• Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 18, 2026 · IPR2025-00339 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 22, 23, 28, and 30 are unpatentable over Choi, Labaziewicz, and Yu; claims 1–3, 10–12, 24, 25, 32, and 33 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningOther

    “We decline Patent Owner’s invitation to construe “during a frame” of “independently controlling simultaneous data acquisition with each of the first and second channels during a frame” by importing the extraneous limitations “at some point between the beginning and the end of the exposure interval during which the image sensors capture a single image.” As pointed out by Petitioner, Patent Owner’s proposed construction is unsupported by the language of claim 22 and the ’180 Specification because Specification does not disclose an exposure interval nor suggest “during a frame” is limited to an exposure interval. Patent Owner and its expert Dr. Saber cite only extrinsic evidence (Exs. 2006, 2009) to support its argument that claim 22 should be limited to an “exposure interval during which the image sensors capture a single image.” See PO Resp. 16–17; Ex. 2020 ¶ 64. Similarly, Patent Owner relies only on extrinsic evidence (e.g., Ex. 2011, 1; Ex. 2022, 1; Ex. 2020 ¶ 66) to limit “during” to “at some point between the beginning and the end.” See id. at 18. When considered in the context of claim 22 and the ’180 Patent Specification which do not limit “during a frame” to an exposure interval, we find that we cannot rely on Patent Owner’s citations to extrinsic evidence to yield a reliable construction for “during a frame.” As demonstrated in the analysis below, we need not provide an explicit construction for “during a frame” to resolve the parties’ disputes regarding the merits of the patentability challenges. See Realtime, 912 F.3d at 1375. We apply the ordinary and customary meaning for “during a frame.” To the extent that an explicit identification of the ordinary and customary meaning may aid the understanding of our analysis, consistent with the language of claim 22 and the ’180 Patent Specification, we find that the ordinary and customary meaning for “during a frame” is “during the period of time that data for an image frame is acquired.” See Ex. 1001, code (57), 20:6–24, 25:23–35.” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field and 2-3 years of experience in digital imaging systems,” and that “[l]ess experience may be necessary with additional education, and likewise, less education may be necessary with additional work experience.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 16–19). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition. See generally PO Resp. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’180 Patent Specification and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 20

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

    “Owner to show that Labaziewicz is not prior art because the ’180 Patent is entitled to the earliest August 25, 2004, filing date of the ’854 Provisional Application. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379–1380. For a claim in a later-filed application to be entitled to the filing date of an earlier application, the earlier application must provide written description support for the claimed subject matter. Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2010). To satisfy the written description requirement, “a prior application itself must describe an invention, and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also VasCath v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“[T]he applicant must . . . convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention . . . now claimed.” (emphasis omitted)), Ariad Pharm. Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“[I]t is the specification itself that must demonstrate possession.”). Patent Owner’s arguments fail to meet this burden of production because, aside from addressing deficiencies of written description support the ’854 Provisional Application provides written description support for all of the limitations of the claimed invention. See PO Resp. 60–64; PO Sur-reply 25–28. Specifically, Patent Owner does not address written description support in the ’854 Provisional Application for “independently controlling simultaneous data acquisition with each of the first and second channels during a frame”––limitation [22.3]––the heart of the parties’ claim construction disputes addressed above in Section II.A. See PO Resp. 60–64; PO Sur-reply 25–27. Accordingly, Patent Owner has not met its burden of production in coming forward with evidence or argument to show possession of the claimed invention in the ’854 Provisional Application. As a result, the burden of production does not shift back to Petitioner, and, therefore, the ’180 Patent is not entitled to the benefit of the August 25, 2004, filing date of the ’854 Provisional Application.” slip op. at 23

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

    “Petitioner does not present arguments that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the teachings of Matsushima to acquire data for images 62A and 62B at the argues that Matsushima renders obvious this limitation. See id. at 21, 23, 30; PO Resp. 33–34 (“[T]he Petition provides no further explanation why Matsushima renders this limitation obvious.”). In the Reply for the first time, Petitioner asserts that “a POSITA would understand that Matsushima’s disclosure, including its multi-channel architecture, synchronous control of channels, and capturing two images that are scaled versions of the same scene, renders obvious simultaneous acquisition during a frame. Pet. Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1069 ¶ 49). We do not consider Petitioner’s belated argument because it exceeds the proper scope of a reply. A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding patent owner response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23. As explained in the Trial Practice Guide, “respond” “does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing.” Trial Practice Guide at II.I. (December 2025)(citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.23).10 A reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence may not be considered. See id. For example, a “[p]etitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.” Id.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 7,916,180 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,916,180
• Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 21, 2026 · IPR2025-00339 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 22, 23, 28, 30, and 33 are unpatentable over Choi, Labaziewicz, and Yu under § 103; claims 1–3, 10–12, 24, 25, and 32 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field and 2-3 years of experience in digital imaging systems,” and that “[l]ess experience may be necessary with additional education, and likewise, less education may be necessary with additional work experience.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 16–19). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition. See generally PO Resp. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’180 Patent Specification and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 20

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

    “Owner to show that Labaziewicz is not prior art because the ’180 Patent is entitled to the earliest August 25, 2004, filing date of the ’854 Provisional Application. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379–1380. For a claim in a later-filed application to be entitled to the filing date of an earlier application, the earlier application must provide written description support for the claimed subject matter. Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2010). To satisfy the written description requirement, “a prior application itself must describe an invention, and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also VasCath v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“[T]he applicant must . . . convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention . . . now claimed.” (emphasis omitted)), Ariad Pharm. Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“[I]t is the specification itself that must demonstrate possession.”).” slip op. at 23

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

    “We do not agree with Petitioner’s arguments based on retrieval of data from CCD 18A and CCD 18B. Although Matsushima’s CCD drive circuits 20A and 20B are driven synchronously by timing generator 28 (see Ex. 1007 ¶ 27), Matsushima discloses that “accumulated signal charges are retrieved by CCD drive pulses applied by CCD drive circuits 20A and 20B, and are sequentially output from CCD 18A and CCD 18B as voltage signals (analog image signals) corresponding to each signal charge” (see Ex. 1007 ¶ 23) (emphasis added). In other words, regardless of whether CCD drive circuits 20A and 20B are driven synchronously by timing generator 28, Matsushima discloses that voltage signals corresponding to the accumulated 8 Petitioner’s citation erroneously includes ¶¶ 34–36 of Exhibit 1069. CCD 18A and CCD 18B sequentially––not output at the same time or simultaneously.” slip op. at 30

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “argues that Matsushima renders obvious this limitation. See id. at 21, 23, 30; PO Resp. 33–34 (“[T]he Petition provides no further explanation why Matsushima renders this limitation obvious.”). In the Reply for the first time, Petitioner asserts that “a POSITA would understand that Matsushima’s disclosure, including its multi-channel architecture, synchronous control of channels, and capturing two images that are scaled versions of the same scene, renders obvious simultaneous acquisition during a frame. Pet. Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1069 ¶ 49). We do not consider Petitioner’s belated argument because it exceeds the proper scope of a reply. A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding patent owner response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23. As explained in the Trial Practice Guide, “respond” “does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing.” Trial Practice Guide at II.I. (December 2025)(citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.23).9 A reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence may not be considered. See id. For example, a “[p]etitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.” Id. Petitioner clarifies that the Petition does not argue inherency. See Pet.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 7,916,180 mixed
  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,916,180
• Bizlink Technology, Inc. v. Anderson Power Products, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 7, 2025 · IPR2024-00687 · APJ Lisa L Tsang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 and 7–12 are unpatentable; claim 4 is not shown unpatentable because Winkler does not establish that its insulating barriers press against each other when partially disconnected.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner’s first argument that a level of ordinary skill in the art that encompasses an individual having experience with electrical circuits but not electrical connectors is not consistent with the technology and descriptions in the ’017 patent. See PO Resp. 7. The field of the invention of the ’017 patent is “electrical connectors, and more particularly, . . . an electrical connector that suppresses arcing if connected or disconnected while current is flowing.” Ex. 1001, 1:7–9. Consistent therewith, the challenged claims are directed to “[a]n electrical connector pair” and recite structural features of the electrical connector pair. Id. at 4:20–56, 5:1–20.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We find that the intrinsic evidence supports maintaining our construction in the Institution Decision that “insulating” means “electrically insulating.” See Dec. 11–12. In particular, we agree with Patent Owner’s argument that the insulating barriers would be unable to be configured to “block[] substantially all through-air arcing paths between the first and second electrical contacts,” as claimed, unless they were electrically insulating. See Ex. 1001, 4:36–44. Moreover, as Patent Owner avers, our interpretation of “insulating” as it applies to the first and second insulating barriers should be the same as for the first and second housings. See Digital Biometrics, 149 F.3d at 1345 (“whatever interpretation we assign [to a word used in a claim] should encompass both uses because the same word appearing in the same claim should be interpreted consistently” (citation omitted)).” slip op. at 15

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

    “Ex. 2001 ¶ 102. Accordingly, we find Dr. Eldering’s testimony persuasive as to this issue and determine that the diagram shows what an ordinarily skilled artisan would have reasonably inferred Winkler to disclose when the connectors are partially disconnected. Compare Ex. 1004, Fig. 2, with Pet. 33; see also Ex. 1004, 3:14–27 (discussing the process by which the connectors are engaged with each other).” slip op. at 44

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

    “Id. at 3:27–37 (emphasis added). These wall portions 58 are located between the distal ends of the terminals and where Petitioner proposes to add a printed circuit board or wiring board to Winkler. See id. at Fig. 2; Pet. 44–46 (diagrams showing Winkler as modified to have a printed circuit board or wiring board). As such, movement of Winkler’s terminals appears to be mostly limited to within their respective receiving pockets. Given the above teachings, we fail to see how Petitioner’s proposed modification would have meaningfully interfered with the degree of freedom of movement required by Winkler’s terminals. Notably, Mr. Locati’s testimony regarding this issue is conclusory. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 120. Because movement of Winkler’s terminals occurs primarily in the receiving pockets, we also do not discern how the solder joint of Petitioner’s proposed modification would experience undue stress or risk breaking due to that movement. See Ex. 1004, 1:47–55, 3:14–37, Fig. 2; Pet. 44–46. This is particularly true in view of Winkler’s teaching that each cylindrical end portion may be soldered to a cable. See id. at 2:6–10; see also Pet. 43 (arguing that Winkler teaches soldering to a cable but not specifically to a printed circuit or wiring board). Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 8 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Winkler and Handbook.” slip op. at 55

  Patent outcomesUS 8,808,017 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,808,017
• Alivecor, Inc. v. Apple Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 7, 2025 · IPR2023-00949 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 11–14 and 16–20 are unpatentable over Kim; claim 15 was not shown unpatentable over Chang.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s asserted level of ordinary skill in the art is essentially the same as Petitioner’s, for example requiring a bachelor’s degree in science or engineering and “at least two years of relevant work experience with capture and processing of data or information, including but not limited to physiological information.” Id.; Pet. 9. In view of the similarity, our record now before us, and as we did in our Institution Decision, we rely on Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art as it is essentially the same as that proposed by Patent Owner. Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’619 patent and the asserted prior art references. Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 10

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

    “C. Claim Construction We interpret a claim “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Under this standard, we construe the claim “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id. Furthermore, “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Neither Patent Owner nor Petitioner indicate that any claim terms require construction. See generally Petition; PO Resp. For purposes of this Decision where no claim terms are in dispute, we need not explicitly construe any claim terms.” slip op. at 11

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

    “What these cases and examples clearly articulate, is that whether there is sufficient description in an anticipation reference for linking different disclosures, elements, and embodiments, is particularly case and fact dependent. Moreover, a finding of anticipation resting upon a reference’s disclosures of elements in different embodiments turns on whether an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that the reference suggests arranging the elements of the embodiments to one another in the same way as the challenged claims. For the reasons that follow, we determine that there is sufficient description and teaching in Kim such that the “combined button” disclosed by Kim, for example in Figure 10(b), can be the same “combined button” as discussed in the embodiment of Figure 18.” slip op. at 28

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

    “As to Patent Owner’s first and second arguments, as we discussed in detail above with respect to anticipation, we find that there is sufficient evidence in Kim itself of contextual and even express links between the various combined button embodiments and Figure 18. Section II.D.2.b)(1)– (4). We have already determined “that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand Kim to disclose the ‘combined button’ structure and function that could be implemented on the face or sidewall of a device.” Id. We likewise determine, based on the same evidence, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Kim to suggest that the combined button structure and function, for example in the embodiment of Figure 10(b), could be implemented in an opening on the face or sidewall of a device. Obviousness does not require an instruction manual on how to physically incorporate or combine the disclosures of two embodiments in a reference. As KSR informs us, “in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420. Moreover, in this case we have only one prior art patent, Kim, so at least the pieces of the puzzle are all in the same box. The persuasive testimony of Dr. Berger that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been familiar with electronic devices with sealed and/or insulated button assemblies, and would understand that those assemblies were not limited to the front face of a device,” is unrebutted in this case. Ex. 1003 ¶ 110. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. Given the background knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art in conjunction with the motivation and teachings in Kim itself for placing sufficient motivation to support the combination of Kim’s Figure 10(b) embodiment with the sidewall placement of the combined button taught in Figure 18 for obviousness purposes. It is well-settled that a single prior art obviousness reference itself can provide motivation for the combination. See General Elec. Co. v. Raytheon Techs. Corp., 983 F.3d 1334, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (Reversing the Board’s finding of nonobviousness over a single prior art reference, the Court explained that “the Board’s approach would require a motivation to combine each element of the claim—even those present together in a reference. This analysis unduly dissects prior art references into collections of individual elements, requiring a party showing obviousness to re-do the work already done in the prior art reference.”). Patent Owner’s third argument is unavailing because although Dr. Anthony testifies that “implementing the fingerprint sensor assembly of Kim’s Figure 10 embodiment in the ‘lateral surface’ of Kim’s Figure 18 embodiment would have complicated the manufacturing process for the resulting mobile device,” Dr. Anthony does not provide testimony or evidence that implementing the combined button on the sidewall would have been difficult or beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 2009 ¶ 73. We credit Dr. Berger who explains persuasively that “[p]rior to the ’619 patent’s earliest alleged priority date of June 19, 2017, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known that a mobile electronic device could include one or more button assemblies in a sidewall.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 47 (citing Ex. 1013, 4:40, 19:42–20:4, Figs. 13B, 17, 19A, 19B). It is well-settled that a person of ordinary skill can use his or her ordinary skill, creativity, and common sense to make the necessary adjustments and further modifications to result in a properly functioning device. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”).” slip op. at 43

  Patent outcomesUS 10,866,619 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,866,619
• Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Dexcom, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 2, 2023 · IPR2022-00914 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 105 and 106 are unpatentable as obvious over Heller and Mastrototaro; Abbott did not prove claims 49, 80, 81, 85, or 86 unpatentable on the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “on the general knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art to disclose the predictive relationship limitation of claim 49 not taught by Heller are legally deficient. Resp. 28–38. We agree in that Petitioner’s contentions in the Petition amount to no more than a conclusory assertion that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have known” the predictive relationship limitation. See Pet. 38–39. Petitioner’s arguments in the Petition are divorced from any analysis of Heller and fail to articulate why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Heller to teach the predictive relationship in light of what was purportedly known more generally in the art. Merely asserting that a particular limitation was “known in the art” does not constitute a legally sufficient basis for establishing obviousness. See, e.g., Deere, 383 U.S. at 17–18. While Petitioner purports to identify multiple references that teach a predictive relationship, Petitioner circumvents a legally sufficient obviousness analysis by choosing not to assert any of the references in combination with Heller, but to instead argue they all collectively show that “predictive relationships” were broadly known in the art. See Pet. 28–33. Rather than establish some broad understanding by persons of ordinary skill in the art concerning the predictive relationship limitation, Petitioner’s arguments make clear that each reference uniquely addressed the relationship between a particular sensor and the in vivo performance of the sensor. For example, Petitioner asserts Gross teaches a sensor for which “the pre-insertion, factory-determined in vitro performance curve and” slip op. at 32

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

    “level in Gross is a “measure of sensor current, not ‘analyte concentration’ is contrary to the express disclosure of Gross. Gross expressly discloses a calibration method that requires, after insertion the in vivo measurement of a saturation level G1 “which can be measured by the sensor and which is of importance for the calibration method.” Ex. 1004, 13:3–18 (further stating that a “voltage V1 (FIG. 4C) applied at time t1 gives a current I1, (FIG. 4B) which corresponds to the saturation level G1 (FIG. 4A) of the enzyme”). Gross explains that “the predetermined stimulus is adapted to saturate the sensor such that the first signal is a maximum signal,” and “[w]hen a sensor is such that it can be saturated by a sufficiently large stimulus, it can be preferable to use this phenomenon in calibrating the sensor as it enables a reproducible first predetermined stimulus, i.e. a saturation stimulus to be provided in all cases, thereby removing uncertainty as to whether the means for providing a predetermined stimulus will in fact achieve exactly the right level of uncertainty.” Id. at 3:17–26.” slip op. at 45

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached

    “of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective evidence of nonobviousness. 5 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). An obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. However, Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead, Petitioner must articulate a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the prior art references. In re NuVasive, 842 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Pers. Web Tech., LLC, v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 993–94 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention”) (quoting Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) (alteration in original).” slip op. at 15

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “In light of the foregoing multiple critical misrepresentations, Petitioner’s MTE is denied regarding sufficiency of Dr. Baura’s qualifications because Petitioner did not timely object to the evidence on the basis asserted in the MTE, fails to refute Patent Owner’s showing that Dr. Baura is sufficiently qualified (see MTE Opp. 3–7; Ex. 2010 ¶ 30), and abandons its argument in its Reply to the MTE.” slip op. at 57

  Patent outcomesUS 11,000,213 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,000,213
• Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Dexcom, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 2, 2023 · IPR2022-00913 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 20, and 21 are unpatentable as anticipated by Heller; the evidence does not establish claims 4–6, 8, or 23–26 unpatentable on the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “In opposition, Patent Owner first argues, and we agree, that Petitioner failed to timely object to Dr. Laura’s declaration with sufficient particularity. MTE Opp. 1–3 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)). Our Rule requires that an “objection must identify the grounds for the objection with sufficient particularity to allow correction in the form of supplemental evidence.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)). Petitioner’s objection to Dr. Baura’s testimony identifies hundreds of paragraphs from her declaration followed by an objection stating her “testimony is based on insufficient facts or data, is not the product of reliable principles and methods, and does not reliably apply the appropriate principles and methods to the fact of the case.” Paper 25, 2. Petitioner’s boilerplate objection is woefully insufficient to show that Petitioner objected with sufficiently particularity to allow correction in the form of supplemental information, as our Rule requires. We further agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s arguments in the MTE are no more than a “transparent attempt to . . . circumvent the word-count limits of its merits briefing by injecting merits arguments in its evidentiary motion.” MTE Opp. 9. In short, Petitioner’s arguments go to the weight to be afforded Dr. Baura’s testimony, not to its admissibility, and are, therefore, an improper basis for seeking the exclusion of hundreds of paragraphs Dr. Baura’s declaration. Accordingly, Petitioner’s MTE is denied.” slip op. at 63

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill. Resp. 9. Dr. Baura, in support of Patent Owner, states that she applied Petitioner’s “definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, because,” in her opinion, Petitioner’s “and Dr. Smith’s conclusions are incorrect even under this definition.” Ex. 2010 ¶ 29. Thus, Dr. Baura neither adopts as proper nor refutes Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill. We find that the ’213 patent and the cited prior art references reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of appropriate skill reflected in these references and the ’213 patent is consistent with the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 17

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

    “In view of the issues we address below, including how the claimed subject matter is alleged to have been taught or disclosed in the prior art, we determine that it is not otherwise necessary to address the express interpretation of any claim term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”).” slip op. at 20

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s anticipation argument is insufficiently supported by Heller or the other evidence Petitioner relies upon. Petitioner directs us to no evidence in Heller expressly addressing a predictive relationship between in vitro and in vivo sensitivity, much less any disclosure in Heller of a particular relationship. Instead, Petitioner seeks to stretch a thin disclosure in Heller that “calibration data may simply be factory-determined calibration measurements” to necessarily mean “prior sensitivity information is derived at least in part from a predictive relationship between an in vitro sensor sensitivity to glucose and an in vivo sensor sensitivity to glucose,” as required by claim 23. Pet. 36; Ex. 1005, 77:14–15. Notably, Dr. Smith does not identify any “predictive relationship” disclosed by Heller. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 148–149. We give little weight to Dr. Smith’s conclusory assertion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have simply “recognized” Heller’s “factory determined calibration measurements” were necessarily “derived at least in part from a predictive relationship between an in vitro and an in vivo sensor sensitivity to glucose,” particularly where Heller does not expressly preclude in vitro measurements from its “factory determined calibration measurements.” See id. Further, in reply, Petitioner argues again that “(1) Heller discloses that calibration data can ‘simply be factory determined calibration measurements’ . . . and (2) a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have recognized that this ‘discloses that factory (in vitro) determined sensitivity adequately predicts in vivo sensitivity.’” Reply 6. From Heller’s disclosure preponderance of the evidence that Heller expressly teaches any predictive relationship, even one in which in vitro and in vivo sensitivity are the same. that calibration data can “simply be factory determined calibration measurements,” Petitioner provides no more than speculation to suggest that there necessarily must be some relationship between in vitro measurements and in vivo measurements. See Reply 6–8. Because Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Heller discloses all of the limitations of clam 23, we determine Petitioner has not shown that Heller anticipates claim 23.” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 11,000,213 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,000,213
• Abbott Diabetes Care Inc v. Dexcom, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 1, 2023 · IPR2022-00909 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 19, and 23 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 5 and 12 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner

    “including a “predictive glucose value,” nowhere do we find the written description or drawings to have delineated such a second function expressly as “the present invention.” See, generally, Ex. 1001; see also Evolusion Concepts, Inc. v. HOC Events, Inc., 22 F.4th 1361, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“We have repeatedly held that ‘it is not enough that the only embodiments, or all of the embodiments, contain a particular limitation to limit claims beyond their plain meaning.’”) (citation omitted). And, regardless of the exact wording, the concern we have is that without a persuasive, express, indication in the specification that the “second function” is specifically limited to “predicting glucose values,” it is a disfavored path to read limitations into the claims. Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import limitations into a claim that are not expressly part of may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The facts and written description here appear to fall more squarely into the category of cases where it is not enough to simply point to embodiments in the specification including the unrecited claim limitation. See Rambus Inc. v. Infineon Techs. Ag, 318 F.3d 1081, 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Even in cases where a “present invention” statement is provided, the Federal Circuit has explained that ‘[w]hile clear language characterizing ‘the present invention’ may limit the ordinary meaning of claim terms, . . . such language must be read in context of the entire specification and the prosecution history.”) (citation omitted); see also In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Absent claim language carrying a narrow meaning, the PTO should only limit the claim based on the specification or prosecution history when those sources expressly disclaim the broader definition.”).” slip op. at 15

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

    “is any disagreement about the meaning of “a second function” apart from the argument by Patent Owner that the second function should be understood to include “a predictive glucose value.” We are not apprised of any reason for Petitioner to provide an express construction for “second function” in this case. The plain and ordinary reading of limitation 1b is a method step of “evaluating sensor data using a second function to determine whether a parameter indicative of glucose value meets one or more non user settable second criteria.” Ex. 1001, 48:39–41. As far as “second function” goes, the claim language is clear on its face that the second function “determine[s] whether a parameter indicative of glucose value meets one or more non user settable second criteria.” Id. Patent Owner has not offered any construction, nor apart from criticizing Petitioner, indicated in any manner that the “second function” as recited in claims 1 and 19 requires a construction. Our understanding of “second function” is consistent with the specification of the ’215 patent. A plain reading of the specification reveals that the first criteria relates to the claimed “first function,” and the “second criteria” relates to the claimed “second function.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001 3:44–49 (The ’215 Patent describing “a processor configured to: evaluate sensor data using a first function to determine whether a real time glucose value meets one or more first criteria; evaluate sensor data using a second function to determine whether a predicted glucose value meets one or more second criteria.”). The specification description is therefore mostly consistent with the recitations in claim 1 with respect to the first and second functions and relative first and second criteria. Compare id., with Ex. 1001, 48:36–41.” slip op. at 35

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

    “second function.” PO Resp. 19. However, neither did Patent Owner provide an express construction. See generally id. is any disagreement about the meaning of “a second function” apart from the argument by Patent Owner that the second function should be understood to include “a predictive glucose value.” We are not apprised of any reason for Petitioner to provide an express construction for “second function” in this case. The plain and ordinary reading of limitation 1b is a method step of “evaluating sensor data using a second function to determine whether a parameter indicative of glucose value meets one or more non user settable second criteria.” Ex. 1001, 48:39–41. As far as “second function” goes, the claim language is clear on its face that the second function “determine[s] whether a parameter indicative of glucose value meets one or more non user settable second criteria.” Id. Patent Owner has not offered any construction, nor apart from criticizing Petitioner, indicated in any manner that the “second function” as recited in claims 1 and 19 requires a construction. Our understanding of “second function” is consistent with the specification of the ’215 patent. A plain reading of the specification reveals that the first criteria relates to the claimed “first function,” and the “second criteria” relates to the claimed “second function.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001 3:44–49 (The ’215 Patent describing “a processor configured to: evaluate sensor data using a first function to determine whether a real time glucose value meets one or more first criteria; evaluate sensor data using a second function to determine whether a predicted glucose value meets one or more second criteria.”). The specification description is therefore mostly consistent with the recitations in claim 1 with respect to the first and second functions and relative first and second criteria. Compare id., with Ex. 1001, 48:36–41. slip op. at 34

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Institution Decision we determined, in accordance with Petitioner’s proposal, that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’215 patent [w]ould have had a Bachelor’s degree in biomedical engineering, mathematics, statistics, or computer science (or a related or equivalent field), and two or more years of experience researching, developing, designing and/or evaluating (or supervising the same) medical devices for measuring analyte levels, e.g., analyte sensors, including at least some experience in researching, developing, designing and/or evaluating (or supervising the same) methods, systems, or algorithms for providing indicators (e.g., alerts, alarms or other indicators) of analyte levels to users, or equivalent experience. A person with less or different education but more relevant practical experience, or vice versa, may also meet this standard. Inst. Dec. 8; Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 24–26). Patent Owner states that “DexCom does not challenge Petitioner’s POSA definition (Petition, 9-10) because the Petition fails even if it is adopted.” PO Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 20–23). ordinary skill in the art, and because Petitioner’s assessment is consistent with the ’215 patent and the asserted prior art, we continue to rely on Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 10,702,215 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,702,215
• Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. v. Columbia Insurance CompanySome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 15, 2023 · PGR2021-00109 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12, 15–17, and 21–23 are unpatentable; the revised contingent motion to amend is granted for claim 32 and denied for claims 24–31, 33–35, 38–40, and 44–46.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time” slip op. at 22

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Accordingly, based on the foregoing and the complete record before” slip op. at 38

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

    “C. Claim Construction We apply the claim construction standard articulated in Phillips v.” slip op. at 23

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

    “persuaded by Petitioner that the limitations “a channel-shaped portion configured to receive the structural component” and “a base configured to receive an end portion of the structural component thereon to support the structural component” would not have informed the skilled artisan, with reasonable certainty, about the scope of the claimed invention. See Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“When the meaning of the claim would reasonably be understood by persons of ordinary skill when read in light of the specification, the claim is not subject to invalidity upon departure from the protocol of ‘antecedent basis.’”). Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 11,021,867 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 11,021,867
• Xilinx, Inc. / Xilinx Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v. Analog Devices, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 11, 2022 · IPR2020-01564 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 4–8 were not shown unpatentable; claim 12 was shown unpatentable as obvious over Elbornsson and Jamal, and over Eklund and Jamal.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “time it was made, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the invention “would have at least a Master’s Degree in Electrical Engineering or equivalent field, including studies in designing data converters, and two to five years of relevant experience; or a Ph.D. degree in Electrical Engineering or equivalent field.” Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 17–18). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Response. See generally PO Resp. For purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation because it is consistent with the ’750 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 9

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

    “U.S.C. § 282(b) “including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” See Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,358 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b) effective November 13, 2018) (now codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)). Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Patent Owner contends that “random clock,” “offset sensing circuit,” and “sensing” a gain or offset signal need to be construed. PO Resp. 13–17. Petitioner contends that no construction of any term is necessary. Reply 2– 5. The contentions of the parties were addressed in our Final Written Decision for IPR2020-01483, which was mailed on the same day as this Decision. We decline to construe these terms for the reasons given in that Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Raychowdhury testifies that, in Jamal’s technique, “the input is de-correlated from the pseudo random chopping sequence.” Ex. 2206 ¶ 64. Then, inexplicably, Dr. Raychowdhury testifies that “Jamal is unambiguous that ‘C[m] is white, has zero mean, and is uncorrelated with the input signal.’” Id. at ¶ 69. Patent Owner does not explain nor even address Dr. Raychowdhury’s inconsistent testimony. Given the inconsistent positions taken by Patent Owner’s expert, and the lack of explanation from Patent Owner, we give no weight to Dr. Raychowdhury’s testimony.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Even were we to accept Petitioner’s contention, that a ‘“random clock’ can be satisfied by a 1-bit pseudo-random bit sequence,” (Pet. 36), Jamal discloses that the alleged random clock C[m] “is uncorrelated with the input signal.” Ex. 1205, 8. A chopping SHA multiplies the input signal and the uncorrelated random signal C[m], then provides a chopped analog signal to the ADC converter. Id. Petitioner has not persuasively shown that chopping an input signal with an uncorrelated random signal, then providing the chopped signal to a converter as disclosed by Jamal, describes “said random clock configured to decorrelate an input signal provided to said first converter from said random clock” as recited in claim 1. We find that claim 1 is not unpatentable based on Jamal. Because claims 2 and 4–6 depend from claim 1, we find that these claims are also not unpatentable based on Jamal.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 6,900,750 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,900,750
• General Electric Company v. United Technologies CorporationSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 26, 2017 · IPR2016-00952 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 11 was held unpatentable as obvious over Davies; Petitioner did not show claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 unpatentable on the instituted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Claim 1 recites “wherein said row of propulsor blades has a solidity value (R) defined as CD/CP that is between 0.6 and 0.9.” Ex. 1001, 4:59– 60. Similarly, now disclaimed independent claim 9 recites “wherein said row of propulsor blades has a solidity value (R) defined as CD/CP.” Id. at 6:9–10. Thus, according to the claims, “solidity value (R)” is defined as “CD/CP,” or chord dimension CD divided by circumferential pitch CP. Also, as pointed out by Patent Owner (PO Resp. 15), the specification of the ’412 patent states that the “solidity value is defined as a ratio (R) of CD/CP (i.e., CD divided by CP).” Ex. 1001, 3:24–25; see also Mathioudakis Decl. ¶ 19 (Patent Owner’s declarant testifying that the ’412 patent defines solidity as the ratio of CD and CP). Patent Owner also quotes a portion of the specification that describes chord dimension CD as the “length that extends between the leading edge 82 and the trailing edge 84 at the tip” (Ex. 1001, 3:5–7) and circumferential pitch CP as “equivalent to the arc distance between the tips 80 of neighboring propulsor blades” (id. at 3:8– 10). PO Resp. 15. In view of these portions of the specification, we find that the ’412 patent provides a clear, deliberate, and precise definition of “solidity value.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (Any special definitions for claim terms or phrases must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision). Also, as discussed above, claim 1 similarly relates “solidity value” to “CD/CP.” Compare Ex. 1001, 4:59–60 with id. at 3:24–25.” slip op. at 8

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

    “art would use fan dimensions given to “illustrate the magnitude of the problem” of restraining blades in the hub to calculate a value of tip solidity, which has already been disclosed in a list of “main features of the chosen design” for the V.P. fan. The tip solidity of 0.83 comes immediately after Davies discusses the “aerodynamic design philosophy” of fixed pitch fans (Ex. 1005, 6) and V.P. fans (id. at 6–8). Davies also states that “[i]n order to achieve a design pressure ratio of say 1.27:1 . . . , a transonic blade design was required with a tip solidity of .8.” Id. at 7. The fan diameter and blade chord at the tip, which Petitioner uses to calculate its tip solidity value, come from a discussion in Davies regarding the hub, in particular restraining V.P. blades in the hub. Id. at 9. Davies states, at the design speed, each aerofoil part exerts 15 tons of centrifugal force, and a “total restraint of about 40 tons” would be required. Id. at 9–10. The numbers that Petitioner uses to calculate its tip solidity value are numbers that Davies uses “[t]o illustrate the magnitude of the problem” in designing its hub. Pet. 29–30; Ex. 1005, 9–10. Thus, we find that Davies gives fan dimensions sufficient to calculate that each fan blade exerts 15 tons of centrifugal force and hence a needed “total restraint of about 40 tons.” See id. We find that these statements would indicate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the numbers given for the fan dimensions are for purposes of estimating what the hub is required to restrain, and not sufficient for calculating tip solidity value, which was previously listed as 0.83 and as one of the “main features” after discussing aerodynamic design philosophy for its V.P. fan. See id. at 7–8; Mathioudakis Decl. ¶¶ 57, 69, 70 (“One would not attempt to use the approximate chord lengths and blade diameters in Section 6 to derive or interpret from Davies a substitute solidity value”). The Petition also does not explain sufficiently why one of ordinary skill in the art would understand Davies to disclose a tip solidity value of 0.74 instead of the expressly disclosed tip solidity of 0.83. See Pet. 29–30 (citing Abhari Decl. ¶¶ 80–82). The Petition and the cited portions of the Abhari Declaration do not address the disclosed tip solidity of 0.83. See Pet. 29–30; Abhari Decl. ¶¶ 80–82. Thus, given the entire context of Davies, a “Solidity Tip” of 0.83 as one of the “main features,” and Petitioner’s tip solidity calculated from fan dimensions given for illustration purposes, the full record does not persuade us that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Davies discloses a tip solidity value of 0.74, as argued by Petitioner, for its V.P. fan. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand, instead, that the fan dimensions provided for illustration purposes are not sufficiently specific to calculate a tip solidity value because they are given for evaluating the restraint the hub must provide. See Mathioudakis Decl. ¶ 69. Also, the record provides insufficient basis for determining that one of ordinary skill in the art would have accepted the calculated value of 0.74 over the listed value of 0.83 for tip solidity.” slip op. at 19

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

    “Davies indicates, as Patent Owner argues, that chord length, circumferential pitch, and solidity are interrelated and one of ordinary skill in the art considers implications of varying one parameter on other parameters of a V.P. fan. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, 6–8; Mathioudakis Decl. ¶¶ 72–76. However, Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s proposed modification would lead to larger, heavier, fan blades (PO Resp. 36) does not show a deficiency in Petitioner’s reason for modifying the blade chord of Davies to achieve a ratio of N/R of 15.7 (Abhari Decl. ¶ 95), which would be within the recited range 15 to 16. Petitioner argues, and its Declarant states, that “blade chord dimension can be varied in order to balance the stability, efficiency, and weight of the fan section.” Pet. 39; Abhari Decl. ¶ 94 (citing Ex. 1021). Petitioner’s Declarant acknowledges that increasing chord length would “result in increased weight” but indicates that “increasing the chord length can lead to improved efficiency and stability margin.” Abhari Decl. ¶ 94 (citing Ex. 1021). Petitioner’s reason for modification, thus, acknowledges and anticipates that increasing the chord length to achieve a ratio of N/R equal to 15.7 would lead to heavier blades, but also greater efficiency and stability margin. See Pet. 39; Abhari Decl. ¶¶ 94–95. Also, the arguments and evidence before us persuade us that Petitioner’s proposed modification to achieve a ratio of N/R of 15.7 would not render Davies inoperable for its intended purpose, as argued by Patent Owner (PO Resp. 34, 37, 38). Davies states that the “requirement of reverse thrust via fine pitch implies that the blade solidity must be less than unity since the blades must pass each other.” Ex. 1005, 7. Davies also indicates that “to achieve a design pressure ratio of say 1.27:1 . . . a transonic blade design was required with a tip solidity of .8,” thus indicating that a different design pressure ratio requires a different tip solidity. Id.; see also id. at 5 (“The precise choice of pressure ratio . . . is not particularly important.”). Davies determines a taper ratio based on a “hub solidity near 1 and a tip solidity of 0.8.” Id. We, thus, find that Davies teaches or suggests that a taper ratio can be determined for a hub solidity near 1 and a different tip solidity for a different design pressure ratio in view of the requirement of blade solidity less than unity so that blades can pass. Therefore, we find that Petitioner’s proposed modification to achieve a ratio of N/R of 15.7 would not render Davies inoperable for its intended purpose. Further, based on the statements that the “precise choice of pressure ratio for technology demonstration fan design is not particularly important” (Ex. 1005, 5) and that “[i]n order to achieve a design pressure ratio of say 1.27:1 . . . a transonic blade design was required with a tip solidity of 0.8” (id. at 7), we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the pressure ratio depends on the application and that one of ordinary skill in the art has the skill to choose an appropriate pressure ratio, and thereby, determine an appropriate tip solidity value and blade chord, as was done in Davies with a design pressure ratio of 1.27:1. We find that, other than the requirement of blade solidity less than unity so that blades can pass, Davies does not preclude increasing the chord length for a different design pressure ratio or for greater efficiency and stability margin to achieve a ratio of N/R between 15 and 16, as proposed by Petitioner. Also, we agree with Petitioner that the record shows that increasing chord dimension to achieve a ratio of N/R of 15.7 would increase blade efficiency and stability margin. Abhari Decl. ¶ 94; Ex. 1021, 1:30–33. We are not pointed to any part of the record that indicates increasing chord dimension would degrade blade efficiency. See PO Resp. 34–44. For the reasons above, we agree with Petitioner that, for claim 11, one of ordinary skill would have modified Davies’ N/R ratio to be 15.7 or between 15 and 16 because the modification can “lead to improved efficiency and stability margin” (Pet. 39 (citing Abhari Decl. ¶ 94; Ex. 1021 1:30–33)). We, thus, determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 11 is unpatentable over Davies.” slip op. at 31

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “A. Level of Ordinary Skill Petitioner’s Declarant provides a level of ordinary skill. Abhari Decl. ¶ 4. Patent Owner’s Declarant generally agrees to that level of ordinary skill. Mathioudakis Decl. ¶ 16. We note that, to the extent there are any differences in the parties’ proposed level of ordinary skill, such differences do not impact our analysis.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 9,121,412 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,121,412

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.