• Mahle Behr Charleston Inc. v. Frank Amidio CatalanoInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 15, 2023 · IPR2023-00861 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable on the asserted grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “On this record, we determine that Petitioner advances Dr. Medlin’s testimony to make out a claim limitation that is not suggested, much less taught, by the text of the prior art reference at hand. Because that testimony lacks objective support or adequate technical reasoning, it is entitled “little weight” and, moreover, is insufficient to support institution of trial. Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15 (Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential). Dr. Medlin’s remaining testimony relies on the testimony we have discussed so far. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 201–204, 207–210, 224–226. Accordingly, this testimony does not show sufficiently that Tomosada would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art that anodes should be placed within 10 inches of Tomosada’s hot liquid inlet. Because Petitioner relies on Dr. Medlin’s testimony to show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Tomosada suggested placing an anode within 10 inches of a hot liquid inlet to a radiator, and because that testimony does not show sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had such an understanding, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any claim challenged on the basis of Tomosada.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “To show obviousness, it is not enough to merely show that the prior art includes separate references covering each separate limitation in a challenged claim. Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “Rather, obviousness requires the additional showing that a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention would have selected and combined those prior art elements in the normal course of research and development to yield the claimed invention.” Id. (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007)). “This is so because inventions in most, if not all, instances rely upon building blocks long since uncovered, and claimed discoveries almost of necessity will be combinations of what, in some sense, is already known.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418–19. On the other hand, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418; accord In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Nevertheless, “[a] factfinder should be aware, of course, of the distortion caused by hindsight bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.” slip op. at 6

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, metallurgical engineering, or materials science engineering, and have two or more years of experience in mechanical engineering, metallurgical engineering, or materials science engineering and/or corrosion prevention system design.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 72–75). According to Petitioner, “[a] person could also have qualified as a [person of ordinary skill in the art] with some combination of more formal education (e.g., a Ph.D.) and less technical experience,” or vice versa. Id. at 16–17. “To the extent necessary, the [person of ordinary skill in the art] may have collaborated with other skilled artisans, such that the individual and/or team collectively would have had experience and/or knowledge or particular characteristics of a radiator system.” Id. at 17. “For the limited purpose of [its] Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, but it reserves the right to do so if trial is instituted.” Prelim. Resp. 7. In light of the record before us, and for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on our review of the ’494 patent and the prior art of record, we determine that the definition offered by Petitioner comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’494 patent and the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 7

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

    “C. Claim Construction In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms according to the standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–17 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2022). Under Phillips, claim terms are afforded “their ordinary and customary meaning.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. “[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Id. at 1313. “Importantly, the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Id. Both parties argue that we need not construe any terms in order to decide whether to institute trial. Pet. 17; Prelim. Resp. 8. We agree. After considering the arguments and information presented in the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that we do not need to construe any terms expressly for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 8

  Claim constructioncites Phillips · KSR · Graham
• Nespresso USA, Inc. v. K-Fee System GmbHInstituted
  PTAB · Sep 13, 2023 · IPR2023-00485 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution

  Instituted IPR of claims 1–10 on all petition grounds; Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood that the claims would have been obvious over Yoakim, Jarisch, Rossi, and Castellani.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “second German priority application do not disclose every limitation of independent claims 1 and 7 of the ’430 patent. Figure 1 does not depict a barcode under the flange, but rather the use of raised areas on the side of the capsule that act as an identifier. Ex. 1047, Fig. 1. Figure 2, coupled with its associated description, might suggest that the barcode could be on the portion of the base element facing away from the membrane,9 but this figure does not disclose many of the other elements of the claim, including holding arms, a drop box, annular convexity and concavity, and a pump to supply water to the single-serve capsule. Pet. 41; Ex. 1047, 9:21–24, Fig. 2. We also determine that Patent Owner does not sufficiently demonstrate that Figures 16–18 of the second German priority application provide adequate disclosures showing that the inventors were in possession 9 We question whether the second German priority application supports placing a barcode under the flange. The application states that the barcode could “be provided on that side of the peripheral region of the basic element which is directed away from the membrane.” Ex. 1047, 9:21–24. This statement is rather ambiguous as to where the “peripheral region” is that is “directed away from the membrane.” The text goes on to explain, however, that “[t]his barcode,” i.e., the barcode that is “directed away from the membrane,” “is read by a detector 13,” which in Figure 2 is oriented to read a barcode on the top surface of the flange. Id. at 9:25–26, Fig. 2. This suggests that the barcode is not on the bottom side of the flange and that arrow 15 is pointing to the outer portion of the peripheral region that is not covered by the membrane, and not necessarily the bottom of the flange. First, the second German priority application describes the use of “an identifier” that is read by a “sensor/detection means” and then compared to a stored identifier. Ex. 1047, 2:29–31. In Figure 2 the identifier may be a barcode and the detection means is detector 13. Id. at 9:11–26. In Figures 16–18, however, element 2.4.2 is not an identifier, but rather a “a form-fitting and/or friction-fitting means and/or a detection means.” Id. at 12:22– 24 (emphasis added). As such, it is unclear how this disclosure would demonstrate possession of the disputed claim limitation, when combined with the other limitations of claims 1 and 7 as a whole. Second, it is not evident that the toothed rings of Figures 16–18 are on the underside of the flange, as asserted by Patent Owner. Prelim. Resp. 42 (asserting that a barcode “could be located on the bottom side of the flange instead of the toothed ring”); Prelim. Sur-reply 4. The second German priority application states that the “form-fitting and/or friction-fitting means and/or detection means 2.4.2” is located in the “outer region” of the peripheral region 2.4. Ex. 1047, 12:22–24. We are directed to no evidence that this “outer region” is on the bottom of the flange, and Figures 16–18 each appear to depict means 2.4.2 on, or forming, the outer circumference of the flange.11 Id. at Figs. 16–18, 6:8–11 (noting that the toothed ring is provided “on the outer circumference of the periphery”). 10 The parties dispute whether Figure 16 of the second German priority application discloses annular convexity and concavity. Pet. 42–43; Prelim. Resp. 45–46; Prelim. Reply 4–5; Prelim. Sur-reply 4. At most, the parties identify a material issue of fact with respect to these two claim elements that is best resolved on a full trial record. 11 At first blush, Figure 17A appears to show means 2.4.2 under a portion of element 27 of the capsule. Ex. 1047, Fig. 17A; Prelim. Sur-reply 4 depicted in Figures 16–18, which rely on toothed rings physically interacting with either the chamber, retaining arms, or a pinion. Ex. 1047, 12:22–31, 13:8–18. The second German priority application explains that means 2.4.2 physically interacts with retaining arms 30 (embodiments of Figures 16 and 17) or a pinon (embodiment of Figure 18), and if means 2.4.2 were not present in these embodiments, the capsule would either “drop through into a waste container” or could not be inserted through the insertion shaft. Id. at 12:22–27, 13:9–12, 13:16–35 (noting that in the embodiment disclosed in Figure 18 a pinon interacts with means 2.4.2 and only when means 2.4.2 “is formed complementary to the teeth of the means” can the capsule be inserted). Patent Owner does not sufficiently explain how a barcode could replace means 2.4.2 in these embodiments and still retain the capsule within the device or allow the capsule to enter the insertion shaft.” slip op. at 14

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

    “First, Yoakim expressly states that the capsule may use a “barcode,” and the plain and ordinary meaning of this term is a code that satisfies the construction adopted by the district court. To the extent Patent Owner has reason to believe that Yoakim does not apply the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “barcode,” and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood this fact, it is encouraged to present such evidence during trial. Second, in this obviousness inquiry the question is not whether a person of ordinary skill in the art is more likely to adopt a barcode or a bitcode, but whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have seen a benefit to applying the “barcode” of Yoakim under the flange of the capsule. See Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“Our case law is clear. It’s not necessary to show that a combination is ‘the best option, only that it is a suitable option.’”). On that point, Jarisch expressly discloses the benefits of doing so. Ex. 1005 ¶ 22 (noting that applying the code at the bottom of the rim lowers the risk of the code becoming unreadable). As such, we determine that Petitioner sufficiently identifies where Yoakim discloses a barcode and explains why one of ordinary skill in the art would have placed such a “barcode” on the bottom of the capsule’s flange.” slip op. at 27

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

    “Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) during prosecution of the ’430 patent and that Rossi and Castellani were mentioned in the inter partes reviews that were cited on the IDS. Pet. 19; Prelim. Resp. 23. We need not determine whether Part 1 of the Advanced Bionics framework is satisfied based on these disclosures, however, as Part 2 of the analysis, which we address below, is dispositive. a) Factor (c)—the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for a rejection The Examiner did not issue any rejections during prosecution of the ’430 patent. Ex. 1002, 232–234. As the reasons for allowance, the Examiner stated: [A]llowance of claims 1 and 21–29 is indicated as none of the cited prior art discloses or suggests the flange comprising a top side and an opposing bottom side; a cover that is fastened to the top side of the flange to close the cavity; and an identifier provided on the bottom side of the flange, the identifier being a barcode, wherein the beverage machine, by reading or detecting the identifier with the sensor/detector, is configured to determine if the single-serve capsule belongs to a group of single serve capsules operable for use with the beverage machine, and only if the beverage machine determines that the single-serve capsule belongs to the group of single serve capsules operable for use with the beverage machine is the pump controlled to push the water into the single-serve capsule. Id. at 233. In arriving at this conclusion, the Examiner did not cite or discuss the disclosures of Yoakim, Jarisch, Rossi, or Castellani. Id. at 232–234. Yet, these references appear, based on the current record, to expressly teach or allowance, including a “flange comprising a top side and an opposing bottom side” (Ex. 1004 ¶ 197, Fig. 6); “a cover that is fastened to the top side of the flange to close the cavity” (Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 128–129, 197, 414); “an identifier provided on the bottom side of the flange” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 22) that is “a barcode” (Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 496, 525); and “reading or detecting the identifier with the sensor/detector . . . to determine if the single-serve capsule belongs to a group of single serve capsules operable for use with the beverage machine” (Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 25, 192, 477, 494–496, 525; Ex. 1005 ¶ 82; Ex. 1041, 3, 11). As such, to the extent the asserted combination of prior art references was evaluated during prosecution of the application that matured into the ’430 patent, we determine that such evaluation was minimal.” slip op. at 37

  • Other 314aDecided for petitioner

    “B. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) Patent Owner contends that “[t]he parties have been embroiled in disputes involving substantive claims for infringement for both the ’430 Patent and the Jarisch 929 reference,” and “it is unnecessary to open up yet another front in this dispute.” Prelim. Resp. 68–69. As such, Patent Owner requests that we deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Id. Patent Owner directs our attention to no case in which the Director has exercised discretion to deny a petition merely because the same patent was the subject of a co-pending district court infringement action. Indeed, 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) specifically contemplates such a scenario. Accordingly, we decline to exercise discretion to deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 40

  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 11,230,430
• Nespresso USA, Inc. v. K-Fee System GmbHInstituted
  PTAB · Sep 13, 2023 · IPR2023-00502 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Institution

  Instituted IPR on claims 1–16 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood that the claims would have been obvious over Yoakim, Jarisch, and Rapparini.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least [one] of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to claims 1–16 of the ’923 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

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

    “benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier application provides support for the claims of the later application, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112.” In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 297 (Fed. Cir. 1995). One may show support for the claims of a later application by showing that a single, earlier application provides written description support for the claims. PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Studiengesellschaft Kohle, MBH v. Shell Oil Co., 112 F.3d 1561, 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (noting that a patentee “cannot distinct previous applications”). Once Petitioner identifies a prior art reference with an effective filing date prior to that of the challenged patent, the burden of production to show entitlement to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application shifts to Patent Owner. See In re NTP, 654 F.3d 1268, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a patent’s claims are not entitled to an earlier priority date merely because the patentee claims priority . . . Rather, for a patent’s claims to be entitled to an earlier priority date, the patentee must demonstrate that the claims meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120”). Patent Owner may show possession of the invention through “such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “Although the exact terms need not be used in haec verba, . . . the specification must contain an equivalent description of the claimed subject matter. A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient.” Id.” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artPriority date, deniedDecided for petitioner

    “Once Petitioner identifies a prior art reference with an effective filing date prior to that of the challenged patent, the burden of production to show entitlement to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application shifts to Patent Owner. See In re NTP, 654 F.3d 1268, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a patent’s claims are not entitled to an earlier priority date merely because the patentee claims priority . . . Rather, for a patent’s claims to be entitled to an earlier priority date, the patentee must demonstrate that the claims meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120”). Patent Owner may show possession of the invention through “such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “Although the exact terms need not be used in haec verba, . . . the specification must contain an equivalent description of the claimed subject matter. A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient.” Id.” slip op. at 10

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

    “7. Analysis: Reasons to Combine the References Petitioner shows sufficiently that Yoakim, Jarisch and Rapparini are “analogous art in the field of portion capsule beverage extraction, each disclosing an invention that may be applied in automatic coffee/espresso machines.” Pet. 43. “Yoakim and Jarisch both improve the optimization of beverage parameters in a single-serve brewing system, and use optical codes read by the machine to achieve this.” Id. “Rapparini further improves the the wall of the capsule body like those used in Yoakim and Jarisch.” Id. at 43–44; see id. at 50–51, 53–54 (Petitioner’s further argument that Rapparini discloses “an optimized capsule structure that is stiffer and more stable” by virtue of radially spaced and vertically oriented ribs and grooves, where the vertically oriented grooves are free from extending entirely to the bottom region of the capsule). Petitioner directs us to additional evidence tending to establish that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been prompted to modify Yoakim’s device, to include the code placement of Jarisch and the grooves and ribs of Rapparini, to arrive at the claimed invention with an expectation of success. Id. at 44–48.” slip op. at 27

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,994,923
• Chongqing Yanmei Technology Co., Ltd. v. Terves, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Aug 30, 2023 · IPR2023-00521 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 19–61 and 63–81 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Doud anticipates claims 19–61 and 63–75.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim of the ’740 patent. Accordingly, we grant institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateOther

    “the application describe the claim limitations exactly,” the application must demonstrate to persons of ordinary skill in the art that the applicants invented a composition including those limitations. Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262. On its face, the range of “at least 0.01 wt. %” encompasses a range that is broader than 0.01–35 wt. %, and Patent Owner does not sufficiently explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand from merely a disclosure of 35 wt.% that the inventors were in possession of the entire claimed range for copper, cobalt, or nickel in the magnesium composition.” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedOther

    “On this record, the term “at least 0.01 wt. %” in the ’740 patent encompasses values for nickel, copper, and cobalt that are higher than the 35 wt. % (nickel and copper) and 20 wt. % (cobalt) limits outlined in the parent and grandparent applications. Accordingly, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that claim 19 of the ’740 patent is not entitled to the benefit of the filing dates of its priority applications. Challenged claims 20–61 and 63–75 depend from claim 19 and there is no argument presented that these claims have independent written description support in Doud. For example, there is no evidence presented that any of these dependent claims narrow the ranges for each of copper, nickel, and cobalt recited in in the ’295 application for these claims.7 Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we apply Doud as prior art to challenged claims 19–61 and 63–75.” slip op. at 12

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

    “as the ’740 patent. For example, Doud and the ’740 patent both disclose a method of forming a novel magnesium composite that includes melting an AZ91D magnesium alloy containing 90 wt. % magnesium, 9 wt. % aluminum, and 1 wt. % zinc. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 45, 47; Ex. 1001, 21:43–51, 22:48–53, 33:32–43, 34:9–12. To this alloy is added either 7 wt. % nickel or 10 wt. % copper. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 45, 47, 53, 57; Ex. 1001, 21:48–51, 22:53–56, 33:35–36, 34:12–13. These additives are mixed in the magnesium alloy at a temperature that is less than the melting point of copper or nickel, and the casting is then cooled. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 45, 47, 53, 57; Ex. 1001, 21:51–54, 22:56–58, 33:35, 34:12-13. Doud reports that nickel and copper, when added to molten magnesium, will form Mg2Ni and CuMg2 intermetallic, galvanically-active, in situ precipitates. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 12–13. Doud discloses that the dissolution rate of the resulting casting material is either 325 mg/cm2-hr (nickel) or 50 mg/cm2-hr (copper) in a 3% KCl solution at 90° C. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 45, 47, 53, 57; Ex. 1001, 21:60–62, 22:61–63, 33:41–43, 34:15–17. Doud also discloses that the average particle diameter of the additives used in the invention is generally “at least about 0.1 microns” and “typically no more than about 500 microns.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 6. Petitioner explains how the identified disclosures of Doud anticipate independent claim 19. Pet. 39–40. Petitioner also identifies where the limitations of dependent claims 20–61 and 63–75 are disclosed in Doud. Id. at 41–45. Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s anticipation arguments with respect to claims 19–61 and 63–75, apart from arguing that Doud is not prior art to these claims. Prelim. Resp. 27–39. demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that claims 19–61 and 63–75 are anticipated by Doud.” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,689,740
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 26, 2023 · IPR2022-00149 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7–13 and 15–17 are unpatentable: the Board found them obvious over the listed Nerone-based and Zhang-based combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “had, at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, physics, or the equivalent, and two or more years of experience with LED devices and related LED circuit design. Lack of work experience could have been remedied by additional education and vice versa.” PO Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 38–42). Patent Owner contends this is a similar definition as “provided by Petitioner” but Petitioner’s definition is “overbroad in several respects, as explained by Dr. Ducharme,” including allowing an individual with no experience in LEDs or LED devices to be a person of ordinary skill in the art. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 20–21; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 40–41). Petitioner contends that “[t]here is no meaningful dispute over a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Pet. Reply 1. We apply Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it requires specific experience with LED circuit design, and, thus, more closely aligns with the level of skill reflected in the ’400 patent and the prior art of record. However, if we were to apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, our Decision would not be affected.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Petitioner contends that “no special constructions are necessary.” Pet. 8; Pet. Reply 2. “Patent Owner has applied the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim terms.” PO Resp. 8. Upon review of the record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). D. Patent Owner’s Contention that Martin is not Available as Prior Art” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner. The statute governing the formerly available CBM proceeding explicitly limits challenges based on “prior art that is described by section 102(a).” AIA § 18(a)(1)(C). In contrast, § 311(b) permits challenges “on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” The language in § 311(b) implies that, unlike CBMs, IPRs are not limited to prior art challenges solely under § 102(a). Patent Owner relies, inter alia, on Infobridge, but that case deals with public accessibility under § 102(b). Infobridge, 929 F. 3d at 1368–69. The parties do not cite to any Federal Circuit decisions that squarely address this issue. However, the Federal Circuit applied § 102(e) patent application publication prior art in an appeal from an IPR. See, e.g., Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Iancu, 767 Fed. App’x 918, 920–21, 926 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (nonprecedential) (determining that a § 102(e) patent application publication, “Joshi”, was available as prior art in an IPR).” slip op. at 11

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

    “provide a specific numerical analysis of the number of LEDs necessary to match a value of the DC output voltage in Nerone. PO Resp. 31–32. Based on Dr. Baker’s testimony, Petitioner provides several factors that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered when designing Nerone’s circuitry to satisfy the “matching” requirement of limitation 7(f). Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 120). Dr. Baker supports his testimony concerning the knowledge of these factors by one of ordinary skill with reference to disclosures in Cross and Martin. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 121–123. Neither Patent Owner nor Dr. Ducharme dispute that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known to consider these factors when designing Nerone’s circuit. See PO Resp. 30–43; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 89–106. Petitioner then explains how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have used these factors to apply the teachings of Martin to configure Nerone’s circuitry so that “the forward voltage of the series-connected LEDs [] approximately match[es] the rectified AC voltage output of the above-described LED driver circuit.” Pet. 21; id. at 20–21; see also Ex. 1107 ¶ 29 (“a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood and would have been capable of determining the appropriate number of LEDs based on the application and design of Nerone’s system such that the forward voltage drop of the LEDs . . . matches the rectified AC voltage output . . . to mitigate against overdriving or underdriving the LEDs.” (citing Ex. 1074 ¶¶ 30–31, Fig. 2)). For these reasons, we find that it was not necessary for Petitioner to provide a specific numerical calculation of the number of LEDs in its proposed modification of Nerone. We also agree with Petitioner that “matching the input voltage to the forward voltage of the LEDs had become a matter of routine optimization.” Pet. 19. Patent Owner contends that this statement is “vague and conclusory.” Sur-reply 12–13. Petitioner, however, supports this statement with the testimony of Dr. Baker. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 120–123. Dr. Baker’s testimony, which we credit, is corroborated by both Cross and Martin. See id. (citing Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 2, 21, 22 Fig. 5; Ex. 1074 ¶ 30). In particular, Cross specifically discloses that “[t]he number of LEDs employed will vary with the intended lighting application and the value of the rectified DC voltage, wherein optimization of such is well within the skill of those in the art.” Ex. 1074 ¶ 30. Patent Owner does not dispute Cross’s statement that optimizing the number of LEDs is within the skill of an ordinarily skilled artisan. See PO Resp. 40. Martin chooses the number of LEDs “such that the maximum voltage across each individual LED . . . is low enough so as to not damage the LEDs.” Ex. 1015 ¶ 22. It also specifically discloses that “[t]he voltage across each of the individual LEDs in the array is the line voltage divided by the number of LEDs in series.” Id. (emphasis added). Consequently, Martin uses “voltage matching” to determine the number of LEDs so as not to damage the individual LEDs. See also Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 120–124 (Dr. Baker explaining that a skilled artisan “configuring Nerone’s circuit 400 would have recognized that the forward voltage of the series-connected LEDs should approximately match the rectified AC voltage output of the above-described LED driver circuit.” Id. ¶ 124.). Martin’s disclosure, thus, aligns with the reason for “matching” described in the ’400 patent. Ex. 1001, 2:24–35.” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 10,687,400 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,687,400
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 7, 2023 · IPR2022-00100 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

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

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

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

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

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

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

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

  Patent outcomesUS 10,750,583 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,750,583
• Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 2, 2023 · IPR2022-00052 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2–5, 7, 11–13, 21, and 23 are unpatentable: claims 2–5, 7, 13, 21, and 23 as obvious over Birrell and Schultz; claims 11–12 as obvious over Piepgras and Kasegi.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of skill in the art, we consider the type of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986).” slip op. at 6

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

    “the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim[s] in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, the words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would have had to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention in the context of the entire patent including the specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Neither party contends that any terms of the ’251 patent require express construction, with each party relying on the plain and ordinary meaning of each claim term. PO Resp. 13–14; Pet. Reply 1. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and evidence, we agree that no claim terms require express construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 7

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

    “10A–C, the reflective coating is folded and shaped to form non-planar reflectors. Ex. 1046 ¶ 49; PO Resp. 15–16; Sur-Reply 4–5. We agree with Petitioner, however, that the reflector embodiments depicted in Figures 10A–C are just one potential way of utilizing a reflective layer in Schultz, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that use of an unfolded reflective layer is contemplated, and would be beneficial in, the planar embodiments of Schultz, such as the planar embodiment depicted in Figure 1. Pet. Reply 3–4, 7; Ex. 1046 ¶ 49 (“By using reflective surfaced materials, such as multilayered optical film, for the insulative layer 34 in the embodiments described herein, the light reflected from the attached LED dies has a higher probability of being reflected toward” a focusing element) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 15

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

    “to use a reflective coating or substrate in Birrell because “the use of a reflective substrate to provide mechanical support for an array of LEDs was well known in the art.” Pet. 14. Petitioner further contends that Schultz expressly discloses that reflective coatings are beneficial as they prevent light from an LED die being “unutilized due to absorption or scattering of the light.” Id. at 14–15 (quoting Ex. 1046 ¶ 48); Ex. 1046 ¶ 49 (Schultz explaining that “reflective surfaced materials” provide a “higher probability” that light reflected from the LEDs will reach the focusing element). Petitioner further contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have used a reflective substrate in Birrell in view of Birrell’s expressed desire for a uniform optical reflection to provide a uniform light source. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 104; Ex. 1018, 6:6–18; Ex. 1022 ¶ 81; Ex. 1023, 16:16–45). Petitioner contends one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using a reflective substrate in Birrell because this would have entailed “the use of known components and mounting techniques to produce the predictable result of an LED circuit that benefited from known properties of reflective base structures, as suggested by Schultz and the knowledge of a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Id. at 16.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 10,492,251 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,492,251
• Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 2, 2023 · IPR2022-00051 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 6 are unpatentable as obvious over Birrell and Schultz; the Board did not reach the Piepgras or Harbers and Schultz grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date of the ’251 patent “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, physics, or the equivalent, and two or more years of experience with LED devices and/or related circuit design, or a related field.” Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 20–24). For purposes of this proceeding, “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of [a person of ordinary skill in the art].” PO Resp. 14. Upon review of the parties’ arguments, the prior art of record, and the ’251 patent, we adopt Petitioner’s undisputed level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5

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

    “the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim[s] in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, the words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would have had to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention in the context of the entire patent including the specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Neither party contends that any terms of the ’251 patent require express construction, with each party relying on the plain and ordinary meaning of each claim term. PO Resp. 13–14; Pet. Reply 1. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and evidence, we agree that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 6

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

    “In view of the foregoing, we determine that Birrell and Schultz, when viewed in light of the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, teach or suggest mounting “at least one LED circuit” “on a reflective substrate,” as recited in claim 1 of the ’251 patent.” slip op. at 14

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

    “sought to use a reflective coating in Birrell because “the use of a reflective substrate to provide mechanical support for an array of LEDs was well known in the art.” Pet. 29. Petitioner further contends that Schultz expressly discloses that reflective coatings are beneficial as they prevent light from an LED die being “unutilized due to absorption or scattering of the light.” Id. at 30 (quoting Ex. 1046 ¶ 48); Ex. 1046 ¶ 49 (Schultz explaining that “reflective surfaced materials” provide a “higher probability” that light reflected from the LEDs will reach the focusing element). Petitioner further contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have used a reflective substrate in Birrell in view of Birrell’s expressed desire for a uniform optical reflection to provide a uniform light source. Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 104; Ex. 1018, 6:6–18; Ex. 1022 ¶ 81; Ex. 1023, 16:16–45). Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using a reflective substrate in Birrell because this would have entailed “the use of known components and mounting techniques to produce the predictable result of an LED circuit that benefited from properties of reflective base structures, as suggested by Schultz and the knowledge of a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Id. at 31.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 10,492,251 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,492,251
• Tokyo Ohka Kogyo., Ltd. v. Fujifilm Electronic Materials U.S.A., Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 31, 2023 · PGR2022-00010 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable for lack of written description support under § 112(a); the Board did not reach either obviousness ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) “would have had a Bachelor degree in materials science, engineering, chemistry or similar technical discipline, and had at least two years of experience relating to the design and development of semiconductor manufacturing processes.” Pet. 14. Petitioner further submits that, “[a]lternatively, such a person may have had additional graduate education as a substitute for professional experience, or significant work experience as a substitute for formal education.” Id. Patent Owner states that, “[w]ithout taking a position on the correctness of this definition, Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s POSA definition.” PO Resp. 11 (citing Pet. 14). 3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), revised 35 U.S.C. § 103 effective March 16, 2013. Petitioner contends, and Patent Owner does not contest, that “the earliest priority date claimed by the ’329 patent” is December 6, 2013. Pet. 13; PO Resp. 6. Because the undisputed earliest claimed priority date of the ’329 patent is after March 16, 2013, we apply the AIA versions of §§ 102 and 103. record, and is consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art in this proceeding.” slip op. at 5

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

    “We disagree. It is clear from the plain language of claim 1 that the claimed “cleaning composition” is a composition for cleaning that includes four named components and has a specified pH. Ex. 1001, 29:2–9. The ’329 patent specification unambiguously teaches that the cleaning composition is for removing residues from semiconductor substrates. Id. at 1:23–29, 2:10–12, 2:17–33, 15:52–55. Although the ’329 patent describes a cleaning composition that comprises a redox agent, a chelating agent, a metal corrosion inhibitor, an organic solvent, and water, we see no reason to construe the term “cleaning composition” itself to require these components. Claim 1 expressly recites expressly including or precluding a chelating agent or a metal corrosion inhibitor. Ex. 1001, 29:2–9. The Federal Circuit advises that the specification “is not a suitable substitute for, nor can it be used to rewrite, the chosen claim language. ‘Specifications teach. Claims claim.’” SuperGuide, 358 F.3d at 875 (quoting SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 n. 14 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc)). The ’329 patent specification does teach a cleaning composition that includes a redox agent, a chelating agent, a metal corrosion inhibitor, an organic solvent, and water, but claim 1 is directed to a cleaning composition that expressly requires only a subset of those components. Patent Owner’s proposed construction would effectively rewrite the claim by adding unclaimed components, which we decline to do under the guise of claim construction. See id. (“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.”).” slip op. at 9

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable

    “that Petitioner establishes that the ’329 patent does not provide sufficient written description support for the challenged claims. Pet. 15–43; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 56–82. More specifically, we find that the ’329 patent does not reasonably convey to a POSA that the inventor was in possession of cleaning compositions that do not include a chelating agent or a metal corrosion inhibitor. There is no dispute, on this record, that the ’329 patent specification explicitly teaches that a redox agent, a chelating agent, a metal corrosion inhibitor, an organic solvent, and water are mandatory components of the cleaning composition described therein. PO Resp. 15 (Patent Owner agreeing with Petitioner that “[t]he ’329 patent’s disclosure is unambiguously explicit regarding mandatory components of the cleaning compositions described therein.” (citing Pet. 17; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 56–57) (emphasis omitted, alteration in original)); see Ex. 1001, 3:47–48, 3:62–64, 10:24–26, 10:66–11:2, 12:3–4; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 56–67. Claim 1, however, does not require that the cleaning composition include a chelating agent or a metal corrosion inhibitor. Ex. 1001, 29:2–9. Therefore, establishing proper written description support for claim 1 requires more than showing that the inventor was in possession of a cleaning composition that includes a redox agent, a chelating agent, a metal corrosion inhibitor, an organic solvent, and water; the ’329 patent must also show that the inventor was in possession of a cleaning composition that includes only a redox agent (hydroxylamine), an organic solvent (an alkylene glycol), water, and an alkanolamine. Id.” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 10,927,329 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,927,329
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 25, 2023 · IPR2022-00101 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 11, 12, and 14 were not shown unpatentable: the asserted obviousness combinations failed to establish required LED voltage matching or a clear, workable combination.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We are persuaded that Patent Owner’s proposal is more consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’583 patent and prior art of record. We agree that Petitioner’s proposal is overbroad in that it encompasses artisans without LED circuit design experience (“and two or more years of experience with LED devices and/or related circuit design . . .” (emphasis added)). Patent Owner’s definition, in contrast, requires “two or more years of experience with LED devices and related LED circuit design.” We therefore adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of skill, but we note that the outcome here would not have changed had we adopted Petitioner’s level of skill.” slip op. at 7

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

    “preliminarily agreed with Patent Owner that “substrate” may mean “a surface where ‘LEDs, capacitors and/or resistors are formed or mounted.’” Pet. 7; Dec. 19 (quoting Prelim. Resp. 22). We instructed the parties to address the meaning of “substrate” more fully at trial. Dec. 19–20 n.13. Post-institution, the parties propose the following competing constructions for the term “substrate”:” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “(2) Our analysis We agree with Patent Owner. Patent Owner’s plain reading of limitation 1(c) is correct, and under this reading, the combination of Shackle and Birrell fails to disclose or suggest limitation 1(c). Limitation 1(c) states in part: “at least one LED circuit having any number of LEDs . . . needed to approximately match the forward voltage drop of a first input voltage to the LED driver.” Ex. 1001, 27:22–25 (emphasis added). We have omitted the language “connected in series or series parallel” to highlight the grammatical relationship between the noun phrase “any number of LEDs” and the verb phrase “needed to approximately match.” The plain reading of this limitation is that the at least one LED circuit has any number of LEDs needed to approximately match the forward voltage drop of the LED driver input. Petitioner’s reading, that “the at least one LED circuit,” rather than “any number of LEDs,” must approximately match the forward voltage drop of the LED driver input, is strained and not grammatically plausible. See Reply 1–3. Petitioner does not assert there is an express disclaimer or disavowal in the specification that supports its position; Petitioner instead relies on examples disclosed in the specification to support its faulty interpretation of limitation 1(c). See Reply 2–3. These arguments are unpersuasive. It is axiomatic that we must not “limit[] the claimed invention to preferred embodiments or specific examples in the specification.” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1346–47 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Not only that, but Petitioner’s citations to the specification better support Patent Owner’s position. In Petitioner’s view, the specification requires other non- LED components to be combined with one or more LEDs to “appropriately match the voltage.” Reply 2. The main example Petitioner relies on describes 38 LEDs having a total voltage drop of 114 V in a circuit with a bridge rectifier having a 6 V voltage drop. Id. at 2–3 (citing Ex. 1001, 16:64–17:7). Yet the 114 V voltage drop of the LEDs alone “approximately matches” the input voltage of 120 V, without the contribution of the bridge rectifier (6 V). Id. Indeed, 114 V out of 120 V is a 95% match. Thus, this example supports Patent Owner’s view that it is the voltage drop of the LEDs themselves, not the LED circuit as a whole, that must approximately match the LED driver input. See Sur-reply 6–7.” slip op. at 16

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

    “combination. The first is that the proposed combination is not at all clear. Although Petitioner need not propose a bodily incorporation of different embodiments, Petitioner must provide a “reasoned analysis” explaining what the combination is. See DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc. v. Apple Inc., 885 F.3d 1367, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2018); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); see also Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“We must be careful not to allow hindsight reconstruction of references to reach the claimed invention without any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to produce the claimed invention.”) (citation omitted). But the Petition never explains how or where Piepgras’s glass substrate would be combined with Piepgras’s alleged flexible substrate, the rope light of Figure 31. At most, Petitioner suggests incorporating the illumination device 500 of Figure 42 in the rope light of Figure 31. Pet. 48 (“Piepgras provides for configurations where a reflective platform (reflective substrate) mounts lighting system 500 in a manner applicable generally to the inventions of Piepgras . . ., and thus including the rope lighting application discussed above.”). As for the glass substrate, Petitioner merely states that “a POSITA would have found it predictable to configure the Shackle-Piepgras device to implement a flexible substrate mounted to the glass substrate, wherein at least one of the plurality of LED packages is mounted to the flexible substrate.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 150). This vague statement just parrots the claim language and does not explain anything about how the glass substrate would be included in the combination.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 10,750,583 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,750,583

Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.