• Arashi Vision (U.S.) LLC (D/B/A Insta360) v. Gopro, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 2, 2025 · IPR2024-01052 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 7–12, and 17–20 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 3–6 and 13–16 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted Watanabe combinations were unsupported.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “cameras.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 36–38). Petitioner further contends “[a]n advanced graduate degree in the disciplines cited above may make up for the work experience indicated above.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute and applies Petitioner’s proposed level of skill. PO Resp. 6. We find that Petitioner’s proposal is reasonable and consistent with the ’832 patent specification and the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). Thus, we apply Petitioner’s proposal in our analysis.” slip op. at 13

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Institution Decision, we construed “determin[ing] a viewing window for the visual content as a function of progress through the progress length” as “requiring determining a viewing window for different times of the video.” Inst. Dec. 21. Neither party disputes this construction. PO Resp. 7; Pet. Reply 1–7. We maintain this same construction.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Thomason are in the same field of endeavor. Thomason describes a camera and method for correctly orientating pictures from the camera. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 1, 2 29–40, Figs. 3a–3b. In particular, Thomason is interested in rotating and cropping images to reduce the effect of poor orientation. Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 2, 34, 36). Pacurariu likewise describes aligning and resizing/cropping of a captured image to correct poor orientation. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 1, 3, 45–56, Figs. 5A–5C. The preponderance of the evidence also supports that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the Pacurariu’s teachings with Thomason to predictably improve Thomason. Thomason teaches correct rotation of video data and makes use of rotation sensor to correct rotated images. Pet. 19–21 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 4, 27, 29, 35; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 76–77). Pacurariu similarly uses sensors and measures tilt angle of the camera. Id at 21–22 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 51–52, Fig. 6; Ex. 1002 ¶ 78). Pacurariu further teaches that its tilt data angle can be stored for each “video frame.” Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 52). Petitioner, with support from credible testimony of Dr. Katsaggelos, explains how the teachings of Thomason and Pacurariu could be successfully combined. Id. at 23 (citing, for example, Ex. 1002 ¶ 81). A person of ordinary skill in the art could have known that Thomason’s system could be improved by saving rotation data for each video frame and correcting images on a frame-by-frame basis. Id. at 23–24. The testimony of Dr. Katsaggelos is credible in this regard. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 80–81. Petitioner and Dr. Katsaggelos explain the references’ teachings and, based on these teachings, assert that a person having skill in the art would have had reason to combine with reasonable expectation of success based on those teachings. Reason to combine may properly come from the references themselves. KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 418 (explaining reason to combine may come from “interrelated teachings of multiple patents”). Based on the evidence presented, Petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Thomason and Pacurariu with a reasonable expectation of success. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 76–81, 89–92; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 4, 8–9, 27, 29, 35; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 26, 41, 46, 51–52, 55–57, Figs. 6, 7.” slip op. at 27

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

    “evaluating nexus between the claimed invention and objective evidence of nonobviousness, also referred to as secondary considerations. Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-01129, Paper 33 at 33 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2020) (precedential). We first consider whether Patent Owner has demonstrated “that its products are coextensive (or nearly coextensive) with the challenged claims,” resulting in a rebuttable presumption of nexus. Id. at 33. If not, that “does not end the inquiry into secondary considerations”; “the patent owner is still afforded an opportunity to prove nexus by showing that the evidence of secondary considerations is the ‘direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention.’” Id. (quoting Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1373–75).” slip op. at 62

  Patent outcomesUS 11,336,832 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,336,832
• Infineon Technologies AG v. Amatech Group LimitedRehearing granted
  PTAB · Apr 3, 2024 · IPR2022-00951 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Rehearing

  On rehearing, the Board held claim 3 unpatentable as obvious over Eray-WO799, revising the final written decision’s outcome for that claim.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted

    “unrebutted expert testimony corroborated by two prior art patents describing RFID smart cards” and that this evidence “demonstrated that a conventional and obvious way to manufacture Eray-WO799’s smart card was by forming a card antenna on a card body before adding the chip.” Req. Reh’g 2 (citing Pet. 39–40; Paper 20 (“Reply”) at 31). Thus, Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that an obvious and conventional way of manufacturing the card body of Eray- WO799 would have had unconnected ends as required by our construction. Id. Paragraph 149 of Dr. van der Weide’s declaration states that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that an obvious and conventional way to construct the smart card as shown in Eray-WO799 FIG. 12 would have been to form the turns S1, S2, SC3 and SC4 on or in the card body (e.g., by laying wire) before connecting the wire to (or forming) access terminals and connecting module M.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 149. In support of that because it was “directed to solving problems that occur during the manufacture of cards.” Dec. 42 (citing Ex. 1028, 1:25–2:53). Petitioner points out that “[w]hile Ryu discloses manufacturing techniques, Ryu also describes and claims a ‘communication system’ with a smart card and a reader.” Reh’g Req. 9 (citing Ex. 1028, code (57), claims 1–2). Petitioner is correct in noting that Ryu’s disclosures are not so narrow as we described in the Decision. As to Finn-089, we found that reference unhelpful because it was “directed to a process for the contacting of a wire conductor in the course of manufacture of a transponder unit.” Dec. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1015, 1:15–17). Petitioner asserts that we failed to acknowledge to the fact that Finn-089 was incorporated by reference in the ’240 patent noting that “[p]atents incorporated by reference ‘are effectively part of the host [patents] as if [they] were explicitly contained therein.’” Reh’g Req. 9 (citing X2Y Attenuators, LLC v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 757 F.3d 1358, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (alterations in Rehearing Request)). On this record, we agree that we overlooked and misapprehended the import of Ryu and Finn-089 and if those references are given appropriate weight, they lend further credence to Dr. van der Weide’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that an obvious way to manufacture Eray-WO799 would have created an intermediate product with requisite free ends. Further, we adopt the full reasoning stated in the Dissent as to the unpatentability of claim 3 (Dec. 53–57). Therefore, we GRANT Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing slip op. at 6

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “As stated in our Final Written Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art and found that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have possessed “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a similar field, and 1–2 years of experience researching and developing antennas used in RFID applications.” Dec. 6–7 (citing Pet. 8; PO Resp. 18). Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Daniel van der Weide, supported Petitioner’s definition, which was adopted for this proceeding. Ex. 1003 ¶ 25. Dr. van der Weide defined himself as “a person of more than ordinary skill in the art during the relevant timeframe” because “[b]y 2010, [he] held a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, and [he] had at least” slip op. at 4

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

    “unrebutted expert testimony corroborated by two prior art patents describing RFID smart cards” and that this evidence “demonstrated that a conventional and obvious way to manufacture Eray-WO799’s smart card was by forming a card antenna on a card body before adding the chip.” Req. Reh’g 2 (citing Pet. 39–40; Paper 20 (“Reply”) at 31). Thus, Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that an obvious and conventional way of manufacturing the card body of Eray- WO799 would have had unconnected ends as required by our construction. Id. Paragraph 149 of Dr. van der Weide’s declaration states that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that an obvious and conventional way to construct the smart card as shown in Eray-WO799 FIG. 12 would have been to form the turns S1, S2, SC3 and SC4 on or in the card body (e.g., by laying wire) before connecting the wire to (or forming) access terminals and connecting module M.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 149. In support of that because it was “directed to solving problems that occur during the manufacture of cards.” Dec. 42 (citing Ex. 1028, 1:25–2:53). Petitioner points out that “[w]hile Ryu discloses manufacturing techniques, Ryu also describes and claims a ‘communication system’ with a smart card and a reader.” Reh’g Req. 9 (citing Ex. 1028, code (57), claims 1–2). Petitioner is correct in noting that Ryu’s disclosures are not so narrow as we described in the Decision. As to Finn-089, we found that reference unhelpful because it was “directed to a process for the contacting of a wire conductor in the course of manufacture of a transponder unit.” Dec. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1015, 1:15–17). Petitioner asserts that we failed to acknowledge to the fact that Finn-089 was incorporated by reference in the ’240 patent noting that “[p]atents incorporated by reference ‘are effectively part of the host [patents] as if [they] were explicitly contained therein.’” Reh’g Req. 9 (citing X2Y Attenuators, LLC v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 757 F.3d 1358, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (alterations in Rehearing Request)). On this record, we agree that we overlooked and misapprehended the import of Ryu and Finn-089 and if those references are given appropriate weight, they lend further credence to Dr. van der Weide’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that an obvious way to manufacture Eray-WO799 would have created an intermediate product with requisite free ends. Further, we adopt the full reasoning stated in the Dissent as to the unpatentability of claim 3 (Dec. 53–57). Therefore, we GRANT Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing slip op. at 6

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,165,240
• Stmicroelectronics, Inc. v. Monterey Research, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 10, 2022 · IPR2021-01230 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12 and 14 are unpatentable under §103 based on How-767 and Feild; the Board did not reach the other listed grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted

    “review. Paper 6 (“Institution Decision,” “Dec.”). Following institution, STMicroelectronics filed a petition for inter partes review and a Motion for Joinder in IPR2021-01230, requesting that STMicroelectronics be joined as a petitioner in IPR2021-00130. STMicroelectronics, Inc. v. Monterey Research, LLC, IPR2021-01230, Papers 1, 3. We instituted trial in IPR2021-01230, granted the Motion for Joinder, and added STMicroelectronics as a petitioner to IPR2021-00130. Id., Paper 7. A copy of that decision was entered in the record of IPR2021-00130. Paper 15.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “regarding the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we again adopt Petitioner’s definition as it is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’625 Patent Specification and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 11

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

    “claims 1 and 6 are limited to a flash memory; (2) the preamble of claim 10 is limited to a memory device; and (3) a “periphery area” is “an area outside the core memory cell area.” Accordingly, we adopt the parties’ construction that the preambles of claims 1 and 6 are limited to a flash memory, the preamble of claim 10 is limited to a memory device, and a “periphery area” is “an area outside the core memory cell area.” We do not need to further construe these claim terms in order to address the parties’ disputes. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe 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 19

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner’s Reply argument is not responsive to Patent Owner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to integrate a standalone flash memory within an ASIC. See PO Resp. 75 (citing Ex. 2002, 53:25–54:3). Instead, Petitioner’s Reply arguments appear to proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions advanced in the Petition. Accordingly, Petitioner’s new and non-responsive Reply arguments exceed the proper scope of a reply and have not been considered in rendering this Final Written Decision. See CTPG 73–74.” slip op. at 83

  Patent outcomesUS 6,459,625 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,459,625
• Stmicroelectronics, Inc. v. Monterey Research, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 10, 2022 · IPR2021-00130 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12 and 14 are unpatentable under § 103 based on the grounds shown in the decision’s conclusion table.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted

    “1 STMicroelectronics, Inc. was joined as a petitioner in this proceeding based on a petition and motion for joinder filed in IPR2021-01230, which were granted. These proceedings were terminated as to petitioner Qualcomm Incorporated. See Paper 37.” slip op. at 1

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “regarding the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we again adopt Petitioner’s definition as it is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’625 Patent Specification and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 11

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

    “claims 1 and 6 are limited to a flash memory; (2) the preamble of claim 10 is limited to a memory device; and (3) a “periphery area” is “an area outside the core memory cell area.” Accordingly, we adopt the parties’ construction that the preambles of claims 1 and 6 are limited to a flash memory, the preamble of claim 10 is limited to a memory device, and a “periphery area” is “an area outside the core memory cell area.” We do not need to further construe these claim terms in order to address the parties’ disputes. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe 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 19

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

    “does not explain how any of the supposed advantages of Feild are relevant to How-767 or how the combination would achieve these supposed advantages. Petitioner identifies reducing fabrication steps, eliminating polishing steps, and high electromigration performance as benefits of Feild’s fabrication method. See Pet. 63 (citing Ex. 1011, 2:48–3:10; Ex. 1006 ¶ 149). Dr. Lall’s cited testimony identifies these advantages compared to the prior art techniques discussed in Feild that use additional polishing steps, multiple-step processing, and the use of chemical mechanical polishing. See Ex. 1006 ¶ 149 (citing Ex. 1011, 2:16–32, 2:20–30, 2:48–3:10). Petitioner also asserts that How-767 presents Figure 1 as an exemplary cross-sectional view of a generic integrated circuit and never suggests that the precise structure of Figure 1 is required. See Pet. 65 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:21–22). On this basis Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that other cross-sectional interconnection arrangements could be used. See id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 152). Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that forming How-767’s routing structure according to the interconnect structure taught by Feild would involve a simple substitution of Feild’s cross-sectional interconnect structure for How-767’s exemplary cross-sectional interconnect structure to obtain predictable results. See id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 153). Accordingly, we understand that Feild’s advantages of reducing fabrication steps, eliminating polishing steps, and high electromigration performance would be achieved by forming How-767’s routing structure according to Feild’s cross-sectional interconnect structure. In sum, based on the entire trial record, we determine that Petitioner sets forth sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the conclusion that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify How-767 by “forming How-767’s routing structure according to the interconnect structure taught by Feild” in order to obtain the advantages of reducing fabrication steps, eliminating polishing steps, and high electromigration performance. See Pet. 62–65 (citations omitted); KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.” slip op. at 76

  Patent outcomesUS 6,459,625 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,459,625
• Peag LLC (D/B/A Jlab Audio) / Audio Partnership LLC et al. v. Varta Microbattery GmbHAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 5, 2022 · IPR2020-01214 · APJ Avelyn M Ross · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 are unpatentable as obvious over Kobayashi and skilled-artisan knowledge; the contingent motion to amend is granted for substitute claims 9–16.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeNew argument disregardedNew argument consideredGranted in part

    “regarding (1) the motivation to combine Kaun with Kobayashi based on dendrite formation (id. at 2–4), (2) additional motivations to modify Kaun with Kobayashi (id. at 4–6), (3) a reasonable expectation of success relating to Kaun’s central fastener (id. at 6–7), and (4) a reasonable expectation of success regarding Kobayashi’s modified electrode assembly (id. at 7–9). Because we do not reach Petitioner’s challenge based on the combination of Kaun and Kobayashi, as discussed below, we similarly need not reach Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Mr. Gardner’s opinions as they relate to the Kaun/Kobayashi combination. Accordingly, we dismiss Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude these purportedly new opinions as moot. We address Patent Owner’s remaining concerns, relating to Mr. Gardner’s allegedly new testimony regarding Kobayashi, below.” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In the Decision on Institution, we determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’913 patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, or a similar field, such as materials engineering, chemical engineering, or physics with at least five years of experience in the field of battery design and manufacturing. A person with a master’s degree in one of the above fields could have less practical experience of approximately three years. A person with a PhD could have less practical experience, about two years. A person with less education but more relevant practical experience may also meet this standard. DI 20–21 (adopting Petitioner’s proposed definition). For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we maintain our determination from the Decision on Institution because neither party asserts that our decision depends on that determination and because the level of skill is consistent with the record. See PO Resp. 8 (stating that “[t]he claims are patentable regardless of which definition is used.”); see generally Pet. Reply; MTA Opp. 1–2 (“Regardless of which definition is used, however, Patent Owner’s Substitute Claims are still not patentable.”).” slip op. at 12

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

    “In their briefing, the parties dispute the meaning of three claim terms or phrases—(1) “insulating means”, (2) “connected to one another by at least one flat separator,” and (3) “button cell.” See Pet. 17–21; PO Resp. 9–12. We discern no material difference between the parties’ respective constructions. Additionally, Patent Owner, during the hearing, expressed a general view that claim construction was unlikely to affect the parties’ positions.6 In particular, Patent Owner states that “[o]ur position is that really nothing turns on claim construction. You don’t have to engage in claim construction in this case.” Tr. 56:18–20, 56:21–24 (explaining that 6 The parties disagree as to what the newly added phrase “the cup casing include[ing] a first part proximal to the flat bottom area and a second part disposed in the overlapping area, the first part of the casing being disposed radially inward with respect to the second part” means. See generally MTA Opp.; MTA Reply; MTA Sur-reply. Neither party proposes an express construction for this phrase. Id. We address the interpretation of this phrase below and only to the extent necessary to resolve the dispute raised by the parties’ substantive arguments. limitations were submitted for construction “to gain some benefit in the co-pending litigations.”). Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) in the context of an inter partes review). Because the outcome of our decision does not depend on either parties’ claim construction position, we determine that none of the identified claim terms require construction to resolve the issues in dispute in this proceeding.” slip op. at 13

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

    “On this issue, we agree with Petitioner. Mr. Gardner explains that the skilled artisan “would further recognize that the output conductor can be comprised of various materials . . . . which could be metal or various materials . . . . [and] the shape of the output conductor is not particularly limited.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 322. Mr. Gardner further testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would recognize, not only that metal foil conductors could be inserted into these grooves without difficulty, but also that the depth of the grooves can be altered in order to better accommodate metal foil output conductors.” Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 53, 70. We recognize Patent Owner’s argument that numerous factors must be considered and that conventional battery design does not necessarily translate to button cell designs (PO Resp 25–26), but as Mr. Gardner testifies, “this may be true in some cases, [but] the lessons and advantages of using techniques from conventional battery design and applying it to button cell would be obvious to a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Ex. 1041 ¶ 103. He continues to explain that “[n]aturally, such transposition of techniques would require some modification and adjustments. . . . [and that] each of these adjustments, . . . would be well within the skill of a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Id. ¶ 104 (describing, for example, “reducing the thickness of the conductor plates of Kobayashi”). We credit Mr. Gardner’s testimony. Moreover, Patent Owner does not allege that any proposed modification would be beyond the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art or explain how any of the “constraints unique to . . . button cell design” (PO Resp. 25) are relevant to the proposed substitution of a metal foil for a metal terminal electrode plate. See generally id.; Sur-reply. Finally, Patent Owner argues that “[r]eliance upon the general knowledge of a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to provide a missing element in a combination of references is an exception rather than the rule” and “is particularly true where the proposed modification goes to the essence of the claims.” PO Resp. 26. Patent Owner states that “Petitioners have provided no more than ‘conclusory statements and unspecified expert testimony’ to supply a metal foil that is admittedly missing from Kobayashi, and is not shown in any other button cell art.” Id. at 27. We disagree. As the Federal Circuit has explained ‘common sense and common knowledge have their proper place in the obviousness inquiry,’ (a) invoking ‘common sense . . . to supply a limitation that was admittedly missing from the prior art’ should generally only be done when the [missing] limitation in question [is] unusually simple and the technology particularly straightforward;’ and (b) references to common sense ‘cannot be used as a wholesale substitute for reasoned analysis and evidentiary support’ Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google LLC, 948 F.3d 1330, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2020)(quoting Arendi S.A.R.L v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1361–1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). Here, Petitioner proposes to substitute a metal foil for a metal terminal electrode plate to provide contact with the inner surface of the button cell housing. Ex. 1006 ¶ 34. As detailed above, Petitioner and Mr. Gardner direct our attention to the prior art of record which suggests use of foil within small battery cells to provide electrical contact was well-known and explains why the skilled artisan would have reduced the thickness of the terminal electrode plate to maximize the available space for active electrode components. Accordingly, unlike the expert in Arendi, Petitioner here provides more than “conclusory statements and unspecific expert testimony.” Arendi, 832 F.3d at 1366.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 9,799,913 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,799,913
• Peag LLC (D/B/A Jlab Audio) / Audio Partnership LLC et al. v. Varta Microbattery GmbHAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 5, 2022 · IPR2020-01212 · APJ Avelyn M Ross · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12 are unpatentable as obvious over Kobayashi and Kaun; the contingent motion to amend is granted for substitute claims 14–25.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “that “Kaun discloses that the cell is sealed ‘by a ‘U’ shaped insulator/gasket 32 . . . to seal the cell without pressure-loading,’” and therefore, venting via a pressure release seal is not required. Pet. 64 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 120). In an alternate embodiment, Kaun provides a means to relieve gas pressure “via the peripheral gasket which can reseal after an event.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 91. As Petitioner explains, “Kaun discloses that it is sealed, but upon the application of certain conditions, the internal pressure of gases within the cell can cause gases to vent. During such events, Kaun discloses ‘[t]he specified limit for internal pressure is handled by release via the peripheral gasket which can reseal after an event.’” Pet. Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 37–39; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 91, 101). Thus, while Kaun discloses venting to prevent pressure build up, Kaun “is otherwise sealed at all times during functioning.” Id. (citing Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 38–39; Ex. 1005 ¶ 101). Neither the ’835 patent nor Patent Owner’s own proposed construction of “closed without being beaded over” requires closure at all times. Furthermore, Mr. Gardner testifies that “[i]f a battery which, upon application of significant internal pressure, would be considered not ‘closed’ at other times, th[e]n almost no battery could be considered closed. [Because] [a]ny battery, when subjected to certain pressures, would leak or burst.” Ex. 1041 ¶ 39. We credit Mr. Gardner’s undisputed testimony in this regard. Mr. Gardner reasons that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Kaun is closed.” Id. Dr. Peckerar similarly testifies that Kaun shows a housing that is closed without being beaded over. Ex. 1034, 131:4–11; 237:19–238:22 (describing Kaun as “closed during normal operation”). Accordingly, the record evidence supports Petitioner’s assertion that the combination of Kobayashi and Kaun suggests a button cell that is closed without being beaded over.” slip op. at 28

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

    “We discern no material difference between the parties’ respective constructions. Additionally, Patent Owner, during the hearing, expressed a general view that claim construction was unlikely to affect the parties’ positions.8 In particular, Patent Owner states that “[o]ur position is that really nothing turns on claim construction. You don’t have to engage in 8 The parties disagree as to what the newly added phrase “the cup casing include[ing] a first part proximal to the flat bottom area and a second part disposed in the overlapping area, the first part of the casing being disposed radially inward with respect to the second part” means. See generally MTA Opp.; MTA Reply; MTA Sur-reply. Neither party proposes an express construction for this phrase. Id. We address the interpretation of this phrase below and only to the extent necessary to resolve the dispute raised by the parties’ substantive arguments. claim construction in this case.” Tr. 56:18–20, 56:20–24 (explaining that limitations were submitted for construction “to gain some benefit in the co-pending litigations.”). Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) in the context of an inter partes review). Because the outcome of our decision does not depend on either parties’ claim construction position, we determine that none of the identified claim terms require construction to resolve the issues in dispute in this proceeding.” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “Thus, Patent Owner identifies three claimed features—i.e., the jelly- roll configuration, the insulating layer, and a housing closed without being beaded over—as responsible for the improved performance of the VARTA CoinPower® button cell batteries. Id. However, Patent Owner’s declarants testify further and explain that it is the combination of the three identified features, in addition to a flat foil conductor resting flat between the electrode top and housing and welding the foil conductor from outside the housing, that are responsible for improved performance. In particular, Mr. Miehlich, employed in VARTA’s marketing and sales department, testifies that the new cell design, which “provided unprecedented increases in performance, including in energy density, charge capacity, and cycling stability,” consisted of a “jelly roll electrode coil packed tightly into an uncrimped, button-like housing. The electrode coil was protected against short-circuiting by [an] insulating means, and was connected to the cell terminals by a flexible flat foil conductors resting flat between the electrode top and housing, and welded to the housing components from the outside. These features are all found in the claims of the VARTA patents here under review. Ex. 2045 ¶¶ 15–16. And, Dr. Lindner, one of the named inventors of the ’835 patent, testifies that the complex issues we faced were how to safely pack the required amount of electrode material into the very small “button”-sized housing and protect it against short circuits; how to connect the “jelly roll” electrode to the terminals in such a confined space without itself consuming much volume, and how to seal the top and bottom of the cell housing, all while accommodating the expansion and contraction of the electrode winding and the resulting mechanical forces. Ex. 2046 ¶ 33. According to Dr. Linder, the jelly-roll configuration with an insulator, flexible foil output conductors, sealing the cell without crimping, and welding the foil conductors from outside the housing each contributed to the improved battery performance. Id. ¶¶ 34–43. Thus, it is the combination of five elements—not the three claimed in the ’835 patent—that are purportedly responsible for the “vastly increased performance characteristics” of the CoinPower® products. Id. ¶ 43; see also id. ¶ 45 (noting that “various aspects of our invention are covered by 10 issued patents, including the four United States patents here under review” (emphasis added)); Tr. 84:24–85:10 (explaining that welding, for example, is “also part of the success”). Like the patent owner in Fox Factory, “[i]n light of the patentee’s own assertions about the significance of the unclaimed features, no reasonable fact finder could conclude that these features are insignificant.” Fox Factory, 944 F.3d 1375. As a result, the patent claims are not coextensive with the CoinPower® products because those products include “‘critical’ unclaimed feature[s] that [are] claimed by a different patent and materially impacts the product’s functionality.” Id.” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 9,153,835 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,153,835
• Peag LLC (D/B/A Jlab Audio) / Audio Partnership LLC et al. v. Varta Microbattery GmbHAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 5, 2022 · IPR2020-01211 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12 are unpatentable as obvious over Kobayashi; substitute claims 14–25 are allowed because the cited combinations do not teach the claimed cup casing structure.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In the Decision on Institution, we determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’581 patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, or a similar field, such as materials engineering, chemical engineering, or physics with at least five years of experience in the field of battery design and manufacturing. A person with a master’s degree in one of the above fields could have less practical experience of approximately three years. A person with a PhD could have less practical experience, of about two years. A person with less education but more relevant practical experience may also meet this standard. DI 20 (adopting Petitioner’s proposed definition). For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we maintain our determination from the Decision on Institution because neither party disputes that determination and because the level of skill is consistent with the record. See PO Resp. 6 (stating that “[t]he claims are patentable regardless of which definition is used.”); see generally Pet. Reply.” slip op. at 14

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “We are not persuaded that the identified portions of Mr. Gardner’s Supplemental Declaration are improper. In the Petition, Petitioner alleged that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to substitute known metal foils for the metal conductor plates of Kobayashi in order to reduce the size of inactive materials and improve performance. Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 323). In its Response, Patent Owner argued, among other things, that the metal foil lacks the requisite rigidity to support the remaining components of the winding axis core (PO Resp. 22–27, 31), and that because metal connecting plates 4a and 5b are positioned within recesses of insulating plates 8 and 9, replacing the metal connecting plates with metal foils would result in an unreliable connection because the metal foil would become embedded within the grooves of the insulating plates (id. at 28, 31). Mr. Gardner’s supplemental testimony specifically addresses Dr. Peckerar’s and Patent Owner’s concerns that metal foils would be unsuitable in Kobayashi due to their flexibility and thickness as compared to the insulating plates. Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 53 (“the depth of the grooves can be altered in order to better accommodate metal foil output conductors”), 70, 71 (explaining that it is the winding core that provides structure not the output conductor plates), 81, 86 (explaining that the person of ordinary skill in the art could either adjust the size of the output conductors or the depth of the cavities themselves), 87. Therefore, Mr. Gardner’s testimony that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood how to account for the technical challenges Patent Owner identified properly responds to arguments raised by Patent Owner in its Patent Owner Response. Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Mr. Gardner’s testimony regarding Kobayashi’s modified electrode assembly.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Upon review of Petitioner’s arguments and supporting evidence, we find that Petitioner adequately shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Kobayashi to include metal foils in place of its terminal electrode plates. Petitioner explains that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that metal foil may be used in batteries because the use of metal foil as a conductor is common in the art. Pet. 31, 39 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 256, 323). Petitioner directs our attention to Kobayashi which details use of metal foil for conducting elements. Id. at 39; see also Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 7, 21, 26, 27 (describing metal foil electrodes). Furthermore, Mr. Gardner testifies that “reducing the thickness of the output conductors has the effect of reducing the ratio of inactive to active components within the cell, which improves energy density . . . . [and is] a well-known goal in the art.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 323. Mr. Gardner further opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would be motivated to reduce the thickness of the output conductors of Kobayashi in order to increase energy density within the cell” and “to use metal foils as the output conductors, as this furthers the well-known goal in the art of reducing the size of internal battery components.” Id. We acknowledge Patent Owner’s argument that Mr. Gardner relies on teachings related to conventional battery design—not button cell batteries—and that he discusses considerations “relating to thickness of the electrodes, not of output conductors.” PO Resp. 19–20. But, Mr. Gardner’s testimony similarly relies on passages directed to “basic concepts” of battery operations and, as a whole, focuses on the concept that reducing the thickness of the terminal electrode plates would “maximize the space available inside the cell for active components,” thereby increasing electrode density and improving battery performance. Ex. 1003 ¶ 323 (citing Ex. 1009, 35). According to Mr. Gardner, “these adjustments would be well within the skill of a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 104. We credit Mr. Gardner’s testimony. “Moreover, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person’s skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 401.” slip op. at 21

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

    “Upon review of Petitioner’s arguments and supporting evidence, we find that Petitioner adequately shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Kobayashi to include metal foils in place of its terminal electrode plates. Petitioner explains that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that metal foil may be used in batteries because the use of metal foil as a conductor is common in the art. Pet. 31, 39 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 256, 323). Petitioner directs our attention to Kobayashi which details use of metal foil for conducting elements. Id. at 39; see also Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 7, 21, 26, 27 (describing metal foil electrodes). Furthermore, Mr. Gardner testifies that “reducing the thickness of the output conductors has the effect of reducing the ratio of inactive to active components within the cell, which improves energy density . . . . [and is] a well-known goal in the art.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 323. Mr. Gardner further opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would be motivated to reduce the thickness of the output conductors of Kobayashi in order to increase energy density within the cell” and “to use metal foils as the output conductors, as this furthers the well-known goal in the art of reducing the size of internal battery components.” Id. We acknowledge Patent Owner’s argument that Mr. Gardner relies on teachings related to conventional battery design—not button cell batteries—and that he discusses considerations “relating to thickness of the electrodes, not of output conductors.” PO Resp. 19–20. But, Mr. Gardner’s testimony similarly relies on passages directed to “basic concepts” of battery operations and, as a whole, focuses on the concept that reducing the thickness of the terminal electrode plates would “maximize the space available inside the cell for active components,” thereby increasing electrode density and improving battery performance. Ex. 1003 ¶ 323 (citing Ex. 1009, 35). According to Mr. Gardner, “these adjustments would be well within the skill of a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 104. We credit Mr. Gardner’s testimony. “Moreover, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person’s skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 401.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 9,496,581 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,496,581
• Reg Synthetic Fuels, LLC v. Neste Oil, OyjAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 18, 2020 · IPR2018-01375 · APJ Avelyn M Ross · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious; the contingent motion to amend is granted, and proposed substitute claims 21–24 are not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Pet. 11–12; see also Ex. 1002 ¶ 16 (same). Patent Owner contends Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is “unreasonably high” and instead proffers that “a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in July 2005 would have had a degree in chemical engineering or chemistry and at least two or three years of experience with processes for manufacturing diesel-range hydrocarbons from biorenewable feed stocks.” PO Resp. 4–5. Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner indicates that the outcome of any arguments made in this case would change depending on the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Pet.; PO Resp. 5 (“Neste submits, however, that the ’832 patent claims are patentable over the prior art irrespective of the particular level of ordinary skill in the art.”). We agree with the parties and determine that the ordinarily skilled artisan, in July 2005, would have had at least a degree in chemical engineering or chemistry and would have had several years of experience in processing and refining biofuels. We need not parse the particular amount of education or experience given that neither party asserts this determination would have had any effect on the arguments or analysis in this case. Indeed, the prior art itself demonstrates the level of skill in the art at the time of invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings on 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 8

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

    “hydrocarbons,” “diesel range hydrocarbons,” “feedstock,” “renewable sources,” “hydrotreatment step,” “stripping,” “isomerization,” and “molecular sieve.” Pet. 8–11. Patent Owner does not dispute any proposed construction. See generally Prelim. Resp.; PO Resp. 5 (“[I]t is unnecessary for the Board to expressly construe any of the ’832 patent claim terms identified by REG.”). As Patent Owner notes, “REG does not apply its claim constructions in its proposed obviousness grounds, and Neste’s arguments in the Patent Owner Response do not depend on disputing any of REG’s proposed constructions.” PO Resp. 5; see generally Pet. and Pet. Reply. We agree with Patent Owner that resolving the parties’ dispute does not depend on the constructions proffered by Petitioner. Therefore, we determine that it is not necessary to provide an express construction for any term of the ‘832 patent. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only terms in controversy must be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). slip op. at 10

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

    “Therefore, it is clear that Jakkula contemplates the presence of sulfur in the feedstock. See also Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 60; Ex. 1032, IV-27; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 41–47, 106) (explaining the same). Further, the removal of impurities from the HDO feedstock prior to hydrodeoxygenation is characterized as “optional.” Biological starting materials may be pretreated with suitable methods such as thermally, chemically and mechanically prior to the hydrodeoxygenation step that breaks the structure thereof, the step being referred to herein as the HDO step. [Ex. 1005 ¶ 7 (emphasis added)]. Prior to the HDO step, the biological raw material may optionally be treated by prehydrogenation under milder conditions thus avoiding side reactions of the double bonds. [Id. ¶ 21 (emphasis added)]. Optional prehydrogenation may be carried out in a separate pressure vessel or in the same pressure vessel as the HDO and isomerization steps. [Id. ¶ 29 (emphasis added)]. With the optional prehydrogenation step, side reactions of the double bonds such as polymerization, ring formation and aromatization may be reduced, such side reactions causing the catalyst to coke, and thus shortening the operation period. The yield of the final product (diesel) is also considerably improved by the prehydrogenation. [Id. ¶ 62 (emphasis added)]. As Jakkula explains, the catalysts employed in a hydrodeoxygenation step include NiMo or CoMo catalysts which are known to “hav[e] some resistance to catalyst poisons.” Id. ¶ 17. Furthermore, the catalyst “poisoning” Jakkula is concerned with in the HDO step is associated with water because “[b]iological raw materials are known to contain high amounts of oxygen that is converted to water, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide.” Id. ¶ 6, see also id. ¶ 60 (“In the HDO step, the poisoning of the catalyst is accelerated by water, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide.”). Therefore, the addition of sulfur to the hydrodeoxygenation feed of Jakkula, suggested by Monnier, is not inconsistent with the teachings of Jakkula and does not violate the principle of operation espoused by Jakkula.” slip op. at 17

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted

    “must determine whether the motion to amend meets the statutory and regulatory requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.121. As part of this showing, Patent Owner must demonstrate: (1) the amendment responds to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial; (2) the amendment does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent or introduce new subject matter; (3) the amendment proposes a reasonable number of substitute claims; and (4) the proposed claims are supported in the original disclosure (and any earlier filed disclosure for which the benefit of a filing date is sought). 37 C.F.R. § 42.121; Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-01129, Paper 15 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2019) (precedential). Although Patent Owner must demonstrate that the statutory and regulatory requirements for a motion to amend are met, Patent Owner “does not bear the burden of persuasion to demonstrate the patentability of [the proposed] substitute claims.” Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at 4 (citing Aqua Prods. Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Bosch Auto. Serv. Sols. LLC v. Iancu, 878 F.3d 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). “Rather, as a result of the current state of the law and [U.S. Patent and Trademark Office] rules and guidance, the burden of persuasion will ordinarily lie with the petitioner to show that any proposed substitute claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” Lectrosonics, Inc., Paper 15 at 4.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 8,859,832 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,859,832
• Dell Inc. / Riverbed Technology, Inc. et al. v. Realtime Data LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 15, 2018 · IPR2017-00365 · APJ Per Curiam · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 9–12, 14, 18, 19, and 24 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 because Petitioner failed to establish a specific combination with a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We do not observe a meaningful difference between the parties’ assessments of a person of ordinary skill in the art. We further note that either assessment appears consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art in the instant proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Moreover, Dr. Creusere appears to satisfy either assessment. Our analysis in this Decision is supported by either assessment, but, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment.” slip op. at 8

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

    “The parties do not argue a claim construction for any terms. See generally PO Resp.; Reply. In the Decision to Institute, we did not construe any terms. Dec. 5–6. We determine that no terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only those claim terms or phrases that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed

    “the art would have a reasonable expectation of success (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 168– 69), on this record, we cannot reconcile these portions of his declaration Dr. Creusere’s his own testimony on cross-examination to the contrary, such as his acknowledgement of “unlimited” permutations that were “impossible” to address. E.g., Ex. 2015, 81:21–83:24, 84:13–24, 143:20–144:3. Stated differently, in his initial position, Dr. Creusere testifies that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 168–69), while his later testimony vacillates to a stance that makes it difficult to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of success–– i.e., the existence of “unlimited” permutations that were “impossible” to address. Ex. 2015, 81:21–83:24, 84:13–24, 143:20–144:3. We find this testimony contradictory. In summary, neither the Petition, nor Dr. Creusere’s declaration, nor his deposition testimony, provide any indication as to how a person having ordinary skill in the art would select among the countless permutations or further narrow the set of choices.” slip op. at 18

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

    “Put another way, we do not find that Petitioner demonstrates a “reasonable expectation of success” when Dr. Creusere acknowledges that a person having ordinary skill in the art did not specify whether to discard or keep Franaszek’s sampling approach, or would use only Franaszek’s teachings of compression algorithms, or incorporate other such algorithms, or what data type or data types an intended system teaches would be created to compress, or what specific goals and objectives the person having ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to achieve. Compare id. at 75:18–76:19, 126:20–127:1, 76:24–78:6, 94:4–12, 96:4–98:14 with Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 154–71; Ex. 2017 ¶¶ 187–89.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 7,415,530 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,415,530
• Umicore AG & Co. KG v. BASF CorporationRehearing granted
  PTAB · Dec 7, 2015 · IPR2015-01124 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Rehearing

  Granted Patent Owner’s rehearing request and limited trial to the listed § 103 grounds, excluding claims 17, 18, 21, and 22.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted

    “We agree that we overlooked Patent Owner’s arguments that Petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficiently that Maeshima, Breck, and Dedecek disclose or suggest the SAR values recited in claims 17, 18, 21, and 22. Upon further consideration, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not offered adequate evidence demonstrating that the higher SAR values required by claims 17, 18, 21, and 22 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art over the combination of Maeshima and Breck, or over the combination of Dedecek and Breck. See, e.g., Pet. 13–14, 43; Ex. 1108 ¶¶ 122–129. Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing is granted.” slip op. at 3

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

    “We agree that we overlooked Patent Owner’s arguments that Petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficiently that Maeshima, Breck, and Dedecek disclose or suggest the SAR values recited in claims 17, 18, 21, and 22. Upon further consideration, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not offered adequate evidence demonstrating that the higher SAR values required by claims 17, 18, 21, and 22 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art over the combination of Maeshima and Breck, or over the combination of Dedecek and Breck. See, e.g., Pet. 13–14, 43; Ex. 1108 ¶¶ 122–129.” slip op. at 3

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,404,203

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.