- Shure Incorporated v. Clearone, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 14, 2022 · PGR2020-00079 · APJ David C Mckone · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–24 were not shown unpatentable because the petitioner failed to prove the asserted §112 grounds and obviousness grounds by a preponderance of the evidence.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“As we stated in the Institution Decision (at 30), Petitioner’s proposal is reasonable in light of the descriptions in the ’653 patent and prior art, and is supported by expert testimony. We further find that Patent Owner’s proposed addition, that a skilled artisan would have had experience with digital signal processing, is consistent with the descriptions in the ’653 patent and prior art. Because the parties do not contend that their disagreement over “at least” has any bearing on this proceeding, we need not evaluate whether a skilled artisan might have had more than three years of work experience or whether that would lead to vagueness. Instead, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, with Patent Owner’s addition, and omit “at least”: A skilled artisan would have possessed: (i) a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, physics, or acoustical engineering that included coursework on the design of acoustic and/or antenna arrays, phased arrays, and/or beamforming; or (ii) three years of work experience in the field of directional microphone arrays; and the skilled artisan would have had experience with digital signal processing.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Patent Owner that the claim limitation at issue here specifies a single device that has multiple properties. Rather, claim 1 broadly recites “a ceiling tile combined with the beamforming microphone array.” We agree with Petitioner that the plain language of claim 1 does not require that the entire beamforming microphone array is physically integrated into a single ceiling tile, as combining a ceiling tile and a microphone array is broader than physically installing the microphone array in the ceiling tile. Nor can the language of claim 1 reasonably be read to exclude combining more than one ceiling tile with the microphone array. Where claim 1 assigns specific properties to a ceiling tile, it does so expressly, reciting “the ceiling tile being sized and shaped to be mountable in a drop ceiling in place of at least one of a plurality of ceiling tiles included in the drop ceiling.” Thus, the plain language of claim 1 requires at least one ceiling tile combined in some way with a beamforming microphone array, and each ceiling tile (if there is more than one) is a particular size and shape.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Second, Patent Owner argues that our construction “should reflect the fact the microphones of a [beamforming microphone array] are located in positions relative to each other, by design, to establish constructive interference in one or more preferred beam directions.” PO Resp. 18–19 (citing Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 31–37, 48). Petitioner responds that claim 1 recites “beamforming” broadly and that Patent Owner attempts to limit “beamforming” to one technique out of several, including techniques that determine time delay between microphones rather than knowing the distances between the microphones. Reply 3 (citing Ex. 1029 ¶¶ 11–21). The parties’ competing proposals here are directed to Petitioner’s allegations that CTG System and Levit render the challenged claims obvious. However, as explained below, Petitioner has not established whether CTG System performs beamforming under either proposed construction. Thus, we need not resolve the parties’ claim construction dispute. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017; Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803.” slip op. at 19
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteNot shown unpatentable
“Despite an obligation to identify in the Petition the evidence that supports its indefiniteness allegations,5 Petitioner largely failed to discuss the Specification. Pet. 30; see also Dec. 41 (“Despite enumerating five techniques that it contends exemplify ‘adaptive acoustic processing,’ Petitioner does little to address the description of those techniques in the Specification.”). In one passage cited by Petitioner, the Specification states that an “embodiment of Array 116 may include adaptive acoustic processing that automatically adjusts to the room configuration for the best possible audio pickup.” Ex. 1001, 6:13–16. Petitioner argues that this description “lacks any disclosure providing objective boundaries of the claim’s scope, either through definitions or working examples.” Pet. 30. Petitioner also acknowledges that the Specification “discusses acoustic echo cancellation (in general) as an additional feature from adaptive acoustic processing,” and admits that a skilled artisan “would have recognized that echo cancellation processing occurring automatically in response to a room configuration would be a meaning of adaptive acoustic processing.” Id. at 35 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:5–22). However, Petitioner does not discuss the rest of the Specification in the Petition. Petitioner should have addressed in the Petition the express descriptions of Dr. Vipperman’s enumerated examples of adaptive acoustic processing in the Specification in order to support its 5 Our rules require Petitioner to make its case in the Petition, including identifying “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed,” “the specific part of the claim that fails to comply with the statutory grounds raised and . . . how the identified subject matter fails to comply with the statute,” and “specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b). Indeed, “[t]he Board may exclude or give no weight to the evidence where a party has failed to state its relevance or to identify specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge.” Id. at § 42.204(b)(5). otherwise conclusory statement that “[n]one of these techniques are described in the specification,” Pet. 32. If it was Petitioner’s position that these express descriptions were nevertheless not examples of adaptive acoustic processing, Petitioner should have made those arguments in the Petition.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 10,728,653 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,728,653 - Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Transport Technologies, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 17, 2017 · IPR2016-01633 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 10 not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish the Draft Ontario Report was prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedReference not prior artNot shown unpatentable
“consider whether the document was distributed, displayed without indicia of confidentiality, able to be found, or available on request to persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter to which the document relates. See Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F. 3d 1331, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“To qualify as a printed publication, a reference ‘must have been sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art.’” quoting In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed.Cir.1989)). We consider the question of whether the Draft Ontario Report is a printed publication anew, based on the complete record, in light of the evidence and arguments adduced at trial.” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s Declarant, Mr. Andrews, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’101 patent “would have a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Electrical or Computer Engineering, or the equivalent,” as well as “two years of experience working with automated toll roads, intelligent transportation systems, RFID tracking systems, or a similar field of experience.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 47. Patent Owner does not offer any contrary explanation regarding who would qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’101 patent. See generally PO Resp. Based on our review of the ’101 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’101 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of Petitioner’s Declarant, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached
“E. Discretion Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) Patent Owner contends that we should have denied the Petition because Petitioner presented “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments” in this proceeding as in the earlier ’1077 IPR. PO Resp. 2 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)). Patent Owner further contends that we abused our discretion by instituting trial in the present proceeding because we did not “explain[] how the invalidity grounds presented in this proceeding are not ‘the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments,’” and as such, our decision was arbitrary and capricious, and violates Patent Owner’s due process rights. Id. at 13–15. Lastly, Patent Owner contends that the Petition is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Id. at 15. We decline to address these issues insofar as they are moot in light of our conclusion that the Draft Ontario Report is not demonstrated to qualify as prior art and our ultimate conclusion that the challenged claims are not shown to be unpatentable in view of challenges based on the Draft Ontario Report.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 6,980,101 not shown unpatentable§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,980,101 - Ericsson Inc. / Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Intellectual Ventures I LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 22, 2015 · IPR2014-00963 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–16 were not shown unpatentable because the ’480 patent did not disclose frequency hopping and the proposed obviousness combination lacked a reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“In the Decision to Institute, in light of an agreement between the parties, we preliminarily determined that “broadband transceiver,” recited in claim 1, means “a transceiver that covers a substantial portion of the bandwidth available to the wireless service provider who is operating the basestation,” with the clarification that such a transceiver does not include a set of single-frequency transceivers. Dec. 10. Neither party contests this construction. On the complete record, we maintain this construction. We further determined that no other claim term required express construction. Dec. 10. Neither party proposes a construction of any other term and we find it unnecessary to construe any other term to resolve the dispute between the parties.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“1. Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or the like, and at least three years of additional academic or industry experience. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 (Stark Decl.) ¶ 45). Dr. Wells “generally agree[s] with Dr. Stark in paragraph 45 of his declaration.” Ex. 2007 ¶ 20. We adopt the parties agreed statement of the level of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 21
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedMixed
“Dr. Stark’s testimony also is not supported by the description in the ’480 patent. In one example, Dr. Stark testifies that: For the case of the receiver side (dehopping) as shown is Fig. 3, the same logical channel would “hop” onto different RF channels each successive GSM TDMA frame. This would mean that for a particular TDMA frame, a given logical channel, e.g., channel 1 on slot 1, would be at a particular RF channel such as indicated by location “27” in the table in Fig. 3. But in the next TDMA frame, the same logical channel, would be placed onto a different RF channel, e.g., location “2” in the table in Fig. 3. By the controller supplying a new mapping signal (table) every TDMA frame, the samples from the correct RF channel for the associated logical channel could be placed onto the TDM bus for processing by the corresponding DSP 18. Ex. 1022 ¶ 17. This is inconsistent with the description in the ’480 patent. Locations “27” and “2” in DP RAM Enable 202 merely indicate whether data can be asserted into time slots 27 and 2. Ex. 1006, 9:46–10:3. Changing the mapping in DP RAM Enable 202 to enable slot “2” and disable slot “27,” without additional changes elsewhere in the system, would not result in different RF channels being switched to the same logical channel. In this example, and the others cited above, Dr. Stark repeatedly testifies that simply re-programming DP RAM Enable 202 will change the mapping of physical RF channels and logical channels. Nevertheless, as Patent Owner argues (PO Resp. 26–27), the ’480 patent does not support that testimony. Because Dr. Stark’s testimony is inconsistent with the description in the ’480 patent, we give his testimony little weight.5” slip op. at 28
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“(Ex. 1006, 5:4–17) describes a basestation’s exchange of RF signals with mobile subscriber terminals. Specifically, the passage is directed to the modulation of voice and data channels over RF carrier signals: “The RF carrier signals are modulated with voice and/or data (channel) signals which are to be coupled to the public switched telephone network (PSTN) by the basestation 10.” Ex. 1006, 5:6–9 (emphasis added). In that context, the ’480 patent explains that “[t]he particular modulation in use[] may be any one of a number of different wireless (air interface) standards such as the well known Advanced Mobile Phone Service (AMPS), time division multiple access (TDMA) such as IS-54B, code division multiple access (CDMA) such as IS-95, frequency hopping standards such as the European Groupe Speciale Mobile (GSM).” Id. at 5:9–17 (emphases added). We find that this passage states, at most, that the system described in the ’480 patent supports the modulation specified by the GSM standard. Petitioner admitted at the hearing that frequency hopping is not a modulation scheme and that GSM specifies the same modulation scheme whether or not frequency hopping is used. Tr. 62:17–63:23. The passage of column 5, lines 9–17, of the ’480 patent is consistent with the system of the ’480 patent being programmed to support the modulation scheme of GSM, without supporting the optional frequency hopping functionality. While GSM is referred to as a “frequency hopping standard[],” the frequency hopping functionality is inapposite to the modulation being discussed in the passage. Tr. 63:17–22 (“JUDGE McKONE: And you can use the same modulation regardless of whether you are using frequency hopping or not, is that right? MR. SPEARS: Exactly. Yeah, it’s the same slot. It’s the same framing. It’s the same TDMA frames. It is all the same.”). We find that the ’480 patent does not state, explicitly or implicitly, that the described system implements the optional frequency hopping functionality of GSM. We recognize that Dr. Stark testifies that “a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood that explicit reference to GSM to include reference to the constituent part of the GSM standard that specifies frequency hopping, i.e., GSM 05.02, and thus a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would understand that the ʼ480 Patent discloses this limitation as described below.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 90. Dr. Stark’s testimony, however, relies on his assumption that frequency hopping is a type of modulation. Id. As noted above, Petitioner has conceded that frequency hopping is not a type of modulation. Accordingly, we do not credit Dr. Stark’s testimony on this point. At the hearing, Petitioner argued that “there is no reason to say you are doing frequency hopping unless you are frequency hopping.” Tr. 63:22– 23. We are not persuaded. The ’480 patent does not state that its system is “doing frequency hopping.” Rather, it characterizes GSM as a “frequency hopping standard[].” While this characterization may be relevant to obviousness (discussed below), it is not a statement explicitly showing that the system of the ’480 patent implements frequency hopping.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 6,952,408 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,952,408 - Edmund Optics, Inc. v. Semrock, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 16, 2015 · IPR2014-00599 · APJ William A Capp · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 33–36, 39–41, 44, and 45 were not shown unpatentable: MacLeod did not enable claim 33 for anticipation, and Edmund did not establish obviousness over MacLeod.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“After considering claim 33 in view of the specification, as a whole, we are not persuaded that the intrinsic record requires a departure from the plain and ordinary meaning of “multi-layer, thin-film, laser-line filters.” The standard for finding claim scope disavowal is exacting. See GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. Agilight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014). It is not enough that the only embodiments, or all of the embodiments, contain a particular limitation. See Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Mere criticism of a particular embodiment encompassed in the plain meaning of a claim term is not sufficient to rise to the level of clear disavowal. See Epistar Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 566 F.3d 1321, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Furthermore, even where a particular structure makes it “particularly difficult” to obtain certain benefits of the claimed invention, this does not rise to the level of disavowal of the structure. See Spine Solutions, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., 620 F.3d 1305, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2010). It is the claims that define the metes and bounds of the patentee’s invention. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. Thus, the patentee is free to choose a broad term and expect to obtain the full scope of its plain and ordinary meaning unless the patentee explicitly redefines the term or disavows its full scope. See Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366. Each claim does not need to cover every feature disclosed in a specification. See Ventana Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biogenex Labs, Inc., 473 F.3d 1173, 1182 (Fed. Cir. 2006). When a claim addresses only some of the features disclosed in the specification, it is improper to limit the claim to other, unclaimed features.” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityNot reached
“The MacLeod Treatise is a non-patent, printed publication. Edmund relies on In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2012), for the proposition that a non-patent, printed publication is presumptively enabled for purposes of an anticipation analysis. Paper 69, 1. Semrock distinguishes Antor Media as being restricted to the context of patent prosecution. Paper 68, 3. The Court, in Antor Media, explained the underlying rationale for permitting a presumption of enablement during patent prosecution. [A]n examiner, who has no access to experts or laboratories, is not in a position to test each piece of prior art for enablement in citing it, and requiring him to do so would be onerous, if not impossible. An examiner, therefore, is not required to anticipate every possible response to a rejection, including showing that a cited reference is enabling. Consistent with the statutory frame-work and our precedent, we therefore hold that, during patent prosecution, an examiner is entitled to reject claims as anticipated by a prior art publication or patent without conducting an inquiry into whether or not that prior art reference is enabling. As long as an examiner makes a proper prima facie case of anticipation by giving adequate notice under § 132, the burden shifts to the applicant to submit rebuttal evidence of nonenablement. Antor Media, 689 F.3d at 1289. In the case of Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003), the Federal Circuit held that an accused infringer should be entitled to have a district court presume the enablement of unclaimed material in a prior art patent asserted against a patentee. Id. at 1355. In dicta, the Amgen Court stated that its reasoning “might” also apply to prior art printed publications. We note that by logical extension, our reasoning here might also apply to prior art printed publications as well, but as Sugimoto is a patent we need not and do not so decide today. See id. (emphasis added). Thus, the Amgen Court did not reach that issue in its decision. See id. District Courts are split on this issue. We note that at least one district court decision has held that a district court should presume that a prior art printed publication is enabled. See Robocast, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 39 F. Supp. 3d 552, 565 (D. Del. 2014). Other district courts maintain otherwise. See e.g., CA, Inc. v. Simple.com., Inc., 780 F. Supp. 2d 196, 250 (E.D.N.Y. 2009); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 2006 WL 1794768, *5 (D.N.J. June 26, 2006).” slip op. at 21
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“G. Ultimate Determination of Enablement A patent claim “cannot be anticipated by a prior art reference if the allegedly anticipatory [disclosure] cited as prior art [is] not enabled.” In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Although anticipation is a question of fact, whether a prior art reference is enabling is a question of law with underlying factual inquiries. Id. The standard for what constitutes proper enablement of a prior art reference for purposes of anticipation under section 102 differs from the enablement standard for a patent application under section 112. See Verizon Services Corp., v. Cox Fibernet Virginia, Inc., 602 F.3d 1325, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Anticipation does not require the actual creation or reduction to practice of the prior art subject matter; anticipation requires only an enabling disclosure. See Schering Corp., v. Geneva Pharma, Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2003); citing In re Donohue, 766 F.2d 531, 533 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Nevertheless, we determine that the MacLeod Treatise does not enable claim 33. Claim 33 is directed to optical performance parameters. There is no dispute that multi-layer, thin-film, laser-line filters comprised of alternating layers of ZnS and Cryolite were known in the prior art. Thus, Semrock distinguishes its invention over prior art soft-coated filters on the basis of optical performance, not on the basis of using the basic structure of alternating layers of refractive materials with Fabry-Perot cavities. Upon consideration of the various Wands factors, including the absence of any working examples that demonstrate that Edmund’s theoretical calculations are capable of realization, we conclude that Semrock has carried its burden of showing that the MacLeod Treatise does not enable claim 33.” slip op. at 32
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“By waiting and filing its expert declaration after Semrock filed its Patent Owner Response, Edmund effectively precluded Semrock from addressing Professor MacLeod’s Exhibit 1029 declaration in its Response. This also effectively precluded Semrock’s expert, Dr. Rancourt, from responding to Professor MacLeod’s belated testimony in his declaration that was filed in support of Semrock’s Response. We will not countenance such tactics. See Murphy v. Village of Hoffman Estates, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3320, at *5–6 (N.D. Ill. 1999) (“[I]t is established beyond peradventure that it is improper to sandbag one’s opponent by raising new matter in reply.”). A Reply that belatedly presents evidence will not be considered. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,767. Edmund’s original Petition asserted a ground of unpatentability over the ZnS/Cryolite of Figure 7.26 of the MacLeod Treatise. If Edmund wanted to present a ground of unpatentability over the ZnS/Cryolite embodiment of Figure 7.26 in combination with a tantala/silica embodiment, Edmund should have presented evidence as to how and why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the two embodiments to achieve the invention of claim 33 contemporaneous with the filing of its original Petition. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (requiring articulated reasoning with rationale underpinning as to how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined or modified the teachings of the prior art). Presenting such evidence and argument for the first time in a Reply is untimely.” slip op. at 43
Patent outcomesUS 7,119,960 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,119,960 - Edmund Optics, Inc. v. Semrock, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 9, 2015 · IPR2014-00583 · APJ William A Capp · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 1 was not shown unpatentable because Starke does not disclose the expected deposition time for an entire layer required by the Board’s construction.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“From this disclosure, we conclude that the ti referred to in line 10 of column 10 is the same ti referred to in connection with layers that are not optically monitored. If, as Edmund contends, ti represents an estimated remaining time until deposition is terminated and is calculated repeatedly and intermittently reset during deposition, the time represented by ti becomes a moving target and the time represented by 95% of ti becomes increasingly smaller until it approaches and becomes essentially equal to the “new deposition time” identified in line 11 as the time difference between a hypothetical continually recalculated ti and a “new deposition time” approaches zero. See Ex. 1001, 10:11. We think the better interpretation is that the ti identified in line 11 is a different and distinct time from the “new deposition duration” identified later in the same line of the specification. In other words, for optically monitored layers, ti is calculated one time at or before commencement of deposition of an optically monitored layer. Another time, represented by 95% of ti is then calculated one time such that it becomes a fixed moment in time for initiation of a calculation of a “new deposition duration.” Thus, based on our review of the specification, the term “expected deposition time ti” has the same meaning for layers that are optically monitored and layers that are not optically monitored. In view of the foregoing, we construe “expected deposition time ti of the layer” to mean a time based upon the designed (“theoretical”) thickness di and deposition rate ri where the designed thickness di represents the thickness of an entire layer, not a portion thereof. 2. “measuring during deposition for a period less than ti, a measured” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Edmund’s position on whether Starke calculates an “expected deposition time ti” is predicated on the Board adopting Edmund’s proposed claim construction. We do not adopt that construction. Starke’s system depends on taking optical monitoring transmission measurements after deposition has commenced. Edmund fails to identify any disclosure in Starke that a data processor calculates an expected deposition time ti based on the design thickness of an entire layer. Thus, Starke does not satisfy the limitation directed to calculating an “expected deposition time ti” as we have construed that limitation. “Anticipation requires the presence in a single prior art disclosure of all elements of a claimed invention arranged as in the claim.” Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Inasmuch as Starke fails to disclose all elements of claim 1, we find that Edmund has failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Starke anticipates claim 1.” slip op. at 16
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert discountedOther
“At the outset, we have considered the claim construction testimony of both Patent Owner’s Declarant, Dr. Rancourt, and Petitioner’s Declarant, Professor MacLeod. We note, however, that “conclusory, unsupported assertions by experts as to the definition of a claim term are not useful to a court.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318.2 In the instant case, the experts’ testimony does little more than repeat, without citation to additional evidence, the conclusory arguments of their respective counsel. Thus, we focus primarily on the intrinsic record to construe the term at issue. Id. (“extrinsic evidence in general is less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read claim terms”).” slip op. at 7
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“its own expert, Professor MacLeod, in a different, but related, inter partes review. Edmund argues that it is improper to take cross-examination testimony obtained in one case and then use it another case. Edmund also argues that the cross-examination exceeds the scope of direction examination. Paper 45. The testimony in question goes to an issue of claim construction. We have previously explained that our claim construction in this case is based primarily on the intrinsic record and that the parties’ proffered expert testimony is neither needed nor helpful in assisting our claim construction efforts.3 Nevertheless, we DENY Edmund’s motion to exclude Professor MacLeod’s Exhibit 2008 deposition testimony, but afford the testimony little weight.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 7,068,430 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipationcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,068,430
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.