• Platform Science, Inc. v. Omnitracs, LLCRehearing granted
  PTAB · Sep 3, 2021 · IPR2020-01612 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board granted rehearing and instituted IPR on all petition grounds for claims 1–4, 6–9, 11, 12, and 15, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted

    “II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id. When rehearing a decision on a petition, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2

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

    “preliminary stage, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to claim 1.” slip op. at 44

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

    “The only dispute pertaining to claim construction at this stage of the proceeding is whether the phrase “a process for creating said response message,” recited in claim 1, is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.6 Petitioner 6 As noted above, Petitioner raises a second claim construction issue in its Rehearing Request. See Req. Reh’g 12–15 (asserting that the claims require only one instance of copying information from a formatted message to a response message based on which formatted message was received). Petitioner did not raise this issue in the Petition, Patent Owner has not had an contends that the phrase should be interpreted as a means-plus-function limitation, whereas Patent Owner contends that it should not. Compare Pet. 2–7 (advocating for a means-plus-function construction), with Prelim. Resp. 9–11 (advocating for an ordinary and customary meaning). At this stage of the proceeding, the dispute between the parties regarding the construction of this claim phrase does not impact our Decision. Accordingly, we need not construe expressly any claim terms for the purpose of this Decision.” slip op. at 17

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

    “VI. ANALYSIS Legal Standards – Anticipation “[A] claim is anticipated ‘if each and every limitation is found expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference.’” King Pharm., Inc. v. Eon Labs., Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Celeritas Techs., Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). Anticipation is a question of fact, In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334–35 (Fed. Cir. 2009), assessed from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art, see Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“the dispositive question regarding anticipation [i]s whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer from the [prior art reference’s] teaching that every claim element was disclosed in that single reference” (alteration in original) (quotation omitted)).” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,925,308
• Platform Science, Inc. v. Omnitracs, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Apr 13, 2021 · IPR2020-01613 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–3 and 5–15 unpatentable over Milewski, or claims 1–3, 7–9, and 12 obvious over Milewski and Heijden.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “analysis. Petitioner maps the action message shown in Milewski’s Figure 4 to the recited “formatted message” (see, e.g., Pet. 32 (“Figure 4 shows an exemplary screen display of an action message (the ‘formatted message’) presented to the recipient at the receiver communication station.”)), while also mapping Figure 4 to the recited “response message” (see, e.g., id. at 37 (identifying Figure 4 as the “completed reply form (response message)”)). Milewski describes Figure 4 as both the action message and reply form. Compare Ex. 1007, 7:38–39 (“FIG. 4 is a screen of the action message 400 displayed by the controller at the recipient’s station.” (emphasis added)), with id. at 9:11–15 (“In an operation 803, the controller renders the action message body in a reply form shown in FIG. 4 to the recipient using standard World Wide Web protocols and processes (HyperText Transaction Protocols-HTTP; HyperText Mark Up Language-HTML).” (emphasis added)). Milewski appears to explain the basis for its terminology by stating that “[t]hroughout the description, structured responses may also be classified as an ‘action message’ as more descriptive of the reply sought by a sender.” See id. at 5:56–59. The problem Patent Owner identifies with Petitioner’s analysis, however, is that Petitioner fails to explain where Milewski indicates copying information from the action message to the reply form when the action message and reply form appear to be the same. In support of its argument regarding copying, Petitioner cites to column 7, lines 44 through 52, of Milewski. That section states the following: Upon marking the selected response, the recipient completes the response to the action message. In the present instance, the recipient has marked the “other” response and provides text in a field 408 as a response to the text in field 402. A field 410 is available for additional comments which the sender authorized to be entered by checking the field 212 in template 200. In this case, the recipient has chosen not to provide any additional comments. Ex. 1007, 7:44–52. We find that there is nothing in this section that expressly supports Petitioner’s contention that information is copied from the action message to the reply form, especially in light of Milewski’s indication that the action message is the reply form. Furthermore, Petitioner fails to explain sufficiently why a skilled artisan would view this passage as describing the alleged copying.” slip op. at 29

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)No construction neededNot reached

    “The only dispute pertaining to claim construction at this stage of the proceeding is whether the phrase “a process for creating said response message,” recited in claim 1, is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. Petitioner contends that the phrase should be interpreted as a means-plus-function limitation, whereas Patent Owner contends that it should not. Compare Pet. 3–7 (advocating for a means-plus-function construction), with Prelim. Resp. 9–11 (advocating for an ordinary and customary meaning). At this stage of the proceeding, the dispute between the parties regarding the construction of this claim phrase does not impact our Decision. Accordingly, we need not construe expressly any claim terms for the purpose of this Decision.” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner, supported by Mr. Andrews’s testimony, proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had at least a Bachelor of Science degree (or equivalent) in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related technical field, and at least 2–3 years of experience in the fields of messaging systems, and wireless communication devices, or an equivalent advanced education in the field of messaging systems, including wireless communication devices. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 28). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s offered level of ordinary skill in the art” for purposes of this proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 8. At this stage of the proceeding, we find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’308 patent and the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), and, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12

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

    “analysis. Petitioner maps the action message shown in Milewski’s Figure 4 to the recited “formatted message” (see, e.g., Pet. 32 (“Figure 4 shows an exemplary screen display of an action message (the ‘formatted message’) presented to the recipient at the receiver communication station.”)), while also mapping Figure 4 to the recited “response message” (see, e.g., id. at 37 (identifying Figure 4 as the “completed reply form (response message)”)). Milewski describes Figure 4 as both the action message and reply form. Compare Ex. 1007, 7:38–39 (“FIG. 4 is a screen of the action message 400 displayed by the controller at the recipient’s station.” (emphasis added)), with id. at 9:11–15 (“In an operation 803, the controller renders the action message body in a reply form shown in FIG. 4 to the recipient using standard World Wide Web protocols and processes (HyperText Transaction Protocols-HTTP; HyperText Mark Up Language-HTML).” (emphasis added)). Milewski appears to explain the basis for its terminology by stating that “[t]hroughout the description, structured responses may also be classified as an ‘action message’ as more descriptive of the reply sought by a sender.” See id. at 5:56–59. The problem Patent Owner identifies with Petitioner’s analysis, however, is that Petitioner fails to explain where Milewski indicates copying information from the action message to the reply form when the action message and reply form appear to be the same. In support of its argument regarding copying, Petitioner cites to column 7, lines 44 through 52, of Milewski. That section states the following: Upon marking the selected response, the recipient completes the response to the action message. In the present instance, the recipient has marked the “other” response and provides text in a field 408 as a response to the text in field 402. A field 410 is available for additional comments which the sender authorized to be entered by checking the field 212 in template 200. In this case, the recipient has chosen not to provide any additional comments. Ex. 1007, 7:44–52. We find that there is nothing in this section that expressly supports Petitioner’s contention that information is copied from the action message to the reply form, especially in light of Milewski’s indication that the action message is the reply form. Furthermore, Petitioner fails to explain sufficiently why a skilled artisan would view this passage as describing the alleged copying.” slip op. at 29

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,925,308
• Platform Science, Inc. v. Omnitracs, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Apr 13, 2021 · IPR2020-01612 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Coffee, alone or with Heijden, rendered any challenged claim unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons given below, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’308 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)No construction neededNot reached

    “The only dispute pertaining to claim construction at this stage of the proceeding is whether the phrase “a process for creating said response message,” recited in claim 1, is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. Petitioner contends that the phrase should be interpreted as a means-plus-function limitation, whereas Patent Owner contends that it should not. Compare Pet. 2–7 (advocating for a means-plus-function construction), with Prelim. Resp. 9–11 (advocating for an ordinary and customary meaning). At this stage of the proceeding, the dispute between the parties regarding the construction of this claim phrase does not impact our Decision. Accordingly, we need not construe expressly any claim terms for the purpose of this Decision.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s offered level of ordinary skill in the art” for purposes of this proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 8. At this stage of the proceeding, we find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’308 patent and the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), and, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 13

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “analysis. Even if we assume that Coffee discloses and/or renders obvious “field-mapping information for indicating information to be copied from said formatted message to a response message,”7 Petitioner has not shown that it is “based on which one of said pre-defined formatted messages was received.” Rather, whatever information Coffee may copy appears to be the same from each formatted message (as shown in Petitioner’s comparison of 7 For purposes of this Decision, we need not decide whether Coffee in fact discloses or renders obvious this recitation of claim 1. Coffee’s Tables 58 and 63) and not based on which pre-defined formatted message was received.8 Additionally, Petitioner’s alternative arguments as to whether Coffee discloses (explicitly or inherently) and/or renders obvious field-mapping information that is stored on the MDT do not address the specific deficiency identified above and do not provide an alternative basis for finding that Coffee discloses and/or renders obvious field-mapping information for indicating information to be copied from said formatted message to a response message based on which one of said pre-defined formatted messages was received. See Pet. 33–35 (discussing explicit, inherent, and obvious alternatives). Accordingly, based on the record before us, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Coffee discloses and/or renders obvious limitation 1d.” slip op. at 29

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,925,308
• Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 12, 2021 · IPR2019-01195 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 13 and 14 are unpatentable as anticipated by Kim; claims 17, 18, and 20 were not shown unpatentable over Kim and Lee because the proposed combination was inadequately explained.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “’026 patent would have had a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering or Computer Engineering, plus at least two years of experience in integrated circuit design, or alternatively a Bachelor’s degree in one of those fields plus at least four years of experience in integrated circuit design. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 49). In our Institution Decision, we found Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), and, therefore, preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 15. Neither Patent Owner, in its Response, nor Dr. Annavaram, in his declaration, proposes a level of ordinary skill in the art. Instead, Patent Owner states that “Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s stated skill level for this response” (PO Resp. 26), and Dr. Annavaram similarly states that “[f]or the purpose of this declaration, I adopt Dr. Harris’ definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art]” (Ex. 2009 ¶ 24). Nothing in the full record persuades us that our preliminary finding as to the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. Based on the complete record, because our preliminary finding is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering or Computer Engineering, plus at least two years of experience in integrated circuit design, or alternatively a Bachelor’s degree in one of those fields plus at least four years of experience in integrated circuit design. Inst. Dec. 15; see Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 49).” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “To the extent Patent Owner argues that these particularized selection clauses recited in different claims must have the same or similar meaning because they all use the word “selecting” (see PO Resp. 28–29), we disagree with Patent Owner. See IGT v. Bally Gaming Int’l, Inc., 659 F.3d 1109, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“We caution that claim language must be construed in the context of the claim in which it appears. Extracting a single word from a claim divorced from the surrounding limitations can lead construction astray. Claim language must be construed in the claim in which it appears.” (emphasis added)). The selection clauses recited in these claims are plainly different on the face of the claims when considering the material differences in the claim language set forth above. According the same meaning to the limitations that recite “select . . . based on” indicators, “select . . . when” certain conditions are met, and “select . . . out of a group” of values would be improper because it would blur the material differences in the claim language recited expressly in the claims. Instead, we interpret the selection clauses recited in the challenged claims “in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears” and “in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. In other words, we do not construe the single word “selecting” in isolation, but, rather, interpret the full selection clauses recited in the challenged claims in the context of the entire patent. Claim 13 recites “selecting, by the control circuit, a value of a control signal based on the mode indicator and on the leakage indicator.” In our view, the plain meaning of this limitation is clear on the face of the claim—a value of a control signal is selected based on two indicators, the mode indicator and the leakage indicator.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Tr. 47:7–23. Because the output of Kim’s NAND gates will be different depending on the value of Kim’s memory cells C1–CN allowed to “pass through,” we agree with Petitioner that the value of Kim’s memory cells C1– CN (the claimed “leakage indicator”) “plays a role” in deciding what the output of Kim’s NAND gates (the claimed “value of the control signal”) will be. Moreover, Patent Owner acknowledged that the output of Kim’s NAND gate is determined based on the inputs to the NAND gates (i.e., the sleep signal input and the memory cell signal input). JUDGE CHUNG: But, knowing a little bit about how a NAND gate works, isn’t it the case that the input to the NAND gates, G1 through GN, with the input of the sleep signal and the C1 through CN signal, isn’t it the case that input to the NAND gate determines what the output is? MS. ZHONG: Okay. So any logic gate, the output will depend on the input. That’s for sure. Tr. 44:18–25; but see id. at 45:3–10 (stating that even if the “output is in control of the input, . . . that does not mean the selection is based on that input”). Thus, we find that Kim’s NAND gate (the claimed “control circuit”) operates to determine its output (the claimed “value of the control signal”) based on its input of the sleep signal (the claimed “mode indicator”) and the memory cell value input (the claimed “leakage indicator”). As discussed in Section III.B, the Specification indicates that “select[ing] the value of the control signal based on the mode indicator and on the leakage indicator” recited in claim 13 is synonymous to determining the value based on the recited indicators. See Ex. 1101, 4:4–11. Thus, the evidence of record shows that Kim teaches “selecting, by the control circuit, a value of a control signal based on the mode indicator and on the leakage indicator,” as recited in claim 13.” slip op. at 44

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

    “We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument and evidence. First, although Petitioner proposes “[s]ubstituting Lee’s inputs of leakage current and temperature for generating a power gate control signal” (i.e., Lee’s “control signal (BIAS)”) for “Kim’s inputs of leakage current and other ‘stimuli’ for generating a power gate control signal” (Pet. 64 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 115)), neither Petitioner nor Dr. Harris explains adequately how they are proposing to “substitute” Kim’s control signal with Lee’s “control signal (BIAS).” For example, Figure A reproduced above does not show how Petitioner or Dr. Harris proposes to use Lee’s “control signal (BIAS)” in the proposed combination. Petitioner asserts that “[a]lthough Lee’s control signal is analog and Kim’s control signal is digital, it was well known to apply teachings in an analog domain to a digital domain, and conversions between analog and digital domains were easy to implement.” Pet. 66 (emphases added) (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 121; Ex. 1115). Dr. Harris similarly states that Figures A and B show examples of obvious ways to use in Kim’s system Lee’s teaching of setting conductance of the array based on temperature. A POSA would have found both of these ways obvious. That Lee uses an analog control signal and Kim uses a digital control signal would have presented no obstacle to a POSA. . . . That is, converting analog circuit elements and signals to digital was well known long before the ’026 patent. Ex. 1102 ¶ 121 (emphases added) (citing (Ex. 1115) (“Analog-to-digital converters (ADC’s) are ubiquitous, critical components of software radio and other signal processing systems.”)). But Dr. Harris does not explain adequately how “to use in Kim’s system” the digitized BIAS signal of Lee. See id. The only additional input signal shown in Figure A compared to Figure 4 of Kim is the temperature line that has the value of 0 when the temperature is cold and the value of 1 when the temperature is hot. See Ex. 1102 ¶ 116 (Fig. A). There is no explanation of how the modified teaching of the BIAS signal of Lee (i.e., modified or converted to a digital signal) would have worked in the proposed combination of Figure A.” slip op. at 69

  Patent outcomesUS 8,081,026 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,081,026
• Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 6, 2020 · IPR2018-01033 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 17 is anticipated by Bednar, and claims 1 and 17 are obvious over Bednar and Gunther; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “requesting institution of inter partes review of claims 1, 4–6, and 17–19 of U.S. Patent No. 8,004,922 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’922 patent”). VLSI Technology LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 12). Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we instituted an inter partes review of all challenged claims. Paper 17 (“Inst. Dec.”).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “to the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. Accordingly, because our preliminary finding is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least (1) an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering (or an equivalent subject), together with three years of post-graduate experience designing power management circuits; or (2) a master’s degree in electrical engineering (or equivalent subject) together with two years of post-graduate experience designing power management circuits.” Inst. Dec. 8–9; see Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 26–27).” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “construction of “memory device,” specifically whether it encompasses a latch. Neither party argues that “memory device” is expressly defined in the ’922 patent. Accordingly, the plain and ordinary meaning of the term controls. And, the standard under which we construe the term is the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” slip op. at 45

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

    “preponderance of the evidence, that (1) claim 17 is anticipated by Bednar, and (2) claims 1 and 17 would have been obvious over the combination of Bednar and Gunther. For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has not demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) claim 1 is anticipated by Bednar or (2) claims 4–6, 18, and 19 would have been obvious over the combination of Bednar, Gunther, and Willingham. The chart below summarizes our conclusions.” slip op. at 91

  Patent outcomesUS 8,004,922 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,004,922
• Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 6, 2020 · IPR2018-01144 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2, 7, and 8 are unpatentable as obvious over Bednar and Gunther; claim 3 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “to the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. Accordingly, because our preliminary finding is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least (1) an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering (or an equivalent subject), together with three years of post-graduate experience designing power management circuits; or (2) a master’s degree in electrical engineering (or equivalent subject) together with two years of post-graduate experience designing power management circuits.” Inst. Dec. 8; see Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 26–27).” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “construction is erroneous. Accordingly, because the ’922 patent defines “power island,” we maintain and reaffirm that “power island” means a “group of components with similar power requirements.”” slip op. at 12

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

    “not to expressly construe “conversion controller” was erroneous or that an express construction is required to resolve any dispute between the parties. Accordingly, we maintain and reaffirm that because the construction of “conversion controller” does not resolve a controversy in the matter before us, we decline to construe it expressly.” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “construction of “memory device,” specifically whether it encompasses a latch. Neither party argues that “memory device” is expressly defined in the ’922 patent. Accordingly, the plain and ordinary meaning of the term controls. And, the standard under which we construe the term is the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” slip op. at 86

  Patent outcomesUS 8,004,922 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,004,922
• Wabco Holdings Inc. / Laydon Composites Ltd. v. Transtex Composites Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 10, 2020 · IPR2018-01319 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5–11, and 15–19 are unpatentable as obvious over Layfield and Rinard; claims 2–4, 12–14, and 20 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Micklow does not explain how or why he proposes a different level of ordinary skill in the art as compared to the level proposed by Petitioner and preliminarily adopted in our Decision on Institution. See generally id. ¶¶ 28–31. Additionally, neither Patent Owner nor Dr. Micklow argues that the difference in the proposed level of ordinary skill in the art affects the outcome of this proceeding; Dr. Micklow, in fact, states the contrary—that his opinions are the same under either level of skill. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 31.7 Nothing in the full record is sufficient to persuade us that our preliminary finding as to the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. Accordingly, because our preliminary finding is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, we maintain and reaffirm our preliminary finding that the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been “a bachelor’s degree in mechanics, aeronautics, materials, or a related field of study, or equivalent experience, and at least two years of experience in the development of components of vehicles, or an equivalent amount of relevant work or research experience.” Inst. Dec. 10–11; see Pet. 10.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Turning to Petitioner’s video (Ex. 1018), Petitioner asserts testing of commercial versions of the Layfield fairing illustrates what one skilled in the art would have understood from Layfield itself, namely that the Layfield strut is adapted to sustain an elastic deformation when a load is applied to the resilient strut when the skirt panel moves away from the configuration reducing air drag about the trailer and to self-recover the resilient strut original shape when the load is removed. Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 102–103).16 We afford this evidence little weight for several reasons. First, the video does not show the strut or the bending of a strut. See Ex. 1018. In fact, the only feature shown is a skirt panel attached to a trailer. that because thermoplastic material is more resilient than aluminum, we should adopt Petitioner’s argument. Pet. Reply 15–16 (citing Ex. 1058, 1– 12; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 77–82). We must base our decision in this case on the arguments and evidence presented. As explained above, the record before us has contradictory evidence in the form of Dr. Micklow’s testimony that was not before the examiner. 16 Petitioner does not cite Exhibit 1018 in the Petition, but instead cites to Mr. Tres’s testimony regarding the exhibit. Id. Thus, from the video, it is unknown whether the skirt panel is attached to the trailer by one strut, multiple struts, or additional features. Second, Petitioner does not identify clearly how the tested system precisely corresponds to the teachings of Layfield. For example, Patent Owner raises a number of issues with the struts and panels in the video to which Petitioner provides either no response or an unconvincing response. For example, Patent Owner argues that each embodiment of Layfield uses trusses 36 to “interconnect each skirt panel and reinforce the panel assembly,” while it is asserted that the skirt panels in the video do not have trusses and are not interconnected. PO Resp. 26. Petitioner argues that the skirt panels in the video were made according to the teachings of Layfield and did include “integral vertical lateral side edges as the connecting mechanism for adjacent panels.” Pet. Reply 19 (citing Exs. 1018, 2003, 2005; Ex. 1004, 18:36–39; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 63–64; Ex. 1055 ¶¶ 37–38). Other than stating that the skirt panels have connecting mechanisms, Petitioner does not address the fact that the panels are not interconnected according to the teachings of Layfield, as Patent Owner correctly pointed out. See generally id. at 19–21.” slip op. at 28

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

    “components (see, e.g., id. at 17:1–10), Layfield does not contain any express disclosure concerning the flexibility of the struts. Nor does Layfield include any discussion about the desirability of strut flexibility. The closest Layfield comes to discussing flexibility of the struts is by frequently referring to the struts as “support struts” (see, e.g., id. at 18:40) and discussing the use of a “bracket means,” which is on the struts, to “rigidly secure” the skirt panels to the trailer (id. at 6:48–49). Further, Layfield’s detailed discussion of the embodiment of support strut 58 shown in Figure 10, reproduced below, highlights the bracing and reinforcement features. Figure 10, above, shows the construction detail of a support strut 58. Ex. 1004, 15:45. Specifically, Layfield discloses that strut 58 includes “a pair of spaced-apart vertical members 160, which are braced by horizontal cross-members 162” and “reinforcing rectangular lattice 170.” Id. at 15:46– 54. Thus, we agree with Patent Owner’s argument that “Layfield does not expressly teach that the ‘support struts 58’ are ‘resilient.’” PO Resp. 42 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 148–149). We reiterate that Petitioner’s first challenge is based on anticipation. Thus, Petitioner must show that resilient struts are “either expressly or inherently described, in” Layfield. Verdegaal Bros. Inc., 814 F.2d at 631; see also PO Resp. 42. In its Reply Brief and at the oral hearing, Petitioner contends that its challenge is based on express disclosure, not inherency. See Pet. Reply 17–18; Tr. 9:21–11:4 (arguing that “this is not a case of inherency”). Petitioner contends one of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood, based upon Layfield’s express disclosures concerning the material, structure, and connection of the strut, that the Layfield strut is resilient and can sustain significant and substantial elastic deformation.” Pet. Reply 18 (citing REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC v. Neste Oil Oyj, 841 F.3d 954, 960–61 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Whether we analyze Petitioner’s argument based on express disclosure or inherency, we reach the same result. To begin, although we agree with Petitioner that a prior art reference “need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test” (Pet. Reply 17 (quoting In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009))), there is no express statement that Layfield’s strut is resilient or otherwise exhibits a characteristic synonymous with resiliency. Additionally, we do not agree that Petitioner’s reliance on the thermoplastic materials, disclosed by Layfield for construction of the strut, establishes whether the strut is resilient and capable of elastic deformation. The evidence submitted by the parties is contradictory as to whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Layfield’s struts to be resilient based on the material alone.15 Compare Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 74–82 15 Petitioner also points to a finding by the examiner, during prosecution of the ’017 patent application, that an aluminum strut was resilient, and argues (Mr. Tres opining as to the materials disclosed by Layfield), with Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 160–164 (Dr. Micklow contradicting Mr. Tres’s testimony regarding the materials disclosed by Layfield). Further, the evidence is contradictory as to whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the design of Layfield’s strut, specifically the taper design and mechanism by which the strut connects to the trailer I-beam, that the strut is resilient. Compare Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 83–90 (Mr. Tres’s testimony regarding the design and connection mechanism), with Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 165–175 (Dr. Micklow’s contradictory testimony). Turning to Petitioner’s video (Ex. 1018), Petitioner asserts testing of commercial versions of the Layfield fairing illustrates what one skilled in the art would have understood from Layfield itself, namely that the Layfield strut is adapted to sustain an elastic deformation when a load is applied to the resilient strut when the skirt panel moves away from the configuration reducing air drag about the trailer and to self-recover the resilient strut original shape when the load is removed. Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 102–103).16 We afford this evidence little weight for several reasons. First, the video does not show the strut or the bending of a strut. See Ex. 1018. In fact, the only feature shown is a skirt panel attached to a trailer.” slip op. at 26

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

    “Additionally, Patent Owner similarly contends that the modifications proposed are redundant of Layfield’s “flexible lower panel 20,” which already “allow[s] flexing when impacting a road object.” PO Resp. 59 (citing Ex. 1004, 14:13–18); see PO Sur-reply 26–27. We disagree. Again, the proposed modifications here are to Layfield’s struts. In the context of Petitioner’s anticipation challenge, we agreed with Patent Owner and found that Petitioner had not established sufficiently on the record that Layfield’s struts were resilient. See supra, § II.D.a.i., ii. Therefore, the proposed modification addressed here, to make Layfield’s struts resilient, does not duplicate the objective of Layfield’s flexible lower panel 20 at least because (a) Layfield’s struts are a different structure than lower panel 20 and (b) modification of Layfield’s struts would provide greater impact protection to other panels aside from just lower panel 20. See Pet. Reply 26–27 (One of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to do so because Rinard and Layfield both seek to provide fairing panels with ‘sufficient flexibility’ to bend when encountering objects.” (citing Ex. 1004, 12:67– 13:4; Ex. 1006, 10:43–50; Ex. 1055 ¶ 47)). We determine that Petitioner has shown that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason with rational underpinning to look to other similar types of trailer components that are flexible to make further improvements to Layfield’s design. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”). Third, Patent Owner contends one of ordinary skill in the art “would not have a reasonable expectation of success at achieving the claimed technology by looking to the vertical supports of Rinard’s air scoops to modify the Layfield skirt panels 10 and support struts 58.” PO Resp. 61 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 237–240). Patent Owner asserts that because Layfield’s upper skirt panels are rigid and non-moving one of ordinary skill in the art “would not reasonably expect the hypothetical modified panels (with their reinforcing trusses 36) to move.” Id. Patent Owner also argues that Rinard teaches “an upper skirt panel that is rigid and non-moving” and so it is not reasonable to expect modifying Layfield as proposed would somehow cause Layfield’s fixed skirt panels to be able to move as claimed. PO Sur-reply 27–28 (citations omitted). We disagree for the same reasons discussed above—namely, we find Layfield’s upper skirt panels to be resilient. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in achieving a resilient strut adapted as claimed by modifying Layfield’s strut in light of Rinard, for the reasons proposed by Petitioner. See Pet. Reply 27 (“Applying this solution to the Layfield skirt panel and struts would yield the predictable result of allowing the Layfield skirt panel 10 and struts 58 to absorb greater impacts without having to be repaired or replaced.” (citing Ex. 1021, 7–8, 11–12)).” slip op. at 42

  Patent outcomesUS 8,449,017 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,449,017
• Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 3, 2019 · IPR2018-01140 · APJ Marc S Hoff · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 13 are unpatentable as anticipated by Ogino; claims 14 and 15 are unpatentable as obvious over Ogino and Chen II.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “claims 1 and 13 of the ’032 Patent are anticipated by Ogino. Petitioner has also demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 14 and 15 of the ’032 Patent are unpatentable over the combination of Ogino and Chen II. The chart below summarizes our conclusion. References Claims Claims Claims 35. Shown Not shown Challenged U.S.C. Unpatent- Unpatentable able Ogino 1 and 13 1 and 13 § 102 Ogino, Chen 14 and 15 14 and 15 § 103 II 1 and 13-15” slip op. at 40

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “that Ogino and Chen II disclose substantially different lens systems. PO Resp. 36. As Petitioner points out, both Ogino and Chen II describe mobile phone camera systems with all lenses being aspheric; a first lens with a meniscus shape with positive refractive power; a second lens with negative refractive power; a third lens with a meniscus shape and with a negative refractive power; a fourth lens with a meniscus shape with positive refractive power; and a fifth lens with a meniscus shape and with a negative refractive power. Pet. Reply 22; Pet. 41–44. We agree with Petitioner that such a skilled artisan, possessing an applicable college degree, approximately three years experience in designing multi-lens optical systems, “experience in analyzing, tolerancing, adjusting, and optimizing multilens systems, and experience with lens design software such as CodeV, Oslo, or Zemax,” would have the appropriate knowledge to perform routine modifications to a lens design. Pet. Reply 24; Pet. 7; PO Resp. 12. Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Moore testified that such a skilled artisan “would be able to use the computer program [i.e. CodeV or Zemax] to optimize lens designs.” Pet. Reply 24; Ex. 1025, 29:25–30:9. Dr. Moore testified that the skilled artisan would “tell the [lens design] program that you want to vary certain parameters of a lens . . . . And then the program, through a fairly complicated algorithm, then actually goes through and varies them and determines how to make a better lens. You determine as a lens designer what you’re trying to improve.” Ex. 1025, 28:13–23.” slip op. at 38

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that the skilled artisan would have understood that third, fourth, and fifth lenses also contribute to vignetting in Ogino. PO Resp. 38. We credit Petitioner’s argument that Dr. Moore’s conclusion regarding vignetting in the third, fourth, and fifth lenses is unreliable because it is based on assumptions not specified in Ogino. Pet. Reply 16; Ex. 1026 ¶ 11. For example, Ogino does not provide lens diameters or vignetting apertures for the lens assembly of Example 6 that would vignette the light beams on the third, fourth or fifth lens elements. Pet. Reply 17; Ex. 1026 ¶ 11. Additionally, Dr. Sasián testifies that vignetting is a result of the second lens. Pet. Reply 17–18; Pet. 54; Ex. 1003, 59.” slip op. at 36

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

    “Effective Focal Length (EFL) Petitioner asserts that while the specification of the ’032 Patent does not offer an express definition for the term “effective focal length,” “its meaning is well known in the art, as exemplified in Li (Ex. 1007), which states that “[t]he focal length of a lens assembly [is] also referred to as the effective focal length [(]EFL).” Pet. 9–10 (internal parentheses omitted); Ex. 1007, 2:59–61. Patent Owner, in response, does not dispute Petitioner’s construction of “effective focal length,” stating that the Petition does not turn on the construction of the term. PO Resp. 20. Having reviewed the evidence of record, we agree with Petitioner that Li supports construing the term “effective focal length” as “the focal length of a lens assembly.” We adopt this construction.” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 9,402,032 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,402,032
• Power Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components Industries, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 23, 2019 · IPR2018-00180 · APJ Kamran Jivani · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 4–7, 9–16, and 18 are unpatentable over Hwang or Hwang and Balakrishnan; claim 17 was not shown unpatentable over Hwang.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Although the parties formulate slightly differently their respective assessments of the skill level, neither party disputes directly the other’s assessment nor makes any arguments related to the assessments. See generally Pet.; PO Resp. The ’221 patent states its disclosure “relates, in general, to integrated circuits and, more particularly, to power converter integrated circuits.” Ex. 1001, 1:9–11. In view of the foregoing, we adopt Patent Owner’s formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Further, this level of ordinary skill is reflected by the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “construction must begin with the words of the claims themselves.”); In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)) (“As with any claim construction analysis, we begin with the claim language.”). None of the challenged claims (nor even unchallenged claim 8) recites the claimed disabling or terminating occurs in response to the detect signal independent of other circuit conditions or in response only to the detect signal. See Ex. 1001, 12:5–14:36. For instance, independent claim 4 merely recites, “wherein the control circuit disables the switched drive control signal in response to the detect signal.” Id. at 12:49–51. Independent claim 7 similarly recites, “wherein the gating circuit disables the drive control signal in response to the detect signal.” Id. at 13:11–13. Independent claim 9 discloses only, “a first comparator . . . having an output for disabling the pulse generator.” Id. at 13:27–30. Finally, independent claim 15 requires, “comparing the error signal to a reference signal . . . to terminate the step of generating in response to the error signal.” Id. at 14:21–23. Therefore, the plain language of the challenged claims does not, standing alone, support adoption of Patent Owner’s proposed construction.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “testimony from their respective declarants on whether one of ordinary skill in the art would understand “in response to” as requiring “independent of other circuit conditions.” Compare Reply 2–3 (citing Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 18–21, 26–30; Ex. 2003, 43:16–45:1) with PO Resp. 14–15, 17 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 42, 44–45.) and Sur-Reply 11–12 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 45). Patent Owner further directs our attention to a single sentence of deposition testimony in which Petitioner’s declarant Dr. Szepesi appears to agree with Patent Owner’s construction by stating, in the context of claim 9, that “the output signal of this first comparator disables the output pulses driving the gate of that independent of anything else.” PO Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2003, 44:16– 45:1). Petitioner rebuts Patent Owner’s arguments by identifying additional deposition testimony and statements made in a second declaration offered by Dr. Szepesi opposing Patent Owner’s construction. Reply 2–3 (citing Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 18–21, 26–30; Ex. 2003, 43:16–45:1). For instance, immediately before the statement Patent Owner cites, Dr. Szepesi testified: Q: “So is it your opinion that an output for disabling the pulse generator must disable the pulse generator regardless of the other conditions in the circuit?” . . . A: “I don't understand your question. I said disabling the pulse generator means that the output of the pulse generator which is providing the pulses to the gate of the main switch, those pulses are disabled. That’s what it means in my opinion in this context.” Ex. 2003, 43:24–44:9. And, in his supplemental declaration, Dr. Szepesi states: As a first matter, I opined during my deposition that “an output disabling a pulse generator” means that “the output signal of this first comparator disables the output pulses driving the gate of that independent of anything else.” But, at the time of my deposition I had not done a focused claim construction analysis of the limitation “a first comparator […] having an output for disabling the pulse generator.” This is because I hadn’t anticipated there being a dispute relevant to the validity analysis in view of what I understood as the plain meaning of the language. Despite the quote that Patent Owner relied upon, I believe now that a POSITA would not understand the claim language to require the first comparator to disable the output pulses independent of anything else. This belief is consistent with my responses to the first two of three successive questions in which I was asked about “disabling the pulse generator.” It is my opinion that the operation of the disclosed embodiment requires the presence of other conditions precedent before the first comparator can disable the drive pulses and this requirement is not excluded by the claim language. Ex. 1016 ¶ 18 (emphasis added). Our reviewing court has made clear that extrinsic evidence “is generally of less significance than the intrinsic record” in matters of claim construction. Wi-LAN, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 811 F.3d 455, 462 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Here, beyond competing declarant testimony, neither party has entered into the record extrinsic evidence, such as dictionary definitions or contemporaneous usage in the art, addressing the scope of “in response to.” Having considered the testimony upon which Patent Owner relies and weighing it against the claim language itself, the Specification’s disclosures set forth above, and the contrary testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, we find on balance that it does not warrant departing from the plain and ordinary meaning of “in response to” as Patent Owner urges. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (holding that an inventor may define specific terms used to describe invention, but must do so “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision”) (quoting Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1387-88 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).” slip op. at 17

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

    “Claim 4 further recites, “a control circuit having an input coupled for receiving the detect signal, wherein the control circuit disables the switched drive control signal in response to the detect signal.” Patent Owner’s sole contention with respect to claim 4 is that “[t]he alleged detect signal in Hwang does not satisfy this limitation” because “unlike the ’221 patent, the alleged ‘control circuit’ does not disable the switched drive control signal ‘in response to the detect signal’ independent of other circuit conditions.” PO Resp. 15–16. As discussed above, we decline to import into claim 4 a requirement that the claimed disabling must occur independent of other circuit conditions. See supra Section III.C.1. Because Patent Owner’s argument relies on a claim construction that we rejected above, we are not persuaded that Hwang fails to meet the limitations of claim 4. Rather, having reviewed the evidence cited by Petitioner, we agree with Petitioner that Hwang discloses the limitations of independent claim 4, arranged as recited in the claim. Petitioner’s analysis, as supported by the Szepesi Declaration, further demonstrates where Petitioner contends each element of dependent claims 5 and 6 is disclosed in Hwang. Pet. 21–24. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis beyond the argument raised with respect to claim 4. See PO Resp. 17. Having reviewed the evidence cited by Petitioner, we agree with Petitioner that Hwang discloses the limitations of dependent claims 5 and 6, arranged as recited in these claims, and we adopt that analysis as our own. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we find Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Hwang anticipates claims 4–6.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 6,597,221 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,597,221
• Nikon Corporation v. Carl Zeiss AG And ASML Netherlands B.V.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Feb 1, 2019 · IPR2018-00686 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Nikon’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1–5, 7–10, 16, 24, and 30–33 based on § 325(d) and the priority-date analysis.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) provides that: A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for rehearing, without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically 1 The Petition, in an apparent typographic error, omits claim 5 from its listing of challenged claims on page 1. identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, opposition, or a reply. (Emphasis added.) See Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48768 (Aug. 14, 2012). Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co. Inc., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted).” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “In the Institution Decision, we denied institution of Ground 1 based on our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Inst. Dec. 17. Specifically, we determined that the Kaifu reference relied on by Petitioner was considered during prosecution. Id. Petitioner asserts that we misapprehended or overlooked its arguments regarding why its contentions as to Kaifu were not considered by the Examiner.” slip op. at 3

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

    “written description. To satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1, the specification must “clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the inventor invented what is claimed.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal brackets omitted) (en banc) (quoting Vas–Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Thus, the specification must reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that the inventor possessed, at the time of filing, the subject matter that he or she has claimed. Id. “[T]he level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.” Id. Whether a specification complies with the written description requirement is a question of fact. Id. at 1351, 1355. Entitlement to a filing date extends only to subject matter that is disclosed, not to that which is obvious. Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1997).” slip op. at 7

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

    “We determine that because the open ended term “comprising” was used in the original claim reciting “a” signal, the recitation of “a” signal and “one or more” signals would have the same scope. An indefinite article, such as “a,” in patent parlance encompasses “one or more” when used, as here, in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase “comprising.” KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Unless the claim is specific as to the number of elements, the article ‘a’ receives a singular interpretation only in rare circumstances when the patentee evinces a clear intent to so limit the article.” Id. Thus, the claim as amended, which removes the open ended preface “comprising” and changes the modifier of “select signals” from “a” to “one or more,” does not change the scope of the claim in that respect. It merely is a different phrasing. Thus, as we stated in the Institution Decision, any description of a system with one signal would necessarily support a claim to one or more signals. Inst. Dec. 28. Additionally, the claim, as amended, does not suggest there is choice between alternatives that would meet this claim. For example, the claim does not require a choice between a first type of signal and a second type of signal. The claim recites “one” signal, which can be optionally accompanied (“or”) by “more” signals.” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 9,728,574

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.