Petitioner that this factor weighs against discretionary denial. As Wyze explained, the reason a stay favors institution is because it “allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts.” Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6. Because the [district] court decided an issue that does not overlap with those presented in this proceeding, and the [district] court is not likely to address the obviousness issues before our final written decision (if it addresses the issues at all), the [district] court’s ruling has allayed any concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts between us and the [district] court. Wyze, Paper 14 at 10. The same reasoning applies here. The district court’s judgment of invalidity under § 101 and Patent Owner’s appeal of that judgment virtually assures that the district court will not be considering the same obviousness issues presented in this Petition during the course of this proceeding.” slip op. at 14

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously considered by the Examiner during prosecution of the ’986 patent. There is no dispute that Hogeg was at least considered by the Examiner, even if the Examiner never discussed Hogeg or applied it in a rejection. See Ex. 1002, 502. Advanced Bionics Part One asks whether a reference was previously presented to the Office, not whether the Office formed a rejection based on the reference. See Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 7–8 (“Previously presented art includes art made of record by the Examiner, and art provided to the Office by an applicant, such as on an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS).”). Although Petitioner correctly points out that Arujunan was not of record during prosecution of the ’986 patent, Petitioner relies on Hogeg alone for its challenge to claims 1, 3, 18, and 20. See Pet. 11, 18. Under these circumstances, we find Advanced Bionics Part One satisfied because the prior art before the Examiner was substantially the same as the prior art relied on in the Petition.” slip op. at 22

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

    “Based on the current record, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its contention that claim 1 would have been obvious over Hogeg. 3. Claims 3, 18, and 20 Claim 18 is a system claim that recites many limitations similar to those recited in claim 1. See Ex. 1001, 24:55–25:14. Petitioner contends that Hogeg teaches or renders obvious each of the limitations of claim 18, referring back to its arguments regarding claim 1 for common subject matter. See Pet. 59–65. Claims 3 and 20 recite similar features but depend from different claims: claim 3 depends from claim 1, while claim 20 depends from claim 18. See Ex. 1001, 24:3–7, 25:17–21. Petitioner asserts, with detailed citations to the record, that Hogeg teaches the limitations of claims 3 and 20. See Pet. 57–59, 65. We determine, on the current record, that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its contention that claims 3, 18, and 20 would have been obvious over Hogeg.” slip op. at 33

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends, with accompanying declaration testimony, that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree, or the equivalent, in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field, and 2–3 years of experience in research, design, or development of mobile imaging systems and related hardware, software, and firmware, or equivalent experience.” Pet. 21. According to Petitioner, “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience, or more education and less experience, may also meet this standard.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 173–174). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which appears consistent with the record at this stage of the proceeding, including the prior art. See GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner.” slip op. at 26

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,108,986
• Snap Inc. v. Sanderling Management Ltd.Instituted
  PTAB · Nov 9, 2021 · IPR2021-00780 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted review of claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8–16, 18, 19, 21–23, and 25–33 because Snap showed a reasonable likelihood they would have been obvious over Hogeg.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Concerning [1b], Petitioner relies on Hogeg’s system 100, which includes network servers, as the claimed “at least one hardware processor,” and the visual content editing functions stored in Hogeg’s repository 104 as the claimed “one or more digital media content processing functions.” Id. at 28–32. Petitioner argues that Hogeg teaches that its visual content editing functions are “associated with at least one distribution rule defining a sensor data condition” as claimed because a subset of functions are selected and distributed based on sensed conditions such as client terminal location. Id. at 33–41. Turning to [1c], Petitioner argues that Hogeg teaches receiving over network 101 sensor data from client terminals 102 that is determined according to outputs of GPS units of client terminals 102. Id. at 42–46. As to [1d], Petitioner argues that Hogeg teaches distributing digital media content processing functions to mobile devices “based on a match between the sensor data condition . . . and the sensor data of the at least one mobile device” as claimed because it describes sending a subset of visual content editing functions to a client terminal based on matching the GPS data from the mobile device with location information related to the visual editing functions stored in system 100. Id. at 46–50. Finally, with respect to [1e], Petitioner asserts that Hogeg teaches that “the at least one digital media content processing function is configured to be used by an application executed on the at least one mobile device” as claimed because Hogeg describes that its visual content editing function is configured to be used by an app, widget, or add-on in client terminal 102. Id. at 50–52. Further, Petitioner asserts that Hogeg’s content editing function “process[es] a digital media content to create an output digital media content” as claimed because it processes an image on a client terminal and creates a new image, which is a modified version of the original image. Id. at 50, 52–55. Based on the current record, we determine that Petitioner has” slip op. at 31

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied

    “because it “allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts.” Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6. Because the [district] court decided an issue that does not overlap with those presented in this proceeding, and the [district] court is not likely to address the obviousness issues before our final written decision (if it addresses the issues at all), the [district] court’s ruling has allayed any concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts between us and the [district] court. Wyze, Paper 14 at 10. The same reasoning applies here. The district court’s judgment of invalidity under § 101 and Patent Owner’s appeal of that judgment virtually assures that the district court will not be considering the same obviousness issues presented in this Petition during the course of this proceeding.” slip op. at 13

  • Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner

    “We are satisfied that Petitioner has provided an adequate justification for filing two petitions to challenge the ’986 patent. The Board’s Practice Guide notes that a need to address a large number of claims is one example of a circumstance where more than one petition may be necessary. See Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, at 59 (Nov. 2019). Beyond the number of challenged claims, it is reasonable for Petitioner to question how it could effectively challenge in a single petition a claim set that, by itself, fills out 10% of the permissible word count. Finally, Petitioner shows that the two petitions have been structured in a way to minimize the burden on the Board and Patent Owner, by presenting a small number of grounds with consistent arguments that rely on the same art. See, e.g., Google LLC v. Jenam Tech, LLC, IPR2021-00629, Paper 11 at 9 (PTAB Sept. 20, 2021) (finding that Petitioner had provided a satisfactory explanation for filing two petitions against a single patent because “[e]ach petition challenges different claims and presents only one ground against each claim,” as opposed to “a situation where a petitioner is using two petitions to lodge multiple parallel challenges to the same claims”).” slip op. at 19

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

    “Based on our review of the current record, we find that Petitioner has shown that the Examiner erred in failing to reject the claims based on Hogeg. As noted previously, the prosecution history of the ’986 patent includes no analysis or discussion of Hogeg. “[I]f the record of the Office’s previous consideration of the art is not well developed or silent, then a petitioner may show the Office erred by overlooking something persuasive.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10. The Examiner’s explanation of why the claims were allowable over the prior art of record focused on “the combination of distribution rule defining a sensor data condition and sensor data.” Ex. 1002, 498. However, Petitioner provides a detailed discussion of why Hogeg discloses those features. See Pet. 28–42, 44–46. In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not contest Petition’s contentions regarding these limitations (or any other aspect of the merits of Petitioner’s challenges). See Prelim. Resp. 1–16. As discussed below, we determine on the current record that Petitioner establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in demonstrating that the challenged claims would have been obvious based on Hogeg. We also find Petitioner’s showing sufficient to establish that the Examiner erred. The parties’ reliance on the prosecution of related patents involving allegedly similar claims does not impact the outcome of our analysis. See Pet. 17 (mentioning, without elaboration or citation, the EPO rejection of claims); Prelim. Resp. 14–15 (addressing allowance of claims over Hogeg and other material). Because we find that Petitioner made a sufficient showing of Examiner error without relying on the EPO rejection of allegedly similar claims, we need not assess the probative value of the EPO’s rejection, the details of which are not discussed in this Petition. As to Patent Owner’s reliance on the prosecution history of related claims before different Examiners that considered Hogeg and related materials, those arguments do not undermine Petitioner’s showing of Examiner error. First, Patent Owner acknowledges that although the Examiners considered Hogeg, “neither Examiner specifically discussed Hogeg in allowing claims” that were at issue. Prelim. Resp. 15. Second, even if the claims in the related applications are “similar” to the challenged claims, Patent Owner’s briefing does not provide any detailed analysis of the related claims sufficient to determine how the claims in later applications differ from the challenged claims here, and whether those differences are material. See id. at 14–15. Based on the foregoing, we cannot conclude that the Examiners’ allowance of the claims in other applications over Hogeg amounted to a finding that Hogeg fails to disclose one of the limitations in the challenged claims here. Further, even if we agreed that such an implicit finding was made during later prosecution, Petitioner’s challenge based on Hogeg in the Petition provides more compelling evidence of Examiner error than the prosecution of related claims that lack any direct discussion of Hogeg. 5. Conclusion Based on our review of the current record, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that the Examiner erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 23

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,108,986
• Snap Inc. v. Sanderling Management Ltd.Instituted
  PTAB · Nov 9, 2021 · IPR2021-00779 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–11 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Snap would prevail on at least one challenged claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Section 314(a) of Title 35 of the United States Code provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the briefing thus far, for the reasons below, we determine that the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. We thus institute inter partes review on all challenged claims on all asserted grounds. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1354, 1359–60 (2018); PTAB Rules of Practice for Instituting on All Challenged Patent Claims and All Grounds and Eliminating the Presumption at Institution Favoring Petitioner as to Testimonial Evidence (“PTAB Rules”), 85 Fed. Reg. 79,120, 79,120 (Dec. 9, 2020) (to be codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 42) (“[T]he Board will either institute review on all of the challenged claims and grounds of unpatentability presented in the petition or deny the petition.”).” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “We agree with Petitioner that this factor weighs against discretionary denial. As Wyze explained, the reason a stay favors institution is because it “allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts.” Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6. Because the [district] court decided an issue that does not overlap with those presented in this proceeding, and the [district] court is not likely to address the obviousness issues before our final written decision (if it addresses the issues at all), the [district] court’s ruling has allayed any concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts between us and the [district] court. Wyze, Paper 14 at 10. The same reasoning applies here. The district court’s judgment of invalidity under § 101 and Patent Owner’s appeal of that judgment virtually assures that the district court will not be considering the same obviousness issues presented in this Petition during the course of this proceeding.” slip op. at 15

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously considered by the Examiner during prosecution of the ’866 patent. There is no dispute that Hogeg was at least considered by the Examiner, even if the Examiner never discussed Hogeg or relied on it in any manner. See Ex. 1002 at 132. Although Petitioner correctly points out that neither Svendsen nor Arujunan was of record during prosecution of the ’866 patent, Petitioner only relies on those references for its challenges to dependent claims 3 and 11. See Pet. 63–77. Petitioner relies on Hogeg alone for its challenge to claims 1, 2, and 4–10. See Pet. 27–63. Under these circumstances, we find the first part of the Advanced Bionics satisfied because the prior art before the Examiner was substantially the same as the prior art relied on in the Petition.” slip op. at 23

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends, with accompanying declaration testimony, that a person having ordinary skill in the art “at the time of the alleged invention would have had at least a bachelor’s degree, or the equivalent, in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field, and 2–3 years of experience in research, design, or development of mobile imaging systems and related hardware, software, and firmware, or equivalent experience.” Pet. 23–24. According to Petitioner, “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience, or more education and less experience, may also meet this standard.” Pet. 24 (citing Parulski Decl. ¶¶ 186–187). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which appears consistent with the record at this stage of the proceeding, including the prior art. See GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner.” slip op. at 27

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,639,866
• BJ Energy Solutions, LLC v. Yantai Jereh Petroleum Equipment & Technologies Co., Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 7, 2021 · PGR2021-00060 · APJ Ryan H Flax · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show claims 1–7 likely unpatentable, and a possible § 112(a) issue for claims 8–9 did not justify instituting on all claims and grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “not demonstrated with particularity that it is more likely than not that most claims challenged in the petition are unpatentable under the asserted grounds. Although there is a reasonable argument that claims 8 and 9 may be unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as discussed above, this analysis is applicable to only these two dependent claims under a single ground for unpatentability, leaving Petitioner’s other ten grounds insufficient regarding independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2–7. As discussed above, instituting trial under these circumstances would not be an efficient use of the Board’s or the parties’ time and resources. See Chevron, IPR2018- 00923, Paper 9, 10–11; Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR2018-01310, Paper 7, 41–43 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (informative). Our decision at this stage derives from our review of the record presented. In accordance with the Court’s decision in SAS (138 S. Ct. at 1359– 60) and Office guidance, we deny institution of a post-grant review of the challenged claims of the ’631 patent on any grounds alleged by Petitioner. This decision does not reflect a final determination on the patentability of any claim.” slip op. at 66

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied

    “Even when a petitioner satisfies the minimum statutory institution standard (e.g., demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to one or more claims in an inter partes review or that it is more likely than not that at least one claim is unpatentable in a post-grant review), institution of review remains discretionary. SAS Inst. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (2018); Harmonic, Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“First of all, the PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding.”). Under such circumstances, the Board takes into account other considerations, including efficiency and fundamental fairness for all parties. See Adaptics Limited v. Perfect Co., IPR2018-01596, Paper 20 at 17 (PTAB Mar. 6, 2019) (informative); Chevron Oronite Co. LLC v. Infineum USA L.P., IPR2018-00923, Paper 9 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2018) (informative); see also Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 84 FR 64280, 53– 63 (2019) (addressing various considerations at institution phase, including efficiency and fundamental fairness for all parties).1 We conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated in the petition that it is more likely than not that challenged claims 1–7 are unpatentable under any asserted grounds for unpatentability. Although it is a closer question as to whether Petitioner has demonstrated it is more likely than not that dependent claims 8 and 9 are unpatentable based on a single asserted unpatentability ground under § 112, we determine based on the record here that instituting a trial with respect to all challenged claims under all eleven asserted grounds for unpatentability is not an efficient use of the Board’s or the parties’ time and resources. Therefore, we do not institute post-grant review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324. See SAS, 138 S. Ct. at 1359–60 (requiring institution on all claims, if any); see also Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 55 (providing guidance in view of SAS).” slip op. at 2

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

    “to read the concept of “flush with” into the claims. We agree with Petitioner’s position that such an interpretation is not supported by the ’631 patent’s written description, which illustrates and describes two embodiments, each having a turbine engine and reduction gearbox configured to be flush with one another, but refers to only the configuration of Embodiment 1 as being “directly connected” and refers to the configuration of Embodiment 2 as being merely “connected.” See Ex. 1001, 5:27–28, 5:62–6:2, Figs. 2, 3; see also Ex. 2001 ¶ 63 (Patent Owner’s expert witness confirming there is a difference between merely “connected” and “directly connected”). Thus, the intrinsic record supports a conclusion that the concept of “directly connected” is not related to whether one component is “flush with” another component. This disclosure of the ’631 patent also illuminates the meaning of “directly connected.” As shown in Embodiment 2, something may be connected with another thing even if there are intervening components, e.g., a transmission shaft or coupling; however, as shown in Embodiment 1, the ’631 patent uses the term “directly connected” only where no such intervening components are disclosed. Ex. 1001, 5:15– 6:19, Figs. 2, 3. Besides the guidance provided with respect to the embodiments discussed above, the ’631 patent does not otherwise expressly define the term “directly connected.” See generally Ex. 1001. Thus, we consider what the ordinarily skilled artisan would consider to be its ordinary and customary meaning. In this respect, Patent Owner also uses the word “uninterrupted” to describe “directly connected.” See Prelim. Resp. 6; see also Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 61–71. We conclude based on this record that the concept of “uninterrupted” is more apt than the concept of “flush with,” and find it to be a better description for the ordinary and customary meaning of “directly connected.” For example, the ’631 patent describes, in Embodiment 1, “the turbine engine 19 is connected to the plunger pump 18.” Ex. 1001, 5:26–27 (emphasis added). However, it is without question that Embodiment 1 positions a reduction gearbox between the turbine engine and plunger pump; thus, the engine and pump may be connected, but they are not directly connected. See, e.g., Fig. 2. On the other hand, regarding this same Embodiment 1, the ’631 patent describes that “the turbine engine 19 is directly connected to an input end of the reduction gearbox 24,” and there are no components illustrated or described as being between the turbine engine and reduction gearbox. Id. at 5:28–30 (emphasis added), Fig. 3. The connection between the turbine engine and reduction gearbox shown in Embodiment 1 is more aptly described as being uninterrupted. Thus, this illuminates the meaning of “directly connected.” In view of the above, we ascribe to the term “directly connected” its ordinary and customary meaning as it would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, and we find that ordinary and customary meaning to require that the turbine engine and reduction gearbox are connected with nothing intervening there-between so that their connection is uninterrupted.” slip op. at 29

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

    “Petitioner’s evidence shows that the Apollo 1 apparatus has two gearboxes and a clutch between its turbine engine and plunger pump, thus the Apollo 1 does not meet the claim limitation “the plunger pump is a plunger pump integrated with a reduction gearbox, the turbine engine is directly connected to an input end of the reduction gearbox integrated on the plunger pump.” Ex. 1001, 6:51–54. Petitioner’s Exhibit 1017 is explained by Mr. Zhang11 as having these two gearboxes and clutch, where at least one of the gearboxes and the clutch forecloses the system from having a single reduction gearbox that is both integrated on a pump and directly connected to a turbine engine. Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 8–12. Petitioner presents no evidence contradicting Mr. Zhang’s understanding of the Apollo 1 configuration and, notably never attempted to explain exactly what is shown in the above-reproduced photograph from its own Exhibit 1017, even when given the opportunity to address Mr. Zhang’s testimony in its Reply. See generally Reply.” slip op. at 50

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,865,631
• Precision Planting, LLC / Agco Corp. v. Deere & CompanyNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 11, 2021 · IPR2019-01054 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–9, and 11–20 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish a sufficient rationale to combine Hedderwick, Koning, and Benac.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Critically, neither Petitioner nor Mr. Prairie acknowledge, much less bridge, the gap between Koning’s use of a brush belt with bristles generally facing downward to hold potatoes from above as they lie on a conveying surface, versus the brush belt’s use in the proposed combination to receive seeds that are deposited onto or into the bristles from above. In short, what Petitioner casually calls a “known technique” was not taught or suggested by Koning. Patent Owner explains this issue as follows: Koning does not suggest using a brush-belt for retaining and conveying seeds without a separate conveying member to bear their weight. A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would not predict that Koning’s brush-belt could be used successfully for that purpose because, inter alia, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would not predict that Koning’s belt would successfully receive, retain or convey small seeds on its own due to the unique and unpredictable dynamics of such a belt. Ex. 2203, ¶¶ 136– 138, 164–167. Fundamentally, Koning’s belt, which is intended to steady potatoes while they are conveyed, is not a conveyor belt. Instead, it is a moving belt positioned over top of the potatoes; not intended to support their weight. Petitioners are thus not suggesting using a “familiar element according to known methods” to “yield predictable results.” Cf. KSR, 550 U.S. at 401.” slip op. at 33

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedOther

    “The basis for Mr. Prairie’s opinion, that a seed would be captured by a moving brush belt in the proposed combination, appears to only be the prior art references themselves. Ex. 2193, 214:6–14, 118:7–23. Mr. Prairie testified that he “did not operate a brush belt for this declaration because [he] didn’t feel it was necessary to make my assessments” and he “did not do study or experimentation on a brush belt as I did not feel it was necessary.” Ex. 2263, 79:17–19, 80:2–4. Mr. Prairie’s reliance on the prior art to support his conclusions is unpersuasive because Mr. Prairie does not account for the differences discussed above between the cited references’ usage of brush belts compared to the way it is used in the proposed combination. In particular, as relevant to the discussion here, Koning does not teach using a brush belt to capture seeds that have been released from above. Mr. Prairie does not account for that difference by explaining why an ordinarily skilled artisan would expect Koning’s brush belt to effectively capture and carry seeds released from above, as in the proposed combination.” slip op. at 34

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or a related field; or (2) a master’s degree plus two years of experience in mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or a related field.” Pet. 39 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 21, 22). Mr. Prairie opines this same level of ordinary skill, but adds the additional sentence that such an “ordinary artisan would have been familiar with the mechanics and design of agricultural planters.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 22. Mr. Prairie does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which his opinion is based. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); TQ Delta, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 942 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Conclusory expert testimony does not qualify as substantial evidence.”) (citations omitted). According to Patent Owner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or closely related field, and “about two years of experience designing agricultural products or related machinery in industry or academia,” or, alternatively, “about five years of experience designing agricultural products or related machinery, without a four-year undergraduate engineering degree.” PO Resp. 2–3 (citing Ex. 2203 ¶¶ 47– 52). Patent Owner adds that “[s]uch a person would typically have experience designing projects on a component or small sub-system-level rather than redesigning a larger planting system.” Id. In support of Patent Owner, Dr. Glancey states that Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill is “too restrictive and sets the level of ordinary skill in the art of the ’173 [p]atent too high.” Ex. 2203 ¶ 49. Dr. Glancey provided the following reasons: (1) undergraduate engineering curriculums in place in February 2009 focused on design at the freshman level and continued this focus throughout the student’s degree program, thus avoiding the need for significant post-graduate design experience; (2) masters programs in engineering focus on research for publication in peer-reviewed journals, rather than designing products for industry; and (3) engineering technicians, who may not have formal engineering degrees, “often have years’ worth of relevant hands-on experience” that corresponds to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Id. ¶¶ 50–52. Based on the evidence and arguments of record prior art, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or similar field, and two years of experience designing agricultural products or related machinery, or five years of experience designing agricultural products or related machinery, without a four-year undergraduate engineering degree. To the extent there is any inconsistency, we credit the testimony of Dr. Glancey over Mr. Prairie because Dr. Glancey’s opinion was more supported with more persuasive analysis and reasoning, as summarized above. However, we note that the differences between the parties’ proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art are not determinative. The analysis below would be materially the same under either party’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 16

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

    “We determine that no terms require express construction to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that only claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed and “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 10,004,173 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,004,173
• Precision Planting, LLC / Agco Corp. v. Deere & CompanyNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 15, 2020 · IPR2019-01055 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8, 10, 12–17, 19, and 20 were not shown unpatentable over Hedderwick, Koning, and Benac because Petitioner did not establish motivation to combine or a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “would have had either: (1) a bachelor’s degree plus four years of experience in mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or a related field; or (2) a master’s degree plus two years of experience in mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or a related field.” Pet. 45 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 19–20). In the testimony the Petition cites in support of that proposal, Mr. Prairie lists factors that are typically considered in assessing the level of ordinary skill in the art, and then states “[b]ased on these factors as well as my experience and expertise,” his opinion of the level of ordinary skill in the art is the same as Petitioner proposes. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 19–20. This conclusory testimony is entitled to little weight. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). slip op. at 12

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

    “We determine that no terms require express construction to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim terms need only be construed “to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNot reached

    “Patent Owner counters that Koning does not qualify as analogous art and, relatedly, that judicial estoppel bars Petitioner from contending otherwise. PO Resp. 7–17. Patent Owner further argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have been motivated to combine Koning’s belt with Hedderwick and Benac, and would not have expected that combination to succeed. Id. at 18–33; Sur-Reply 13–19. Patent Owner also challenges the motivation and reasonable expectation of success for the incorporation of Owner argues that incorporating Benac’s paddle wheel would not yield a “nip” as claimed. PO Resp. 49–61; Sur-Reply 29. Patent Owner also submits evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness. PO Resp. 61–98; Sur-Reply 2–10. 2. Motivation to Combine and Reasonable Expectation of Success Of the disputed issues summarized in the preceding section, our analysis focuses on whether an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the references in the manner Petitioner proposes and would have reasonably expected success in doing so. Because those issues are dispositive of Petitioner’s challenge, it is unnecessary for us to resolve the other disputed issues. See, e.g., Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., 963 F.3d 1355, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (affirming Board’s determination that claims were not shown to be obvious because the petitioner had not demonstrated that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the references); Samsung Electronics Co. v. Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC, 925 F.3d 1373, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (determining that it is unnecessary to reach other issues when reasonable expectation of success is dispositive).” slip op. at 22

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

    “between the references’ use of a brush belt as an endless member and paddle wheels versus the proposed combination. Moreover, Patent Owner points out problems ordinarily skilled artisans would have encountered in attempting to combine the references as Petitioner proposes. Petitioner does not persuasively explain how those issues could have been overcome, and instead simply asserts, essentially, that ordinarily skilled artisans could have figured it out. See, e.g., Ex. 1135 ¶ 78 (“[A] person of ordinary skill in the art would have determined through no more than routine experimentation how to orient Benac’s paddle wheel so that it could operate with Koning’s brush belt bristles to pinch seeds from the seed meter.”). It is Petitioner’s burden to establish that ordinarily skilled artisans would have been motivated to combine the references in the proposed manner and would have reasonably expected success in doing so. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Petitioner’s arguments and evidence do not carry that burden.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 9,699,955 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,699,955
• Precision Planting LLC / Agco Corporation v. Deere & CompanyNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 2, 2020 · IPR2019-01048 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not proven unpatentable over Hedderwick and Koning because Petitioner did not establish a persuasive motivation to combine the references as proposed.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Based on the prior art, Dr. Glancey’s opinion testimony and analysis, and providing some, but minimal, weight to Dr. Taylor’s opinion testimony, we determine that the evidence favors Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill, primarily based on Dr. Glancey’s analysis and reasons summarized above. Accordingly, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in a technology pertinent to the challenged claims would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or similar field, and two years of experience designing agricultural products or related machinery, or five years of experience designing agricultural products or related machinery, without a four-year undergraduate engineering degree. A recipient of other academic degrees may qualify as a person of ordinary skill if they have taken coursework or have experience in the pertinent technology. Additional education could offset less work experience; additional work experience could offset less education or coursework.” slip op. at 18

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

    “[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 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)). We determine that an explicit construction of the claims is not necessary for the purposes of determining whether the challenged claims are not patentable. slip op. at 20

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

    “sufficiently persuasive evidence, even in combination, to establish why a person of ordinary skill would have modified Hedderwick by (1) selectively gleaning only a portion of Koning’s conveying system, i.e., belt 44 with bristles 45, (2) selectively excluding Koning’s belt 23, and then (3) modifying Koning’s brush belt by reversing its orientation so that it carries seeds deposited into the bristles, as in the ’906 patent, rather than covering and guiding seeds carried by a separate and distinct conveyor belt, as in Koning. See WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding an absence of a motivation to reverse parts to an orientation that was “totally backwards” from what one of skill in the art would even attempt). Petitioner’s arguments do not acknowledge the different function of Koning’s brush belt, or explain why a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to adapt Koning’s brush belt to such a use and reasonably expect success in doing so. We determine Petitioner fails to meet its burden of providing a sufficiently persuasive explanation or reason for concluding that one of skill in the art would have combined these particular references to produce the claimed invention. “Without any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to arrive at the claimed invention, we are left with only hindsight bias.” Metalcraft v. Toro, 848 F.3d at 1367. “[W]e cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention.” Id.” slip op. at 30

  • ExcludeOther

    “II. MOTION TO EXCLUDE Petitioner and Patent Owner each move to exclude a substantial number of exhibits on a number of different evidentiary grounds. See Pet. Mot. Excl.; PO Mot. Exclude. As our analysis does not refer to any of those exhibits, we dismiss each motion as moot.” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 9,686,906 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,686,906
• Precision Planting, LLC / Agco Corp. v. Deere & CompanyNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 30, 2020 · IPR2019-01044 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Hedderwick, Koning, and Benac because Petitioner did not establish motivation to combine or a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “have had either (1) a bachelor’s degree plus four years of experience in mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or a related field or (2) a master’s degree plus two years of experience in mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or a related field.” Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 19– 20). In the testimony the Petition cites in support of that proposal, Mr. Prairie lists factors that are typically considered in assessing the level of ordinary skill in the art, and then states “[b]ased on these factors together with my experience and expertise,” his opinion of the level of ordinary skill in the art is the same as Petitioner proposes. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 19–20. This conclusory testimony is entitled to little weight. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 12

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

    “construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” See Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,358 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) effective November 13, 2018) (now codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)).6 That standard “includ[es] construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id.; see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). We determine that no terms require express construction to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim terms need only be construed “to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). V. OBVIOUSNESS OVER HEDDERWICK, KONING, AND BENAC” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Glancey, explains that [i]f a wheel is used to load and place seeds within a moving belt with brush hairs, the wheel must be able to disengage from seeds while the seeds remain in between brush hairs. If the wheel maintains contact with the seed after the seed has moved into the brush hairs, the wheel will continue to apply force to the seed and eject or remove the seed from the profile of the brush hairs . . . . Ex. 2200 ¶ 223. Dr. Glancey testifies, credibly, that in Petitioner’s combination, seeds would have been rejected from the belt because, as the paddle wheel rotates, seeds “would be scooped through the belt.” Id. ¶ 225.” slip op. at 31

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

    “way the references use endless members in the form of brush belts and paddle wheels, versus the way Petitioner uses those components in the proposed combination. Contrary to Petitioner’s and Mr. Prairie’s assertions, the proposed combination does not merely apply known techniques to a known device, because none of the cited references use brush belts and paddle wheels in the manner Petitioner proposes. As discussed in greater detail below, Benac teaches that a paddle wheel can be used to ensure that seeds jammed in vacuum holes are released reliably, and then dropped to the ground. Benac does not address brush belts as an endless member and, therefore, does not teach that paddle wheels can be used to guide seeds into the bristles of a brush belt, as Petitioner proposes. See Pet. 64. And Koning does not teach a brush belt that captures seeds released from above, as Petitioner and Mr. Prairie propose. See Pet. 61–62; Ex. 1002 ¶ 104; Ex. 2193, 190:10–191:3; Ex. 2263, 167:21–170:9. Rather, Koning’s brush belt maintains the relative position of potatoes lying on a conveying surface by holding them from above while the conveyor moves them to the furrow. Ex. 1004, 3:16–24, 5:3–14, Fig. 4. Petitioner’s arguments do not adequately account for these differences between the references’ use of a brush belt as an endless member and paddle wheels versus the proposed combination. Moreover, Patent Owner points out problems ordinarily skilled artisans would have encountered in attempting to combine the references as Petitioner proposes. Petitioner does not persuasively explain how those issues could have been overcome, and instead simply asserts, essentially, that ordinarily skilled artisans could have figured it out. See, e.g., Ex. 1135 ¶ 80. It is Petitioner’s burden to establish that ordinarily skilled artisans would have been motivated to combine the success in doing so. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Petitioner’s arguments and evidence do not carry that burden.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 8,813,663 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,813,663
• Precision Planting, LLC / Agco Corp. v. Deere & CompanyNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 30, 2020 · IPR2019-01046 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 3 were not shown unpatentable over Hedderwick, Koning, and Yamahata under § 103 because Petitioner did not establish motivation to combine or a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Based on the evidence and arguments of record, we determine that the evidence favors Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill. Our determination is primarily based on Dr. Glancey’s analysis and reasons summarized above, as well as the prior art of record and the sophistication of the technology of the ’199 patent. We have considered Mr. Prairie’s opinion, but we give that testimony minimal weight due to the lack of supporting explanation. Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Specifically, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in agricultural engineering, or a similar field, and two years of experience designing agricultural products or related machinery. Alternatively, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had five years of experience designing agricultural products or related machinery, without a four-year undergraduate engineering degree.” slip op. at 13

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

    “IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION “In an inter partes review proceeding, a claim of a patent . . . shall be construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” See Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,358 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) effective November 13, 2018) (now codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)).7 That standard “includ[es] construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id.; see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). We determine that no terms require express construction to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim terms need only be construed “to the extent” slip op. at 14

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Ex. 1135 ¶ 51. Yet it is Petitioner’s burden to show motivation and reasonable expectation of success for the proposed combination, not Patent Owner’s burden to show that the prior art demonstrates the futility of the proposed combination. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, Petitioner’s affirmative showing on motivation and reasonable expectation of success for using Koning’s brush belt in the proposed combination is unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above. And Patent Owner’s evidence of difficulties an ordinarily skilled artisan would have expected to encounter in that proposal serves to highlight the issues that Petitioner’s showing ignores. Petitioner additionally contends that Patent Owner’s arguments are based on the erroneous premise that an ordinarily skilled artisan must be able to physically combine the references. See Pet. Reply 7 (citing In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332–33 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). We disagree. Patent Owner’s arguments, summarized above, simply point out that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have expected success in combining the references’ teachings in the way Petitioner proposes. Motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success are properly assessed with reference to the combination as Petitioner has framed it. The Federal Circuit has explained that doing so is not inconsistent with Mouttet. See Samsung, 925 F.3d at 1382–83 (“We will not fault the Board for analyzing Petitioners’ obviousness grounds in the way presented in the Petition.”).” slip op. at 34

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner’s and Mr. Prairie’s analysis does not acknowledge, much less bridge, the gap between Koning’s use of a brush belt to hold potatoes from above as they lie on a conveying surface, versus the brush belt’s use in above.10 During his deposition, Mr. Prairie resisted agreeing that the potatoes are lying on the conveyor in Koning, testifying that he takes from Koning’s description that “they are captured within the belt with brush hairs. And that there is some weight that’s along the conveying member 23.” Ex. 2193, 96:24–99:25. Mr. Prairie testified that he “do[es]n’t believe the brush hairs support the full weight of the potatoes,” but that Koning did not provide him sufficient information to answer whether the conveying member supports the majority of the weight of the potatoes. Id. at 106:22–107:21. In our view, it is clear from Koning’s description that the potatoes lie on the conveyor and the purpose of the brush belt is to maintain their position relative to each other while they are moved by the conveyor. Ex. 1004, 3:16–24, 5:3–14, Fig. 4; see also Ex. 2205 ¶¶ 140–141 (Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Glancey, testifying that a simple mechanical analysis shows that in Koning, about 87% of the potatoes’ weight is supported by the conveying member). Mr. Prairie’s refusal to acknowledge the differences between the brush belt’s function in Koning versus the proposed combination undermines the credibility of his testimony that the proposed combination would have been a simple application of a known technique to a known device. 10 See WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting expert testimony that supported the absence of a motivation to combine: “[I]f I can equate this one to kind of a simple analogy, if you’re trying to build a piece of furniture. What’s a typical thing? You put on a piece of wood. You take a nail, and you hit the nail with a hammer. In control terms, what Mr. Phipps is suggesting is that you put the hammer on the workbench, pick up the piece of furniture and bash the piece of furniture onto the hammer. It’s totally backwards from what I believe one of skill in the art would even attempt . . . .”). have been simple for an ordinarily skilled artisan to adapt Koning’s brush belt for use in the proposed combination, where seeds are deposited onto the brush belt from above—is further undermined by his testimony that he “can’t recall a time where I’ve seen a seed being dropped into a brush belt.” Ex. 2193, 113:5–9; see also Ex. 2263, 81:2–12 (“Q. And you never attempted to drop a seed onto a moving brush belt to see whether that would be inserted into the brush belt, correct? A. As I stated, for the purposes of this case, I did not do any physical experimentation with a moving brush belt as I didn’t feel it was necessary. The prior art discloses sufficient information.”) (objection omitted). Mr. Prairie has “had some industrial design projects where we’ve had to utilize brushes for various applications,” but he “ha[s] not used a brush belt to convey seed.” Ex. 2194, 297:6–16. Mr. Prairie testified that “prior to writing this declaration, brush belt technology was not a specific area that I study, that I was researching.” Ex. 2263, 79:6–9. Indeed, during his initial deposition in this case, the only specific example of a moving brush belt Mr. Prairie could recall seeing was Patent Owner’s ExactEmerge product. Ex. 2193, 108:6–110:10. The basis for Mr. Prairie’s opinion, that a seed would be expected to enter a moving brush belt in the proposed combination, appears to only be Koning itself. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 79–81; Ex. 2193, 116:12–19, 118:7–23; Ex. 2263, 159:5–160:2. When asked at his deposition, Mr. Prairie did not explain any other engineering analysis he performed to make that determination. Ex. 2193, 114:23–117:12. Mr. Prairie testified that he “did not operate a brush belt for this declaration because [he] didn’t feel it was necessary to make my assessments” and he “did not do study or experimentation on a brush belt as I did not feel it was necessary.” unpersuasive because, as discussed above, Koning does not teach using a brush belt to receive and convey seeds that have been dropped onto it from above. Mr. Prairie does not account for that difference by explaining why an ordinarily skilled artisan would expect Koning’s brush belt to effectively capture and carry seeds dropped from above, as in the proposed combination.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 9,480,199 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,480,199

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.