• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Ouraring, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 25, 2025 · PGR2024-00030 · APJ Linda E Horner · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 17 and 18 are unpatentable under §112(d) for improper dependent form; claims 1–10 and 12–16 were not shown unpatentable on the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “We do not credit Dr. Anthony’s testimony, which is based on the arbitrary shading in Figure 7 (see Ex. 1002 ¶ 174), that Schröder teaches or suggests limitation 1[d] because it (1) is inconsistent with Petitioner’s reasoning for limitation 1[c], and (2) it is based on an admitted misreading of the embodiment of Schröder’s Figure 5 (see Ex. 1002 ¶ 175). As to the first item, Dr. Anthony states that “a POSITA would have been motivated to place a battery in a part of the cavity that is far from a PCB holding other electrical components because that configuration allows for better thermal management.” Ex. 1002, para. 175. The problem with this statement is that Petitioner relies on Schröder’s teaching that inlay 12, i.e., the alleged PCB, could include “other electrical components,” such as a battery to support its position that Schröder suggests placing a battery between the ring halves. See, e.g., Pet. Reply 2 (pointing to Dr. Mercier’s depo testimony that inlay 12 with “other components” is inserted between ring halves); id. at 3 (relying on Schröder’s teaching about placing components in depressions on inlay 12). So, Petitioner earlier asserts for the battery limitation 1[c] that Schröder teaches or suggests putting a battery on inlay 12 inside the ring halves, but then for limitation 1[d], Dr. Anthony testifies that a POSITA would place the battery “far” away from the inlay 12 (i.e., the alleged PCB). These positions are inconsistent.” slip op. at 25

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “at least a four-year degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, optical engineering, or related field of study, or equivalent experience, and at least two years’ experience in academia or industry studying or developing physiological monitoring devices such as non-invasive biosensors. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 18–22). Petitioner also contends that a person of ordinary skill would have been “familiar with, for example, sensor system design and signal processing” and that “[a] higher level of education or skill might make up for less experience, and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Resp. 26. We adopt this uncontested definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. This definition is supported by the record and consistent with the disclosure in the ’178 patent and the references cited in the Petition.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Patent Owner indicates that in the related ITC proceeding involving the ’178 patent, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) adopted three constructions agreed-upon by the parties in that proceeding8 and also construed two disputed terms.9 Resp. 26–27 (citing Ex. 2016, 5, 6, 14). Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner, however, that no terms need to be construed to decide the issues raised in the Petition. Id. at 27. We reviewed the constructions adopted by the ITC. Ex. 2016, 5, 6, 14. 8 In the ITC proceeding, the ALJ adopted the parties’ agreed-upon constructions that: (1) the preamble of claim 1 [a finger-worn wearable ring device] is limiting; (2) [positioned/configured to fit] within a “cavity” is [positioned/configured to fit] within a “hollow space”; and (3) [the internal housing component] “coupled with” [the external housing component] is [the internal housing component] “connected with” [the external housing component]. Ex. 2016, 5. 9 In the ITC proceeding, the ALJ construed the claims such that: (1) the internal and external housing components of claims 1, 12, and 17 enclose space and do not necessarily exclude potting material; and (2) “circumferential,” as recited in claims 1, 17, and 18, does not require a closed shape. Ex. 2016, 14, 17. These constructions are not germane to the issues we need to decide to resolve this proceeding. Thus, we agree that no explicit claim construction is necessary for this decision. To the extent the parties’ arguments raise any implicit issues of claim construction, we address those issues within the context in which they are raised in our analysis below.” slip op. at 11

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

    “The record supports Patent Owner’s argument that Mestas’s batteries are much too large to fit within a ring form factor, and “Mestas’s batteries, layout, and other components . . . would have to be scaled down 5 to 10 times to be appropriately sized for a finger worn ring.” Resp. 64 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Dr. Anthony’s cross-examination testimony at Ex. 2021, 313:12). Moreover, we do not credit Dr. Anthony’s testimony that miniaturization of the battery would have been “trivial to implement.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 242. Dr. Anthony admitted on cross-examination that it would not have been within the level of skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art to design a smaller version of Mestas’s battery, and that such a person would need to procure a battery of the appropriate size and specifications for implementation in a finger-ring from a battery manufacturer. Ex. 2021, 315:9–318:9. Yet Dr. Anthony had not ascertained, for purposes of his testimony, whether there was a battery available in 2013 that was appropriate to fit within the inlay space of the modified version of Schröder’s finger-ring that he and Petitioner allege would have been obvious to one of skill in the art at that time. Id. at 321:5–10. Further, we credit Dr. Mercier’s testimony that Dr. Anthony’s testimony fails to consider the differences in power requirements between Mestas and Schröder or to account for the constraints of such a substantially smaller form factor in Schröder’s finger-ring as compared to Mestas’s wrist device. Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 159–160. Although large curved batteries suitable for use in a wrist band or other larger wearable device, such as shown in Mestas, were known at the time of the ’178 patent, we also have evidence that prior art “finger ring wearables up to the ’178 patent had used ‘coin’ type batteries.” Id. at 66 (citing Ex. 2018 ¶ 161). We credit Dr. Mercier’s testimony that a person having ordinary skill in the art would look to a coin type battery for the necessary power requirements of Schröder’s device. Ex. 2018 ¶ 161. Indeed, this testimony is consistent with the other art of record that consistently shows the use of flat batteries in finger-ring devices, often stacked above and protruding from the general ring shape of the device. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 (Niwa), Figs. 22, 28; Ex. 2025 (Asada ’701 patent), Fig. 4; Ex. 1035 (Rhee), Figs. 7-1, 8-1, 8-2; Ex. 1037 (Asada article), Fig. 9; Ex. 1034 (Asada ’199 patent), Fig. 2; Ex. 1028 (Kimura), Fig. 24; Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 61–70. In fact, Oura’s first-generation ring design, released in 2015, used a Superbowl ring-type design, with the battery and other components mounted on top of the ring. Ex. 2034; Ex. 2018 ¶ 71. Based on these findings, Petitioner has not met its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify Schröder’s finger-ring to place a curved battery between the internal and external housing components in light of the teachings in Mestas. Thus, Petitioner has not met its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that dependent claim 3 of the ’178 patent is unpatentable over Schröder and Mestas.” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 11,868,178 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,868,178
• Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. v. Columbia Insurance CompanySome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 15, 2023 · PGR2021-00109 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · PGR · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

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

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

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

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

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

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

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

  Patent outcomesUS 11,021,867 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 11,021,867
• Twitter, Inc. / Google LLC v. B.E. Technology, L.L.C.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 1, 2022 · IPR2021-00483 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 and 26–37 are unpatentable, principally under the Guyot-based grounds; claim 25 was not shown unpatentable under Guyot or Robinson.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for petitioner

    “review claims 1−37 of U.S. Patent No. 8,769,440 B2 (“the ’440 patent”) owned by B.E. Technology, L.L.C. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written Decision is entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 47.73. For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1−24 and 26−27of the ’440 patent are unpatentable. And Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 25 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related subject, and two to three years of work experience in network-based technologies.” 482 Pet. 10 (citing Houh Decl. ¶¶ 57−61). Patent Owner “only disagrees with Petitioner’s and Dr. Houh’s assessment of the applicable level of skill in the art with respect to its failure to acknowledge that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a working knowledge of network-based targeted advertising.” PO Resp. 9. We agree with Petitioner’s proffered level or ordinary skill in the art and with Patent Owner’s clarification because the prior art of record is in the field of network-based targeted advertising, and knowledge of such a field would assist a person of ordinary skill in the art in appreciating the tools necessary to implement it. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (stating that the absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art with the caveat proposed by Patent Owner that the level of skill includes working knowledge of network-based targeted advertising.” slip op. at 33

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “identifier” and Subscriber Data was not presented in the Petition and to the extent it was vaguely alluded to, the extent of that combination was not explained. The claim requires determining the “unique identifier” associated with the computer, which Guyot may be able to perform with “unique proprietary identifier.” But the claim also requires that “the identifier”—not some other piece of information separate and distinct from that identifier— identify information sent from the computer to the one or more servers. The Petition, for the “determining a unique identifier” limitation (limitation 1.3), alludes to Guyot’s “unique proprietary identifier” identifying the computer, and without argument or explanation concludes that it is “used again by the system in selecting an appropriate advertisement to be displayed on the specific computer associated with the user of that computer, as described further in limitation [1.4].” Pet. 19. The supporting testimony from Dr. Houh is verbatim what is asserted in the Petition and offers no explanation for such a conclusion and no support in Guyot for those assertions. Accordingly, we give Dr. Houh’s testimony in this regard no weight. Reviewing the further explanations for “limitation [1.4],” Petitioner again presents the argument that Guyot’s “unique proprietary identifier” is assigned and thus identifies the computer itself. Id. at 21 (citing Ex. 1041, 3:20−21). But in discussing advertisement selection and the information on which that selection is based, Petitioner relies on the Subscriber Data and Subscriber Statistics without explaining how or why Guyot’s unique” slip op. at 48

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

    “presented by Petitioner concerning the terms “computer’ and “computer user.” Indeed, there is no dispute between the parties that the claim may encompass situations in which a single computer is operated by a single computer user, though the claim could also encompass multiple computers and multiple users. See Reply 1; Sur-reply 1; see also KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“This court has repeatedly emphasized that an indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase ‘comprising.’”). Accordingly, because the parties’ disputes center around other claim terms, we are not persuaded that the scope of “computer” and “computer user” needs further clarification.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 8,769,440 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,769,440
• Nested Bean, Inc. v. Big Beings USA Pty Ltd And LB Online & Export Pty Ltd D/B/A Love To Dream Online And ExportsSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 24, 2022 · IPR2020-01234 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2–16 are unpatentable; claims 1, 17, and 18 were not shown unpatentable, principally because the cited combinations did not establish claim 1’s arm-retention limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner

    “Generally, a preamble is not limiting.” Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 802 F.3d 1283, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Whether a preamble is limiting is “determined on the facts of each case in light of the overall form of the claim, and the invention as described in the specification and illuminated in the prosecution history.” Applied Materials, Inc. v. Advanced Semiconductor Materials Am., Inc., 98 F.3d 1563, 1572–73 (Fed. Cir. 1996). A preamble limits the claimed invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality” to the claim. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999). A preamble is not limiting, for example, if the patentee “defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention.” Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002). And, a preamble is generally not limiting unless there is “clear reliance on the preamble during prosecution to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.” Id. A preamble can be limiting if it recites “additional structure or steps underscored as important by the specification,” is “essential to understand limitations or terms in the claim body,” or provides necessary structure absent from the claim body. Id. at 808–09. We agree with Petitioner that the preamble is not a limitation. The term “swaddling suit” is merely a descriptive name for the apparatus that is covered by the claims. IMS Tech, Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (Terms in the preamble are not limiting if they “merely give[] a descriptive name to the set of limitations in the body of the claim that completely set forth the invention.”). It is well-established that “[a]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir 1990). For example, in Cochlear Bone Anchored Solutions AB v. Oticon Med. AB, the Federal Circuit held that a statement of intended purpose in the preamble—“for rehabilitation of unilateral hearing loss”—was not limiting, because the claimed apparatus was fully structurally claimed in the body of the claim, and its structure would allow it to function identically whether or not used for its stated intended purpose. See 958 F.3d 1348, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2020). We find that this is the case here. The bodies of claims 1 and 2 recite structurally complete inventions, which would function identically whether or not they are used for its stated intended purpose. Indeed, if the term “swaddling suit” were replaced by the word “garment,” it would not change the nature of the claim. This interpretation is consistent with the Specification that The invention has been developed primarily for use as a means for swaddling infants for safe sleeping. However, it will be appreciated that the invention is not restricted to this particular use. Ex. 1001, 1:7–10; see also id. at 11:6–11 (the alleged invention “is not restricted to these particular fields of use and it is not limited to particular embodiments or applications described herein”). slip op. at 11

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

    “meaning. But we further agree with Patent Owner that the plain and ordinary meaning for that term is simply “to hold or to keep.” See Ex. 2022. Petitioner’s argument that the Specification uses “retain” to mean that the wing portions are closed, as opposed to having open ends like sleeves reads retain out of context. The portion of the Specification identified by Petitioner states The ends of the wing portions 140 may be open, allowing the hands to extend through the opening end as shown in FIG. 5E. Alternatively, the ends of the wing portions 140 may be closed so that the hands are retained within the wing portions 140 as shown in FIGs. 5C and D. Ex. 1001, 10:3–7 (emphasis added). We do not read this passage as creating a special meaning for “retained,” as Petitioner suggests. Reply 7–8. Petitioner focuses on the portion of this statement that “the ends of the wing portions . . . may be closed so that the hands are retained. . .” to argue that the Specification uses the term “retained” to mean “closed.” However, this argument ignores the end of the sentence that “the ends of the wing portions . . . may be closed so that the hands are retained within the wing portions.” When considered in its full context, we agree with Patent Owner that this passage is consistent with Patent Owner’s construction. See Sur-Reply 11. Indeed, the passage simply uses “retained” in its ordinary sense—i.e., “the ends of the wing portions 140 are closed so that the hands are [held or kept] within the wing portions.” Accordingly, we determine that “retain” has its plain and ordinary meaning, i.e., “to hold or retain.”” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill would have had either formal or informal training in fashion or clothing design with at least 1 year of experience. A person of ordinary skill in the art would likely have had experience designing, producing, or working with clothing for infants, either in a formal or informal setting, including as a new parent or expected parent. Pet. 22–23. Patent Owner does not dispute this definition of a person of ordinary skill. See generally PO Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill as it appears to be consistent with the level of skill reflected by the specification and in the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art). E. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART” slip op. at 18

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

    “limitations of claims 1 and 2, including: (a) “a swaddling suit,” (of limitations [1P] and [2P] above), (b) “wing portions extending laterally from a bodice portion” (limitations [1E] and [2E] above), (c) “wing portions” that have “a wing tip at an uppermost portion of each of the wing portions that is positioned above a level of the neck hole of said suit” (limitations [1F] and [2F]), and (d) “wing portions” that “retain an infant’s arm and hand in a hand-raised and elbow-bent position” (limitation [1G]) and “wing portions” that “retain an infant’s arm” (limitation [2G]). PO Resp. 14–29. On the full record and as we explain in detail below, we agree with Patent Owner that Parks fails to disclose “wing portions” that “retain an infant’s arm and hand in a hand-raised and elbow-bent position” (limitation [1G]). iii. Undisputed Limitations With respect to the undisputed limitations, we have reviewed the record and determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Parks discloses limitations [1A]–[1D], [1H], [2A]–[2D], and [2H]. We consider the arguments regarding the disputed limitations below.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 9,179,711 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,179,711
• Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 12, 2021 · IPR2019-01195 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Patent outcomesUS 8,081,026 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,081,026
• 3shape A/S / 3shape Inc. v. Align Technology, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 16, 2020 · IPR2019-00152 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 15 and 20 are unpatentable as anticipated by Picard; claims 1–14 and 16–19 were not shown unpatentable on the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In view of our analysis below, we need not construe expressly any claim language to resolve the parties’ patentability dispute. The Petition’s first challenge asserts obviousness of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, and 14 over Picard and Ishihara. Pet. 18–39. As explained in greater detail below in Section III.B.3, this challenge rests on a contention that it would have been obvious to modify Picard to use telecentric optics like those taught in Ishihara. Id. at 32–38. With respect to the challenge of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, and 14 over Picard and Ishihara, the Petition does not explain any theory of unpatentability that does not rely on the assertion that it would have been obvious to modify Picard with telecentric optics based on Ishihara. Id. at 18–39. Thus, the merits of this challenge inextricably depend on whether Petitioner has demonstrated adequately that it would have been obvious to modify Picard with telecentic optics based on Ishihara. For the reasons explained below in Section III.B.3, Petitioner has not done so. Therefore, Petitioner’s challenge of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, and 14 over Picard and Ishihara fails for reasons unrelated to claim construction.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We agree that the law does not require Petitioner to show a person of ordinary skill in the art would have viewed the proposed modification as the most preferred or desirable approach. The law does, however, require Petitioner to show not only that a person of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the references in the proposed manner, but that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the references’ teachings in the proposed manner. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis added) (citation omitted) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention”). Here, Petitioner does not do so.” slip op. at 25

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

    “Thus, Picard expressly discloses that the embodiment discussed in connection with Figure 8 includes the components and features shown and discussed in connection with Figure 3, plus all of the components and features shown and discussed in connection with Figure 8. Accordingly, the Petition cites to Picard’s discussions of Figures 3 as providing details regarding certain components and features that Picard discloses are also included in the embodiment of Figure 8. Pet. 20–23, 26–30, 39–41. In view of Picard’s express teaching to combine the features of Figures 3 and 8 and explanation of how they should be combined (Ex. 1003, 24:9–17) and Petitioner’s reliance on these same features to show anticipation (Pet. 20–23, 26–30, 39–41), we find no merit in Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner does not identify any motivation to combine Picard’s discussions of Figures 3 and 8.11 See Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] reference need not always include an express discussion of the actual combination to anticipate. . . . Instead, a reference may still anticipate if that reference teaches that the disclosed components or functionalities may be combined and one of skill in the art would be able to implement the combination.”) (citing Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F. 3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). In sum, Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that Picard anticipates claims 15 and 20.” slip op. at 32

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “have foreseen Patent Owner’s argument does not justify its insufficient explanation and lack of evidence in the Petition. As Patent Owner argues, its ITC brief, filed approximately a month before the Petition was filed, provided effective notice of Patent Owner’s position that there would have been issues using Gmitro’s fiber-optic bundle to carry the plurality of light beams used in Tiziani. Id. Moreover, even without such express notice, Petitioner should have recognized the requirement that its Petition must “identif[y], in writing and with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). The Petition was also required to include “[a] full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing laws, rules, and precedent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2). The Petition fails to meet these requirements with respect to its assertion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Gmitro’s fiber-optic bundle with Tiziani’s confocal imaging system and microlens array. It is “improper for a reply to present new evidence (including new expert testimony) that could have been presented in a prior filing.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019), 74– 75 (citing Genzyme Therapeutic Prods. Ltd. v. Biomarin Pharm. Inc., 825 F.3d 1360, 1365–69 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Petitioner does not provide any persuasive reason that the evidence it presented with its Reply to bolster its assertion of a reasonable expectation of success could not have been provided with the Petition. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner exceeded the proper scope of a reply with its newly presented arguments on pages 24– 27 of the Reply and with the its new citations of portions of the ’901 Patent (Ex. 1001, 5:46–48, 5:52–58, 6:2–6, 7:62–8:13, Fig. 1A), Picard (Ex. 1003, 25–26), Gmitro’s title (Ex. 1005, title), Dr. Sergienko’s new testimony (Ex. 1037 ¶¶ 23–28), and Exhibits 1038 and 1039. For all of the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not carried its burden of showing that claims 1, 2, 7–9, 14, 15, and 20 would have been obvious over Tiziani, Gmitro, and Ishihara.” slip op. at 47

  Patent outcomesUS 9,615,901 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,615,901
• Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 6, 2020 · IPR2018-01033 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

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

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

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

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

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

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

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

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

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

  Patent outcomesUS 8,449,017 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,449,017
• Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 31, 2018 · IPR2017-01281 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 5, 6, 8–12, 14, 16, and 17 are unpatentable: claim 5 is anticipated by Dlugos; the remaining claims are obvious over the specified combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenMixed

    “evidence discussed in the Petition, including the declaration of Mr. Trotta. For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 5 is anticipated by Dlugos and would have been obvious over Dlugos and Eskaros; that claim 8 would have been obvious over Dlugos, Eskaros, and Hijlkema; that claims 6, 14, and 16 would have been obvious over Dlugos, Eskaros, and Forman; that claims 9, 10, and 12 would have been obvious over Dlugos, Eskaros, and Traxler; that claim 11 would have been obvious over Dlugos, Eskaros, Traxler, and Forman; and that claim 17 would have been obvious over Dlugos, Eskaros, Forman, and Becker.” slip op. at 24

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “shown that Dlugos necessarily teaches first and second cone regions of the balloon having at least one fold in the fully inflated state. Moreover, we find Mr. Trotta’s testimony in support of Petitioner’s contention insufficient. According to Mr. Trotta: When folds are welded down, as shown in the figure 3, it would necessarily result in folds remaining in the transition/cone regions of the balloon when the balloon is inflated, and even when fully inflated to the specifications on the label. Because the folds are captured within the welded region, even when the balloon is fully inflated, the pressure will distribute such that there is more pressure in the working region and less pressure at the transition regions. Thus, there is insufficient pressure in the transition cone regions for the folds to be completely removed. Ex. 1005 ¶ 119. Mr. Trotta cites no support for his opinions and offers no plausible explanation for why “pressure will distribute such that there is more pressure in the working region and less pressure at the transition regions,” rather than equal pressure throughout the interior space of a balloon. Nor are we persuaded that statements by the Examiner during prosecution identified by Petitioner, which Patent Owner contends were later abandoned by the Examiner, are sufficient to establish the inherency of the claimed feature. See Pet. 39–40; Prelim. Resp. 14–15. Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Dlugos teaches “first and second cone regions of the balloon having at least one fold in the fully inflated state” because Petitioner has not shown that Dlugos necessarily teaches any cone region having at least one fold in the fully inflated state, much less both a first and a second cone region, in the absence of a persuasive showing that Dlugos teaches welding both ends of the balloon to the shaft.” slip op. at 40

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “of the claimed invention would have had either of the following qualifications: (1) “an undergraduate degree in mechanical manufacturing or material science engineering, as well as at least five years of experience in the industry working with catheters and balloons and the manufacturing of those devices; or without an undergraduate degree,” or (2) “ten years of working experience designing, manufacturing and/or overseeing the processes for designing and/or manufacturing the tools and/or the devices.” Pet. 14. Mr. Trotta supports Petitioner’s contention with regard to the level of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 1005 ¶ 57. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. 6 n.3. Based on the evidence provided, including the prior art of record, we agree with Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill and also find that the prior art of record further reflects the level of ordinary skill in the art. See also Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the prior art of record may reflect the level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 12

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

    “For the following reasons, we find insufficiently supported and unreasonably broad Petitioner’s contention that “fold” broadly includes all “lobes,” “wraps,” “wrappings,” and “protrusions,” even if those terms appear in some context in patent applications incorporated by reference to the ’767 patent. Petitioner neither identifies precisely where that context can be found in the record of this proceeding nor offers any explanation of that context to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the term, reasonably construed in light of the Specification of the ’767 patent, defines “fold” as including all “lobes,” “wraps,” “wrappings,” and “protrusions.” The mere incorporation by reference of other applications into the Specification of the ’767, absent further persuasive explanation, does not sufficiently support the proposition that the term “fold” broadly encompasses, for example, any “protrusion.” Moreover, Petitioner provides no explanation for why “examples of methods of balloon folding” that “reference” the terms “lobes,” “wraps,” “wrappings,” and “protrusions” demonstrate that the meaning of “fold” encompasses those terms. Finally, the ’767 patent expressly states that the term “fold”’ includes “pleats, wings, and any similar structure.” Ex. 1001, 3:62–63. Petitioner, however, makes no persuasive showing supported by more than conclusory assertions that all “lobes,” “wraps,” “wrappings,” and “protrusions” constitute “similar structure” to folds, pleats, or wings. Accordingly, we find the term “fold” in the ’767 patent encompasses “pleats, wings, and any similar structure.” Thus, “fold” also encompasses lobes, wraps, wrappings, or protrusions (or any other feature) only to the extent such feature constitutes “similar structure” to folds, pleats, or wings.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 7,828,767 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,828,767

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.