• Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Corp.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 12, 2018 · IPR2017-00627 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 10–16, 21–23, 25, and 38–46 are unpatentable; claims 6–9, 17–20, 24, and 47 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Although the dictionary defines “periodically” as “from time to time” or “at regular intervals of time,” based on the record before us, we agree with Patent Owner that its proposed construction is how one skilled in the art would have understood that term in the context of the ’345 patent Specification. Turning first to the intrinsic evidence, the Specification explains that “[t]he future and current minimum values are calculated continuously and initiated periodically, for example, every 5 seconds.” Ex. 1001, 8:37–39. Although the Specification later notes that “[i]t will be appreciated that, while specific values are used as in the several equations and calculations employed in the present invention, these values may be different than those shown” (id. at 8:64–67), this passage does not mean that the Specification contemplates arrangements where “periodically” is simply “from time to time.” Rather, we determine that statement from the Specification indicates that the specific amount of time (i.e., every 5 seconds) may vary. Turning now to the extrinsic evidence, the testimony of Dr. Douglas supports our conclusion, explaining that “at regular intervals of time” is the “only . . . definition . . . consistent with the understanding of a person skilled in the art in light of the specification of the ’345 Patent and its use in the particular field of audio signal processing” because [l]ike the “period” of an audio signal itself, which is the amount of time it takes for a signal to repeat itself, “periodically” as recited in claims 6 and 9 and throughout the remainder of the specification of the ’345 Patent refers to actions that occur at regular intervals (e.g., every 5 seconds rather than merely “from time to time”). Ex. 2002 ¶ 48. Moreover, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Hochwald testifies that outside of the context of the ’345 patent Specification, “periodically” means “at regular time intervals” (Ex. 2005, 99:13–15), and when asked about that term’s meaning in the context of the ’345 patent Specification, Dr. Hochwald simply noted that “all I can do is read what it says,” which is that “[i]t’s doing something periodically, for example, every five seconds” (id. at 100:4–6). Accordingly, the testimony from Dr. Douglas, as well as that from Dr. Hochwald, supports Patent Owner’s construction. In summary, we adopt Patent Owner’s construction of “periodically,” requiring “at regular intervals of time,” because (1) this is consistent with how this term is used in the context of the ’345 Patent Specification; and (2) this is supported by the testimony of both experts.” slip op. at 7

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “Patent Owner responds that, because Helf uses average values (i.e., the average of eight consecutive values), it does not disclose using a minimum value. PO Resp. 17–23. Patent Owner acknowledges that the ’345 patent, itself, uses a “smoothing process [that] produces frequency bins with multiple smoothed magnitude values, ultimately finding the minimum of all of the values,” but contends that “Helf’s averaging process produces a single output representing one average of the original samples.” Id. at 20–21 (underlining omitted) (citing Ex. 1001, 8:14–28; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 52, 63–72). We disagree with Patent Owner’s characterization of the differences between Helf and the ’345 patent. While Helf may ultimately produce a single minimum value, as discussed above, that value is based on a minimum value of the averages calculated over the given time period. At oral hearing, Patent Owner acknowledged that Helf determines many averages values (i.e., the averages of the eight consecutive frames) and determines a minimum of those values. See, e.g., Tr. 22:2–6. The claim simply requires a “future minimum value,” and does not preclude that value from being a minimum value taken from a set of average values. Indeed, such an interpretation of the claim would be inconsistent with the ’345 patent’s use of smoothed values noted by Patent Owner. Ex. 1001, 8:14–28. The testimony of Dr. Douglas cited by Patent Owner does not convince us otherwise. See Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 52, 63–72 (effectively repeating Patent Owner’s contentions, which are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above). Accordingly, we are persuaded that Helf’s minimum value (Mk) corresponds to the “future minimum value” recited in claims 4 and 39.” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundMotivation foundMixed

    “With respect to its “running minimum estimator,” Helf explains that the “running minimum estimator” is used “when either the speech signal is never absent for more than a second or the background noise itself is never constant in spectral shape.” Ex. 1010, 8:11–15. Helf acknowledges that its “running minimum estimator” is “much less accura[te]” than its “stationary estimator,” which is typically used for background noise estimates. Id. at 8:15–17. As a result, Helf only uses its “running minimum estimator” if “[i]t has been more than 10 seconds since the last update of the background noise spectral estimate due to the Stationary Estimator,” and “[t]he difference, D, between the past background noise estimate, which may have resulted from the Stationary Estimator or the Running Minimum Estimator, and the current Running Minimum Estimator is great.” Id. at 8:32–42. We see no persuasive reason to set Helf’s current background noise estimate (Nk and Ck, considered the “current minimum” by Petitioner) to the minimum estimate (Mk) from the “running minimum estimator” (considered the “future minimum” by Petitioner). The testimony of Dr. Douglas supports this conclusion. See, e.g., Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 119, 120. Addressing the portions of Helf noted above, Dr. Douglas testifies that “Helf only relies on Mk in a ‘worst case’ scenario” and “disfavors the use of Mk, even where Bk is unavailable,” and concludes that “one of ordinary skill would not be motivated to force the use of the disfavored Mk every ten seconds even where the much more accurate Bk estimate is available.” Id. ¶ 119. Dr. Douglas further testifies that “one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to abandon[] the comparison of D to a threshold” because “one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Helf is a signal-dependent system, and it would not abandon its ability to adapt to varying signal conditions in favor of a blind periodic update using a disfavored estimate.” Id. ¶ 120. We credit the testimony of Dr. Douglas over that of Dr. Hochwald in this regard. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 157–159; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 115–120. The testimony from Dr. Douglas is consistent with the disclosure of Helf, while that of Dr. Hochwald is based on conclusory statements. For example, the only portions of Dr. Hochwald’s testimony cited in the Petition in connection with the rationale provided in this challenge are conclusory statements that “[a] person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to modify Helf to update the background noise estimate after every 10 second period based on the teachings of Martin,” and “[t]he skilled person would have recognized it was beneficial to periodically update the minimum noise value to ensure it accurately reflected the current noise level,” which are contrary to the disclosure of Helf noted above. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 158, 159.” slip op. at 21

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “We see no persuasive reason to set Helf’s current background noise estimate (Nk and Ck, considered the “current minimum” by Petitioner) to the minimum estimate (Mk) from the “running minimum estimator” (considered the “future minimum” by Petitioner). The testimony of Dr. Douglas supports this conclusion. See, e.g., Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 119, 120. Addressing the portions of Helf noted above, Dr. Douglas testifies that “Helf only relies on Mk in a ‘worst case’ scenario” and “disfavors the use of Mk, even where Bk is unavailable,” and concludes that “one of ordinary skill would not be motivated to force the use of the disfavored Mk every ten seconds even where the much more accurate Bk estimate is available.” Id. ¶ 119. Dr. Douglas further testifies that “one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to abandon[] the comparison of D to a threshold” because “one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Helf is a signal-dependent system, and it would not abandon its ability to adapt to varying signal conditions in favor of a blind periodic update using a disfavored estimate.” Id. ¶ 120. We credit the testimony of Dr. Douglas over that of Dr. Hochwald in this regard. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 157–159; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 115–120. The testimony from Dr. Douglas is consistent with the disclosure of Helf, while that of Dr. Hochwald is based on conclusory statements. For example, the only portions of Dr. Hochwald’s testimony cited in the Petition in connection with the rationale provided in this challenge are conclusory statements that “[a] person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to modify Helf to update the background noise estimate after every 10 second period based on the teachings of Martin,” and “[t]he skilled person would have recognized it was beneficial to periodically update the minimum noise value to ensure it accurately reflected the current noise level,” which are contrary to the disclosure of Helf noted above. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 158, 159.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 6,363,345 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,363,345
• Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Corp.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 12, 2018 · IPR2017-00626 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 12–25, 38, and 47 are unpatentable; claims 4–11 and 39–46 are not shown unpatentable, chiefly because the proposed Hirsch–Martin combination was not supported.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “In its Reply, Petitioner contends that, “[i]n this configuration [where W = 1], any purported distinction between windows and sub-windows in Martin vanishes and [Patent Owner]’s argument is irrelevant,” acknowledging that the proposed modification eliminates Martin’s sub-windows. Pet. Reply 5. Petitioner further contends that Patent Owner “incorrectly argues that the use of sub-windows is central to Martin’s algorithm” and “[n]othing in Martin suggests that the use of sub-windows is required.” Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 6–8). We disagree with Petitioner, and credit the testimony of Dr. Douglas over that of Dr. Hochwald with respect to Martin’s use of sub-windows because, as discussed below, Dr. Hochwald’s testimony is not consistent with the disclosure of Martin, while the testimony of Dr. Douglas is consistent with that disclosure. See, e.g., Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 6–9 (asserting that Martin does not expressly require sub-windows); Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 94–96 (discussing Martin’s use of at least two sub-windows for monotonic determination). As noted above, Martin’s algorithm requires a determination of whether or not “the minimum power of the last W windows with M samples each is monotonically increasing.” Ex. 1006, 1094. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to modify Hirsch’s system based on a scenario from Martin where W = 1 because such a scenario is counter to the entire purpose of Martin. Even Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Hochwald, acknowledges that a single data point (i.e., W = 1) cannot be used to determine whether something is monotonically increasing. See Ex. 2005 69:10–17 (explaining that you need at least two data points to make such a determination, meaning W ≥ 2). Petitioner fails to provide persuasive reasoning as to why one skilled in the art would have modified Hirsch’s teachings in a manner that is contrary to the express disclosure of Martin.” slip op. at 14

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner attempts to cure these deficiencies in its Reply, contending that, “[e]ven where Martin’s algorithm is configured to use multiple sub-windows, it still teaches the claimed ‘future minimum.’” Pet. Reply 8. We do not consider this new argument, as it is a new theory of unpatentability presented for the first time in the Petitioner’s Reply. See Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC, 818 F.3d 1293, 1301 (Fed Cir. 2016) (“A patent owner . . . is undoubtedly entitled to notice of and a fair opportunity to meet the grounds of [unpatentability].”) (quoting Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). For at least these reasons, Petitioner has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 4–11, 39–42, and 46 are unpatentable over the combined teachings of Hirsch and Martin.” slip op. at 15

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

    “Hirsch is directed to “techniques . . . to estimate the noise spectra or the noise characteristics for noisy speech signals” that “can be combined with a nonlinear spectral subtraction scheme.” Ex. 1005, 153. Hirsch discusses use of “FFT based spectral analysis” (id. at 154), for example, which Petitioner cites as corresponding to the “generating the frequency spectrum of said audio signal thereby generating frequency bins of said audio signal” recited in claim 1 (Pet. 27). Hirsch discusses use of an “adaptive threshold” for each frequency bin to distinguish between speech and noise (Ex. 1005, 153), which Petitioner cites as corresponding to the “setting a threshold for each frequency bin using a noise estimation process” recited in claim 1 (Pet. 27). Hirsch describes comparing spectral components to their corresponding thresholds to determine if speech is present (Ex. 1005, 153), which Petitioner cites as corresponding to the “detecting for each frequency bin whether the magnitude of the frequency bin is less than the corresponding threshold, thereby detecting the position of noise elements for each frequency bin” recited in claim 1 (Pet. 27–28). Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that Hirsch discloses each and every element of claim 1. We also are persuaded that Hirsch discloses each and every element of claim 38 for the reasons discussed above in connection with claim 1, as well as the “subtracting said noise elements . . . from said audio signal” additionally recited in claim 38. With respect to the recited “subtracting,” Petitioner cites Hirsch’s discussion of spectral subtraction. Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1005, 153–155). As Petitioner notes, “[t]he spectral subtraction technique shown in Hirsch subtracts the noise estimate from each sub-band or ‘bin’ and sets any negative values to zero” (id. (citing Ex. 1005, 153)), which “is the same technique used in the ’345 patent” (id. (citing Ex. 1001, 6:58–61, 7:16–27)). Claims 2, 3, 12, 13, 21, and 23 depend from claim 1, and Petitioner cites to relevant portions of Hirsch as disclosing the additional limitations of those claims. See Pet. 28–31. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s unrebutted arguments and evidence related to how Hirsch properly accounts for each and every element of these dependent claims, which we adopt for purposes of this decision. Specifically, we find that Hirsch discloses the additional limitations recited in those claims based on the citations to Hirsch therein and the supporting expert testimony. See id. Based on our review of the record before us, the preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s contentions that claims 1–3, 12, 13, 21, 23, and 38 are anticipated by Hirsch.” slip op. at 7

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundMotivation foundMixed

    “Initially, we agree with Petitioner that one skilled in the art would have considered Martin’s teachings, generally, when reviewing the teachings of Hirsch, as Martin is specifically referenced in Hirsch itself. Nevertheless, we are not persuaded that one skilled in the art would have modified Hisch’s system based on the teachings of Martin in the particular manner proposed by Petitioner. Consistent with Patent Owner’s contentions noted above, Martin describes determining “[t]he noise power estimate is based on the minimum of signal power within a window of L samples” and “[f]or reasons of computational complexity and delay the data window of length L is decomposed into W windows of length M such that M * W = L,” and provides an example where W=4. Ex. 1006, 1094. Martin distinguishes between “slowly varying noise power” and “rapidly varying noise power” to determine its noise power estimate, with a determination of whether the minimum power in successive sub-windows is monotonically increasing central to its estimation. Id. “If the minimum power of the last W windows with M samples each is monotonically increasing we decide on rapid noise power variation” and “the noise power estimate equals the power minimum of the last M samples Pn(i) = PMmin(i = r * M).” Id. “In case of non monotonic power the noise power estimate is set to the minimum of the length L window.” Id. Regardless of whether the noise power calculation is that for “slowly varying noise power” or “rapidly varying noise power,” Martin requires that first a determination is made as to whether or not “the minimum power of the last W windows with M samples each is monotonically increasing.” Id. (emphasis added). To the extent there can be any dispute on this issue, the testimony from Dr. Douglas supports the understanding that at least two subwindows are required to determine which noise power calculation to use. See Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 95, 96. In its Reply, Petitioner contends that, “[i]n this configuration [where” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 6,363,345 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,363,345
• Apple Inc. v. Virnetx Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 22, 2017 · IPR2016-00331 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11, 14–25, and 28–30 are unpatentable as obvious over Beser and RFC 2401.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Patent Owner’s contentions are not persuasive. Patent Owner fails to explain sufficiently why the notion of “performing an additional evaluation” constitutes an implicit part of the claimed intercept clause. Addressing similar arguments by Patent Owner, a Board panel made a similar determination in the ’237 FWD relied upon by Petitioner. ’237 FWD 11 (“the record show[s] that the additional functionality urged by Patent Owner should not be imported into the intercepting phrase”).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther

    “broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)). Under this standard, absent any special definitions, claim terms or phrases are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). For the purposes of this Decision, only the claim terms or clauses below need express construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only those terms in controversy need to be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 7

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

    “We find Dr. Tamassia’s testimony as to public accessibility of RFCs in general to be credible, especially given the independent support of RFC 2026 (Ex. 1036), the contents of which Patent Owner does not challenge.7 As part of routine discovery, see 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(ii), Patent Owner had the opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Tamassia, but does not point us to any discussion of this issue. Moreover, RFC 2401’s contents are consistent with the publication process described by RFC 2026 and Dr. Tamassia, including the inclusion of a date “November 1998” on the top right corner of the first page of the document. Ex. 1008, 1. In addition, this document—a request for suggestions and improvements for an Internet standards protocol, 7 As addressed below, Patent Owner objects and moves to dismiss a number of Exhibits based on hearsay and relevancy. See Paper 20 (Motion to Exclude). having no indication of being a mere draft or internal paper—is precisely the type of document whose very purpose is public disclosure, including on the Internet. Both of the magazine articles, Exhibits 1064 and 1065, further corroborate the indicia of availability on the face of RFC 2401, although they are not necessary to our finding of public accessibility. We do not rely on the testimony of Sandy Ginoza, Exhibits 1060 and 1063, which Patent Owner seeks to exclude as discussed further below.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not articulate a persuasive reason for giving Dr. Tamassia’s declaration, as a whole, little or no weight in our analysis. We agree with Petitioner that experts are not required to opine on every relevant factual and legal issue in order to be accorded substantial weight. The cases upon which Patent Owner relies do not show otherwise. For example, Patent Owner cites Schumer v. Laboratory Computer Systems, Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2002), for the proposition that “[expert] testimony . . . ‘must identify each claim element, state the witnesses’ interpretation of the claim element, and explain in detail how each claim element is disclosed in the prior art reference.’” PO Resp. 52–53. Patent Owner’s quotation, however, mischaracterizes Schumer by omitting introductory words necessary to the meaning of the quoted sentence. In its entirety, the quoted portion of Schumer states the following: Typically, testimony concerning anticipation must be testimony from one skilled in the art and must identify each claim element, state the witnesses’ interpretation of the claim element, and explain in detail how each claim element is disclosed in the prior art reference. The testimony is insufficient if it is merely conclusory. Schumer, 308 F.3d at 1315–16. The Federal Circuit then adds that it is not the task of the courts to “attempt to interpret confusing or general testimony to determine whether a case of invalidity has been made out” and “if the testimony relates to prior invention and is from an interested party, as here, it must be corroborated.” Id. at 1316. So, instead of laying out a specific, required format for the content of all testimony regarding invalidity, as asserted by Patent Owner, this portion of Schumer confirms the unremarkable proposition that conclusory, overly general, confusing, and self-interested testimony should not be relied upon. Id.; see also Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd. v. Turn-Key-Tech, LLC, 381 F.3d 1142, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“General and conclusory testimony, such as that provided by Dr. Kazmer in this case, does not suffice as substantial evidence of invalidity.”). Patent Owner does not show that the whole of Dr. Tamassia’s testimony suffers from any of these failings. Under 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), the preponderance of the evidence standard governs in determining whether Petitioner establishes unpatentability. We exercise discretion to determine the appropriate weight to accord the evidence presented, including expert opinions, based on the underlying facts supporting the opinion. We accord relevant portions of Dr. Tamassia’s testimony the appropriate weight based on that particular testimony and supporting evidence.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 8,504,696 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,504,696
• The Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd. / Apple Inc. et al. v. Virnetx Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 9, 2016 · IPR2015-01047 · APJ Stephen C Siu · IPR · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Patent outcomesUS 7,490,151 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,490,151
• Apple Inc. v. Virnetx Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 24, 2015 · IPR2014-00482 · APJ Stephen C Siu · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4, 6, 10, 13–15, 17, 20, 22, 26, 29–31, 33, 35, and 37 are unpatentable; claims 12 and 28 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We previously determined that, under a broad but reasonable construction, one of skill in the art would have understood the term “virtual private network communication link,” in light of the Specification, to include “a transmission path between two devices that restricts access to data, addresses, or other information on the path, generally using obfuscation methods to hide information on the path, including, but not limited to, one or more of authentication, encryption, or address hopping.” Dec. on Inst. 6–7. 1 Patent Owner disputes this interpretation and argues that the term “virtual private network communication link” must be “a communication path between computers in a virtual private network” (PO Resp. 8), “requir[es] computers within a VPN to communicate directly” (PO Resp. 10), and requires a “network of computers,” which, according to Patent Owner must be “more than a ‘path between two devices.’” PO Resp. 14. We decline to modify our previous construction of this term in the manner suggested by Patent Owner because such a modification is immaterial in this proceeding for reasons set forth below. 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 case).” slip op. at 3

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

    “understood that a “secure computer network address” must be “associated with a computer capable of virtual private network communications” because a claim recites “sending an access request message to the secure computer network address using a virtual private network communication link.” PO Resp. 16. We agree with Patent Owner that claim 1, for example, recites “sending an access request message to the secure computer network address using a virtual private network communication link.” However, Patent Owner does not explain sufficiently why an explicitly recited claim limitation must be incorporated into the construction of an associated claim term. Indeed, if one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that all secure computer network addresses must be associated with a computer capable of VPN communications and that any computer network address that is associated with computers that are incapable of VPN communications would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art not to be a “secure computer network address” (even if authorization for access is required), then any such recited claim limitation would be superfluous. Patent Owner also argues that “VirnetX’s proposed construction has been agreed to by its litigation adversaries and has been adopted by a district court.” PO Resp. 17. Even if Patent Owner’s proposed construction “has been agreed to by” parties in litigation and the district court, Patent Owner does not assert or demonstrate persuasively that one of ordinary skill in the art would have broadly but reasonably construed the term “secure computer network address” in light of the Specification to require association with a computer capable of virtual private network communications. In any event, Patent Owner does not appear to contend that the cited references fail to disclose a secure computer network address that is associated with a computer capable of VPN communications and, therefore, does not demonstrate sufficiently that the construction of “secure computer network address” will bear on the outcome of the issues in this inter partes review. We decline to modify our construction of this term.” slip op. at 5

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “computer network address” of “the server-side proxy” (and not the “host”). PO Resp. 32 (emphasis omitted). In other words, Patent Owner argues that, in contrast to claim 1, which requires sending a query message requesting an address and receiving a response message containing the address requested in the query message, Kiuchi discloses sending a query message requesting an address of “the host” but receiving a response message containing an address of “the server-side proxy,” rather than “the host.” Based on this presumption that “the host” of Kiuchi differs from the “server-side proxy” of Kiuchi, Patent Owner argues that Kiuchi fails to disclose the claimed invention and also that “the Board has exceeded its statutory authority by instituting in part on rationales that were not before it.” PO Resp. 30. However, Patent Owner does not explain sufficiently a difference between “the host” and the “server-side proxy” of Kiuchi. Kiuchi discloses that a client-side proxy “asks the C-HTTP name server whether it can communicate with the host” and that, in response, the C-HTTP name server examines “the requested server-side proxy” and responds by sending the IP address of the server-side proxy. Ex. 1004, 65 (emphasis added). In other words, Kiuchi discloses that “the host” that is requested is the requested “server-side proxy.”” slip op. at 13

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

    “of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Kiuchi with the other references.” PO Resp. 3. Petitioner provides reasons with supporting factual underpinnings to support the conclusion that the combination of Kiuchi and Bhatti (and/or Tavs) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 34–35, 38–39. For example, Petitioner states that one of ordinary skill in the art would implement Kiuchi’s user agent such that the user agent sends an access request for content stored on the origin server, in the same manner that Bhatti describes sending an access request from a user terminal for content stored [on] a content server. Pet. 38. Petitioner also states that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the ’180 patent to modify the client-side proxy and server-side proxy described by Kiuchi to support the service-level categorization and differentiation described by Tavs in order to give priority to business-relevant traffic during peak network congestion.” Pet. 34. Patent Owner does not dispute the reasons provided by Petitioner as to why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined teachings of Kiuchi and Bhatti (and/or Tavs) but argues that this obviousness ground “is critically flawed because the Petition relies solely on missing expert testimony for its rationale for combining” the references. PO Resp. 54, 56. However, Patent Owner does not explain why Petitioner is required to provide expert testimony in support of a proposed ground of unpatentability. Nor does Patent Owner explain the supposed flaws in the rationale provided by Petitioner.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,188,180 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,188,180
• Medtronic, Inc. v. Nuvasive, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 11, 2015 · IPR2013-00507 · APJ Stephen C Siu · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 10, 11, 14–17, and 19–28 are unpatentable as obvious over Frey and Michelson; claim 18 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided an implant with a length of greater than 40 mm (e.g., 42 mm) and at least 2.5 times the width, as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 9

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

    “the capability for posterolateral TLIF procedure.” PO Resp. 30. However, Frey discloses “spinal surgery from a unilateral posterior approach, a lateral approach, an oblique approach, and through laparoscopic or endoscopic instruments from any of a variety of angles or approaches to the spine.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 184. Given that Frey discloses spinal surgery performed “from any of a variety of angles or approaches,” and not just from the posterolateral approach, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner that the “intended purpose” of Frey is to perform spinal surgery from a posterolateral approach, specifically. Rather, Frey discloses that “spinal discs may be displaced or damaged” and “may result in nerve damage, pain, numbness, muscle weakness, and even paralysis.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 3. According to Frey, these issues are addressed by “surgical correction of a collapsed disc space” by “discectomy . . . often followed by restoration of normal disc space height and bony fusion of the adjacent vertebrae to maintain the disc space height.” Id. Hence, the “intended purpose” of the implant of Frey, as explicitly disclosed by Frey, is to correct surgically a collapsed disc space, to restore normal disc space height, and to provide bony fusion of the adjacent vertebrae. We disagree with Patent Owner that incorporating Michelson, which discloses an implant that “engage[s] more of the adjacent vertebrae,” (Ex. 1105, 3:49–50) would have rendered the resulting implant inoperable for Frey’s intended purpose of surgically correcting a collapsed disc space or providing bony fusion of the adjacent vertebrae. Even if the “intended purpose” of Frey is to practice a “TLIF procedure,” as Patent Owner contends, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that an implant measuring greater than 40 mm in length would be inoperable in a “TLIF procedure.” As Petitioner explains, U.S. Patent No. 7,815,682 (the ’682 patent) demonstrates that when performing “Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) procedures,” one of ordinary skill in the art may employ a spinal implant with “a length ranging between 20 and 45 mm.” Pet. Resp. 6 (citing, Ex. 1028, 1:37–38; 4:45). The ’682 patent does not disclose that the use of a spinal implant measuring up to 45 mm in length would render the “TLIF procedure” inoperable.” slip op. at 6

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

    “We recognize that evidence of secondary considerations must always be considered en route to the determination of obviousness, but its existence alone does not control the conclusion of obviousness. Richardson-Vicks v. Upjohn Co., 122 F.3d 1476, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The weight given to evidence of secondary considerations is dependent upon whether there is a nexus between the merits of the claimed invention and the evidence offered. Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1539 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Even assuming that NuVasive’s CoRoent XL implant experienced “commercial success,” as Patent Owner asserts, Patent Owner has not demonstrated sufficiently that there is a nexus between the merits of the claimed invention and the evidence offered. For example, Patent Owner argues that NuVasive “pioneered the market for lateral, trans-psoas interbody fusion surgeries,” (PO Resp. 44) but fails to demonstrate sufficiently that any of the disputed claims recite “lateral, trans-psoas interbody fusion surgeries.” We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments.” slip op. at 11

  • ExcludeOther

    “C. Motion to Exclude In its Motion to Exclude, Patent Owner seeks to exclude the Declaration of Loic Josse (Ex. 1116, “Josse Declaration”). We did not rely on the Josse Declaration in this decision. Therefore, Patent Owner’s motion to exclude is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 8,187,334 mixed
  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,187,334
• Medtronic, Inc. v. Nuvasive, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 11, 2015 · IPR2013-00508 · APJ Stephen C Siu · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 10, 11, 14–17, and 19–28 are unpatentable under §103; claim 18 was not shown unpatentable because the cited art did not establish its required dimensions.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided an implant with a length of greater than 40 mm (e.g., 42 mm) and at least 2.5 times the width, as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 7

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

    “We recognize that evidence of secondary considerations must always be considered en route to the determination of obviousness, but its existence alone does not control the conclusion of obviousness. Richardson-Vicks v. Upjohn Co., 122 F.3d 1476, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The weight given to evidence of secondary considerations is dependent upon whether there is a nexus between the merits of the claimed invention and the evidence offered. Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1539 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Even assuming that NuVasive’s CoRoent XL implant experienced “commercial success,” as Patent Owner asserts, Patent Owner has not demonstrated sufficiently that there is a nexus between the merits of the claimed invention and the evidence offered. For example, Patent Owner argues that NuVasive “pioneered the market for lateral, trans-psoas interbody fusion surgeries,” (PO Resp. 59) but fails to demonstrate sufficiently that any of the disputed claims recite “lateral, trans-psoas interbody fusion surgeries.” We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments.” slip op. at 17

  • ExcludeOther

    “C. Motion to Exclude In its Motion to Exclude, Patent Owner seeks to exclude the Declaration of Loic Josse (Ex. 1116, “Josse Declaration”). We did not rely on the Josse Declaration in this decision. Therefore, Patent Owner’s motion to exclude is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 8,187,334 mixed
  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,187,334
• Hayward Industries, Inc. v. Pentair Water Pool And SpA, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 19, 2014 · IPR2013-00285 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 12 is unpatentable as obvious over Rasmuson and Møller ’042 because the combination teaches the claimed pumping system and a skilled artisan would have had reason to combine them.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “not makes clear by its language that the word “primed” should be understood to mean “initially primed” or primed after the pressing of a “Start” button. As Patent Owner acknowledged at Oral Hearing, the claim language does not mention the term “initial” or “start” (Tr. 38:23–40:6) and, despite Patent Owner’s argument regarding the appropriate interpretation of “primed” in view of the Specification, we are not persuaded that the Specification limits “primed” in the manner argued by Patent Owner. Consequently, we conclude that the Specification does not express a clear intent to deviate from the plain meaning of the word “primed.” See Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“It is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must clearly express an intent to redefine the term” (citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted)). We are persuaded by Petitioner that our construction of the terms “is primed” and “is not primed,” as set forth in our Decision on Institution represents “the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage, as those words would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account any definitions supplied by [patentee’s] Specification” (In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), and we confirm that construction here (Dec. on Inst. 11 (citing Ex. 3001)). Despite Patent Owner’s arguments, we are not persuaded that patentee has supplied here such a definition limiting “primed” to “become primed” or “initially primed” with sufficient clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner

    “persuaded that the reference to “at least one aquatic application” in the preamble of claim 12 is a limitation. “In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Marketing Int’l., Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). “Conversely, a preamble is not limiting ‘where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention.’” Id. (quoting Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Here, we determine that the body of the claim describes a structurally complete invention and that the preamble neither recites structure nor is necessary to give life meaning or vitality to claim 12. Therefore, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that Rasmuson is not analogous art based on the type of pumps described in Rasmuson or the aquatic applications for which the recited pumping systems are suitable.” slip op. at 29

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

    “’479 Patent. In particular, Patent Owner argues that Rasmuson is neither from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention nor is it reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the patentee. PO Resp. 40–43 (citing In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). For the following reasons, we conclude that Rasmuson is analogous art to the pumping system recited in the challenged claim.” slip op. at 28

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

    “the relevant art would not have combined the teachings of Rasmuson and Møller ’042 to achieve the pumping system recited in claim 12. PO Resp. 30–59. After consideration of the parties’ remarks and supporting evidence, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments and conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have had reason to combine the references in the manner proposed by Petitioner. Petitioner contends that the measurement of input power, as taught by Møller ’042, is a proxy for Rasmuson’s flow transducer’s measurement of actual flow rate and would represent an improvement on Rasmuson’s methods and systems for measuring flow.6 Pet. 33; see Ex. 1018 ¶ 61 (“The controller of the Møller ‘042 Patent correlates the input power to a delivery variable of the pump (flow rate or pressure).” (citing Ex. 1003, col. 3, ll. 33–42)); Ex. 1037 ¶ 38 (“In many cases, using power-sensing techniques is a better option than using a flow transducer . . .”).7 In particular, Petitioner contends that “providing a power 6 Patent Owner argues that Møller ’042 teaches away from Rasmuson because Rasmuson teaches direct flow measurement and Møller ’042 teaches indirect flow measurement. PO Resp. 58–59. We do not find a clear teaching away from the substitution of one flow measurement means for its functional equivalent. For the reasons set forth above, we are not persuaded by those arguments. 7 Dr. Schaaf testified that the use of power meters was less invasive than the installation of flow sensors at the pump and that, after utilizing a controller that measured electrical power to detect loss of prime, pump life was increased from measuring technique [eliminates] the need for a probe to be placed in the water, which may become contaminated, or require piping to be cut.” Pet. 33; see Ex. 1037 ¶¶ 29–40; see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (arrangement of known elements according to their understood functions).” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 8,019,479 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,019,479
• Nuvasive, Inc. v. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 10, 2014 · IPR2013-00206 · APJ Stephen C Siu · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 17–23 were held unpatentable as obvious over Jacobson, Leu, and Brantigan; claims 9–16 and 24–30 were not shown unpatentable on the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Jacobson, Leu, and Brantigan. PO Resp. 50–53. Jacobson discloses advancing instruments laterally into the disc space to perform a “fusion” procedure. Ex. 1004, 5:1– 4, 6:11–13. Leu discloses fusion of the lumbar spine by introducing an “interbody graft” into the disc space. Ex. 1005, p. 603. Brantigan, like Leu, discloses “prosthetic implant devices” that are “suitable for . . . lateral placement in any area of the spine.” Ex. 1006, 2:56–58. We agree with Petitioner that the combination of the known element of performing a spinal fusion procedure by laterally advancing instruments into the disc space (Jacobson) with the known element of using an “interbody graft” in a spinal fusion procedure (Leu and Brantigan) would have resulted in no more than the predictable and expected result of performing a spinal fusion procedure (Jacobson) that includes inserting an implant into a disc space (Leu or Brantigan). “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).” slip op. at 23

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

    “Jacobson, Leu, Brantigan - combinability Patent Owner argues that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Jacobson, Leu, and Brantigan. PO Resp. 50–53. Jacobson discloses advancing instruments laterally into the disc space to perform a “fusion” procedure. Ex. 1004, 5:1– 4, 6:11–13. Leu discloses fusion of the lumbar spine by introducing an “interbody graft” into the disc space. Ex. 1005, p. 603. Brantigan, like Leu, discloses “prosthetic implant devices” that are “suitable for . . . lateral placement in any area of the spine.” Ex. 1006, 2:56–58. We agree with Petitioner that the combination of the known element of performing a spinal fusion procedure by laterally advancing instruments into the disc space (Jacobson) with the known element of using an “interbody graft” in a spinal fusion procedure (Leu and Brantigan) would have resulted in no more than the predictable and expected result of performing a spinal fusion procedure (Jacobson) that includes inserting an implant into a disc space (Leu or Brantigan). “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).” slip op. at 23

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

    “of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Brantigan with any of Jacobson or Leu because, according to Patent Owner, Brantigan “teaches away from sizing an implant to rest on the apophyseal ring or be sized to occupy substantially the full transverse width of adjacent vertebral bodies.” PO Resp. 51–52, 55–56. This issue was discussed previously above. Patent Owner also argues that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Brantigan with any of Jacobson or Leu because the “cannulae disclosed by Jacobson and Leu are too narrow to accommodate Brantigan’s implant,” that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to insert [Brantigan’s] implant in Jacobson’s [system],” and that “the shape of the Brantigan implant is not conducive to insertion through a cannula or similar surgical instrument [as disclosed by Jacobson or Leu].” PO Resp. 52–53. In other words, Patent Owner argues that the combination of Jacobson, Brantigan, and Leu would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because the prior art systems are not physically combinable (i.e., Brantigan’s implant allegedly cannot be physically combined with the cannula of either Jacobson or Leu). “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); see also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.”). We are thus not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument.” slip op. at 24

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

    “Secondary considerations We recognize that evidence of secondary considerations must always be considered en route to the determination of obviousness, but its existence alone does not control the conclusion of obviousness. Richardson-Vicks v. Upjohn Co., 122 F.3d 1476, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The weight given to evidence of secondary considerations is dependent upon whether there is a nexus between the merits of the claimed invention and the evidence offered. Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1539 (Fed. Cir. 1983).” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 8,251,997 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,251,997

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.