• Chongqing HKC Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. v. 138 East LCD Advancements LimitedInstitution denied
  PTAB · Aug 28, 2023 · IPR2023-00476 · APJ Wesley B Derrick · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–11 unpatentable, principally failing to establish distinct lead wiring lines.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition 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). We deny inter partes review, for example, where a petition fails to identify “with particularity” the challenges or evidence supporting them. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) as “requiring [inter partes review] petitions to identify ‘with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim’”); Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3))). For the reasons discussed below, we deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

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

    “display electrodes” and “a plurality of lead wiring lines provided on the extending portion and that are led from one of the sides of the wiring lines to the extending portion.” Ex. 1001, 16:40‒44. Separately listing “wiring lines” and “a plurality of lead wiring lines” clearly implies that wiring lines Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal quotation omitted) (“Where a claim lists elements separately, the clear implication of the claim language is that those elements are distinct component[s] of the patented invention.”); Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 96 F.3d 1398, 1404‒05 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (concluding that two separately recited elements could not be the same element because it would contradict the plain language of the patent and “they logically cannot be one and the same”). Here, the claim language identifies wiring lines and lead wiring lines as separate elements in that the “lead wiring lines . . . are led from one of the sides of the wiring lines to the extending portion.” Ex. 1001, 16:42‒ 44. Here also, the ’913 patent’s specification separately identifies and describes both lead wiring lines 103a and wiring lines 105 in a single embodiment. See, e.g., id. at Fig. 1, 7:42‒46 (“In FIG. 1, . . . [t]he wiring lines 105 are relayed on the upper side of the frame light-shielding film 53 so as to connect the two scanning line driving circuits 104.”), 8:26‒29 (“the data line driving circuit 101a is connected to the plurality of external connecting terminals 102a through the lead wiring lines 103a at both ends of the extending portion 201” (referring to the embodiment depicted in Figure 1)).” slip op. at 12

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

    “display electrodes” and “a plurality of lead wiring lines provided on the extending portion and that are led from one of the sides of the wiring lines to the extending portion.” Ex. 1001, 16:40‒44. Separately listing “wiring lines” and “a plurality of lead wiring lines” clearly implies that wiring lines Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal quotation omitted) (“Where a claim lists elements separately, the clear implication of the claim language is that those elements are distinct component[s] of the patented invention.”); Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 96 F.3d 1398, 1404‒05 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (concluding that two separately recited elements could not be the same element because it would contradict the plain language of the patent and “they logically cannot be one and the same”). Here, the claim language identifies wiring lines and lead wiring lines as separate elements in that the “lead wiring lines . . . are led from one of the sides of the wiring lines to the extending portion.” Ex. 1001, 16:42‒ 44. Here also, the ’913 patent’s specification separately identifies and describes both lead wiring lines 103a and wiring lines 105 in a single embodiment. See, e.g., id. at Fig. 1, 7:42‒46 (“In FIG. 1, . . . [t]he wiring lines 105 are relayed on the upper side of the frame light-shielding film 53 so as to connect the two scanning line driving circuits 104.”), 8:26‒29 (“the data line driving circuit 101a is connected to the plurality of external connecting terminals 102a through the lead wiring lines 103a at both ends of the extending portion 201” (referring to the embodiment depicted in Figure 1)).” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. See Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Industries, Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983). 7 Yoneda, JP2000267590A, published Mar. 19, 1999. Ex. 1011. 8 Tanaka, JP2004094020A, published Mar. 25, 2004, with exhibit including certified English language translation. Ex. 1012. 9 Hirosue, US 2003/0189686 A1, published Oct. 9, 2003. Ex. 1013. have either a bachelor’s degree in electrical or computer engineering with three years of experience in the field of display technology or a master’s degree with one year of experience in the field of display technology.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 41‒44). Patent Owner, “[f]or purposes of th[e] Preliminary Response . . . does not dispute the level of skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 7. On this record, we find Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill reasonable and, therefore, adopt it for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 6

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,335,913
• Chongqing HKC Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. v. 138 East LCD Advancements LimitedInstitution denied
  PTAB · Aug 28, 2023 · IPR2023-00475 · APJ Wesley B Derrick · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied because the petition did not sufficiently show that the counter-electrode potential line was one of the claimed main wiring lines coupled to peripheral driving circuits.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic, 815 F.3d at 1363 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) as the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim’”). When challenging claims based on obviousness, the Petitioner must show that “a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). The burden of persuasion, whether for anticipation or for unpatentability for obviousness, never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. See Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Industries, Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have either a bachelor’s degree in electrical or computer engineering with three years of experience in the field of display technology or a master’s degree with one year of experience in the field of display technology.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 38‒41). Patent Owner, “[f]or purposes of th[e]” slip op. at 6

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

    “5. Analysis Claim 1 recites “in a peripheral region of the image display region on the element substrate, a plurality of external circuit connection terminals, a plurality of main wiring lines . . . and peripheral driving circuits.” Ex. 1001, 21:55‒60. The plain and ordinary meaning of this phrase includes that the plurality of main wiring lines and peripheral driving circuits are formed on the element substrate. Claim 1 further recites, for the main wiring lines, “each having one end coupled to each of the plurality of external circuit connection terminals, and peripheral driving circuits coupled to the other ends of the main wiring lines.” Id. at 21:57‒59. The plain and ordinary meaning of this phrase is that each main wiring line is connected at one end to an external circuit connection terminal and, at the other end, to the peripheral driving circuits; this is how Petitioner addresses “a plurality of main wiring lines” as to this portion of claim 1 in accordance with the plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 15 (“Figure 4 shows wiring lines coupled to the external connection terminals 102 at one end and coupled to peripheral circuits, including data line driving circuit 101, and scanning line driving circuit 104, at the other.”); see also Ex. 1002 ¶ 59. Petitioner and its driving circuit 104 as peripheral circuits. Pet. 15‒16 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 1, 78‒80, Fig. 4; reproducing Fig. 4 without annotation); Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 56‒59.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Petitioner fails, however, to address the clause, “which is at least one of the plurality of main wiring lines,” and the implication that follows from the plain language of the claim. Id. Specifically, as set forth above, the “plurality of main wiring lines” are coupled at one end to peripheral circuits, and Petitioner provides no basis for the wiring 400 (LCCOM) to be coupled to any element identified by Petitioner as a peripheral circuit. Id. at 15‒17 (identifying data line driving circuit 101 and scanning line driving circuit 104 as peripheral circuits). Rather, Petitioner sets forth that wiring 400 (LCCOM) “supplies potential from the external input terminal 102 to the vertical conduction terminal 106 and then to the counter electrode 21 on the counter substrate 20.” Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 85, Figs. 3, 4; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 63‒65). Further, to the extent Petitioner states that Muraide “discloses a counter electrode provided in the peripheral region on a counter substrate that is arranged to face the element substrate” (id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 41; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 60‒62)), Petitioner does not clearly identify the counter electrode as a peripheral circuit (id.) and, further, the counter electrode on the counter substrate is not a peripheral driving circuit on the element (“in a peripheral region of the image display region on the element substrate, . . . peripheral driving circuits” (emphasis added))). Accordingly, on this record, we determine that Petitioner fails to sufficiently establish “a counter electrode potential line that supplies counter electrode potential to the counter electrode, which is at least one of the plurality of main wiring lines.” Although Patent Owner did not clearly raise this particular issue, “[i]n an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic, 815 F.3d at 1363 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)). The burden of persuasion, whether for anticipation or for unpatentability for obviousness, never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378. Further, our role is not to remedy the deficiencies in Petitions that fall short. Sirona Dental Sys. GMBH v. Institut Straumann AG, 892 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356–57 (2018)) (explaining that because “‘the petitioner’s contentions, not the Director’s discretion, define the scope . . . [,]’ [i]t would thus not be proper for the Board to deviate from the grounds in the petition and raise its own obviousness theory” “institut[ing] a different inter partes review”); cf. Magnum Oil Tools, 829 F.3d at 1380–81 (rejecting an argument that the Board properly “ma[de] an obviousness argument on behalf of [petitioner]” that “could have been included in a properly-drafted petition,” because “petitioner . . . bears the burden of proof”).” slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,116,390
• Sunspec Alliance v. Tigo Energy, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 26, 2023 · IPR2021-01286 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held that claims 1, 5–7, 12, and 13 were not shown unpatentable because the cited art did not disclose the required predetermined number of allowed skips.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had a bachelor’s degree or similar degree in electrical engineering and one year of experience in the design of solar power systems, power control systems, and/or power safety systems.” Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 17). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s proposed level of skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 2003 ¶ 25. Having considered the parties’ arguments and evidence, we adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner, because it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’321 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Having considered the parties’ positions as to construction of the term “skips” and applicability of the definition of “skips” set forth in the ’321 specification (Ex. 1001, 9:36–37), we construe the term “skips” to mean “the event of missing a communication or pulse.” We adopt the definition set forth in the ’321 specification because patentee acted as its own lexicographer. Cont’l Cirs. LLC v. Intel Corp., 915 F.3d 788, 796 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316) (“When the patentee acts as its own lexicographer, that definition governs.”). We determine that, for purposes of this Decision, no other claim term requires express construction. See, e.g., Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Having considered the record as a whole, we find that Moine does not disclose the “predetermined number of allowed skips” limitation. We do not agree with Petitioner that Moine’s disclosure of determining whether a “skip” (i.e., the event of missing a communication or pulse, as we have construed that term supra) has occurred, meets the challenged claims’ requirement of determining communication has been interrupted “for a time period longer than the predetermined number of allowed skips.” See Pet. Reply 14–15. As explained below, we determine that the “predetermined number of allowed skips” limitation does not encompass zero skips, or a mere interruption in communication from the controller, as described in Moine.” slip op. at 15

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

    “2. Analysis Petitioner argues that to the extent the Board finds Moine’s receiver 5 is not a “watchdog unit,” Kronberg discloses a watchdog unit, as embodied in Figure 1. Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1006, 2:30–32, Fig. 1). Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Kronberg’s watchdog to implement Moine’s receiver to achieve a predictable outcome, because watchdog timers were a well-known technique for detecting malfunctions, and the output of Kronberg’s watchdog could be provided to the switch 4 of Moine, to open and power down Moine’s circuit. Id. at 26–28 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 79–85; Ex. 1006, 1:53–55, 3:38–42, 4:9–12; Ex. 1013, 1269). Petitioner “does not rely on Kronberg to remedy any failure of Moine to disclose the ‘skips’ limitations.” Pet. Reply 19. As discussed above, we find that Petitioner fails to adequately demonstrate that Moine discloses the “predetermined number of allowed skips” limitation of claims 1 and 12. See supra § II.D.2. Accordingly, because Petitioner does not rely on Kronberg to remedy this deficiency in Moine, Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 12 would have been unpatentable over the combination of Moine and Kronberg.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,933,321 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,933,321
• Sunspec Alliance v. Tigo Energy, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 26, 2023 · IPR2021-01287 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 12–13 are unpatentable; claims 14–16 are not shown unpatentable because the asserted grounds fail to establish the required predetermined number of heartbeat skips or sensor-triggered skips.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “contention that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree or similar degree in electrical engineering and one year of experience in the design of solar power systems, power control systems, and/or power safety systems” or “could have also obtained similar knowledge and experience through other means.” Dec. 6. Patent Owner does not appear to dispute this definition. See generally PO Resp; see also id. at 51 (employing Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art in discussing Mr. Dunton’s testimony). In its Reply, Petitioner argues that “Patent Owner does not challenge but adopts Petitioner’s proposed level of skill for a POSITA for the relevant time period.” Reply 1 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 28; Ex. 1030, 119:25–120:14). Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s definition, because it is consistent with the cited prior art. We further note that the prior art itself demonstrates the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that “specific findings on the level of skill in the art . . . [are not required] ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown’” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 9

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

    “We interpret the term “heartbeat signals” as “periodic signals.” The term “heartbeat” appears only once in the in the specification outside of the claims: “the ‘heartbeats’ of the ping are set at a high rate, such as 100 or even 1000 per second.” Ex. 1001, 18:7–13. The disclosure of “the heartbeats” having a “rate” defined in “per second” terms indicates that they are periodic, as is generally recognized for heartbeats, i.e. human heartbeats. The term “heartbeat signals” appears in the challenged claims in conjunction with the detection of an anomaly (claim 12, “wherein the controller detects an anomaly in heartbeat signals from the remote unit”) and in conjunction with “skips” (claim 13, “wherein the anomaly includes skips of heartbeat signals”; claim 14, “when the anomaly includes a predetermined number of skips of the heartbeat signals”; claim 15, “when skips of the heartbeat signals are less than the predetermined number”). Accordingly, the heartbeat signals allow for the detection of an anomaly therein, indicating that they are typically predictable, and for the detection of skips of heartbeat signals, indicating that they are periodic. In view of the specification and the claims, and the parties’ arguments, we find that the plain and ordinary meaning of “heartbeat signals” is “periodic signals.”” slip op. at 12

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

    “Because patentee has acted as its own lexicographer, and because the ’321 patent specification is incorporated by reference into the ’770 patent specification (Ex. 1001, 1:7–37; Tr. 9:10–22), we adopt the construction: “Skips refers to the event of missing a communication or pulse.” Ex. 2005, 9:36–37. Cont’l Cirs. LLC v. Intel Corp., 915 F.3d 788, 796 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316) (“When the patentee acts as its own lexicographer, that definition governs.”).” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the preamble of claim 12 is limiting. The body of claim 12 recites “photovoltaic panel” and thus refers back to the preamble, and other challenged claims use the term “photovoltaic panel” in the non-preamble portions of the claims. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 20:51, 20:58, 20:67, 21:5, 21:10. Aside from the preamble issue, the parties do not dispute the meaning of “photovoltaic panel.” Accordingly, we need not expressly construe the term “photovoltaic panel” for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 10,256,770 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,256,770
• Google LLC v. Ecofactor Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 17, 2022 · IPR2021-00982 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 and 10–19 are unpatentable: claims 1–7 and 11–19 as obvious over Wedekind and Ehlers, and claim 10 as obvious over Wedekind, Ehlers, and Jenkins; claims 20–30 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We note that the parties agree on the educational background of a person of ordinary skill in the art. And although the parties offer different levels of experience for a person of ordinary skill in the art, there is some overlap, as both parties require experience with HVAC systems. Pet. 15 (requiring experience with “building energy management”); PO Resp. 5–6 (requiring experience with HVAC controls, and acknowledging that “building energy management” includes controlling HVAC systems). Accordingly, we do not consider the difference between the parties’ proposals to be material. Moreover, neither party asserts that its positions or the outcome depends on which definition we apply in this proceeding.” slip op. at 10

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

    “B. Claim Construction In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms according to the standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–17 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Under Phillips, claim terms are afforded “their ordinary and customary meaning.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. “[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Id. at 1313. “Importantly, the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Id.” slip op. at 11

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “Reply ignore the express statement in the Petition characterizing sensors 36 in Wedekind as “a source external to the building.” Sur-reply 2 (quoting Pet. 28), 3. Patent Owner also argues this is a new argument that we should disregard. Sur-Reply 2. We disagree. Although Patent Owner is correct that Petitioner contends Wedekind’s outside air temperature sensors 36 are a source external to the building, that is not the only argument Petitioner presents. In the Petition, Petitioner contends more generally that Wedekind’s outside air temperature sensors 36 “measure the outside air temperature.” Pet. 28. Petitioner also argues that Ehlers provides weather data including outside temperatures, and that the source of the data is a weather service provider that is external to the building. Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1008, 9:53–54, 35:13–17). Petitioner further argues that it would have been obvious “to replace Wedekind’s outside temperature sensors 36 with receiving outside temperature data from a network connection,” as Ehlers teaches. Pet. 32. In view of this, we agree with, and are persuaded by, Petitioner’s argument that it does not rely only on Wedekind to meet the limitation that “the second data from the network connection is collected from a source external to the building.” Reply 10. Additionally, the presence of these arguments in the Petition undermines Patent Owner’s assertion that Petitioner is attempting to present new arguments in the Reply. Similarly, Petitioner acknowledges in the Petition that Wedekind does not expressly teach the second data is received from a network connection, and, therefore, relies on Ehlers’ disclosure of receiving data from a network connection. Pet. 30; Reply 11. Patent Owner does not dispute that Ehlers discloses receiving weather data from a network connection. See PO Resp. 15–28; Sur-reply 3–8. In view of the foregoing, Petitioner has demonstrated persuasively that the combined disclosures of Wedekind and Ehlers teach or suggest “the one or more processors further configured to receive a second data from a network connection, wherein the second data from the network connection is collected from a source external to the building” claim 1 requires.” slip op. at 20

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

    “We find Petitioner’s arguments to be persuasive. Petitioner presents undisputed evidence, based on the disclosure of Wedekind and Ehlers, that obtaining outside temperatures either from local sensors or over a network was known in the art. Pet. 28–32; Ex. 1006, 4:45–47; Ex. 1008, 9:50–63. Petitioner also directs us to evidence, including in Ehlers itself, supporting Petitioner’s reasoning that replacing Wedekind’s outside air temperature sensors with a network-based weather data service would have saved the cost and effort of installing multiple sensors. Pet. 32; Ex. 1002 ¶ 103; Ex. 1008, 39:54–57; Reply 13. As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner does not directly challenge Petitioner’s argument and evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to modify Wedekind in view of Ehlers to avoid the cost and effort of installing multiple sensors. Reply 13.5 Indeed, Patent Owner acknowledges that Wedekind “expressly indicates that there must be multiple sensors of outdoor temperature for sufficient accuracy in Wedekind’s complex computational model.” PO Resp. 26; Ex. 1006, 3:62–67. The need for multiple sensors in Wedekind 5 We recognize Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to connect Wedekind’s outside air temperature sensors 36 to a network because it would “increase costs.” PO Resp. 23–24. Patent Owner, however, presents this argument before it addresses Petitioner’s proposed combination of Wedekind and Ehlers. See PO Resp. 23–24 (referring to cost increases first, and addressing the proposed combination of Wedekind and Ehlers in the next paragraph). Thus, Patent Owner’s cost argument does not appear to address Petitioner’s assertion regarding cost savings in view of the proposed combination. Nor does Patent Owner present evidence regarding, or explain adequately, what costs it is referring to, or how those costs would increase. PO Resp. 23–24; Ex. 2005 ¶ 61. By way of contrast, Petitioner’s arguments regarding cost savings are supported by the disclosure of Ehlers itself. Ex. 1008, 39:54–57. strengthens Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of Ehlers’ teaching regarding avoiding the cost and effort of installing multiple sensors, would have had reason to modify Wedekind in view of Ehlers. Additionally, Patent Owner’s own declarant characterized Ehlers’ discussion of “lowering the cost of installation and ongoing maintenance” as “teach[ing] away from external sensors.” Ex. 1023, 58:7–18. These arguments and evidence undermine Patent Owner’s assertion that Petitioner failed to provide any analysis as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Wedekind in view of Ehlers. Sur-reply 3–4; PO Resp. 25–28. Petitioner also argues, and provides evidence in the form of testimony from Dr. Shah demonstrating, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify Wedekind’s system by connecting Wedekind’s processing means to a network connection such as Ehlers’ phone input or communications link, and would have obtained predictable results. Pet. 33; Ex. 1002 ¶ 104. Patent Owner does not dispute this evidence. To the contrary, Patent Owner appears to concede that the proposed combination would work, although not as reliably as Wedekind’s hardwired system. PO Resp. 25–26. As a result, and in the absence of any evidence or argument suggesting otherwise, we credit Dr. Shah’s testimony. Furthermore, Ehlers teaches, in connection with providing data obtained from a weather service provider over a network, that “[t]he data may be provided at regular intervals and be sufficiently localized for acceptable accuracy.” Ex. 1008, 9:58–60. This statement from Ehlers itself undermines Patent Owner’s arguments regarding alleged problems with transmitting data over networks and insufficient accuracy, including Patent Owner’s argument that Wedekind teaches away from the approach used by Ehlers. PO Resp. 25–28. Nevertheless, even if we were to give Patent Owner the full credit of its arguments regarding unreliable transmission of data over networks and data obtained from weather service providers being less useful than data obtained from sensors at a specific structure, obviousness “does not require that the motivation be the best option, only that it be a suitable option from which the prior art did not teach away.” PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197-98 (Fed. Cir. 2014). As discussed above, Petitioner’s evidence and arguments demonstrate that using Ehlers’ network to transmit temperature data was at least a suitable option. For all of the foregoing reasons, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated persuasively that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to modify Wedekind in view of Ehlers, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. iii.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 10,612,983 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,612,983
• Tennant Company v. Oxygenator Water Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 17, 2022 · IPR2021-00625 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board found that Tennant did not prove claims 13, 14, and 17–27 unpatentable because the asserted references did not establish the claimed microbubbles and nanobubbles, and the obviousness combinations were inadequately supported.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner states, for “purposes of this proceeding, PO does not challenge Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 53 n.6. Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s definition, because it is consistent with the cited prior art. We further note that the prior art itself demonstrates the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that “specific findings on the level of skill in the art . . . [are not required] ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown’” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “Because patentee has acted as its own lexicographer, and because Petitioner agrees that the definition provided in the specification is the preferred construction, we adopt the construction of “nanobubble” provided in the specification. Cont’l Cirs. LLC v. Intel Corp., 915 F.3d 788, 796 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316) (“When the patentee acts as its own lexicographer, that definition governs.”). Namely, we construe “nanobubble” as “a bubble with a diameter less than that necessary to break the surface tension of water.” Ex. 1101, 4:12–13. We decline to add any additional language to our construction, as proposed by Petitioner, because the additional quoted sentence in the specification appears to describe an effect of nanobubbles on the appearance of water when nanobubbles are present, rather than define the nanobubbles themselves. On this record, we determine that no other claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 14

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “We disagree that our Institution Decision established a prima facie case that Petitioner met its burden at the Final Written Decision stage. An affirmative decision on institution is a determination that Petitioner has shown, on the record at that stage in the proceeding, that Petitioner has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its arguments as to at least one challenged claim. Dec. 40; 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). To prevail in an instituted inter partes review, however, 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) requires Petitioner to meet “the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.” See TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]here is a significant difference between a petitioner’s burden to establish a ‘reasonable likelihood of success’ at institution, and actually proving invalidity by a preponderance of the evidence at trial . . . . The Board’s findings in its Final Written Decision were thus not inconsistent with those in its Institution Decision; they were made under a qualitatively different standard.”). To state that our Institution Decision established a prima facie case that Petitioner was correct would be erroneous, as such a position conflates different burdens required of Petitioner and, in doing so, would have us improperly give Petitioner an advantage in the actual trial culminating in a final written decision. Fan Duel, 966 F.3d at 1341–42.” slip op. at 25

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “On this complete record, we find that Petitioner’s testing does not sufficiently demonstrate that Wikey inherently discloses nanobubbles. Pet. 22–29. Petitioner apparently had the ability to test for the express disclosure of nanobubbles in its Wikey-based apparatus, but did not do so. Sur-Reply 2–3. Patent Owner points out that nanobubbles, which Petitioner’s expert indicated were on the order of 0.1 microns, are detectable using available technology that Petitioner knew of and had used in the past. Id. However, Petitioner’s expert acknowledged that he did not do any testing that would determine whether nanobubbles were formed. Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 2172, 70:1–4). Petitioner’s reliance on milkiness and supersaturation to demonstrate the presence of nanobubbles is also unsupported. Petitioner argues that milky appearance equals supersaturation (Reply 9 (citing Ex. 1101, 9:38– 50)), and also that milky appearance equals nanobubbles (id. (citing Ex. 1101, 4:14–15)); the inference Petitioner apparently wants us to draw is that supersaturation equals nanobubbles. Patent Owner, however, persuasively argues that dissolved oxygen content over 100% does not prove the water is milky. PO Resp. 25–26; Sur-Reply 6–7; see also Tr. 13:24–26 (Petitioner’s counsel agreeing that “you can have supersaturation without milkiness”). Patent Owner also demonstrates that supersaturation does not necessarily mean that nanobubbles are present. PO Resp. 26; Sur-Reply 7; Ex. 2172, 76:9–14, 77:23–78:21. Thus, Petitioner’s argument based on supersaturation equaling nanobubbles because milkiness equals both breaks down because milkiness does not necessarily equal either. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner’s arguments and testing fail to show that Wikey inherently discloses nanobubbles.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS RE45,415 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
• Jupiter Research, LLC v. VPR Brands, L.P.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jul 12, 2022 · IPR2022-00299 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 13–18 were unpatentable over the asserted prior-art grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “It is the petitioner’s burden from the outset to show with particularity why a challenged claim is unpatentable. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech. Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In that regard, a petition for inter partes review must identify how the challenged claims are unpatentable, and must specify where each element of the claim is found in the relied-upon prior art. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b); see also 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (a petition must identify “with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for challenge to each claim”). A petition must also include “a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing laws, rules, and precedent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2). Here, Petitioner contends that the “airflow sensor having elements (401), (403), (404), (405), and (406)” is “electronic at least in that it includes contact piece (404) and piece (403) that is connected to the integrated circuit board (3),” but does not provide a detailed explanation of the significance of the location of contact pieces 403 and 404, or how elements 401, 403, 404, 405, and 406 form an electric airflow sensor. Pet. 47–48 (citing Ex. 1009, 8), 54–55 (same). Zhu teaches that “integrated circuit board 3 is provided with two fixed contact pieces 403 and 404 that extend toward the elastic ring 401.” Ex. 1009, 8. Zhu further teaches that elastic ring 401 is fixed in plastic base 405, and that “fixed contact pieces 403 and 404 are fixed outside the plastic base 405.” Id. Considering the disclosures in Zhu regarding the arrangement and operation of these elements, Petitioner’s conclusory statement that Zhu teaches an electric airflow sensor simply because contact” slip op. at 23

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, or a closely related field and one to two years of experience working in the consumer electronics or computer industry in the capacity of a design, application, customer marketing or technical marketing engineer.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 58). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner neither responds to Petitioner’s proposed definition, nor provides a definition of its own. See generally, Prelim. Resp. Petitioner’s undisputed proposed definition appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and the disclosure of the ’622 patent, and we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 6

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

    “The parties stipulated to the construction of many claim terms in their related litigation currently pending in the District of Arizona. Pet. 11–12; Prelim. Resp. 12; Ex. 1006. Based on the parties’ apparent agreement, and considering the record before us, we adopt the parties agreed-upon claim constructions for purposes of this Decision. See Ex. 1006 (stipulated claim construction proposed in the district court). We provide the constructions of “electric airflow sensor” and “detecting an airflow,” which are of particular relevance to this Decision, below. “electric airflow sensor” an electric sensor to detect air movement generated by a user’s inhaling or puffing act “detecting an airflow” determining that a user is inducing airflow into or out of the device Ex. 1006, 2, 3.” slip op. at 7

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

    “To establish anticipation, each and every element in a claim, arranged as recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Here, Petitioner neither directs us to an express disclosure in Cox that air flow detecting device 51 is an electric airflow sensor as required by claim 13, nor adequately explains that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Cox as disclosing an electric airflow sensor, and could have combined Cox’s disclosures with their own knowledge to make the claimed invention. See Helifix Ltd. v. Bloc-Loc, Ltd., 208 F.3d 1339, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (A reference that does not expressly disclose a claimed limitation “might nevertheless be anticipating if a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand [the reference] as disclosing [the limitation] and if such a person could have combined the [reference’s] description of the invention with his own knowledge to make the claimed invention.”). We also do not understand Petitioner to be arguing that Cox inherently discloses an electric airflow sensor. See In re Montgomery, 667 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“A reference may anticipate inherently if a claim limitation that is not expressly disclosed is ‘necessarily present, or v. Fibernet Va., Inc., 602 F.3d 1325, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2010))). For these reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner sufficiently establishes that Cox discloses “an electric air flow sensor that is used to turn on and off the electric power source by way of detecting an airflow” as recited in independent claim 13. Accordingly, we determine that the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in showing that claim 13, and claims 14 and 15 that depend therefrom, are anticipated by Cox.” slip op. at 17

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,205,622
• Duke Manufacturing Co. v. Low Temp Industries, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 6, 2022 · IPR2021-00414 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–26 are unpatentable: claims 1, 6, 7, 10, 12, 14, 16–20, and 22–26 as anticipated by Finegan; claims 1–26 as obvious over Finegan, Safyan, and Hansen; and claims 3–5 as obvious over Finegan and …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of one of ordinary skill in the art. On this record, we find that the differences in the parties’ contentions as to the level of ordinary skill are not consequential, in part because the levels of skill both Petitioner and Patent Owner set forth are based on an engineering degree and a length and type of experience that overlap. Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition, because it is consistent with the cited prior art. We further note that the prior art itself demonstrates the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that “specific findings on the level of skill in the art . . . [are not required] ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown’” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for patent owner

    “On this record, we determine that the control system limitations sufficiently connote structure and are not subject to means-plus-function construction. See Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349 (stating the determination of whether a limitation is a means-plus-function term “subject to the strictures of § 112, para. 6” is not based merely on the presence or absence of the word “means” but on whether “the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure”). As to Petitioner’s argument that Patent Owner only demonstrates support for “controls” and “controllers” being known in the art and not for a “system,” as the claims recite (Reply 11–12), we determine that there is no meaningful distinction because the controls or controllers disclosed in the ’970 patent are necessarily included in systems with other known elements to control temperature. Further, the disclosure of exemplary apparatus in the specification, including disclosure incorporated by reference (Ex. 1101, 1:58–61), supports that temperature control systems are known structures/apparatuses, and Petitioner fails to establish that they are not (see generally Pet.; Reply). In sum, we determine the control system limitations are terms that persons of ordinary skill in the art would have understood to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structures of a broad category of systems known to those of skill in the art. The breadth and diversity of the structures/apparatuses ordinarily skilled artisans would have understood to be included within the meaning of the terms do not subject the terms to means-plus-function construction. Further construction of the terms is not necessary.” slip op. at 19

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

    “Regarding Patent Owner’s first argument, we find that Finegan sufficiently discloses thermally isolated wells and insulative gaps. Finegan’s wells are either thermally isolated as a result of their relative orientation (Pet. 31 (citing annotated Finegan Fig. 7)), or as a result of the insulation or insulative air gap (Pet. 29–31 (citing annotated Finegan Figs. 4, 7)). Finegan’s flanges, whether frosted or not, are “part of the well and must themselves be thermally isolated from their surroundings to facilitate frost formation,” and “the inclusion of the flanges does not defeat the well’s thermal isolation.” Reply 13; Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 294–297 (Dr. Homan’s testimony). Petitioner also demonstrates that Finegan’s insulation material would reduce heat transfer. Ex. 1149 ¶¶ 84–85 (Dr. Homan’s testimony that Finegan’s insulation material and insulation tape reduce heat transfer). Finegan’s insulation “extends over most of the well and the thermally-conductive material (38), to insulate the well.” Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1149 ¶ 84; Ex. 1105, 7:22–26, Fig. 4). Although we agree with Patent Owner that Finegan states that there is a “need to provide for a food service table or buffet that employs a shallow pan for use in both hot and cold service conditions while still providing sufficient frosting of the top surface” (Ex. 1105, 2:11–13), Petitioner has demonstrated that Finegan’s thermal isolation and insulation would not defeat this objective. Reply 13–14. Regarding Patent Owner’s second argument, we refer to our claim construction to find that Finegan teaches wells in a single frame. Because, under our construction, a well includes at least the interior well walls and exterior well walls (if present), and a frame refers to a “rigid supporting structure,” we find that Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that Finegan teaches wells in a single frame. Pet. 26–27, 29–31. We disagree that “skilled artisans would view the two apparatuses (10) in Figure 7 of Finegan to be independent pieces of equipment and thus not a module with wells bound by a single frame” and that “Finegan does not teach wells in a single frame” because the pans are separated by what Patent Owner argues is an “indeterminate distance of countertop.” PO Resp. 32. As discussed above, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s claim construction for “a frame.” Accordingly, we find that, under our claim constructions, Petitioner demonstrates that Finegan’s countertop 14 and side walls housing its wells 18 meet the limitations of the challenged claims, particularly those that require an arrangement between the frame and the wells (i.e. claims 14, 23, and 25). Reply 14–15, 17 (citing Ex. 1105, annotated Figs. 1, 7; Ex. 1149 ¶ 101); see also Ex. 2050, 10–11 (finding unfounded the district court’s determination “that Finegan’s Figure 7 only discloses a single pan in each of two separate modules” and determining that Figure 7 “discloses a single ‘apparatus 10’ with two wells 18A and 18B . . . . Those wells are shown within a single countertop 14.”). Additionally, we disagree with Patent Owner’s characterization of Dr. Homan’s testimony as admitting that Finegan’s pans/wells are separate modules. PO Resp. 30–32 (citing Ex. 1130, 241:24–242:3, 217:20–24, 240:5–14). A fair reading of Dr. Homan’s testimony indicates that he was referring to “wells,” despite counsel using the term “modules,” ultimately supporting Petitioner’s position that Finegan discloses two wells in a single frame. Reply 15–16 (citing Ex. 1130, 241:15–242:2). Regarding Patent Owner’s third argument, and referring to our claim construction, we find that Finegan teaches the control system limitations. Although we do not find these terms to be subject to means-plus-function construction, we nevertheless find sufficient Petitioner’s mapping of these limitations to the structures in Finegan performing the functions of the control system limitations. See, e.g., Pet. 31–32 (regarding claim 1.c.1, referring to Finegan Fig. 7 to map PLC 80 connected to heating elements 78 (via switches 94) and valving 90 for controlling refrigerant flow from condensing unit 118 to cooling coils 32, and using user interface 96 and temperature sensors 82A). Petitioner persuasively argues that Finegan’s PLC (programmable logic controller) 80 and user interface 96 meet the control system limitations: “Both Finegan’s global control and the ‘970 patent’s individual controls perform this function [of independently controlling the wells’ temperatures] in the same way, by connecting the electrical resistance heating elements to an electrical power source and by operating valving to control the flow of refrigerant.” Reply 20 (citing Ex. 1101: 4:49–52, 4:56–63; Ex. 1105, 9:27–11:28); Pet. 32–33.” slip op. at 29

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

    “sufficiently discloses insulative gaps. The Petition shows that Finegan’s wells are “individually insulated and thermally isolated by thermal insulation (40) between exterior and interior wall (44, 20 (identifiable by opposed surfaces (36, 46))).” Pet. 50 (citing Ex. 1103 ¶ 273; Ex. 1105, Fig. 4). Safyan teaches air gaps (i.e., an unfilled insulating space) as an alternative to foam. Id. at 51 (citing Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 276–277, Ex. 1106, Fig. 2, 4:36–46). Petitioner argues with evidentiary support that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasons to omit Finegan’s insulating material to leave an insulative gap, as in Safyan, to reduce material and labor costs, as a matter of simple substitution, with a reasonable expectation of success. Id. at 52 (citing Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 279–282). Patent Owner’s argument that Finegan does not disclose an insulative gap and that its insulation does not meet the limitations of the challenged claims argues against Finegan individually, rather than against the Finegan-Safyan combination. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.”). Petitioner also provides adequate motivation to combine Finegan and Safyan, not limited to arguing that the two references are in the same field of endeavor. Pet. 51–53 (relying on Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 276–282); Reply 22–23. Regarding claim 9, we find that Petitioner provides adequate motivation as to why one of ordinary skill in the art “would have minimized the distance between wells.” Pet. 53–54; Ex. 1149 ¶ 124–126. We credit Petitioner’s reliance on references and evidence supporting its assertion that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have located Finegan’s wells as close together as needed (e.g., three inches or less)” to “meet size restrictions for a compact space-saving design.” Pet. 56 (citing Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 298–299). We disagree that “Finegan’s frost top would be destroyed” (PO Resp. 43) by this combination, because spacing “as small as a fraction of an inch between the flanges of adjacent wells would ensure thermal isolation of the wells and that a cooled flange would form frost.” Pet. 56 (citing Ex. 1103 ¶297).” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 8,661,970 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,661,970
• Aquarius Spectrum, Ltd. v. Echologics, LLC, Mueller International, LLC, And Mueller Canada, D/B/A/ EchologicsInstituted
  PTAB · May 31, 2022 · IPR2022-00153 · APJ Wesley B Derrick · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–11 and all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the Hunaidi Patent obviousness challenge to claims 1 and 8.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Conclusion On this record, and in the absence of argument to the contrary by Patent Owner, we find Petitioner’s contentions that the Hunaidi Patent renders claims 1 and 8 obvious well-supported. Petitioner has directed us to portions of the Hunaidi Patent that teach or suggest all of the limitations in claims 1 and 8, and has provided a sufficiently persuasive reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to modify the disclosed apparatus and method to arrive at the subject matter of both independent claims. Thus, we are persuaded Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this challenge with respect to both claim 1 and claim 8. Having determined that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one claim of the ’596 patent is unpatentable, the statutory threshold for instituting trial as to all challenged claims on all grounds has been met. See SAS Inst. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 17

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

    “in the art having a motivation to combine the teachings of the Hunaidi Patent and the Hunaidi Article. The clearest expression of a motivation to combine set forth in association with the ground, as applied to the independent claims, is that “a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have been guided to look at leak detection systems, such as that disclosed in the Hunaidi Article,” because “[t]he Hunaidi Patent explains that ‘[t]he proposed method is easy to implement, for example, in conjunction with routine leak detection surveys.’” Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1003, 3:35–36; Ex. 1004, Abstract, 7; Ex. 1002 ¶ 77). The difficulty with this is that the Hunaidi Patent itself already discloses what appears to be routine leak detection surveys, and it is thus not apparent what benefit would be obtained by this combination to motivate the skilled artisan to combine the teachings. Cf. Belden v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[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.”). As to further reasons set forth for the combination, as applied to claims 1 and 8, these are grounded on shortcomings in “the Hunaidi Article . . . not disclos[ing] an equation for velocity” or go to the obviousness of modifications to the Hunaidi Patent itself independent of the Hunaidi Article’s teachings. Id. at 38–40 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:1–12; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 63–71, 80–86; Ex. 1003, 2:57–3:11, 1:8–11, claims 1& 11).” slip op. at 19

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityNot reached

    “1. Printed Publication Status of the Hunaidi Article In an inter partes review, the petitioner bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that a particular document is a printed publication. Nobel Biocare Servs. AG v. Instradent USA, Inc., 903 F.3d 1365, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Medtronic, Inc. v. Barry, 891 F.3d 1368, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Whether a reference qualifies as a “printed publication” is a legal conclusion based on underlying factual findings, including whether the reference was publicly accessible. Id.; see also In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 227 (CCPA 1981) (a party asserting a reference as a prior art printed publication should provide sufficient proof of accessibility). Petitioner contends that the Hunaidi Article is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (b). Pet. 35. Petitioner fails, however, to set forth any basis for the document to be a printed publication, that is, for its public accessibility. See Pet. Similarly, there is no testimony by Dr. Wilkens relevant to this issue. See Ex. 1002. Further, on this record, there is neither argument nor testimony as to the authenticity of what Petitioner has filed as the Hunaidi Article (Exhibit 1004).” slip op. at 18

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “is a person with a degree in mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, or physics, and approximately three to five years of combined work experience and/or graduate work in fluid dynamics.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 24– 25). As Patent Owner has waived its preliminary response, Petitioner’s contended level of ordinary skill stands uncontested. On this record, we find Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill reasonable and, therefore, adopt it for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,475,596
• Sunspec Alliance v. Tigo Energy, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Jan 28, 2022 · IPR2021-01286 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Institution

  Instituted IPR of claims 1, 5–7, 12, and 13 on all petitioned grounds; Moine anticipation of claims 1, 6, 7, 12, and 13 established the required likelihood of success.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . 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). Upon consideration of the Petition and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one claim challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all claims and all grounds asserted in the Petition.1” slip op. at 2

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

    “A. Claim Construction Petitioner contends the claim term “the location controller,” as recited in claim 1 of the ’321 patent, should be construed to mean “the local controller,” because the term “location controller” has no apparent antecedent basis in the claim and does not appear anywhere in the 3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) included revisions to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 that became effective on March 16, 2013. Because the ’321 patent issued from an application filed before March 16, 2013, we apply the pre-AIA versions of the statutory bases for unpatentability. 4 FR Patent Application Publication No. 2894401 A1 to Moine, published June 8, 2007 (Ex. 1005). 5 US Patent No. 5,054,023 to Kronberg, issued October 1, 1991 (Ex. 1006). 6 US Patent No. 8,531,055 B2 to Adest et al., issued September 10, 2013 (Ex. 1007). specification of the ’321 patent, and further in light of the fact that claim 1 first recites “a local controller.” Pet. 10–11. Other than the aforementioned claim term, Petitioner states no express constructions of the claims are necessary to assess whether the prior art reads on the challenged claims. Id. at 9 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 35). Having considered Petitioner’s argument, we can reach a determination of the reasonable likelihood of proving unpatentability of the challenged claims without explicitly construing any claim terms at this stage of the proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had a bachelor’s degree or similar degree in electrical engineering and one year of experience in the design of solar power systems, power control systems, and/or power safety systems.” Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 17). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on our review of the ’321 patent and the asserted prior art, we determine that Petitioner’s definition comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’321 patent and prior art.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Having reviewed Petitioner’s undisputed evidence and argument regarding claim 1, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently that Moine discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Thus, we are persuaded Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its anticipation challenge with respect to claim 1.” slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,933,321

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.