• Red Diamond, Inc. v. Southern Visions, LLPOther
  PTAB · Mar 31, 2021 · IPR2019-01662 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board canceled claims 1, 8, 13, and 17; it denied entry of substitute claims 23–26 because claims 23 and 25 lacked written-description support and claims 24 and 26 were indefinite.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “C. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART In the Institution Decision, we determined that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had sufficient experience and/or education in the food industry to possess an understanding of (1) sugar particle size as it 1 “One degree Brix is one gram of sucrose in 100 grams of solution . . . . Brewed sweetened tea has a typical Brix level of 10½ to 11.” Ex. 1001, 1:35–43. pertains to brewed beverages, (2) sugar particle size screening, and (3) the storage and use of sugar in commercial settings.” Inst. Dec. 7. We observed that this level of ordinary skill is consistent with the level of ordinary skill that we adopted in a related case that involves similar subject matter. See Red Diamond, Inc. v. Southern Visions, LLP, PGR2019-00045, Paper 9 at 6– 8 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2019). We also asked the parties to expressly discuss the level of ordinary skill in the art in the remaining briefing if either party disagreed with our determination. Inst. Dec. 8. For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we maintain our determination from the Institution Decision because neither party disputes the level of ordinary skill identified in the Institution Decision (see Revised MTA 12–13), and because we continue to find that the stated level of ordinary skill is consistent with the record.” slip op. at 4

  • 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “Structurally, Patent Owner has claimed a broad genus of brewing products – any product that includes sugar having particles in the range of U.S. mesh size nos. 3–35. Patent Owner attempts to further distinguish the genus by including the functional limitation of requiring the product to be capable of producing a tea with a Brix level of at least 10.5 degrees. Patent Owner does not dispute that there are products falling within the structural limitations that do not satisfy the functional limitations. Indeed, there is undisputed testing evidence on the record demonstrating that the entire range of recited structures does not perform the recited function. See Ex. 2076 at Exhibit C, 20–29 (Table 3); Revised MTA 8 (Patent Owner arguing the claims only cover products that include particles within the claimed range that perform the recited function). Here, we discern no evidence on this record of “a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can ‘visualize or recognize’ the members of the genus.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1350. Nor do we discern “a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, physical properties, or other properties, of species falling within the genus sufficient to distinguish the genus from other materials” in the disclosures, or evidence that “the art has established a correlation between structure and function.” Id. Instead, we view Patent Owner’s proposed substitute claims to involve “merely drawing a fence around the outer limits of a purported genus,” which “is not an adequate substitute for describing a variety of materials constituting the genus and showing that one has invented a genus and not just a species.” Id. We recognize that the subject matter here is different from, and less complex than, the chemical and biochemical subject matter in Ariad. Nevertheless, the written description requirement still requires sufficient description to convey to one of skill in the relevant art that the inventors “had possession of the claimed invention” and “showing that the applicant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus.” Id. at 1351, 1356. Thus we consider the difference in technology in determining “the level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement,” but do not consider the difference in technology to eliminate entirely the need for some disclosure in the specification indicating possession of the claimed invention. Id. at 1351. Patent Owner has not directed us to any portion of the ’526 or ’881” slip op. at 20

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot shown unpatentable

    “Structurally, Patent Owner has claimed a broad genus of brewing products – any product that includes sugar having particles in the range of U.S. mesh size nos. 3–35. Patent Owner attempts to further distinguish the genus by including the functional limitation of requiring the product to be capable of producing a tea with a Brix level of at least 10.5 degrees. Patent Owner does not dispute that there are products falling within the structural limitations that do not satisfy the functional limitations. Indeed, there is undisputed testing evidence on the record demonstrating that the entire range of recited structures does not perform the recited function. See Ex. 2076 at Exhibit C, 20–29 (Table 3); Revised MTA 8 (Patent Owner arguing the claims only cover products that include particles within the claimed range that perform the recited function). Here, we discern no evidence on this record of “a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can ‘visualize or recognize’ the members of the genus.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1350. Nor do we discern “a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, physical properties, or other properties, of species falling within the genus sufficient to distinguish the genus from other materials” in the disclosures, or evidence that “the art has established a correlation between structure and function.” Id. Instead, we view Patent Owner’s proposed substitute claims to involve “merely drawing a fence around the outer limits of a purported genus,” which “is not an adequate substitute for describing a variety of materials constituting the genus and showing that one has invented a genus and not just a species.” Id. We recognize that the subject matter here is different from, and less complex than, the chemical and biochemical subject matter in Ariad. Nevertheless, the written description requirement still requires sufficient description to convey to one of skill in the relevant art that the inventors “had possession of the claimed invention” and “showing that the applicant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus.” Id. at 1351, 1356. Thus we consider the difference in technology in determining “the level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement,” but do not consider the difference in technology to eliminate entirely the need for some disclosure in the specification indicating possession of the claimed invention. Id. at 1351. Patent Owner has not directed us to any portion of the ’526 or ’881” slip op. at 20

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteUnpatentable

    “which indicates that between 2–25% of the particles in EFG sugar can have a size in the range of U.S mesh sieve nos. 20–30. Ex. 2003, 42 (showing the “Typical Analysis” for “X-fine” granulated sugar). Even if we were to agree with Patent Owner that this shows a typical analysis for EFG sugar, it still presents a variance of up to 20% for particles having a size in the range of U.S. mesh sieve nos. 20 and 30. Ex. 2003, 42. Thus, the evidence of record suggests that the particle size distribution for EFG sugar, including the number of particles falling in the range of U.S. mesh sieve nos. 3–35, can vary among different EFG sugars. Thus, the term “typical grocery store sugar,” “might mean several different things” in terms of the number of its particles having a size in the range of U.S. mesh sieve nos. 3–35, and “no informed and confident choice is available among the contending definitions.” HZNP Meds. LLC v. Actavis Labs UT, 940 F.3d 680, 698 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Media Rights Techs., Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 800 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015)); Opp. 7–10; Reply 4. Proposed substitute claims 24 and 26 compare the dissolution of the claimed beverage brewing product against the dissolution of a product using typical grocery store sugar (i.e., EFG). Patent Owner explains that the size of the particles affects dissolution – namely that larger sugar is more advantageous – in the claimed invention. See, e.g., Revised MTA 5; Ex. 1001, 9:23–27, 10:19–22. This suggests that an EFG sugar product having a greater percentage of large particles will be capable of dissolving “more of granulated sugar” as compared to an EFG sugar product having a lower percentage of large particles. As a result, using the dissolution properties of “typical grocery store sugar” as a comparator in the claims is problematic as there is a potential for inconsistent results based on which particular EFG sugar product is used. The potential for inconsistent results undermines Patent Owner’s argument that these claims satisfy the definiteness requirement because a person of ordinary skill in the art “can buy EFG . . . and perform brew tests with it in order to determine the scope of the claims.” Reply 4. Particle size is a critical factor for proposed substitute claims 24 and 26, which require a comparison of dissolution properties of the sugar used in the recited brewing product and typical grocery store sugar. Patent Owner contends “[t]here is an ‘informed and confident’ choice for ‘typical grocery store sugar’ - EFG sugar.” Reply 4. The evidence of record, however, shows the number of large particles (3–35 mesh) varies among EFG sugars. Ex. 2003, 42; Ex. 1004, at pages 51–53. In view of this, we find a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood “typical grocery store sugar” identifies sugar having particles of a particular size with sufficient specificity to allow the comparisons that proposed substitute claims 24 and 26 require. Accordingly, proposed substitute claims 24 and 26 are indefinite because they “fail[ ] to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014); see USPTO Memorandum on the Approach to Indefiniteness Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings (Jan. 6, 2021); MPEP 2173.05(e) (9th ed., Rev. 08.2017, June 2020).” slip op. at 25

  § 112 disclosurecites Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 9,725,232
• Red Diamond, Inc. v. Southern Visions, LLPOther
  PTAB · Oct 13, 2020 · PGR2019-00045 · APJ Christopher C Kennedy · PGR · Final written decision

  The Board cancelled claims 13, 18, and 19, but denied substitute claims 23–25 because their percentage-and-range limitations introduced new matter.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ScopeMotion to amend, grantedGranted

    “3. Scope of Proposed Substitute Claims A motion to amend “may not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(2)(ii). Although Patent Owner does not appear to separately address this requirement in the Revised Motion to Amend, see generally Revised MTA, we have reviewed the proposed substitute claims and determine that they do not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent because they add limitations that render each proposed substitute claim narrower than original challenged claim 13.2 Petitioner does not contend otherwise. See generally Opp. On this record, we determine that the Revised Motion to Amend satisfies this requirement.” slip op. at 9

  • 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “description support for numerical ranges identified by the parties is General Hospital Corp. v. Sienna Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., 888 F.3d 1368, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2018).4 In that case, the Federal Circuit explained: The disclosure of a broad range of values does not by itself provide written description support for a particular value within that range. Instead, where a specification discloses a broad range of values and a value within that range is claimed, the disclosure must allow one skilled in the art to immediately discern the limitation at issue in the claims. Id. (emphasis added); cf. Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp., 441 F.3d 991, 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]he disclosure of a range is no more a disclosure of the end points of the range than it is of each of the intermediate points.”). The Federal Circuit has also stated that, “[i]n the absence of blazemarks” that point to a particular species or sub-genus, “simply describing a large genus of compounds is not sufficient to satisfy the written description requirement.” Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1996). We find those cases to be instructive because we discern no guidance in the original disclosure that points to the percentage+range limitation of proposed substitute claim 23. Nor do we find anything in the original disclosure that would “allow one skilled in the art to immediately discern” 4 Despite the fact that Sienna was cited in (1) Petitioner’s opposition to Patent Owner’s original Motion to Amend, Paper 24 at 11; (2) the Preliminary Guidance issued by the Board, PG at 8; and (3) Petitioner’s opposition to Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend, Opp. at 12, Patent Owner fails to cite or discuss Sienna, see generally Revised MTA; Reply. the percentage+range limitation. See Sienna, 888 F.3d at 1372. Patent Owner has not persuasively identified any portion of the original disclosure that attributes any significance to any mesh sieve number range other than 3–35, and Patent Owner has not persuasively identified any portion of the original disclosure that attributes any significance to having a particular proportion of particles (e.g., 61 wt%) falling within some narrower mesh sieve number range. See Ex. 1021 (Coffield Decl.) ¶¶ 23–24.” slip op. at 14

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateDecided for petitioner

    “description support for numerical ranges identified by the parties is General Hospital Corp. v. Sienna Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., 888 F.3d 1368, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2018).4 In that case, the Federal Circuit explained: The disclosure of a broad range of values does not by itself provide written description support for a particular value within that range. Instead, where a specification discloses a broad range of values and a value within that range is claimed, the disclosure must allow one skilled in the art to immediately discern the limitation at issue in the claims. Id. (emphasis added); cf. Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp., 441 F.3d 991, 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]he disclosure of a range is no more a disclosure of the end points of the range than it is of each of the intermediate points.”). The Federal Circuit has also stated that, “[i]n the absence of blazemarks” that point to a particular species or sub-genus, “simply describing a large genus of compounds is not sufficient to satisfy the written description requirement.” Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1996). We find those cases to be instructive because we discern no guidance in the original disclosure that points to the percentage+range limitation of proposed substitute claim 23. Nor do we find anything in the original disclosure that would “allow one skilled in the art to immediately discern” 4 Despite the fact that Sienna was cited in (1) Petitioner’s opposition to Patent Owner’s original Motion to Amend, Paper 24 at 11; (2) the Preliminary Guidance issued by the Board, PG at 8; and (3) Petitioner’s opposition to Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend, Opp. at 12, Patent Owner fails to cite or discuss Sienna, see generally Revised MTA; Reply. the percentage+range limitation. See Sienna, 888 F.3d at 1372. Patent Owner has not persuasively identified any portion of the original disclosure that attributes any significance to any mesh sieve number range other than 3–35, and Patent Owner has not persuasively identified any portion of the original disclosure that attributes any significance to having a particular proportion of particles (e.g., 61 wt%) falling within some narrower mesh sieve number range. See Ex. 1021 (Coffield Decl.) ¶¶ 23–24.” slip op. at 14

  § 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 10,071,852
• Intel Corporation / Globalfoundries U.S., Inc. et al. v. Daniel L. FlammAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 30, 2020 · IPR2017-00279 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 13–26, 64, and 65 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over the combinations of prior art listed in the decision.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “not entitled to claim priority to a filing date any earlier than the September 11, 1997 filing date of the ’650 provisional application, and, therefore, each of the asserted references qualify as prior art to the challenged claims. See Pet. 9. Specifically, Petitioner contends that the ’264 patent is not entitled to claim priority to the December 4, 1995 filing date of the ’224 application because the ’224 application fails to disclose a chuck having a “thermal mass” or selecting that thermal mass to” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “in the art at the relevant time would have had (i) a Bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering, materials science engineering, electrical engineering, physics, chemistry, or a similar field, and three or four years of work experience in semiconductor manufacturing or related fields; or (ii) a Master’s degree in chemical engineering, materials science engineering, electrical engineering, physics, chemistry, or a similar field, and two or three years of work experience in semiconductor manufacturing or related fields; or (iii) a Ph.D. in chemical engineering, materials science engineering, electrical engineering, physics, chemistry, or a similar field. Pet. 19–20 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 21). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in its Response. Based on our review of the ’264 patent, the cited prior art, and the testimony of the parties’ declarants, we agree with Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art and apply it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355 (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”).” slip op. at 12

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

    “terms appearing in the challenged claims. Dec. on Inst. 10–11. First, we construed selected thermal mass to mean “thermal mass selected by selecting the mass of the substrate holder, the material of the substrate holder, or both.” Id. at 10. Second, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed 13 Neither party disputes that the ’264 patent is expired. The earliest patent application referenced for the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C. § 120 for the ’264 patent was filed on December 4, 1995, and the patent has no term extensions. The term of the ’264 patent, therefore, expired no later than December 4, 2015. See 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(2) (2012 & Supp. III 2015) (stating that the term of a patent grant ends twenty (20) years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States, “or, if the application contains a specific reference to an earlier filed application or applications under section 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), from the date on which the earliest such application was filed”). 13 construction of thermal mass . . . selected for a predetermined temperature change within a specific interval of time as meaning “the material and/or mass of the substrate holder are chosen to effect a predetermined change in substrate holder temperature from a selected first temperature to a selected second temperature within a specific time period.” Id. at 11. During the instituted trial, neither party disagreed with these constructions; nor did either party ask that we construe additional claim terms. We, therefore, leave our prior constructions in place unaltered.” slip op. at 13

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

    “claimed invention. PO Resp. 15–19. As Patent Owner correctly notes, art is analogous if it is either: (1) from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention; or (2) reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Id. at 15–16 (citing MPEP § 2141.01(a)). As we find below that Hinman satisfies the second prong of this test, we need not address Patent Owner’s arguments regarding field of endeavor. A reference is “reasonably pertinent” to a problem if it “logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” In re Icon Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658, 23 USPQ2 1058, 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Petitioner argues that Hinman and the ’264 patent address the same problem, namely “controlling temperature to increase throughput.” Reply 5; Ex. 1025 ¶¶ 45, 48. Patent Owner disagrees, alleging that the ’264 patent is “concerned with achieving or improving etch selectivity in a high throughput etch process for semiconductor processing,” 32 and that this is different than the problems addressed by the prior art. PO Resp. 18. In defining the problem addressed by the inventor, the specification of the challenged patent is often instructive. Here, the ’264 patent notes that prior art substrate etching processes used “batch” modes in which etching was done at a single temperature, and that the invention improves upon these processes by providing a multi-stage etching process using different temperatures. Ex. 1001, 1:65–2:11. As such, the invention allegedly overcame disadvantages of prior art processes, which required lowered throughput and etch rate in order to avoid excessive damage to a workpiece. Id. at 2:11–14. Despite Patent Owner’s arguments, we cannot agree that etch selectivity, as opposed to throughput, is the problem addressed by the ’264 patent. As Dr. Bravman points out, “[t]he specification of the ’264 patent is devoid, however, of description of improved or high selectivity processes or explanation of how the purported invention achieves both high selectivity and high etch rates.” Ex. 1025 ¶ 46. This is in contrast to the specification’s direct statement that the invention “overcomes serious disadvantages of prior art methods in which throughput and etching rate were lowered in order to avoid excessive device damage.” Ex. 1001, 2:11– 14 (emphasis added). It is clear to us that the problem faced by the ’264 patent is one of throughput and etching rate. The applicability of the cited prior art, including Hinman, to” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS RE40,264 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Daniel L. FlammAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 12, 2018 · IPR2016-01512 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 27, 31, 32, 34, 37, 40, 41, 44, 47, 48, and 50 are unpatentable under § 103 over the stated combinations of prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “the knowledge level of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Samsung’s declarant, Dr. Shanfield, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art as of September 1997 would be an individual who possesses the following: (i) a Bachelor’s degree in engineering, physics, chemistry, materials science, or a similar field, and three or four years of work experience in semiconductor manufacturing or related fields[;] or (ii) a Master’s degree in engineering, physics, chemistry, materials science, or a similar field[,] and two or three years of work experience of work experience in semiconductor manufacturing or related fields[]. Ex. 1002 ¶ 18. According to Dr. Shanfield, “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Id. Conversely, the named inventor of the ’264 patent, Dr. Flamm, does not offer an assessment of the level of skill in the art as of September 1997, nor does Dr. Flamm explicitly state his intent to adopt Dr. Shanfield’s assessment. See generally Ex. 2001.3 Given Dr. Flamm’s silence on this matter, we adopt Dr. Shanfield’s assessment because it is consistent with the ’264 patent and the asserted prior art, and apply it to our obviousness evaluation below.” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “halogen lamp with Kadomura’s dry etching apparatus would degrade uniformity and control. In particular, we do not credit Dr. Flamm’s supporting testimony on this particular issue because it is conclusory in nature. Ex. 2001 ¶ 34. According to 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a), “[e]xpert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” See Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (stating a lack of objective support for expert opinion “may render the testimony of little probative value in [a patentability] determination”). For instance, Dr. Flamm testifies that: A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would not have combined Narita with Kadomura to effectuate a temperature change because a [person of ordinary of skill in the art] would know that heating through intimate contact with Kadomura’s electrostatic chuck was operable to provide better uniformity and control than an [IR] lamp or halogen lamp taught by Narita. Such [IR] lamp or halogen lamp is primarily for rapid heating, commonly called “RTP,” which would not be combined with Kadomura’s technique that emphasizes better uniformity and control for cryogenic processing. A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would recognize that these different techniques teach away from each other. Ex. 2001 ¶ 34. Dr. Flamm, however, provides little, if any, support for these statements. Absent underlying facts or data to support his opinion, we are not convinced that heating with an IR lamp or halogen lamp, as taught by Narita, would degrade uniformity and control. See Pet. Reply 19–20 (referencing teachings in Narita that provide for control and uniformity).” slip op. at 37

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “Flamm does not dispute that the priority date of the challenged claims of the ’264 patent is the September 11, 1997 filing date of the ’650 provisional application. Consequently, because all the references that serve as the basis of the grounds instituted in this proceeding were filed before September 11, 1997, they qualify as prior art to the challenged claims of the ’264 patent.” slip op. at 12

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

    “The relevant inquiry here is whether Samsung has set forth “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. In KSR, the Supreme Court framed the question as whether “[one] of ordinary skill, facing the wide range of needs created by developments in the field of endeavor, would have seen a benefit to upgrading [the prior art].” 550 U.S. at 424. The Supreme Court explained that we “must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” Id. at 417. The Supreme Court stated that, “[i]f a person of ordinary skill [in the art] can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. Based on the record developed during trial, we agree with Samsung that using Matsumura’s control recipes in Kadomura’s dry etching apparatus and method is a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions—an obvious combination that would provide better temperature control, particularly with respect to accurately controlling the thermal history curve. See Pet. 31–33; Pet. Reply 8–9; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 43, 60, 61; KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. We begin our analysis by examining the problem addressed by Matsumura. In its “Background of the Invention” section, Matsumura discloses that the thermal history curve (i.e., the temperature changing pattern) of the wafer-stage has a large influence on the resolution” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS RE40,264 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
• Tokyo Electron Limited v. Daniel L. FlammInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 4, 2017 · IPR2017-01072 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 13–26, 64, and 65 unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Taking into account the arguments presented in the Petition and Preliminary Response, we conclude that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the unpatentability of claims 13–26, 64, and 65. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review on those claims.” slip op. at 2

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

    “Thus, the ordinary meaning of the claim language itself requires predetermining the temperature change (i.e., the change from the selected first substrate holder temperature to the selected second substrate holder temperature) within a specific interval of time (i.e., the time for changing from the selected first substrate holder temperature to the selected second substrate holder temperature), and based on that predetermination, selecting the thermal mass of the substrate holder. A construction that does not require selecting a thermal mass for a particular temperature change and a specified interval of time, as opposed to selecting a thermal mass that can facilitate or allow a temperature change, is not consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim. We recognize that the thermal mass of a substrate holder is not the only factor that controls the rate of temperature change of the substrate holder. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 16:60–67 (stating that the “heat exchanger, fluid flow rate, coolant-side fluid temperature, heater power, chuck, etc. should be designed to bring the fluid to a setpoint temperature and bring the temperature of the chuck and wafer to predetermined temperatures within specified time intervals and within specified uniformity limits”). The plain language of the claim, however, still requires that the thermal mass of the substrate holder be selected for a predetermined temperature change within the specific interval of time.” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “We do not construe these limitations as requiring the involvement of a heat transfer fluid. “Heat transfer fluid” is not recited in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, it is improper to read limitations from the specification into the claims. See, e.g., In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see also Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“It is likewise not enough that the only embodiments, or all of the embodiments, contain a particular limitation. We do not read limitations from the specification into claims; we do not redefine words.”). As such, we are not persuaded that that the phrases “substrate holder,” “heat transfer device,” and “selected thermal mass,” as recited in claim 13, should be construed as requiring the involvement of “heat transfer fluid.”” slip op. at 11

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

    “3. Remaining Claim Terms For purposes of this Decision, based on the record before us, we determine that none of the remaining claim terms require an explicit construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
• Lam Research Corp. v. Daniel L. FlammInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jun 30, 2016 · IPR2016-00468 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Lam did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 13–26, 64, and 65 would have been obvious over any asserted combination.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Taking into account the arguments presented in Flamm’s Preliminary Response, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition does not establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that Lam would prevail in challenging any of claims 13–26, 64, and 65 of the ’264 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We, therefore, deny the Petition.” slip op. at 2

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

    “temperature change within a short period of time, in conjunction with Moslehi’s RF chuck that has low thermal mass, to teach “the thermal mass of the substrate holder is selected for a predetermined temperature change within a specific interval of time during processing,” as claimed. Id. at 20– 22 (citing Ex. 1002, 6:18–62, 7:19–30; Ex. 1003, 4:45–48, 4:55–57, 10:7–9, 11:58–60; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 73, 74). Lam also provides a rationale to combine the teachings of Kadomura’s embodiment 1 with those of Moslehi. Id. at 40–42. Flamm raises several arguments in response. First, Flamm contends that, in related Case IPR2015-01759, the Board was not persuaded by Lam’s approach of parsing phrases recited in independent claim 13 that are “interdependent” and addressing those phrases individually. PO Resp. 4 (citing Ex. 2001, 17). Flamm argues that, even though in this case Lam parses “the thermal mass of the substrate holder is selected for a predetermined temperature change within a specific interval of time during processing” into two elements instead of three elements, this should not change the Board’s initial admonishment—namely, “[t]he claim language requires that these phrases are interdependent, and cannot be parsed into separate elements met individually.” Id. at 4 (emphasis added). Second, Flamm contends that Kadomura’s predetermined temperature change and time interval are not interdependent, as is required by independent claim 13. Id. at 5. Instead, Flamm argues that, because Kadomura’s time interval is a function of the time required to exhaust the first gas prior to introducing and stabilizing the second gas, this time interval is divorced completely from the predetermined temperature change. Id. at 5–6. We agree with Flamm that Lam’s analysis improperly breaks the elements of independent claim 13 into small phrases, and then attempts to match disclosures from the prior art to those phrases taken out of context. In particular, we note that independent claim 13 recites that “the thermal mass of the substrate holder is selected for a predetermined temperature change within a specific interval of time during processing.” Ex. 1001, 21:1–3 (emphasis added). This claim language requires that these phrases are interdependent, and cannot be parsed into separate elements met individually. In other words, the thermal mass must be selected in order to undergo a predetermined temperature change within a specific interval of time, e.g., a change of 10°C per minute. Lam’s analysis is deficient, to the extent it separates selecting the thermal mass of the substrate holder from a predetermined temperature change within a specific interval of time and analyzes each separately.” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We also do not find Dr. Cecchi’s supporting testimony on this particular issue to be persuasive. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 73, 74. Dr. Cecchi’s analysis essentially repeats the arguments advanced in the Petition, and also breaks up the elements of the independent claim 13 into separate phrases that are then analyzed out of context. For these reasons, we do not credit his testimony that the combined teachings of Kadomura (embodiment 1) and Moslehi account for “the thermal mass of the substrate holder is selected for a predetermined temperature change within a specific interval of time during processing,” as recited in independent claim 13.” slip op. at 18

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art;3 and (4) when in evidence, so-called secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). We analyze this asserted ground based on obviousness with the principles identified above in mind. 2. Kadomura Overview Kadomura generally relates to a dry etching method used primarily for the production of semiconductor devices and, in particular, to a dry etching method and apparatus that provides compatibility for anisotropic fabrication and high selectivity. Ex. 1002, 1:6–10. According to Kadomura, one objective of the disclosed dry etching method is to apply an etching treatment that includes a plurality of steps to a specimen within the same 3 Relying upon the testimony of Dr. Cecchi, Lam offers an assessment as to the level of skill in the art. Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 27–30). Flamm does not challenge this assessment of the level of skill in the art or propose an alternative. For purposes of this Decision, and to the extent necessary, we accept the assessment offered by Lam and Dr. Cecchi.” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
• Midwest Industrial Supply, Inc. v. Soilworks, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · May 9, 2016 · PGR2016-00004 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution for claims 1–26 because the petition did not show they were more likely than not unpatentable on any asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 324(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting a post-grant review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), which provides that a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” After considering the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims it challenges is unpatentable. Accordingly, we do not institute post-grant review.” slip op. at 2

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

    “alkane with a methyl substituent,” that a “dimethyl-branched alkane” be construed as “an alkane with two methyl substituents,” and that “trimethyl-branched alkane” be construed as “an alkane with three methyl substituents.” Pet. 6. Patent Owner does not oppose these constructions, but, given that the precise construction of these terms does not appear to be important to the resolution of issues presented in the present Decision, we conclude that “methyl-branched alkane,” “dimethyl-branched alkane,” and “trimethyl-branched alkane” need not be construed expressly at this time. 3. “Binder” Petitioner suggests that the term “binder” should be construed. Pet. 5–6. Petitioner does not, however, offer a proposed construction for this term. Id. Given this, and given that the precise construction of “binder” does not appear to be important to the resolution of issues presented in the present Decision, we conclude that “binder” need not be construed expressly at this time.” slip op. at 7

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner has not directed us to evidence of record sufficient to establish that any of Hawkins ’266, Hawkins ’270, EK35, and EnviroKleen discloses the limitations requiring the acyclic and cyclic compounds in the synthetic fluid to be at least 65 weight percent compounds with carbon chain lengths in the range of C24 to C36. Petitioner’s argument with respect to these limitations is that Hawkins ’266 and Hawkins ’270 disclose the use of DSF-65, that the ’592 patent describes the use of Risella X 420, and that, according to Dr. Fetzer, DSF-65, Risella X 420, EK35, and EnviroKleen all have similar compositions. Pet. 14, 28– 29; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 33–34. But the ’592 patent does not mandate the use of Risella X 420 in its claimed invention; instead, this product is only one of several commercial products that can be included “[i]n certain embodiments” of the disclosed invention. Ex. 1003, 4:15–21. It does not necessarily follow that Risella X 420, or a similar composition, falls within the scope of any of the claims of the ’592 patent.” slip op. at 10

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

    “§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Hawkins ’266, Hawkins ’270, EK35, and EnviroKleen. Pet. 42–69. Relying on the testimony of Dr. Fetzer, Petitioner explains how these references teach each of the limitations of these claims. Id. Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Fetzer explains why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these references. Id.; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 35–36. Moreover, Petitioner’s obviousness arguments are identical to Petitioner’s anticipation arguments. Pet. 10–38, 42–69. The only exception is that the Fetzer Declaration includes the following language with 10 Even if we were to assume that compositional similarity to Risella X 420 was indicative of whether a compound fell within the scope of the claims, as Petitioner argues, it is not clear on the present record that the evidence of record is more likely than not to support a finding that the DSF-65, EK35, and EnviroKleen products have compositions similar to that of Risella X 420. Although Petitioner argues that they do, e.g., Pet. 14, and Dr. Fetzer testifies that they do, Ex. 1002 ¶ 33, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Fetzer explains how to interpret the data presented at pages 32–202 of Dr. Fetzer’s Declaration in order to reach this conclusion. respect to obviousness: “even if the claims are found not to be anticipated, all the claims would be obvious in view of [Hawkins ’266, Hawkins ’270, EK35, and EnviroKleen].” Ex. 1002 ¶ 36. This conclusory statement is not sufficient to satisfy Petitioner’s burden under 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b). As discussed above, at most, Petitioner has demonstrated that the DSF-65 product disclosed in Hawkins ’266 and Hawkins ’270 and the EK35 and EnviroKleen products all have compositions similar to the Risella X 420 described in the Specification of the ’592 patent, without demonstrating that those products have the compositions of the fluids claimed in the ’592 patent. Based on the evidence before us, we cannot conclude that it is more likely than not that Petitioner will be able to demonstrate that Hawkins ’266, Hawkins ’270, EK35, and EnviroKleen render obvious claims 1–26.” slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 8,968,592
• Qualcomm, Inc. / Qualcomm Atheros, Inc. v. Parkervision, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Mar 8, 2016 · IPR2015-01822 · APJ Jason J Chung · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, and for the reasons explained below, we determine that the information presented in the Petition does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we deny institution of inter partes review of all the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “entitled to claim benefit to the priority date of the ’940 patent—namely, October 21, 1998. See Pet. 11. Specifically, Petitioner contends the challenged claims cannot be entitled to a filing date earlier than April 13, 2000—the filing date of the application that led to the ’372 patent—because, according to the Declaration of Dr. Lawrence E. Larson, none of the earlier filed applications disclose “inversion means” or “‘inverting’ the ‘information signal’” as recited in the challenged claims. Id. (citing Ex. 1023 ¶ 103). Dr. Larson’s testimony merely repeats Petitioner’s assertion and provides no additional explanation or evidence with respect to this issue. Ex. 1023 ¶ 103. Other than “inversion means” or “‘inverting’ the ‘information signal,’” Petitioner does not advance arguments pertaining to other limitations regarding priority. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1023 ¶ 103).” slip op. at 6

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

    “Petitioner’s combination of Dobrovolny and Krauss results in Petitioner improperly reading one component of Dobrovolny on two different claimed structures. Petitioner does not explain adequately why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Dobrovolny in the Q path of Krauss’s IQ modulator.” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightTeaching away not foundDecided for patent owner

    “Absent a cogent explanation, it appears that Petitioner has engaged in impermissible hindsight reconstruction. See Grain Processing Corp. v. Am.- Maize Prods. Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (quoting Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1983)) (“Care must be taken to avoid hindsight reconstruction by using ‘the patent in suit as a guide through the maze of prior art references, combining the right references in the right way so as to achieve the result of the claims in suit.”’). We, therefore, are not persuaded that Petitioner adequately explains why the limitations at issue in independent claim 99 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Dobrovolny and Krauss.” slip op. at 17

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,039,372
• Qualcomm Inc. / Qualcomm Atheros, Inc. v. Parkervision Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Mar 8, 2016 · IPR2015-01819 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Qualcomm did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 88–92 and 107–110 were unpatentable under § 103(a).

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Taking into account the arguments presented in ParkerVision’s Preliminary Response, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition does not establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that Qualcomm will prevail in challenging claims 88– 92 and 107–110 of the ’372 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We, therefore, deny the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenDenied

    “An invention “composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Instead, a determination of unpatentability on a ground of obviousness must include “‘articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” Id. (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). The obviousness evaluation “should be made explicit,” and it “can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” Id. We analyze the asserted grounds with the principles identified above in mind.” slip op. at 11

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

    “On the present record, we are not persuaded that Qualcomm has articulated a sufficient rationale to combine the teachings of Dobrovolny and Maas. We understand Qualcomm to argue that modifying Dobrovolny’s RF mixer to transmit a harmonic frequency instead of the fundamental frequency is nothing more than a design choice. See Pet. 41–42. This argument, by itself, does not explain why modifying Dobrovolny in the manner proposed by Qualcomm would have been obvious. See Cutsforth, Inc. v. MotivePower, Inc., No. 2015-1316, 2016 WL 279984, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 22, 2016) (non-precedential) (“Merely stating that a particular placement of an element is a design choice does not make it obvious. [There must be] a reason for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have made the specific design choice.”). Qualcomm does not offer a sufficient or credible explanation as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have made the specific design choice of transmitting a harmonic frequency instead of the fundamental frequency to Dobrovolny’s RF mixer in order to account for a desired harmonic, as required by independent claim 88. Absent such an explanation, we are not persuaded that Qualcomm adequately explains why independent claim 88 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Dobrovolny and Maas. We also are not persuaded by the cited testimony of Dr. Larson that purportedly supports Qualcomm’s rationale to combine the teachings of Dobrovolny and Maas because it essentially repeats the arguments advanced by Qualcomm in its Petition. Compare Pet. 41–42, with Ex. 1025 ¶ 174. For instance, Dr. Larson testifies that: [t]o the extent it is unclear whether Dobrovolny discloses that a desired harmonic is included in the multiplicity of harmonics in waveform C, Maas discloses that the choice to transmit at a harmonic frequency instead of the fundamental frequency was a known design alternative that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as I discussed in Section V above. Ex. 1025 ¶ 174. Similar to our analysis above, Dr. Larson does not offer a sufficient or credible explanation as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have made the specific design choice of transmitting a harmonic frequency instead of a fundamental frequency to Dobrovolny’s RF mixer in order to account for a desired harmonic, as required by independent claim 88. Moreover, we note that “Section V” of Dr. Larson’s Declaration, referred to in the block quote above, spans forty-six (46) pages or sixty-nine (69) paragraphs. See Ex. 1025 ¶¶ 31–100. In essence, Dr. Larson asks that we search the sixty-nine paragraphs of testimony in Section V to unearth support for his conclusory statement in the passage quoted above. This we will not do. If a party or witness wishes for us to consider one portion of a document as supporting statements made in another portion, it must provide citations to those portions with particularity.” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for patent owner

    “On the present record, we are not persuaded that Qualcomm has articulated a sufficient rationale to combine the teachings of Dobrovolny, Maas, and Thodesen. With respect to Qualcomm’s assertion that the teachings of Dobrovolny and Thodesen are capable of being combined because both of these references teach the same structure and recognize the same problem, this assertion, at best, indicates that Dobrovolny and Thodesen are analogous art to each other. Merely asserting that these prior art references are analogous art to each other, however, does not suffice as an articulated reason with a rational underpinning to combine their respective teachings—more is required to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. We also are not persuaded by the cited testimony of Dr. Larson that purportedly supports Qualcomm’s rationale to combine the teachings of Dobrovolny and Thodesen because it essentially repeats the arguments advanced by Qualcomm in its Petition. Compare Pet. 42, with Ex. 1025 ¶ 173. For instance, Dr. Larson testifies that: [f]or example, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Dobrovolny with Thodesen’s summer because both references teach the same architecture of a switch where one input of each switch is coupled to AC ground and [both references] recognize the need to sum the signals generated by the switch . . . . Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art using Dobrovolny’s circuitry would have been motivated to combine it with any similar device that would sum the voltages of the inputted signals, including the summer disclosed in Thodesen. Ex. 1025 ¶ 173. Similar to our explanation above, simply demonstrating that Dobrovolny and Thodesen are analogous art to each other does not suffice as an articulated reason with a rational underpinning to combine their respective teachings—more is required to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.” slip op. at 22

  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,039,372
• Qualcomm, Inc. / Qualcomm Atheros, Inc. v. Parkervision, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Mar 8, 2016 · IPR2015-01825 · APJ Jason J Chung · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, and for the reasons explained below, we determine that the information presented in the Petition does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we deny institution of inter partes review of all the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelOther

    “whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). An invention “composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Instead, a determination of unpatentability on a ground of obviousness must include “‘articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” Id. (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). The obviousness evaluation “should be made explicit,” and it “can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” Id. We analyze the asserted grounds with the principles identified above in mind.” slip op. at 11

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

    “reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert. granted sub nom. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 84 U.S.LW. 3218 (U.S. Jan. 15, 2016) (No. 15-446). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, and absent any special definitions, claim terms or phrases are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In its Petition, Petitioner proposes constructions for the following claim phrases or terms: (1) “inversion means for inverting the [] information signal and outputting a [] inverted information signal” (claims 99 and 100); (2) “gating [a signal]” (claims 99, 100, 126, and 127); (3) “first [second/third/fourth] gating means for gating” (claims 99 and 100); (4) “harmonically rich signal” (claims 99, 100, 126, and 127); (5) “harmonic” (claims 99 and 100); and (6) “summing means” (claims 99 and 100). Pet. 12–18. In response, Patent Owner proposes a construction for each of the claim phrases or terms identified by Petitioner. Prelim. Resp. 11–20. We, however, need not assess the parties’ proposed constructions because they are not necessary to resolve the dispositive issues discussed below. See, e.g., Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only those claim terms or phrases that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 9

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “entitled to claim benefit to the priority date of the ’940 patent—namely, October 21, 1998. See Pet. 11. Specifically, Petitioner contends the challenged claims cannot be entitled to a filing date earlier than April 13, 2000—the filing date of the application that led to the ’372 patent—because, according to the Declaration of Dr. Lawrence E. Larson, none of the earlier filed applications disclose “inversion means” or “‘inverting’ the ‘information signal’” as recited in the challenged claims. Id. (citing Ex. 1025 ¶ 103). Dr. Larson’s testimony merely repeats Petitioner’s assertion and provides no additional explanation or evidence with respect to this issue. Ex. 1025 ¶ 103. Other than “inversion means” or “‘inverting’ the ‘information signal,’” Petitioner does not advance arguments pertaining to other limitations regarding priority. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1025 ¶ 103). In response, Patent Owner argues that the specification of the ’940 patent, which is a parent patent to the ’372 patent, describes inverters 3910 and 4010. Prelim. Resp. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1016, 45:25–46:25, Figs. 39 and 40). For convenience, Figures 39A and 40A of the ’940 patent are reproduced below. Figures 39A and 40A of the ’940 patent illustrate inverters 3910 and 4010 inverting, respectively, waveforms 3902 and 4002. On this record before us, we are not persuaded Petitioner has demonstrated facts sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that it will prove that the challenged claims of the ’372 patent lack sufficient written description support. Specifically, Petitioner does not explain why the disclosure of inverters 3910 and 4010 would not convey to the person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventors were in possession of “inversion means” at the time the application that led to the ’940 patent was filed. Based on the current record, the challenged claims, therefore, are entitled to claim the benefit of the priority date of the ’940 patent—namely, October 21, 1998.” slip op. at 6

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,039,372

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.