- Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. v. Emerachem Holdings, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 22, 2016 · IPR2014-01556 · APJ Fred E Mckelvey · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6–7, and 9–16 are unpatentable under § 103(a) over the combined prior art; the anticipation grounds do not establish unpatentability.
RulingsFinal written decision- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“(a) A party may request oral argument on an issue raised in a paper at a time set by the Board. The Trial Practice Guidelines advise as follows: A party may rely upon evidence that has been previously submitted in the proceeding and may only present arguments relied upon in the papers previously submitted. No new evidence or arguments may be presented at the oral argument. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48768 (col. 2) (Aug. 14, 2012) (italics added). The rationale in support of the Rule and Guideline is fundamental fairness to an opponent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) (Part 42 “shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.”) It is not just to an opponent for a party to raise an argument not based on the Petition, Opposition, or Reply, or to discuss evidence not in the record. Why? There is no meaningful opportunity for the opponent to rebut the argument or address the evidence. Likewise, the Board is at a disadvantage because judges do not prepare for oral argument based on arguments and evidence not present in the record. To the extent that arguments and discussions took place at oral argument in this case contrary to the principles set out above, those arguments and discussions have not been considered in rendering a decision on the merits.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We disagree with Petitioner’s “comprising” position. While the regeneration gas can “comprise” elements not set out in parts [A1] and [A2] of claim 1, as reproduced above, part [A2] is restricted to an inert carrier gas. According to the ʼ911 patent, the regeneration gas is substantially oxygen free, albeit the regeneration gas can contain up to one percent oxygen. Ex. 1001A, col. 3:27–29. A regeneration gas containing more than one percent oxygen would cease to be a regeneration gas within the meaning of claim 1. Any reasonable interpretation of “regeneration gas,” consistent with the Specification, would require that the regeneration gas have no more than up to one percent oxygen. In reaching our conclusion, we have not added a limitation from the Specification into claim 1 of the ʼ911 patent; rather, we interpret the meanings of “regeneration gas” and “inert carrier gas” as set out in the claim.” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“to doubt that the NOx released by the [Hirota] absorbent . . . [would] be reduced . . . by . . . [the Hirota] process” “provid[ed] there is sufficient reductant present.” Ex. 1056, page 89:18–21. However, Dr. Crocker’s cross-examination testimony does not establish that the Hirota process anticipates the process of claim 1 of the ʼ911 patent. The issue here is not whether Hirota is operative; rather, it is whether Hirota operates with “an inert carrier gas” within the meaning of claim 1 of the ʼ911 patent. During oral argument, Petitioner called attention to the wording of Hirota, with emphasis on the fact Hirota does not use the word “shall” or “must” but rather uses the word “is.” Transcript of Oral Argument, Paper 56, page 4:7 through page 5:15. According to Petitioner, under a broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the regeneration gas of claim 1 should be interpreted broadly. Id. at page 5:12–15. But, Petitioner previously had agreed that it makes no “difference what the claim construction is here,” (id. at page 3:20–23). We view the “shall,” “must,” and “is” discussion as a formalistic wordsmithing side-show given that the meaning of the regeneration gas is clear from its description in the Specification. We find that Hirota does not describe the subject matter of claim 1 of the ʼ911 patent. Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to prove that Hirota anticipates claim 1 of the ʼ911 patent.” slip op. at 22
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“Likewise, Land justifies a holding that joint inventors Guth and Campbell (Ex. 1004A) are separate entities vis-à-vis joint inventors of the Guth, Campbell, and Wagner ʼ911 patent (Ex. 1001A). Patent Owner maintains that Guth ʼ758 and Campbell’s “work may not be used against [them] unless there is a time bar under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).” Paper 28, page 19 (quoting MPEP § 2136.05 (7th ed. July 1998)). However, Guth and Campbell’s work is not being used against them; it is being used against the inventive entity of the ʼ911 patent: Guth, Campbell, and Wagner. At oral argument, counsel for Patent Owner stated “[s]o what I’m saying is I agree that Land probably applies.” Transcript of Oral Argument, Paper 56, page 14:19–20. On the record before us, there is insufficient evidence that Wagner contributed to, or is a joint inventor of, the subject matter described and/or claimed in the ʼ911 patent.” slip op. at 39
Patent outcomesUS 5,953,911 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 5,953,911 - Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. v. Emerachem Holdings, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 22, 2016 · IPR2014-01555 · APJ Fred E Mckelvey · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–2, 7–12, 14–17, 19, 21–24, and 31–42 are unpatentable based on the grounds sustained in the final written decision.
RulingsFinal written decision- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“Unlike Corning, the inherency theory matured during cross- examination of Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Crocker. Ultimately, in our view, Dr. Crocker agreed that no platinum migrated to the alkali metal layer—based on an analysis with a correct “0.018” number. The Reply evidence, consistent with Dr. Crocker’s testimony, agreed that a correct number is “0.018” and on that basis, Petitioner’s witness agreed with Dr. Crocker. Further, unlike Corning, a whole new theory of anticipation did not arise in the first instance with the Reply; rather, it was essentially developed during cross-examination of Patent Owner’s witness.” slip op. at 74
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“The fact that evidence is filed with a reply does not mean the evidence is per se inadmissible. The exhibits relate to the issue of whether there is a typographical error in Example 1 of Hoekstra, i.e., is “2.018” a typographical error which should be “0.018.” In presenting the Petition, Petitioner’s witness Dr. Farrauto explained why he felt Hoekstra’s Example 1 anticipates claim 1 of the ʼ558 patent. Dr. Crocker, Patent Owner’s witness, disagreed with Dr. Farrauto’s explanation.” slip op. at 73
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert creditedMixed
“While the matter of assigning the weight to be given to the testimony of the two witnesses in this case is a close call, based on the direct and crossexamination testimony with respect to Kinoshita and its Example 3, and to the extent that there is a conflict between Dr. Crocker’s testimony and that of Dr. Farrauto, we credit the testimony of Dr. Crocker over that of Dr. Farrauto. However, even if one were to find the testimony of Dr. Crocker and Dr. Farrauto evenly balanced, then a preponderance of the evidence on inherency does not emerge. Under those circumstances, the party with the burden of proof cannot be said to have proved its case. See Yamaha Int’l Corp. v. Hoshino Gakki Co., 840 F.2d 1572, 1580 n.11 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (where a party is under a burden to establish a fact by a preponderance of the evidence and where the evidence is so evenly balanced that no preponderance emerges, the party having the burden of persuasion necessarily loses). We are also concerned that Example 3 does not describe enough detail to indicate clearly whether there is enough potassium to cover the platinumimpregnated alumina. Ex. 2002 ¶ 32.” slip op. at 51
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We hold that “intimately and entirely coated” mean exactly what it says. In other words, it means the embodiment shown in Figs. 1a through 1c of the ʼ558 patent drawings and associated discussion in the written description portion of the specification. We appreciate why both parties would prefer a broader construction, i.e., “intimately and entirely coated” means (1) coated with a monolayer where catalytic action would occur through diffusion (our construction) as well as (2) direct contact with the combustion gas without diffusion. Petitioner would favor a broader construction because Takeshima anticipates a direct contact embodiment. Patent Owner would favor a broader construction because more “material” might infringe claim 1. Takeshima Figs. 5(A) and 5(B) describe an embodiment where the exhaust gas directly contacts the catalyst. A direct contact embodiment does not fall within the scope of claim 1 of the ʼ558 patent. Accordingly, Takeshima does not describe the “intimately and entirely coated” limitation of claim 1.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 5,451,558 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 5,451,558 - Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. v. Emerachem Holdings, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 22, 2016 · IPR2014-01557 · APJ Fred E Mckelvey · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 16, and 39 are unpatentable under § 103; claims 41, 45, 46, and 49 were not shown unpatentable because the combinations did not disclose an indicator reporting the …
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Dr. Farrauto noted that MECA describes testing using a 90 mm Pallflex filter. Ex. 2009, page 29:4–page 30:20. His uncontradicted cross-examination supports a finding that one skilled in the art (1) knows the nature of the Pallflex filter and (2) would have been able to use the Pallflex filter in the diesel engine Otake environment. Opposing Dr. Farrauto’s testimony, all we have is an argument by counsel for Patent Owner. Paper 21, pages 8–9. As MECA shows, use of a DPF-A filter with a catalyst coated directly on the filter” slip op. at 24
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“1. Claim 1 Claim 1 is not as narrow as Patent Owner would have us believe. It covers reducing “particulate matter” (i.e., “small particles of solid or liquid suspended in a gas”). These are precisely the “particulate matters” described by MECA. See Ex. 1008A, Figure 6, renumbered page 15—discussed in more detail above.” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Dr. Farrauto noted that MECA describes testing using a 90 mm Pallflex filter. Ex. 2009, page 29:4–page 30:20. His uncontradicted cross-examination supports a finding that one skilled in the art (1) knows the nature of the Pallflex filter and (2) would have been able to use the Pallflex filter in the diesel engine Otake environment. Opposing Dr. Farrauto’s testimony, all we have is an argument by counsel for Patent Owner. Paper 21, pages 8–9. As MECA shows, use of a DPF-A filter with a catalyst coated directly on the filter reduced particulate matter to very low levels. Ex. 1008A, renumbered page 15, Figure 6. Patent Owner is using a known filter for its intended purpose to obtain an expected result—reduction in particular matter.” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“3. Conclusion We hold that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Patent Owner has not argued the separate patentability of dependent claims 5, 9, and 39. Accordingly, those claims fall with claim 1. We hold that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 41 would have been obvious.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 7,951,346 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,951,346 - Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. v. Emerachem Holdings, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 22, 2016 · IPR2014-01558 · APJ Fred E Mckelvey · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–14 and 16–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Campbell, Saito, and Stiles; the Board found the Hirota, Takeshima, and Saito anticipation grounds insufficient.
RulingsFinal written decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We see no need to repeat that discussion here, and adopt it as written therein. Petitioner has failed to establish that Hirota describes a regeneration gas falling within the scope of the regeneration gas of claim 1 of the ʼ758 patent. Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to satisfy its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 1 of the ʼ758 patent is anticipated by Hirota.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableDecided for petitioner
“Whenever a ground based on obviousness is involved, the preferred manner of setting out differences is to state “the subject matter of claim x differs from the reference in that (1) …, (2) …., and (n) ….” Vague statements or hints of differences not only burdens the Board, but puts a patent owner at somewhat of a disadvantage with having to guess what any differences a petitioner believes may exit. Reluctance on the part of counsel to “admit” to and identify a difference is hard to understand, given the fact that a difference does not mean the subject matter claimed is non-obvious. Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230 (1976) (mere existence of differences between the prior art and an invention does not establish the invention’s non-obviousness).4 Campbell appears to differ from the subject matter of claim 1 of the ʼ758 patent in that Campbell does not describe an in situ regeneration.” slip op. at 40
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“4. Discussion While Campbell does not describe in situ regeneration, and assuming arguendo that claim 1 of the ʼ758 patent requires in situ regeneration, in situ regeneration is a well-known technique described by Saito and Stiles. An in situ regeneration in Campbell makes sense because it eliminates a need to discard spent catalyst and permits one skilled in the art to reuse catalytic material. The reuse of catalytic material would have been recognized as significant due to the expense of platinum. Ex. 1056, page 13:20–23. Patent Owner maintains that the catalytic material of Saito and Stiles “is very different from that of the ʼ758 patent.” Paper 29, 4 Petitioner’s failure to clearly identify differences is not consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) and 42.104(b)(5), as well as 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3), which require identifying the grounds “with particularity.” The Petition must specify where each element of a challenged claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2). page 29. “There is nothing in either Saito or Stiles to suggest . . . that the regeneration methods of these two references might be succesfully used for regenerating the catalyst/absorber of Campbell.” Id. at page 30.” slip op. at 41
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“balance in favor of non-obviousness, both in the courts and the PTO. Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45 (1923); Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co., 185 U.S. 403 (1902); The Barbed Wire Patent, 143 U.S. 275 (1892); Webster Loom v. Higgins, 105 U.S. 580 (1881); Ex parte Artsana USA, Inc., Appeal 2014-004116, 2014 WL 4090808 (PTAB Aug. 18, 2014); Murata Mfg. Co. v. Synqor, Inc., Appeal 2014-001167, 2014 WL 1397381 (PTAB Apr. 10, 2014); Ex parte Whirlpool Corp., Appeal 2013-008232, 2013 WL 5866602 (PTAB Oct. 30, 2013). However, in this case, we are unable to credit much, if any, weight, to Patent Owner’s evidence of long-felt need and commercial success. For long-felt need and commercial success to be convincing, there must be a “nexus” between (1) the long-felt need/commercial success and (2) the claimed subject matter. In re Fielder, 471 F.2d 640, 646 (CCPA 1973). Patent Owner’s evidence is bottomed on Patent Owner’s experience with what is referred to as a “SCONOx catalytic absorption system.” Ex. 2006A ¶ 4 (direct Declaration testimony of Thomas Girdlestone). Patent Owner characterizes the claimed method as embodying a SCONOx system. Paper 29, page 37:3–4. According to Mr. Girdlestone, the effectiveness of reducing NOx in a SCONOx system was tested at a turbine facility run at EmeraChem’s then-affiliate Sunlaw Energy in California. Ex. 2006A, ¶ 5. Further according to Mr. Girdlestone, both the EPA and the Cal EPA” slip op. at 46
Patent outcomesUS 5,599,758 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 5,599,758 - Johns Manville Corporation / Johns Manville, Inc. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc. And Knauf Insulation SPRLInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 4, 2016 · IPR2015-01673 · APJ Fred E Mckelvey · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on both § 103 grounds, finding the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Petitioner bears the burden of proof. We have not been given sufficient evidence to support a finding that it is likely that a block made from Example 3, modified by using a mixture of ammonium sulfate and sulfuric acid, would meet claim 32 as it depends from claim 1. Our analysis applies with equal force to the remaining claims forming the basis of the Ground 1 challenge.” slip op. at 12
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner bears the burden of proof. We have not been given sufficient evidence to support a finding that it is likely that a block made from Example 3, modified by using a mixture of ammonium sulfate and sulfuric acid, would meet claim 32 as it depends from claim 1.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“found sulfuric acid described as an alternative for ammonium sulfate. But, then one has to ask: “Where has Petitioner set out to prove that a Gogek Example 3 composition with sulfuric acid used in place of ammonium sulfate meets the limitations of claim 32 as it depends from claim 1?” The relevant testimony is that of Dr. Frederick J. Hirsekorn. Ex. 1005, ¶ 84: Gogek renders the . . . [sulfuric acid] limitation of . . . Claim 32 . . . obvious at least because it discloses that the chemical adjunct may comprise sulfuric acid. Ex. 1003, 1:72–2:4. At the time of the . . . invention of the ’827 Patent, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add a small amount of the sulfuric acid as taught in Gogek to the specific formulation of Example 3 of Gogek in order to acid catalyze the inversion of the sucrose in the molasses to produce additional reducing sugars (e.g., dextrose) available for consumption during curing. Producing additional reducing sugar reactants in situ would help ensure that all of the ammonium cations react with the carbonyl group of a reducing sugar, and allow the reaction to run to completion through the consumption of all reactants. Completing the reaction would also improve the quality of the binder. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the sulfuric acid expressly disclosed in Gogek with the ammonium sulfate used in the formulation from Example 3 of Gogek in order to achieve these well-known benefits. Agreeing arguendo with Dr. Hirsekorn’s observations, those observations at best prove that one would have found it obvious to use sulfuric acid along with, or possibly in place of, the ammonium sulfate described in Gogek Example 3. But, those observations in no way purport to prove that use of ammonium sulfate with a small amount of sulfuric acid would produce a block having the characteristics of the material of claim 32 as it depends from claim 1. We believe our concern, and that of Patent Owner, is more than theoretical. Gogek indicates a preference for using ammonium sulfate. Ex. 1003, col. 1:72. As is often the case in patent specifications, Gogek does not say why ammonium sulfate is preferred. It is not unreasonable to assume that Gogek had some reason for making the statement. Once Example 3 is replicated with a change that would not be the preferred embodiment, it is not unreasonable to assume that a non-preferred embodiment may have properties differing from those of a block made in accordance with Example 3 without sulfuric acid. Petitioner bears the burden of proof. We have not been given” slip op. at 10
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,039,827 - Johns Manville Corporation v. Knauf Insulation, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 4, 2016 · IPR2015-01683 · APJ Fred E Mckelvey · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on both § 103 grounds because Petitioner did not sufficiently show the modified prior-art compositions would meet the challenged claims.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Petitioner bears the burden of proof. We have not been given sufficient evidence to support, even at this stage, a finding that it is likely that a block made from Example 3, modified by using phosphoric acid would meet claim 34 as it depends from claim 1.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundNot shown unpatentable
“As noted earlier, we can assume arguendo that one skilled in the art more than likely would have found it obvious to use a phosphoric acid in place of ammonium sulfate. But, then one has to ask: “Where has Petitioner set out to prove that a Gogek Example 3 composition with a phosphoric acid used in place of ammonium sulfate meets the limitations of claim 34 as it depends from claim 1?” The relevant testimony is that of Dr. Frederick J. Hirsekorn. Ex. 1006, ¶ 103: At the time of the . . . invention of the ’827 Patent , it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add a monoammonium phosphate to the binder composition of Example 3 of Gogek in order to reduce the corrosivity of the binder and preserve the manufacturing equipment. In the continuous manufacturing process disclosed in Swift, some manufacturing equipment will be in contact with the solution at all times, amplifying the need to include a corrosion inhibitor to extend the life of the manufacturing equipment. Accordingly, in order to prevent corrosion and “decrease the cost of manufacturing bound materials” (Ex. 1003, ¶ [0073]), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add a monoammonium phosphate as disclosed in Swift to the binder of Example 3 of Gogek to inhibit corrosion. Agreeing arguendo with Dr. Hirsekorn’s observations, those observations at best prove that one would have found it obvious to use a phosphoric acid in place of, the ammonium sulfate described in Gogek Example 3. But, those observations in no way purport to prove that use of phosphoric acid in place of ammonium sulfate would produce a block having the characteristics of the material of claim 34 as it depends from claim 1.” slip op. at 10
- BurdenInstitution denied
“1. Failure to articulate a difference Petitioner has failed to set out precise differences between Swift or Gogek and the subject matter of the challenged claims. As we explained in declining to institute on Ground 2 in Johns Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc., IPR2015-01402 (PTAB Oct. 21, 2015) (Paper 18, pages 12–14), failure of a petitioner to set out differences in a § 103 context complicate consideration of a petition, both for the Board and the patent owner. See also 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (petition to point out with particularity); 37 C.F.R. § 41.104(b)(4). Due to Petitioner’s failure to articulate a clear difference between the subject matter of the challenged claims and Swift, we decline to institute an IPR trial in this case.” slip op. at 12
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,039,827 - Johns Manville Corporation v. Knauf Insulation, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 17, 2015 · IPR2015-01569 · APJ Fred E Mckelvey · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on either obviousness ground for the challenged claims.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Petitioner bears the burden of proof. We have not been given sufficient evidence to support, even at this stage, a finding that it is likely that a block made from Example 3, modified by using a mixture of ammonium sulfate and sulfuric acid, would meet claim 32 as it depends from claim 1.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundNot shown unpatentable
“Gogek renders the . . . [sulfuric acid] limitation of . . . Claim 32 . . . obvious at least because it discloses that the chemical adjunct may comprise sulfuric acid. Ex. 1003, 1:72–2:4. At the time of the . . . invention of the ’089 Patent, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add a small amount of the sulfuric acid as taught in Gogek to the specific formulation of Example 3 of Gogek in order to acid catalyze the inversion of the sucrose in the molasses to produce additional reducing sugars (e.g., dextrose) available for consumption during curing. Producing additional reducing sugar reactants in situ would help ensure that all of the ammonium cations react with the carbonyl group of a reducing sugar, and allow the reaction to run to completion through the consumption of all reactants. Completing the reaction would also improve the quality of the binder. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the sulfuric acid expressly disclosed in Gogek with the ammonium sulfate used in the formulation from Example 3 of Gogek in order to achieve these well-known benefits. Agreeing arguendo with Dr. Hirsekorn’s observations, those observations at best prove that one would have found it obvious to use sulfuric acid along with, or possibly in place of, the ammonium sulfate described in Gogek Example 3. But, those observations in no way purport to prove that use of ammonium sulfate with a small amount of sulfuric acid or sulfuric acid in place of ammonium sulfate would produce a block having the characteristics of the material of claim 32 as it depends from claim 1.” slip op. at 11
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“observations at best prove that one would have found it obvious to use sulfuric acid along with, or possibly in place of, the ammonium sulfate described in Gogek Example 3. But, those observations in no way purport to prove that use of ammonium sulfate with a small amount of sulfuric acid or sulfuric acid in place of ammonium sulfate would produce a block having the characteristics of the material of claim 32 as it depends from claim 1.” slip op. at 11
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,940,089 - Johns Manville Corporation / Johns Manville, Inc. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc. And Knauf Insulation SPRLInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 17, 2015 · IPR2015-01598 · APJ Fred E Mckelvey · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on both § 103 grounds because Petitioner did not clearly articulate the differences or show the proposed combinations would meet the challenged claims.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“D. Claims 3, 16–21, 27, 34, 43, 45–49, 51–56, 63, and 73 1. Failure to articulate a clear difference Petitioner has failed to set out precise differences between Swift and the subject matter of the challenged claims. As we explained in declining to institute on Ground 2 in Johns Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc., IPR2015-01402 (PTAB Oct. 21, 2015) (Paper 18, pages 12–14), failure of a petitioner to set out differences in a § 103 context complicates consideration of a petition, both for the Board and the patent owner. Due to Petitioner’s failure to articulate a clear difference between the subject matter of the challenged claims and Swift, we decline to institute an IPR trial in this case. See also 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (petition identifies with particularity) and 37 C.F.R. 41.104(b)(4) (set out how claim is unpatentable).” slip op. at 9
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“those observations at best prove that one would have found it obvious to use an ammonium phosphate in place of ammonium sulfate described in Gogek Example 3. But, those observations in no way purport to prove that use of mono-ammonium phosphate would produce a block having the characteristics of the material of claim 27 as it depends from claim 1. We believe our concern, and that of Patent Owner, is more than theoretical. Gogek indicates a preference for using ammonium sulfate. Ex. 1004, col. 1:72. Once Example 3 is replicated with a change to something that would not be the preferred embodiment, it is not unreasonable to assume that a block made according to Example 3 with ammonium phosphate would have properties that might differ from those made in accordance with Example 3 with ammonium sulfate. Petitioner bears the burden of proof. We have not been given sufficient evidence to support a finding that it is likely that a block made from Example 3, modified by using mono-ammonium phosphate, would meet claim 27 as it depends from claim 1.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“The testimony in support of obviousness of the subject matter of claim 27 is that of Dr. Hirsekorn. Ex. 1006, ¶ 105: At the time of the purported invention of the ’089 Patent, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add a monoammonium phosphate to the binder composition of Example 3 of Gogek in order to reduce the corrosivity of the binder and preserve . . . manufacturing equipment. In the continuous manufacturing process disclosed in Swift, some manufacturing equipment will be in contact with the solution at all times, amplifying the need to include a corrosion inhibitor to extend the life of the manufacturing equipment. Accordingly, in order to prevent corrosion and “decrease the cost of manufacturing bound materials” (Ex. 1003, ¶ [0073]), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add a mono-ammonium phosphate as disclosed in Swift to the binder of Example 3 of Gogek to inhibit corrosion. Assuming arguendo that Dr. Hirsekorn’s observations are correct, those observations at best prove that one would have found it obvious to use an ammonium phosphate in place of ammonium sulfate described in Gogek Example 3. But, those observations in no way purport to prove that use of mono-ammonium phosphate would produce a block having the characteristics of the material of claim 27 as it depends from claim 1. We believe our concern, and that of Patent Owner, is more than theoretical. Gogek indicates a preference for using ammonium sulfate. Ex. 1004, col. 1:72. Once Example 3 is replicated with a change to something that would not be the preferred embodiment, it is not unreasonable to assume that a block made according to Example 3 with ammonium phosphate would have properties that might differ from those made in accordance with Example 3 with ammonium sulfate. Petitioner bears the burden of proof. We have not been given” slip op. at 11
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,940,089 - Flir Systems, Inc. v. Leak Surveys, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 3, 2015 · IPR2015-00065 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–28 and 30–58 of the ’813 patent and claims 1–7 and 9–20 of the ’496 patent are unpatentable as obvious under § 103.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“construction of “leak” deviates from the ordinary meaning of the term. PO Resp. 31–33. LSI relies on extrinsic evidence to supports its contention that the ordinary meaning of “leak” as recited in the ’813 and ’496 patents is limited to unintended or fugitive emissions. PO Resp. 33. LSI’s contention fails to recognize and distinguish the express teaching that chemicals of interest from flares, exhausts, vents or blow off valves are expressly described as uses of the claimed invention. Ex. 1001, 12:17–25. Indeed, one portion of the specification that LSI relies on to distinguish known versus unknown emissions, indicates that the invention is used to survey known emissions of gas from vents. Ex. 1001, 20:28–31; see PO Resp. 34. Although LSI admits that exhaust valves and flares will have known emissions and that the invention is used to survey these structures (PO Resp. 32), LSI argues that the term “leak” does not include the known emissions from these structures, as the ordinary use of the term is limited to fugitive or unknown emissions. We disagree, concluding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the specification describes a chemical of interest that is present in valves and exhausts that have known emissions. Ex. 1001, 12:22, 20:28–32.15 Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, LSI’s extrinsic evidence does not persuade us that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “leak” as used in the specification and claims is limited to only unknown or fugitive emissions. Accordingly, on the full record, we maintain our construction of “leak” as including both fugitive and non-fugitive emissions.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Decided for petitioner
“PO Resp. 27. Specifically, LSI argues that “in the context of the full claims, this limitation should be construed to mean that an infringing method must operate to image gas leaks under real-world field conditions, without taking steps to artificially control any variables such as background temperature, wind, etc.” Id. at 25. LSI does not provide any argument or evidence that the patent describes the range of “real-world” versus “artificially controlled” conditions. Instead, LSI’s construction merely seeks to eliminate any conditions obtained in a lab or test setting from ambient conditions in other settings. We are not persuaded that the patent claims’ references to variable ambient conditions are limited to “real-world” conditions. As we previously noted, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the claimed system and method would typically be used outdoors, where environmental conditions change, at the point where a leak may occur. Dec. ’411, 18. For example, in the summer, a chemical of interest may be present at higher temperature than the same chemical of interest in the winter. Id. Similarly, exhaust temperature may vary depending on conditions. LSI admits that “the claim does not specify what the normal operating conditions would be” under given circumstances. Oral Argument Transcript (“Tr.”) 62:23–24. LSI also admits that a smokestack, for example, would have “a different range of normal operating conditions.” Tr. 63:6–8. Because these conditions vary and the ’813 and ’496 patent specifications are silent on the range or limits of normal operating conditions, we are not persuaded by LSI’s attempt to exclude controlled environments from the claimed ambient conditions. See PO Resp. 26–27. We find no support for LSI’s contention that “variable ambient conditions” or “normal operating in variable ambient conditions” is limited to those instances that are not constrained or controlled in some artificial manner. Id. On the full record, we maintain our constructions of “produce a visible image of the chemical emanating from the component under variable ambient conditions of the area around the leak” as meaning “being able to produce a visible image under the ambient conditions of the area around the leak.”” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded by LSI’s arguments. The case LSI relies on, Virginia Innovation, is neither binding authority nor persuasive authority. The facts in Virginia Innovation can be distinguished from the facts of the present case, as the prior art in question in Virginia Innovation was not sufficiently shown to be generally on sale to the interested public, and was instead “restricted” to members of a publishing organization, which required membership dues for access. See 983 F. Supp. 2d at 737–38. Indeed, the district court in Virginia Innovation noted that there was no evidence that the document was available for sale to the general public outside of the publishing organization members. Id. In the present case, no membership fee or organization membership is required for access to the Merlin User’s Guide, which testimony shows was available and sold to the interested public as early as late 2000. See Ex. 1026 ¶¶ 17–19; Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 12–14; Ex. 1016 ¶ 12. Based on the complete record, we find by a preponderance of the evidence that distribution of the Merlin User’s Guide with the sale of the Merlin MID camera shows sufficient public accessibility and distribution. The cost to obtain the camera does not negate the evidence that the camera and accompanying user’s guide was available to the interested public. The testimony evidence shows that the Merlin User’s Guide was available for sale and distribution to the interested as early as 2000. Thus, FLIR has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the Merlin User’s Guide was a publicly available printed publication.” slip op. at 22
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“relevant experience with passive IR (infrared) systems in addition to the requisite engineering or physics education. Paper 2, 10–11 (IPR ’065); Reply 19–20. LSI contends that in addition to the requisite physics or optical science/engineering education a person of ordinary skill the art would have experience developing IR camera systems generally. PO Resp. 22. LSI’s contention is that FLIR’s definition of a person of ordinary skill is too narrowly focused on passive IR systems and is evidence of hindsight bias. PO Resp. 23. LSI’s arguments are contradictory and confusing; asserting not only that FLIR’s person of ordinary skill in art is overly narrow and defined as a “specialist in the [’813 and ’496 patents’] specific solution to the problem being solved,” but also that FLIR’s artisan “would not [] have been familiar with the technical problem being addressed by the invention.” PO Resp. 22 (emphasis omitted). Regardless, FLIR argues that the invention would have been obvious under either FLIR’s or LSI’s proposed person of ordinary skill in the art. Reply 20. Based on the full record, we find that the level of ordinary skill in the art is evidenced by the prior art references and the type of problems and solutions described in the ’813 and ’496 patents (Ex. 1001, 1:25–2:34), and includes experience in imaging of chemical gases using IR camera systems generally in addition to the requisite engineering, physics or optical science education. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Moreover, and apart from any differences of opinion between FLIR and LSI on the precise background and knowledge of one skilled in the art, the prior art itself is highly indicative of the level of skill. See id. (“the level of ordinary skill in the art . . . was best determined by appeal to the references of record”). In any event, we do not find that a person of ordinary skill’s understanding of the teachings of the prior art would differ if an ordinarily skilled artisan possessed knowledge of both active and passive IR systems rather than knowledge of passive IR systems alone. See PO Resp. 22–24.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 8,426,813 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,426,813 - Flir Systems, Inc. v. Leak Surveys, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 3, 2015 · IPR2014-00434 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–28 and 30–58 of the ’813 patent and claims 1–7 and 9–20 of the ’496 patent are unpatentable as obvious over the instituted prior-art combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“construction of “leak” deviates from the ordinary meaning of the term. PO Resp. 31–33. LSI relies on extrinsic evidence to supports its contention that the ordinary meaning of “leak” as recited in the ’813 and ’496 patents is limited to unintended or fugitive emissions. PO Resp. 33. LSI’s contention fails to recognize and distinguish the express teaching that chemicals of interest from flares, exhausts, vents or blow off valves are expressly described as uses of the claimed invention. Ex. 1001, 12:17–25. Indeed, one portion of the specification that LSI relies on to distinguish known versus unknown emissions, indicates that the invention is used to survey known emissions of gas from vents. Ex. 1001, 20:28–31; see PO Resp. 34. Although LSI admits that exhaust valves and flares will have known emissions and that the invention is used to survey these structures (PO Resp. 32), LSI argues that the term “leak” does not include the known emissions from these structures, as the ordinary use of the term is limited to fugitive or unknown emissions. We disagree, concluding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the specification describes a chemical of interest that is present in valves and exhausts that have known emissions. Ex. 1001, 12:22, 20:28–32.15 Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, LSI’s extrinsic evidence does not persuade us that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “leak” as used in the specification and claims is limited to only unknown or fugitive emissions. Accordingly, on the full record, we maintain our construction of “leak” as including both fugitive and non-fugitive emissions.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded by LSI’s arguments. The case LSI relies on, Virginia Innovation, is neither binding authority nor persuasive authority. The facts in Virginia Innovation can be distinguished from the facts of the present case, as the prior art in question in Virginia Innovation was not sufficiently shown to be generally on sale to the interested public, and was instead “restricted” to members of a publishing organization, which required membership dues for access. See 983 F. Supp. 2d at 737–38. Indeed, the district court in Virginia Innovation noted that there was no evidence that the document was available for sale to the general public outside of the publishing organization members. Id. In the present case, no membership fee or organization membership is required for access to the Merlin User’s Guide, which testimony shows was available and sold to the interested public as early as late 2000. See Ex. 1026 ¶¶ 17–19; Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 12–14; Ex. 1016 ¶ 12. Based on the complete record, we find by a preponderance of the evidence that distribution of the Merlin User’s Guide with the sale of the Merlin MID camera shows sufficient public accessibility and distribution. The cost to obtain the camera does not negate the evidence that the camera and accompanying user’s guide was available to the interested public. The testimony evidence shows that the Merlin User’s Guide was available for sale and distribution to the interested as early as 2000. Thus, FLIR has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the Merlin User’s Guide was a publicly available printed publication.” slip op. at 22
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“relevant experience with passive IR (infrared) systems in addition to the requisite engineering or physics education. Paper 2, 10–11 (IPR ’065); Reply 19–20. LSI contends that in addition to the requisite physics or optical science/engineering education a person of ordinary skill the art would have experience developing IR camera systems generally. PO Resp. 22. LSI’s contention is that FLIR’s definition of a person of ordinary skill is too narrowly focused on passive IR systems and is evidence of hindsight bias. PO Resp. 23. LSI’s arguments are contradictory and confusing; asserting not only that FLIR’s person of ordinary skill in art is overly narrow and defined as a “specialist in the [’813 and ’496 patents’] specific solution to the problem being solved,” but also that FLIR’s artisan “would not [] have been familiar with the technical problem being addressed by the invention.” PO Resp. 22 (emphasis omitted). Regardless, FLIR argues that the invention would have been obvious under either FLIR’s or LSI’s proposed person of ordinary skill in the art. Reply 20. Based on the full record, we find that the level of ordinary skill in the art is evidenced by the prior art references and the type of problems and solutions described in the ’813 and ’496 patents (Ex. 1001, 1:25–2:34), and includes experience in imaging of chemical gases using IR camera systems generally in addition to the requisite engineering, physics or optical science education. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Moreover, and apart from any differences of opinion between FLIR and LSI on the precise background and knowledge of one skilled in the art, the prior art itself is highly indicative of the level of skill. See id. (“the level of ordinary skill in the art . . . was best determined by appeal to the references of record”). In any event, we do not find that a person of ordinary skill’s understanding of the teachings of the prior art would differ if an ordinarily skilled artisan possessed knowledge of both active and passive IR systems rather than knowledge of passive IR systems alone. See PO Resp. 22–24.” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the [inventor].” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). A reference does not teach away, however, if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” investigation into the invention claimed. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We will not, however, “read into a reference a teaching away from a process where no such language exists.” DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2006). LSI’s evidence that the Merlin references disclose an emission based instrument and that Kulp and Strachan disclose an absorption based instrument, does not show that the references teach away from their combination. Indeed, LSI’s citation to the testimony of Dr. Martini does not demonstrate that the Merlin references discourage their combination with Strachan or Kulp. To the contrary, the record shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the filter teachings of Strachan with the camera disclosed in the Merlin references. Ex. 1030, 50:1–16, 84:14–85:19, 87:16–88:19, 160:4–14; see Ex. 1036 ¶ 22. Although LSI’s witness, Dr. Hossack, disputes where the filter would have been placed on a Merlin camera, he does not dispute that Strachan discloses modifying a similar camera to detect gas. Ex. 1030, 50:1–16, 84:14–85:19, 87:16–88:19; 160:4–14. LSI’s argument that the combinations of the Merlin camera disclosed in the Merlin references would destroy the intended functionality of the camera and fundamentally alter its principle of operation is equally unpersuasive. See PO Resp. 49–52. LSI has not shown that modification of the Merlin camera as disclosed in the Merlin User’s Guide or Brochure would no longer be useful for imaging gas as described. We credit the testimony of Dr. Sandsten in finding that the Merlin MID operates on the principles of thermography before and after modification as disclosed in Kulp and Strachan. Ex. 1036 ¶ 74. In addition, modification of such a camera is expressly taught by Strachan and Kulp. Therefore, regardless of whether the possibility of modifying the Merlin MID camera was disclosed in the Merlin references, the combination of Kulp and/or Strachan with the Merlin references teaches one of ordinary skill in the art that the standard filter could be replaced in a passive IR camera, such as the Merlin MID, to improve imaging. See, e.g., Ex. 1030, 50:1–16, 84:14–85:19, 87:16–88:19; 160:4–14; Reply 15. Indeed, Strachan and Kulp both disclose that gas can be successfully imaged by optimizing the spectral selectivity of a passive IR system using a narrow bandpass filter tuned to the gases of interest. Kulp specifically discloses that a cold filter and Strachan includes a Dewar flask for cooling. Ex. 1008, 493; Ex. 1012, 270. LSI’s arguments regarding the modifications of the camera disclosed in the Merlin references fail to address the teachings of the Merlin references in combination with Kulp and/or Strachan. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (attacking references individually cannot demonstrate nonobviousness; rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art). slip op. at 35
Patent outcomesUS 8,193,496 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,193,496
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.