- Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 15, 2024 · IPR2023-00745 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 and 8–22 were not shown unpatentable because Mills did not disclose the required embedded structure and Markel combined with Mills did not teach it; the revised motion to amend was dismissed as moot.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsNot reached
“Patent Owner’s Revised Contingent Motion to Amend asserts that in “the event the Board finds at least one challenged [Revised Motion to Amend] claim unpatentable, [Patent Owner] respectfully requests that the Board grant this Motion with respect to the corresponding proposed substitute claim(s).” Paper 27, 1. Because we determine that Petitioner has not established that any of the challenged claims 1–4 and 8–22 are unpatentable, Patent Owner’s Revised Contingent Motion to Amend is moot.” slip op. at 61
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is somewhat broader in both education and proposed work experience. Patent Owner’s proposed work experience is somewhat vague and potentially outside the scope of the claimed invention. For example, the requirement that the person of ordinary skill in the art have experience with the “capture and processing of data or information, including but not limited to physiological information,” would seemingly encompass data processing areas that do not relate to the scope of the claimed invention. We adopt Petitioner’s level of the level of ordinary skill in art because it is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). Our analysis and the end result are the same under either proposed definition.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“structure where a lead is embedded in a portion of the enclosure from other embodiments where a lead is merely positioned against or in parallel contact with a portion of the enclosure. See Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 36–37. The Specification describes distinct embodiments such as “lead 472 of the heart sensor can be positioned against the back surface of bezel 460,” or “[a]lternatively, lead 472 can be placed within the thickness of bezel 460 (e.g., in a pocket within the bezel wall), but underneath the outer surface of the bezel.” Ex. 9:44–48. We agree with Patent Owner, and Dr. Kenny, that “[t]his passage distinguishes a lead that is embedded in a portion of the enclosure from a lead that is merely ‘positioned against’ or in parallel contact with a portion of the enclosure.” PO Resp. 6–7 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 33–35). See also Ex. 2008, 31:10–33:18, 109:18–110:19 (Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Oslan, suggesting that a first component or object in parallel contact with and positioned under a second component or object would not necessarily indicate that the first component or object is embedded in the second component or object). Similarly, we also agree that “the claims of the ’257 use the term ‘embedded in’ while also using the word ‘embedded’ in other contexts, which” indicates distinct claim scope for “the term ‘embedded in,’” versus “the broader term ‘embedded.’” Ex. 2003 ¶ 38. For instance, claim 9 distinctly requires “embedded with,” which is a broader term that, according to Dr. Kenny, encompasses embodiments where a lead may be adjacent/parallel to the first portion of the enclosure. Id.” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“under the exterior of the first portion” (see Pet. 21–22, 24–25; Pet. Reply 4); and (3) leaf spring 62 is embedded in housing 12 and electrode 14 (see Pet. 22–24). None of Petitioner’s mappings disclose every element of claim 1 and Petitioner improperly jumps between these various mappings without fully examining a single mapping for each and every limitation of claim 1. See Pet. 18–25. In essence, Petitioner invites the Board to piece together a single theory that meets all claim elements from these disparate theories that each require distinct structure within Mills. See Amazon.com, Inc., et al. v. Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) PTE. LTD., IPR2017-01112, Paper 11, at 13 (PTAB Aug. 23, 2017) (“Petitioner is inviting us to assume the role of archeologist of the record, which invitation we decline.”).” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 10,076,257 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,076,257 - Platform Science, Inc. v. Omnitracs, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 29, 2022 · IPR2020-01612 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6–9, 11, 12, and 15 were not shown unpatentable because Coffee did not disclose the claimed copying, and Coffee combined with Heijden did not cure that deficiency.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“In our Initial and Rehearing Decisions, we noted that Patent Owner did not contest Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art at that stage of the proceeding and we found “Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’308 patent and the prior art of record.” Initial Dec. 13 (citing Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978)); Rehearing Dec. 16 (same). Therefore, we adopted Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art. Initial Dec. 13; Rehearing Dec. 16. In its Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner states that “[f]or purposes of this proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s offered level of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 7. Accordingly, we maintain our preliminary finding by adopting Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, as set forth above.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“received message 7102 and the header of the response message 7202 are not the same. PO Resp. 25 (citations omitted); Pet. Reply 14. In the Petition, Petitioner argued that “header information” was the same in each message (received and response). Pet. 32 (citations omitted), 36–37. Petitioner relies on Tables 58 and 63, which show “Header.” Id. at 32–33, 37. Petitioner also relies on paragraphs 102 and 118 of Mr. Andrews’s Declaration. Neither the Petition nor Mr. Andrews’s Declaration, however, provide any sufficient basis to find that even a portion of the header or header information is copied from the received message to the response message. Mr. Andrews states his opinion as though it were fact without providing the underlying factual support for his opinion. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 102, 118; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). In cross-examination, Mr. Andrews provided additional information explaining which portion of the headers he believes are the same, but he still does not provide any explanation as to why he believes the information is copied. See, e.g., Ex. 2007 at 111:3–25. The same is true of Petitioner’s Reply, which reiterates Mr. Andrews’s deposition testimony, but still fails to provide any reason as to why Coffee’s charts or Mr. Andrews’ testimony necessarily means that Coffee copies a portion of the header from the received message to the response message. See Continental Can Co. U.S.A., Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“Inherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.”). And, despite Petitioner’s identification of a “Header” listed in Tables 58 and 63, Coffee does not expressly describe the header or part of the header as being copied from the received message to the response message. The Petition and Mr. Andrews also state that “if Coffee did not employ such copying, the response message would not automatically include information extracted from the received message.” Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 118). But, Coffee does not expressly describe the header as being “extracted from the received message” or describe automatically including the header in a response message to make the leap argued by Petitioner and Mr. Andrews. Accordingly, on the full record before us, we find that Petitioner has not established that Coffee explicitly or inherently discloses copying the header or header information and we do not credit Mr. Andrews’ testimony, discussed above, because he fails to provide the underlying factual basis for the opinions offered.” slip op. at 43
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“proceeding and on the full record before us, we do not find that Coffee’s silence is sufficient to support Petitioner’s argument. See Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc., 787 Fed. Appx. 731, 739 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“We do not find any error in the Board changing its understanding of the teachings of [a prior art reference] from the institution decision to the final written decision. ‘The Board is not bound by any findings made in its Institution Decision. At that point, the Board is considering the matter preliminarily without the benefit of a full record. The Board is free to change its view of the merits after further development of the record, and should do so if convinced that its inclinations were wrong.’” (quoting Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2016))). Coffee does not explain the process by which the IOD of the received message is included in the response message; rather, Coffee just states that the response message “contains the IOD of the message being answered.” See, e.g., Ex. 1005, 56:63–67 (see full text quoted above). In particular, although Coffee attributes certain actions to the operator, the lack of attribution to the operator does not necessitate that the only viable possibility remaining is that Coffee copies the IOD from the received message to the response message. Even if it may be said that Coffee probably (or possibly) copies the IOD, that probability is not sufficient to find that Coffee necessarily copies the IOD. See Continental Can, 948 F.2d at 1269 (“Inherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.”).7 Additionally, on the full record before us, we determine that Mr. Andrews’s testimony, as with his testimony as to copying of the header and selected response, fails to provide any factual or underlying support for his opinions expressed therein. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 100–102. In particular, the leap occurs in paragraph 102, where Mr. Andrews takes the fact that some information (at least the IOD) from the received formatted message is included with the response message to opine that this means the information is “copied over.” Id. ¶ 102. But, again, Coffee is silent. And because Mr. Andrews did not provide any underlying factual basis for his opinion, we do not credit his testimony as to copying the IOD. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 48
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“generally, including the alleged benefits of such and reasons why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to include field-mapping information in Coffee’s MDT. See id. at 62–70. None of Petitioner’s discussion, however, explains how the combination of Coffee and Heijden remedies the deficiencies that we identified regarding Petitioner’s challenge based on Coffee. In particular, Petitioner does not assert or explain how the teachings of Heijden would be applied to Coffee such that Coffee would then copy or fill in the specific information from Coffee’s received message to Coffee’s response message, particularly as pertains to the header, Response, and IOD fields (which Petitioner relied on in the first ground), or any other information field from Coffee. The same is true of Mr. Andrews’s testimony. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 214–231. Additionally, it appears that Petitioner’s analysis of the combination of Heijden and Coffee maintains the position that Coffee copies information fields. See Pet. 70 (“Given that Coffee’s system already implements field mapping to copy information fields . . . .”). And, Mr. Andrews’s testimony similarly maintains that Coffee copies information fields. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 229 (“Coffee also discloses (at least inherently) field mapping by describing that data is copied from fields in request messages into corresponding fields in response message.”). But, as we explain in detail in the context of Petitioner’s challenge based on Coffee, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Coffee copies or fills in information from a received message to a response message. Thus, we do not find and Petitioner does not allege that Ground “1B” fills the gaps identified in Petitioner’s Ground “1A.”10 Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the combination of Coffee and Heijden would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1–4, 7–9, and 12 unpatentable.” slip op. at 60
Patent outcomesUS 6,925,308 not shown unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,925,308 - Intel Corporation v. Parkervision, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 21, 2022 · IPR2020-01302 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9–11 were not determined unpatentable because the asserted Larson and Larson–Butler grounds did not teach sampling.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Neither party contends that the differences in proposals affect the outcome of this proceeding and we do not find that they do. Nonetheless, on the full record before us, we find that our identification of the level of ordinary skill in art from the Institution Decision as well as Patent Owner’s option (b) are supported by the prior art of record, the ’474 patent, and the opinions of Drs. Subramanian and Steer (which, as discussed above, recognize that additional work experience can compensate for the lack of a formal degree). Accordingly, we modify our preliminary finding to include the specifics from option (b) of Patent Owner’s proposal. Thus, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of RF circuit design, or at least five years of work experience and training in the design and development of RF circuits and/or systems. We also find that less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Because the parties agree that the claims remaining in the trial require “sampling” and also agree that the prior art asserted in this case does not teach “sampling” (as discussed further below), we need not construe these terms expressly to resolve the controversy before us. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803. sampling Although claim 1 does not recite “sampling” expressly, the post- institution briefs make clear that the parties agree that claim 1 and its dependent claims require sampling. In particular, Patent Owner contends, (1) “the ’474 patent pertains to a technique called sampling, which involves the use of a ‘switch’” (PO Resp. 2); (2) “all of the challenged claims are directed to a sampling system and, in particular, an energy sampling system (also known as an energy transfer system)” (id.); and (3) “[t]he challenged claims only cover energy sampling and the use of switches” (id. at 20). In its Reply, although Petitioner disagrees with Patent Owner’s interpretation of the claims as limited to energy sampling (i.e., energy transfer systems) (Pet. Reply 3–7), Petitioner contends that based on its “subsequent analysis of [Patent Owner’s] foundational ’551 patent—one of the multiple patents which the ’474 patent incorporates by reference—[Petitioner] now agrees with [Patent Owner] that the claims cover only systems that down-convert by sampling.” Pet. Reply 2. Thus, at a minimum, the parties agree that the claims at issue in this proceeding require sampling.” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Discussion As discussed above, the parties now agree that (1) the claims at issue in this proceeding require “sampling” and (2) Larson alone or in combination with Butler do not disclose “sampling” and do not otherwise render the claims unpatentable. See Pet. Reply 2 (stating Petitioner agrees that “the claims cover only systems that down-convert by sampling”), 13 (stating that Larson and Butler do not disclose “down-conversion by sampling” and therefore agreeing that “Larson and Butler do not invalidate those claims”); see Ex. 2031, 6:20–22 (Patent Owner explaining, that “as the Board is aware, both parties agree that sampling is in the claims, and the claims are not invalid in view of all the cited prior art” (capitalization altered)). As such, based on Petitioner’s explicit admissions, Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) Larson anticipates claims 1, 3, 4, and 9–11 or (2) the combination of Larson and Butler would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9–11 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Discussion As discussed above, the parties now agree that (1) the claims at issue in this proceeding require “sampling” and (2) Larson alone or in combination with Butler do not disclose “sampling” and do not otherwise render the claims unpatentable. See Pet. Reply 2 (stating Petitioner agrees that “the claims cover only systems that down-convert by sampling”), 13 (stating that Larson and Butler do not disclose “down-conversion by sampling” and therefore agreeing that “Larson and Butler do not invalidate those claims”); see Ex. 2031, 6:20–22 (Patent Owner explaining, that “as the Board is aware, both parties agree that sampling is in the claims, and the claims are not invalid in view of all the cited prior art” (capitalization altered)). As such, based on Petitioner’s explicit admissions, Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) Larson anticipates claims 1, 3, 4, and 9–11 or (2) the combination of Larson and Butler would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9–11 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 7,539,474 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,539,474 - LKQ Corporation / Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 8, 2021 · PGR2020-00055 · APJ Robert L Kinder · PGR · Final written decision
Claim 1 was not shown unpatentable as anticipated by the Leopaard or obvious over the Leopaard alone or with the Equinox.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“designer of ordinary skill analysis whereas the overall claimed design cannot be accurately compared to the Leopaard vehicle. As we discuss in more detail below, there are simply too many aspects of the claimed design that are not adequately disclosed by the images of the Leopard. Although LKQ’s experts project what is likely to be in these evidentiary voids, we do not find estimations of design features on par with an actual showing. LKQ’s anticipation and obviousness theories are based too much on speculation and conjecture about what features might be present in the Leopaard’s skid bar (see, e.g., Pet. Reply 22 (“most likely”)), or that various features can be discounted as “likely barely noticeable” or “unlikely to be noticeable.” Id. at 25, 28. With this understanding, we compare the design claim to the Leopaard, noting both the similarities and difference and also the shortcomings in evidence.” slip op. at 43
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“individual who has at least an undergraduate degree in transportation or automotive design and experience in the field of transportation design, or someone who has several years’ work experience in the field of transportation or automotive design. Pet. 37 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 41–42; Ex. 1004 ¶ 39). GM originally argued for a slightly different standard for the ordinary designer in its Preliminary Response, but for purposes of its Response, GM has acquiesced in LKQ’s definition. See PO Resp. 8. Mr. Peters contends that “I do not discern any relevant differences between these proposals, nor do I have any substantive disagreement with Mr. Gandy’s proposal. My opinion is the same, regardless of which definition is applied.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 27. Based on the final record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the ordinary designer.” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“contentions. As we analyze in detail below, LKQ’s case is not persuasive for several reasons, including its failure to provide sufficient evidence. LKQ has not produced images of the Leopaard that would enable a persuasive comparison with corresponding views of the claimed invention. The evidence produced by LKQ related to the Leopaard simply fails to clearly show several claimed aspects of the design. Because the Petition omits sufficient views of any complete single skid bar (Ex. 2004 ¶ 51), the evidence produced by LKQ related to the Leopaard simply fails to clearly show several claimed aspects of the design. For example, Exhibits 1006– 1009 include front or perspective views that show, at most, only an upper portion of a skid bar. Exhibit 1010 shows slightly more of the skid bar of its vehicle, but also omits a significant portion of the bottom of the skid bar. Ex. 2004 ¶ 51; Ex. 2006, 77:2–21. The exhibits do not show a sufficient bottom view to allow comparison and the exhibits also have obscured side views due to other trim features covering the outsides of the skid bar. For these and other reasons such as the differences between the designs discussed below, LKQ has failed to meet its burden of proof.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petition does propose any other modifications to the Leopaard. LKQ’s obviousness analysis failed to address the differences that contribute to the overall appearance of the ’508 patent’s design. As discussed above, the evidence shows multiple readily apparent differences between the claimed design and the Leopaard. We agree with Mr. Peters that “[t]he differences I discussed above in the context of the ordinary observer are just as significant to the ordinary designer, who would likewise have recognized these readily visible features.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 86. These same differences in the aggregate create an overall ornamental design that is not basically the same between the claimed design of the ’508 patent and the Leopaard. Accordingly, the Leopaard is not a proper Rosen reference. Even before modifications may be considered, LKQ has the burden to show that the Leopaard, as it currently is “in existence,” has design characteristics of which are basically the same as the claimed design. High Point Design, 730 F.3d at 1311. Considering the Leopaard before any proposed modifications, it is not a proper Rosen reference. Ex. 2004 ¶ 84. The Leopaard does not give basically the same visual impression as the patented design because the Leopaard does not teach a substantial vertical front face, bottom surface and edge (continuous surface below the recesses), outwardly projecting top and side surfaces, curvature from side-to-side, deep recesses entirely visible from the front, and outer perimeter shape. See id. ¶¶ 49, 52–85. As Mr. Peters testifies, the Leopaard does not have substantially the same overall appearance because “the respective designs include numerous fundamentally different design characteristics,” which “[t]he Petition does not specifically address.” Id. ¶¶ 83, 84. Without accounting for these differences—and particularly, the significance of these differences to the designer of ordinary skill in the art—the Petition lacks sufficient evidence that the Leopaard is “a single reference that creates basically the same visual impression” as the claimed design. Indeed, the differences described above in the context of the ordinary observer are just as significant to the ordinary designer, who is aware of readily apparent differences when assessing the visual impression of designs. Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 25, 84–86. Thus, we are not persuaded that a designer of ordinary skill would have viewed the Leopaard to give basically the same visual impression as the ’508 patent.” slip op. at 58
Patent outcomesUS D855,508 not shown unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness - LKQ Corporation / Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 8, 2021 · PGR2020-00054 · APJ Robert L Kinder · PGR · Final written decision
The sole claim was not shown unpatentable: it is definite, and neither asserted obviousness combination renders the design unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. The Designer of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“DOSA”) LKQ contends that: a designer of ordinary skill would be an individual who has at least an undergraduate degree in transportation or automotive design experience in the field of transportation design, or someone who has several years’ work experience in transportation or automotive design. Pet. 51 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 42; Ex. 1004 ¶ 41). Based on the final record, which includes testimony by LKQ’s witnesses, we adopt LKQ’s proposed definition of the ordinary designer.” slip op. at 19
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Based on the final record, the purported issues related to a double line on the convex crease and the length of the single line do not create internally inconsistent drawings that would preclude the overall understanding of the drawing as a whole. We have considered the testimony of each witness and we find Mr. Peters’ explanation most convincing that “the claimed design describes the convex band consistently because each of the figures presents at least one of the ways that a convex band can be represented. . . . Figure 1 illustrates the two intersecting lines of the convex band, while Figures 2-4 illustrate the single max height line of the convex band.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 58. Thus, we agree with GM that these figures are not inconsistent, but rather complementary because both connecting lines (as shown in Figure 1) and the max height line (as shown in Figure 2) are accurate depictions of the convex band of the claimed design. Further, GM has presented persuasive evidence that the varied length of the line between figures is also understandable depending on the point of reference of a particular figure. Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 55, 56; Ex. 2006, 143:11–16, 144:4–7.” slip op. at 27
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteNot shown unpatentable
“7. Overall Indefiniteness Analysis The figures of the ’065 patent are not perfect and the issues discussed above demonstrate that attention to detail matters when conveying the scope of a three-dimensional object in two dimensions. The proper standard for indefiniteness does not, however, require perfection, but instead requires that an invention is shown with “reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, Inc., 572 U.S. at 910. The purpose of the definiteness standard is “to ensure that the disclosure is clear enough to give potential competitors (who are skilled in the art) notice of what design is claimed – and therefore what would be infringed.” Maatita, 900 F.3d at 1376. Based on the totality of the evidence before us, we determine that the claimed design of the ’065 patent is reasonably understandable and gives potential competitors, and the public, notice of the scope of the claim. As analyzed above, LKQ has not shown that most of the alleged inconsistencies are, in fact, inconsistent features within the claim. Further, we determine that the inconsistencies argued by LKQ do not in the aggregate “preclude the overall understanding of the drawing as a whole.” Id. at 1375–76.” slip op. at 45
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“The Petition fails to adequately address the differences between the claimed ornamental fender design and the Fiat Toro in several important areas, including: the distinct upper portions of each design, the claimed design’s inwardly folded (L-shaped) top edge, and the rear lateral edge. Based on the final record, these differences combined with the other differences noted by LKQ (Pet. 81) are substantial and prevent the Fiat Toro from having design characteristics that are basically the same as that claimed in the ’065 patent – as required for a Rosen reference.” slip op. at 67
Patent outcomesUS D864,065 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Nautilus - Yamaha Golf Car Company v. Club Car, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 2, 2019 · IPR2017-02143 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision
Petitioner did not prove claims 1–11 and 13–20 unpatentable on the asserted grounds; claim 12 was disclaimed.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“In the summon mode, pressing a button to summon the caddie of the ’388 patent triggers an autonomous mode but no specific driving commands are provided to the caddie by the golfer. See Ex. 2015 ¶ 195 (“As the robotic caddy cart is operating autonomously at that point, the user does not input these movement commands.”). We agree that the summon command could not be considered a driver command because “merely defining the destination does not generate any control actions.” Id. ¶ 160. Likewise, a summon command to follow a golfer would not be a driver command because the golfer has no direct control over the route taken, the speed of the caddie, or whether or not a caddie could drive into a restricted area –– the caddie’s system pilots itself to a point near the golfer by generating movement inputs on its own. The system detects that the golfer is in a limited access area and the golfer will not be able to summon the caddie into that area. This restriction is not a driver command being limited because the summon command simply activates internal logic to move the caddie near the golfer, not a driver command to move into a restricted area. Indeed, when operating in autonomous mode, the caddie can never enter such restricted areas. We thus agree with Patent Owner that the summon command cannot be overridden or limited in the ’388 patent because the caddie will always come as close as is allowable under the parameters of the caddie’s programming.” slip op. at 45
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Dec. 11. First, we note that the claim language itself focuses on limiting the ability of a “driver” to move the cart. For example, dependent claim 2 recites “an override of a driver input to the motor.” That the “driver input” needs to be overridden or otherwise restricted presumes that the golf cart is being driven by a person who has independent control of the cart and is susceptible to driving in an unruly manner, in other words, an onboard driver of the cart. This is especially true given the lack of any indication in the claims of remote or autonomous operation of the cart. Numerous other dependent claims include similar references to a driver of the cart, for example, “override of driver input” (claim 3), “driver interface unit” (claim 4), “limits the performance of driver commands” (claim 14), and “driver command” (claim 17).” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner overemphasizes the ’053 Application’s use of the terms “golf cart” and “electric vehicle.” Nowhere does the ’053 Application support the disclosure of a rideable cart. Rather, it describes a golf cart that, when read in the context of the reference as a whole, is a riderless cart, or more specifically, a “caddie cart.” This is evidenced by the fact that the ’053 Application incorporates by reference a caddie cart, as discussed above, in which the only mechanism for actually operating the cart is a “grip lever,” which Petitioner’s own expert acknowledges is not something found in a rideable cart. See Ex. 2016, 94:16–95:11 (conceding “there is no such thing as a rideable golf cart, in [his] experience or in 2003, that has a grip lever”); see also 54:5–12 (essentially same testimony). Further evidence that the ’053 Application contemplates only a riderless caddie cart is its description of the golf cart as “moving the golf bag to a location that is convenient for the play by the golfer.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 2. Nowhere does it describe the cart as moving a golfer or caddy. Even Petitioner’s expert agrees that, while the ’053 Application “does describe a caddy cart,” it “does not describe putting the person in the seat.” Ex. 2016, 92:18–93:1; 88:11–15. And to the extent Petitioner’s expert qualifies that testimony by saying that the ’053 Application doesn’t exclude the possibility of a riding cart and doesn’t preclude putting a person in the seat, that qualification is irrelevant to our analysis of anticipation, which depends on what a reference actually discloses, not what possibilities it could have disclosed. Petitioner’s assertion is that each of independent claims 1 and 6 is anticipated by the ’053 Application – Petitioner has not put forth an obviousness ground for these claims based on the ’053 Application.” slip op. at 24
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Alternatively, Petitioner argues that the ’053 Application’s disclosure of a golfer selecting a destination on an LCD display “inherently teaches” the ability of “overriding a driver command.” Pet. 29–30 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 37). We disagree. The ability to select a travel destination on an LCD display is not the same as the ability to “override” or “restrict” a previous command to travel to a certain destination. As argued by Patent Owner, “[t]he selection of a point on a map is just that—a selection to travel to a point on the map, not to take a particular route to that point.” PO Resp. 34 (citing Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 150–152). Nowhere does the ’053 Application say that the selected point on the display will be disregarded if it is within a prohibited area. Thus, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that the ’053 Application inherently teaches the ability to “override” a driver input. Reply 3, 23–24. In its Petition, however, Petitioner deliberately chose not to rely on the ’053 Application’s manned operating mode in arguing those particular limitations. See Pet. 28–29 (referencing repeatedly “unmanned mode operation” and showing ellipsis “. . .” where “manual traveling mode” would have been discussed in paragraph 34 of the ’053 Application). Petitioner cannot switch positions midstream and raise an entirely new argument in its reply that reasonably could have been made in the petition. See Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 775 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Blizzard, as petitioner, had an opportunity to present this argument in its petition, but chose not to.”). A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding patent owner response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Indeed, in its patent owner response, Club Car carefully notes that the ’053 Application’s manned operating mode is “not relied upon by Petitioner.” PO Resp. 28. Because Petitioner’s assertion in its reply of the ’053 Application’s manned operating mode constitutes new argument outside the scope of a proper reply, we decline to consider it.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 7,480,569 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,480,569 - Yamaha Golf Car Company v. Club Car, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 2, 2019 · IPR2017-02144 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision
The Board found claims 11 and 17–19 not shown unpatentable: claim 11 was entitled to priority over the ’918 Publication, and the obviousness challenge to claims 17–19 was unsupported.
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“slows the speed of the golf car until it returns to the course—“[Y]our cart has been slowed down because you are outside the boundaries of the course. Your car will continue to slow down until you return to the course.” Ex. 1004, 30 (emphases added) (also showing that “Reduce Maximum Speed” may be adjusted to a select speed as similarly set forth in Figure 3 of the ’569 patent). The ’894 Provisional specifies that the Curtis 1510 controller includes a configuration setting for “REVERSE SPEED,” and we find persuasive Mr. Andrews’ testimony that this control setting is separate from the maximum forward speed settings, “M1 MAX SPEED,” “M2 MAX SPEED,” “M3 MAX SPEED,” and “M4 (HIGH) MAX SPEED.” Ex. 1004, 12; Ex. 2009 ¶ 58 (“‘REVERSE SPEED’ is a separate configuration setting that the controller can configure based on GPS location.”). We find that these disclosures in the ’894 Provisional—slowing or stopping the car until it reverses course and separate configurable settings for reverse speed in the motor controller—establish affirmative support for a configuration as claimed where the car’s forward movement is disabled, but the car may still move in a reverse direction, as required by claim 11. Because the maximum forward speed can be set to zero to stop the vehicle from further movement towards the restricted area, but setting the maximum speed to zero leaves the separate “REVERSE SPEED” configuration setting in the motor controller unchanged, Patent Owner has shown how the vehicle is capable of operation only in a reverse direction. See Ex. 1004, 10, 12, 16, 30. From a functional capability, there is simply no difference between the descriptions found in the ’894 Provisional and the claimed limitations. See Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 49–60. Thus, Patent Owner has met its burden of showing adequate written description support for claim 11 in the earlier ’894 Provisional. Accordingly, the ’918 Publication does not qualify as prior art against claim 11. Based on the final trial record before us, Petitioner does not present sufficient arguments and credible evidence to support a finding that claim 11 is anticipated by the ’918 Publication.” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedReference not prior artDecided for patent owner
“slows the speed of the golf car until it returns to the course—“[Y]our cart has been slowed down because you are outside the boundaries of the course. Your car will continue to slow down until you return to the course.” Ex. 1004, 30 (emphases added) (also showing that “Reduce Maximum Speed” may be adjusted to a select speed as similarly set forth in Figure 3 of the ’569 patent). The ’894 Provisional specifies that the Curtis 1510 controller includes a configuration setting for “REVERSE SPEED,” and we find persuasive Mr. Andrews’ testimony that this control setting is separate from the maximum forward speed settings, “M1 MAX SPEED,” “M2 MAX SPEED,” “M3 MAX SPEED,” and “M4 (HIGH) MAX SPEED.” Ex. 1004, 12; Ex. 2009 ¶ 58 (“‘REVERSE SPEED’ is a separate configuration setting that the controller can configure based on GPS location.”). We find that these disclosures in the ’894 Provisional—slowing or stopping the car until it reverses course and separate configurable settings for reverse speed in the motor controller—establish affirmative support for a configuration as claimed where the car’s forward movement is disabled, but the car may still move in a reverse direction, as required by claim 11. Because the maximum forward speed can be set to zero to stop the vehicle from further movement towards the restricted area, but setting the maximum speed to zero leaves the separate “REVERSE SPEED” configuration setting in the motor controller unchanged, Patent Owner has shown how the vehicle is capable of operation only in a reverse direction. See Ex. 1004, 10, 12, 16, 30. From a functional capability, there is simply no difference between the descriptions found in the ’894 Provisional and the claimed limitations. See Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 49–60. Thus, Patent Owner has met its burden of showing adequate written description support for claim 11 in the earlier ’894 Provisional. Accordingly, the ’918 Publication does not qualify as prior art against claim 11. Based on the final trial record before us, Petitioner does not present sufficient arguments and credible evidence to support a finding that claim 11 is anticipated by the ’918 Publication.” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“slows the speed of the golf car until it returns to the course—“[Y]our cart has been slowed down because you are outside the boundaries of the course. Your car will continue to slow down until you return to the course.” Ex. 1004, 30 (emphases added) (also showing that “Reduce Maximum Speed” may be adjusted to a select speed as similarly set forth in Figure 3 of the ’569 patent). The ’894 Provisional specifies that the Curtis 1510 controller includes a configuration setting for “REVERSE SPEED,” and we find persuasive Mr. Andrews’ testimony that this control setting is separate from the maximum forward speed settings, “M1 MAX SPEED,” “M2 MAX SPEED,” “M3 MAX SPEED,” and “M4 (HIGH) MAX SPEED.” Ex. 1004, 12; Ex. 2009 ¶ 58 (“‘REVERSE SPEED’ is a separate configuration setting that the controller can configure based on GPS location.”). We find that these disclosures in the ’894 Provisional—slowing or stopping the car until it reverses course and separate configurable settings for reverse speed in the motor controller—establish affirmative support for a configuration as claimed where the car’s forward movement is disabled, but the car may still move in a reverse direction, as required by claim 11. Because the maximum forward speed can be set to zero to stop the vehicle from further movement towards the restricted area, but setting the maximum speed to zero leaves the separate “REVERSE SPEED” configuration setting in the motor controller unchanged, Patent Owner has shown how the vehicle is capable of operation only in a reverse direction. See Ex. 1004, 10, 12, 16, 30. From a functional capability, there is simply no difference between the descriptions found in the ’894 Provisional and the claimed limitations. See Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 49–60. Thus, Patent Owner has met its burden of showing adequate written description support for claim 11 in the earlier ’894 Provisional. Accordingly, the ’918 Publication does not qualify as prior art against claim 11. Based on the final trial record before us, Petitioner does not present sufficient arguments and credible evidence to support a finding that claim 11 is anticipated by the ’918 Publication.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“sufficiently how the ’918 Publication’s disclosure of a “signal . . . of the violation” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 68) also teaches or suggests the additional claim requirements of “the driver interface unit . . . operable to communicate an alarm to the base station of a controller limiting the performance of a driver command” as required by claim 17. Petitioner recognizes the distinction by arguing “that the system could also provide a message to the course personnel . . . of any remedial corrective measures taken in response.” Pet. 25 (emphasis added). Based on the evidence cited, the ’918 Publication does not provide any such notification. Petitioner cannot suggest that a reference could have a feature that it does not have without some rational basis as to why such a feature would have been suggested by the reference. Mr. Breen’s explanation mirrors Petitioner’s contention (Ex. 1001 ¶ 277) and likewise states “that the system could also provide a message to the course personnel” (emphasis added) but no further explanation is provided as to how this unsupported conclusion was reached. Petitioner has also failed to lay the necessary foundation to establish that “common sense” could fill the gap for the missing limitation, or provide a basis for modifying the ’918 Publication to teach the claim 17 limitation. We recognize that in certain instances “common sense” can be used to supply the missing claim limitation, but only if the art is “unusually simple and the [patented] technology particularly straightforward.” Arendi Sarl v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In this proceeding, we have no testimony or evidence to establish either condition is met. Neither Petitioner nor Mr. Breen explain adequately why the limitations of claim 17” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 7,480,569 not shown unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,480,569 - Cook Group Incorporated / Cook Medical LLC v. Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 28, 2018 · IPR2017-00435 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6–18, and 20 were not shown unpatentable over Malecki; the contingent motion to amend was denied as moot.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“construction more persuasive because it is grounded in, and most consistent with, the specification of the ’731 patent. Contrastingly, Petitioner does not offer a specific interpretation of “inner walls” and its arguments are generally based on extrinsic evidence, including claim charts from the related district court litigation (Pet. 15), arguments from related proceedings (Pet. Reply 3), and the prior art reference (Malecki) relied on to challenge the claims (id. at 3–4). Petitioner criticizes the Patent Owner’s position but provides no express interpretation of “inner walls of the first and second clip arms;” instead, Petitioner argues why Patent Owner’s proposed construction is wrong. Pet. Reply 4–5. Dr. Nicosia does not expressly define or otherwise persuasively explain the definition of “inner walls” in his declarations either. See generally Exs. 1037, 1095, and 1109.” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the time of the filing of the application that became the ’731 patent would have possessed the knowledge and skill of an engineer or similar professional 5 The parties have not introduced evidence of secondary considerations in this proceeding. with at least an undergraduate degree in engineering, or a physician having experience with designing medical devices. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1037 ¶ 11). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal, and we adopt it based on the final record before us. It is also consistent with the level of skill evidenced by the references.” slip op. at 15
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Based on the final trial record, including our interpretation of “inner walls of the first and second clip arms” to mean “the exterior surfaces of the first and second clip arms that are inward-facing relative to the longitudinal axis of the clip,” Petitioner has not persuasively established that Malecki Embodiment #1 discloses this limitation. We find persuasive the testimony of Dr. Vaitekunas, that “[t]he jaws of Malecki Embodiment #1 have four walls,” and a person of ordinary skill in the art “would understand Figure 28A to illustrate links 404, 406 connecting to the side walls of jaws 308C, 310C on the side or lateral wall opposite (or underneath) the one shown in Figure 28A.” Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 66, 68. We agree with Dr. Vaitekunas that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider side or lateral walls as “inner walls” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of that term. Thus, the portion of the jaw identified by Petitioner as shaded in green (Pet. 26) is a portion of the side/lateral wall, not an inward-facing wall. See Ex. 2010 ¶ 68. Petitioner has also not persuasively established that linkages 404, 406 contact any outside portion of the inner wall. As noted by Patent Owner above, Petitioner’s expert admits that Malecki does not disclose links 404, 406 contacting the radially inward-facing walls. See Ex. 2012 at 274:12–23. We also do not find persuasive Petitioner’s pin engagement theory. First, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Nicosia persuasively establish that a slot and pin channel (Pet. 15) is used in Malecki Embodiment #1. See Ex. 1095 ¶ 27. As pointed out by Dr. Vaitekunas, Petitioner’s theory that an engagement between a pin and a pin hole satisfies the “engaging the inner walls of the first and second clip arms” limitation is based on structure that is simply not disclosed in Malecki. Ex. 2010 ¶ 69. Further, we agree with Dr. Vaitekunas that “[e]ven if contact does occur between a pin and a pinhole, the contact occurs in the pin hole, not the exterior surface of a radially inward-facing wall.” Id.” slip op. at 25
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Based on the final trial record, including our interpretation of “inner walls of the first and second clip arms” to mean “the exterior surfaces of the first and second clip arms that are inward-facing relative to the longitudinal axis of the clip,” Petitioner has not persuasively established that Malecki Embodiment #1 discloses this limitation. We find persuasive the testimony of Dr. Vaitekunas, that “[t]he jaws of Malecki Embodiment #1 have four walls,” and a person of ordinary skill in the art “would understand Figure 28A to illustrate links 404, 406 connecting to the side walls of jaws 308C, 310C on the side or lateral wall opposite (or underneath) the one shown in Figure 28A.” Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 66, 68. We agree with Dr. Vaitekunas that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider side or lateral walls as “inner walls” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of that term. Thus, the portion of the jaw identified by Petitioner as shaded in green (Pet. 26) is a portion of the side/lateral wall, not an inward-facing wall. See Ex. 2010 ¶ 68. Petitioner has also not persuasively established that linkages 404, 406 contact any outside portion of the inner wall. As noted by Patent Owner above, Petitioner’s expert admits that Malecki does not disclose links 404, 406 contacting the radially inward-facing walls. See Ex. 2012 at 274:12–23. We also do not find persuasive Petitioner’s pin engagement theory. First, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Nicosia persuasively establish that a slot and pin channel (Pet. 15) is used in Malecki Embodiment #1. See Ex. 1095 ¶ 27. As pointed out by Dr. Vaitekunas, Petitioner’s theory that an engagement between a pin and a pin hole satisfies the “engaging the inner walls of the first and second clip arms” limitation is based on structure that is simply not disclosed in Malecki. Ex. 2010 ¶ 69. Further, we agree with Dr. Vaitekunas that “[e]ven if contact does occur between a pin and a pinhole, the contact occurs in the pin hole, not the exterior surface of a radially inward-facing wall.” Id. Finally, Petitioner seems to recognize that a modification would be” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 9,271,731 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,271,731 - Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. v. Smith International, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 2, 2018 · IPR2016-01452 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 22, 27, 46–52, 54, and 55 were not shown unpatentable over Myers, Myers and Bostock, or Anderson because the references did not disclose the claimed fluid-flow limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“to determine whether it further supports the contention that Myers discloses the “flowing a fluid” step. Mr. Shale’s declaration discusses the operation of Myers in a manner that is virtually identical in substance to the content of the Petition. Compare Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 49–53, with Pet. 21–24. Mr. Shale does not address directly the “flowing a fluid” step or otherwise explain how Myers discloses “flowing a fluid though an axial flowbore extending through the downhole tool.”7 Accordingly, we find Mr. Shale’s declaration fails to provide persuasive support for Petitioner’s contention that Myers discloses “flowing a fluid though an axial flowbore extending through the downhole tool while preventing the fluid from communicating with a different flowpath of the downhole tool,” as required by claim 22, beyond what Myers, itself, discloses.” slip op. at 17
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Ex. 1021, 75:25 – 76:7. Mr. Underwood’s testimony does not support Petitioner’s contention that Myers discloses the “flowing a fluid” step. Mr. Underwood was asked whether there is “a fluid flowing within the Myers tool,” not whether Myers discloses “flowing a fluid though an axial flowbore extending through the downhole tool,” as required by claim 22. Id. Moreover, Mr. Underwood testified that “fluid doesn’t flow through the tool,” but rather just flows “into the tool.” Id. (emphases added)” slip op. at 20
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“claims 22, 27, 46, 47, 50–52, 54, and 55 of the ’099 patent. Inst. Dec. 22; see also Pet. 21–29. Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires “the presence in a single prior art disclosure of all elements of a claimed invention arranged as in the claim.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Specifically, “[f]or a claim to be anticipated, each claim element must be disclosed, either expressly or inherently, in a single prior art reference, and the claimed arrangement or combination of those elements must also be disclosed, either expressly or inherently, in that same prior art reference.” Id. at 1332–33. Inherent disclosure is established where the reference “must necessarily include the unstated limitation.” Id. (emphasis omitted); see Cont’l Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (holding that inherency can be established by extrinsic evidence that “make[s] clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill”).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“C. ASSERTED OBVIOUSNESS OVER MYERS AND BOSTOCK Petitioner contends claim 22, and claims 48 and 49, which depend from claim 22, would have been obvious over Myers and Bostock. Pet. 29– 32. With regard to the “flowing a fluid” step of claim 22, Petitioner relies only on the contentions it set forth under its anticipation analysis with respect to claim 22. Pet. 31. Because Petitioner does not rely on Bostock to teach the recited “flowing a fluid” step, does not argue the step would have been obvious over the combination, and, for the reasons provided above, has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Myers discloses the step, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 22, 48, and 49 would have been obvious over Myers and Bostock.” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 7,314,099 not shown unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,314,099 - Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. v. Smith International, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 1, 2018 · IPR2016-01440 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4–20, and 28–42 were not shown unpatentable because Myers did not establish axial translation, and Myers with Bostock did not cure that deficiency.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“radially” in the Petition. In its Reply, Petitioner equates “radially” to “outwardly” and “axially” to “downwardly.” Pet. Reply 7. Patent Owner contends that “axially and radially” would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art “to refer to movement relative the body and oriented relative to the axis of the body.” PO Resp. 19 (citing Ex. 2018 ¶ 82). In particular, Patent Owner contends that “axial” refers to “movement along or parallel to the axis of the body, and that “radial” refers to “the direction perpendicular to the axis of the body.” PO Resp. 20. Patent Owner contends its interpretation is consistent with the Specification of the ’099 patent and is supported by both its expert, Mr. Underwood, and Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Shale. Id. at 18–21 (citations omitted). For example, Mr. Shale testified that “‘[r]adially’ basically means left to right within the tubular body,” and “‘axially’ means up and down within the tubular body.” Ex. 2021, 189:5–7. Patent Owner further notes that Figures 4, 5, 11, and 12 of the ’099 patent illustrate arms 520 moving axially and radially relative to body 510. PO Resp. 20. In its Reply, Petitioner argues that “[c]ontrary to Patent Owner’s assertion, claim 1 of the ’099 [p]atent does not require that the body 10 be the frame of reference for the axial and radial movement.” Pet. Reply 13 n.3. Petitioner, however, cites no persuasive evidence to counter Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, Mr. Shale agreed that “radially” corresponds to “outward from the body,” and that “axially” corresponds to “up and down of the body.” Ex. 2021 190:4–19. Consistent with Mr. Shale’s testimony, Petitioner’s analysis purports to show that Myers discloses movement of moveable arms (slips 30) “both axially and radially relative to the body 10 [of Myers].” Pet. 19– 20. Petitioner is not alleging movement of the slips of Myers relative to a feature other than the body of Myers or in some other frame of reference. See Tr. 10:1–21. Thus, based on the evidence discussed above, we determine “translates axially and radially,” as recited in claim 1, means “moves parallel to and perpendicular to the body” and does not encompass movement consisting of only rotation about a pivot point. slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“The steps discussed above address how slips 30 of Myers are deployed, but do not explain expressly whether slips 30 move axially relative to body 10 during deployment. With regard to the slips, Myers further provides that: [Slips 30] are positively movable laterally relative to the expander upon relative longitudinal movement between the expander and slips by inclined spline connections between the slips and expander, provided by oppositely directed side tongues 32 on each slip sliding in companion grooves 33 in the expander on opposite sides of slots 34 in the expander in which the slips are disposed. The lower ends of the slips 30 are coupled for movement longitudinally with one another by being connected to a slip ring 35 having generally T-shaped slots 36 therein receiving companion T-shaped heads 37 on the lower portions of the slips. Thus, the slips 30 move longitudinally jointly with the slip ring 35, although they are still permitted to move radially or laterally inwardly and outwardly of the slip ring, upon relative longitudinal movement between the slips 30 and expander 26. Ex. 1004, 3:2–17. In this passage, the movement of the slips includes “longitudinal movement,” which we understand generally corresponds to a vertical direction, as opposed to lateral movement in a horizontal direction. However, the movement is described relative to expander 26, not relative to body 10. See Pet. 13 (using “lateral” consistent with the horizontal extent and “longitudinal” consistent with the vertical extent). Thus, this passage also does not explain expressly whether slips 30 move axially relative to the body during deployment.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“C. ASSERTED OBVIOUSNESS OVER MYERS AND BOSTOCK Petitioner contends claims 4, 33, and 34, each of which depends from claim 1, would have been obvious over Myers and Bostock. Pet. 24–26. According to Petitioner, “[e]ach of claims 4, 33, and 34 recites biasing either a sleeve or a movable arm to a collapsed position.” Id. at 24. Petitioner relies on Bostock as disclosing a spring for biasing. Id. As to the limitations of claim 1 from which claims 4, 33, and 34 depend, including the requirement of “one moveable arm translates axially and radially,” Petitioner relies only on the contentions it set forth under its anticipation analysis with respect to claim 1. Because Petitioner does not rely on Bostock to teach the recited feature “one moveable arm translates axially and radially,” does not argue the feature would have been obvious over the combination, and, for the reasons provided above, has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Myers teaches the feature, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 4, 33, and 34 of the ’099 patent would have been obvious over Myers and Bostock.” slip op. at 25
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Mr. Shale expresses the opinion that “slips 30 move both axially and radially relative to the body 10, along ‘generally T-shaped slots 36’ that are linear and angled relative to the axial direction,” we find that testimony to be conclusory and entitled to little weight, in part because this testimony does not account for the upward movement of setting sleeve 40. See Ex. 1010 ¶ 53 (quoting Ex. 1004, 3:11); see also In re Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). Accordingly, we find Mr. Shale’s declaration fails to provide persuasive support for Petitioner’s contention that Myers discloses “one moveable arm translates axially and radially,” as required by claim 1, beyond what Myers, itself, discloses. We find more persuasive Mr. Underwood’s testimony, on behalf of Patent Owner, that Myers fails to disclose axial movement of slips 30. Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 90–107. According to Mr. Underwood: slots [36 of Myers] are shown as angled relative to the slip ring 35. However, though the slips may move downward (axially) relative to the slip ring 35 as the slips move outward (radially), the slip ring 35 at the same time moves upward (axially) relative to the body. As such, the angle of the slots 36 within the slip ring 35 is not, itself, indicative of the overall movement of the slips. Id. ¶ 91. Mr. Underwood further reasons that “as the slip ring moves upwardly, the movement of the slips relative to the body in the axial direction is zero due to the slips sliding downward in the slots 36 relative to the slip ring 35 in equal proportion.” Id. ¶ 94. Mr. Underwood also” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 7,314,099 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,314,099
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.