- PTAB · Jan 31, 2023 · IPR2022-01191 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–7 under both asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of anticipation by Hafeman 670 and declining discretionary denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. Our binding guidance states that the Board “will not discretionarily deny institution of an IPR or PGR in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.” Memorandum, 7. Petitioner could not make such a stipulation in district court litigation to which it is not a party. Instead, LG, as the defendant in the LG Litigation and a real party in interest in this proceeding, made such a stipulation, and LG’s stipulation “mitigates concerns of potentially conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts between the district court and the PTAB.” Id. Indeed, in advocating for discretionary denial in view of the LG Litigation, Patent Owner argues that “for all intents and purposes, Google and Microsoft are ‘the same party’ as LG in the litigation.” Prelim. Resp. 22. Patent Owner, therefore, effectively treats Petitioner and LG as the same entity to argue for discretionary denial.” slip op. at 10
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“In light of the priority dispute with respect to the challenged claims, we determine that two petitions are justified. See Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide6 (Nov. 2019), 59 (“[T]he Board recognizes that there may be circumstances in which more than one petition 6 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated asserted a large number of claims in litigation or when there is a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under multiple prior art references.”). We also note the that two petitions together present a total of four grounds, and addressing the grounds in the two petitions does not create a substantial burden on the Board or the parties under these circumstances.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“(“POSITA”) would have had “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or the equivalent and at least two years of experience in the relevant field, e.g., electronic communications systems.” Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95–97). Petitioner also contends that “[s]ignificantly more practical experience could also qualify one not having the aforementioned education as a person of ordinary skill in the art while, conversely, a higher level of education could offset a lesser amount of experience.” Id. At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner neither addresses Petitioner’s proposed definition nor proposes a different level of skill in the art. To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this Decision, we accept the uncontested assessment offered by Petitioner, except that we delete the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the amount of experience. The qualifier expands the range indefinitely without an upper bound and thus precludes a meaningful indication of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We construe each claim “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2021). Under this standard, claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Petitioner presents two issues for claim construction. Pet. 23–27. First, Petitioner argues that certain language in each independent claim should be interpreted to require the automatic display of certain information “during or after every boot-up.” Id. at 23–26. Second, Petitioner argues that the return and recovery information recited in the claims is merely printed matter that is not entitled to patentable weight. Id. at 26–27. Patent Owner “takes no position” on Petitioner’s first claim construction argument, and disputes Petitioner’s second argument. Prelim. Resp. 8–12. We determine that no claim term requires express construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,789,393 - PTAB · Jan 31, 2023 · IPR2022-01189 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–7 and all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Hafeman 670 anticipates the claims because the ’332 application lacked written-description support for remote initiating.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. Our binding guidance states that the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution of an IPR or PGR in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition. Interim Procedure 7. Petitioner could not make such a stipulation in district court litigation to which it is not a party. The defendant in that litigation, LG Electronics Inc., which is a real party in interest in this proceeding (Pet. 81),” slip op. at 6
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“We find that two petitions are justified here due to the priority date issue that this Petition raises. See Trial Practice Guide 59 (“[T]he Board recognizes that there may be circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary, including, for example, when the patent owner has asserted a large number of claims in litigation or when there is a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under multiple prior art references.”).” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this Decision, we accept the uncontested assessment offered by Petitioner, except that we delete the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the amount of experience. The qualifier expands the range indefinitely without an upper bound, and thus precludes a meaningful indication of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“D. Claim Construction We need not expressly construe any terms to determine whether to institute. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 10,325,122 - Dell Technologies Inc. / Dell Inc. v. Videolabs, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 4, 2022 · IPR2022-00701 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because JP029 supports claims 1–4 as of April 26, 2002, making the June 2002 Draft H.264 Standard unavailable as prior art for the asserted obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). Institution of an inter partes review requires that “the information presented in the petition and . . . any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The dispositive issue here is whether Patent Owner shows that the effective filing date of the ’059 patent extends to the filing date of its foreign application, thereby antedating two of Petitioner’s asserted prior art references. For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner does not show that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to the sole challenged claim. Accordingly, we deny inter partes review of the ’059 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“Ex. 2001 ¶ 46 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1004 (H.324, 1998), Fig. 1, 1–2). In other words, according to the testimony of Dr. Richardson, which the record supports and Petitioner does not dispute, the applicable standards, known to artisans of ordinary skill prior to the filing date of JP029, show multiplexing and demultiplexing the coded audio and video, thereby satisfying claim 1’s limitations for multiplexing and demultiplexing coded audio data, contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments. See Pet. 25.” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer not foundDecided for patent owner
“argument, Petitioner has not shown that such a disclaimer exists in the prosecution history. The purported disavowal of claim scope with respect to the plain meaning of a claim term must be unambiguous, clear, and unmistakable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Elbex Video, Ltd. v. Sensormatic Elecs. Corp., 508 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). Petitioner has not made such a showing. Rather, Petitioner points to language that was added to the claim during prosecution, namely, “performing arithmetic coding on a first bit of the binary data corresponding to each absolute value of the coefficients,” and concludes that this language requires coding a first bit separately from the remaining bits, using separate probability tables. Pet. Reply 10 (citing Ex. 1012, 656). We agree with Patent Owner, that the plain meaning of this claim language does not require coding a first bit separately from the remaining bits, using separate probability tables. Prelim. Resp. 57–58. Turning to the prosecution history, Petitioner does not explain how the applicant’s remarks to the Examiner in the prosecution history show a clear and unmistakable disavowal of claim scope. See Pet. Reply 9–10. Further, the applicant did not state to the Examiner that the claim requires coding a first bit separately from the remaining bits, using separate probability tables. See Ex. 1012, 662–664. On this limited record, it is not clear how the applicant’s arguments in the prosecution history persuasively show that the applicant made a clear and unmistakable disavowal of claim scope. Therefore, we construe the claim according to its plain and ordinary meaning, which does not require coding a first bit separately from the remaining bits using separate probability tables as alleged by Petitioner.” slip op. at 25
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner’s claim construction regarding prosecution history disclaimer does not address “unanticipated and incorrect statements” made by Patent Owner “regarding the law with respect to written description and the disclosure of the subject patent and priority applications, to which Petitioners need to respond.” Ex. 1041. Specifically, Petitioner does not allege an incorrect statement in Patent Owner’s contention that “Petitioner admits that JP029 discloses performing the encoding on all bits of binary data, including the ‘first bit’ of data.” Prelim. Resp. 55 (citing Pet. 29). Nor does Petitioner allege an incorrect statement in Patent Owner’s contention that “Petitioner’s expert opines – with no explanation or citation – that the claims require ‘separately arithmetically encoding/decoding a first bit of binary data using a separate probability table from the probability table (or tables) used to encode/decode the remaining bits of binary data.’ Nothing in the claims require this.” Id. at 57 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 52). Instead, Petitioner, for the first time in its Reply, proposes construing the claim beyond its plain and ordinary meaning in order to rebut Patent Owner’s contention that the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim does not require coding a first bit separately from the remaining bits, using separate probability tables. Petitioner has not explained how Patent Owner made an incorrect statement, nor has Petitioner explained why Patent Owner’s construction of the claim based on the claim’s plain and ordinary meaning was unanticipated. See Pet. 7 (“[T]he Petition does not present any controversy over claim meaning and the Board need not construe any terms.”); see id. at 8 (“Petitioner maintains that the Challenged Claims would have been obvious under any reasonable construction.”). Petitioner’s new claim construction alleging prosecution history disclaimer, and Petitioner’s corresponding new argument based on the alleged disclaimer, are untimely.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,970,059 - Dell Technologies Inc. / Dell Inc. v. Videolabs, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 4, 2022 · IPR2022-00629 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Patent Owner established claim 1’s priority to JP665, antedating the references relied on in both obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). Institution of an inter partes review requires that “the information presented in the petition and . . . any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The dispositive issue here is whether Patent Owner shows that the effective filing date of the ’878 patent extends to the filing date of its foreign application, thereby antedating two of Petitioner’s asserted prior art references. For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner does not show that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to the sole challenged claim. Accordingly, we deny inter partes review of the ’878 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“. . . each application in the chain leading back to the earlier application must comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. §112.” Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1571. To satisfy this written description requirement, a priority application must “reasonably convey[] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharm., 598 F.3d at 1351. “It is the specification itself that must demonstrate possession,” and “a description that merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the requirement.” Id. at 1352.” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Relying on its expert, Dr. Schonfeld, Petitioner contends as follows: A POSITA at the time would have had at least an undergraduate degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, Computer Engineering, or a related field (or equivalent work experience in the that field), and two or more years of experience with audio, image, or video coding. Ex. 1003, ¶ 24. The relevant experience would include a working understanding of the then-existing audio and video coding standards, including ongoing work on emerging standards. Id. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 24). Dr. Schonfeld adds that “a POSITA would have a working understanding of the then existing audio and video encoding standards (e.g., H.263), as well as ongoing work on emerging standards (e.g., H.26L/H.264).” 1003 ¶ 24. Dr. Richardson, Patent Owner’s expert, agrees with, and applies, Dr. Schonfeld’s proposed level of ordinary skill. Ex. 2001 ¶ 30 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 24). Based on a review of the preliminary record, for purposes of the Institution Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, as agreed upon by Dr. Schonfeld and Dr. Richardson, because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art and ’878 patent specification.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“As Petitioner argues, it is not necessary to explicitly construe any claim terms. See Pet. 7. Any construction would have no effect in the analysis of the dispositive priority issue here. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,139,878 - LKQ Corporation / Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 8, 2021 · PGR2020-00054 · APJ Robert L Kinder · PGR · Final written decision
The sole claim was not shown unpatentable: it is definite, and neither asserted obviousness combination renders the design unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. The Designer of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“DOSA”) LKQ contends that: a designer of ordinary skill would be an individual who has at least an undergraduate degree in transportation or automotive design experience in the field of transportation design, or someone who has several years’ work experience in transportation or automotive design. Pet. 51 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 42; Ex. 1004 ¶ 41). Based on the final record, which includes testimony by LKQ’s witnesses, we adopt LKQ’s proposed definition of the ordinary designer.” slip op. at 19
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Based on the final record, the purported issues related to a double line on the convex crease and the length of the single line do not create internally inconsistent drawings that would preclude the overall understanding of the drawing as a whole. We have considered the testimony of each witness and we find Mr. Peters’ explanation most convincing that “the claimed design describes the convex band consistently because each of the figures presents at least one of the ways that a convex band can be represented. . . . Figure 1 illustrates the two intersecting lines of the convex band, while Figures 2-4 illustrate the single max height line of the convex band.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 58. Thus, we agree with GM that these figures are not inconsistent, but rather complementary because both connecting lines (as shown in Figure 1) and the max height line (as shown in Figure 2) are accurate depictions of the convex band of the claimed design. Further, GM has presented persuasive evidence that the varied length of the line between figures is also understandable depending on the point of reference of a particular figure. Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 55, 56; Ex. 2006, 143:11–16, 144:4–7.” slip op. at 27
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteNot shown unpatentable
“7. Overall Indefiniteness Analysis The figures of the ’065 patent are not perfect and the issues discussed above demonstrate that attention to detail matters when conveying the scope of a three-dimensional object in two dimensions. The proper standard for indefiniteness does not, however, require perfection, but instead requires that an invention is shown with “reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, Inc., 572 U.S. at 910. The purpose of the definiteness standard is “to ensure that the disclosure is clear enough to give potential competitors (who are skilled in the art) notice of what design is claimed – and therefore what would be infringed.” Maatita, 900 F.3d at 1376. Based on the totality of the evidence before us, we determine that the claimed design of the ’065 patent is reasonably understandable and gives potential competitors, and the public, notice of the scope of the claim. As analyzed above, LKQ has not shown that most of the alleged inconsistencies are, in fact, inconsistent features within the claim. Further, we determine that the inconsistencies argued by LKQ do not in the aggregate “preclude the overall understanding of the drawing as a whole.” Id. at 1375–76.” slip op. at 45
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“The Petition fails to adequately address the differences between the claimed ornamental fender design and the Fiat Toro in several important areas, including: the distinct upper portions of each design, the claimed design’s inwardly folded (L-shaped) top edge, and the rear lateral edge. Based on the final record, these differences combined with the other differences noted by LKQ (Pet. 81) are substantial and prevent the Fiat Toro from having design characteristics that are basically the same as that claimed in the ’065 patent – as required for a Rosen reference.” slip op. at 67
Patent outcomesUS D864,065 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Nautilus - Yamaha Golf Car Company v. Club Car, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 2, 2019 · IPR2017-02144 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision
The Board found claims 11 and 17–19 not shown unpatentable: claim 11 was entitled to priority over the ’918 Publication, and the obviousness challenge to claims 17–19 was unsupported.
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“slows the speed of the golf car until it returns to the course—“[Y]our cart has been slowed down because you are outside the boundaries of the course. Your car will continue to slow down until you return to the course.” Ex. 1004, 30 (emphases added) (also showing that “Reduce Maximum Speed” may be adjusted to a select speed as similarly set forth in Figure 3 of the ’569 patent). The ’894 Provisional specifies that the Curtis 1510 controller includes a configuration setting for “REVERSE SPEED,” and we find persuasive Mr. Andrews’ testimony that this control setting is separate from the maximum forward speed settings, “M1 MAX SPEED,” “M2 MAX SPEED,” “M3 MAX SPEED,” and “M4 (HIGH) MAX SPEED.” Ex. 1004, 12; Ex. 2009 ¶ 58 (“‘REVERSE SPEED’ is a separate configuration setting that the controller can configure based on GPS location.”). We find that these disclosures in the ’894 Provisional—slowing or stopping the car until it reverses course and separate configurable settings for reverse speed in the motor controller—establish affirmative support for a configuration as claimed where the car’s forward movement is disabled, but the car may still move in a reverse direction, as required by claim 11. Because the maximum forward speed can be set to zero to stop the vehicle from further movement towards the restricted area, but setting the maximum speed to zero leaves the separate “REVERSE SPEED” configuration setting in the motor controller unchanged, Patent Owner has shown how the vehicle is capable of operation only in a reverse direction. See Ex. 1004, 10, 12, 16, 30. From a functional capability, there is simply no difference between the descriptions found in the ’894 Provisional and the claimed limitations. See Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 49–60. Thus, Patent Owner has met its burden of showing adequate written description support for claim 11 in the earlier ’894 Provisional. Accordingly, the ’918 Publication does not qualify as prior art against claim 11. Based on the final trial record before us, Petitioner does not present sufficient arguments and credible evidence to support a finding that claim 11 is anticipated by the ’918 Publication.” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedReference not prior artDecided for patent owner
“slows the speed of the golf car until it returns to the course—“[Y]our cart has been slowed down because you are outside the boundaries of the course. Your car will continue to slow down until you return to the course.” Ex. 1004, 30 (emphases added) (also showing that “Reduce Maximum Speed” may be adjusted to a select speed as similarly set forth in Figure 3 of the ’569 patent). The ’894 Provisional specifies that the Curtis 1510 controller includes a configuration setting for “REVERSE SPEED,” and we find persuasive Mr. Andrews’ testimony that this control setting is separate from the maximum forward speed settings, “M1 MAX SPEED,” “M2 MAX SPEED,” “M3 MAX SPEED,” and “M4 (HIGH) MAX SPEED.” Ex. 1004, 12; Ex. 2009 ¶ 58 (“‘REVERSE SPEED’ is a separate configuration setting that the controller can configure based on GPS location.”). We find that these disclosures in the ’894 Provisional—slowing or stopping the car until it reverses course and separate configurable settings for reverse speed in the motor controller—establish affirmative support for a configuration as claimed where the car’s forward movement is disabled, but the car may still move in a reverse direction, as required by claim 11. Because the maximum forward speed can be set to zero to stop the vehicle from further movement towards the restricted area, but setting the maximum speed to zero leaves the separate “REVERSE SPEED” configuration setting in the motor controller unchanged, Patent Owner has shown how the vehicle is capable of operation only in a reverse direction. See Ex. 1004, 10, 12, 16, 30. From a functional capability, there is simply no difference between the descriptions found in the ’894 Provisional and the claimed limitations. See Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 49–60. Thus, Patent Owner has met its burden of showing adequate written description support for claim 11 in the earlier ’894 Provisional. Accordingly, the ’918 Publication does not qualify as prior art against claim 11. Based on the final trial record before us, Petitioner does not present sufficient arguments and credible evidence to support a finding that claim 11 is anticipated by the ’918 Publication.” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“slows the speed of the golf car until it returns to the course—“[Y]our cart has been slowed down because you are outside the boundaries of the course. Your car will continue to slow down until you return to the course.” Ex. 1004, 30 (emphases added) (also showing that “Reduce Maximum Speed” may be adjusted to a select speed as similarly set forth in Figure 3 of the ’569 patent). The ’894 Provisional specifies that the Curtis 1510 controller includes a configuration setting for “REVERSE SPEED,” and we find persuasive Mr. Andrews’ testimony that this control setting is separate from the maximum forward speed settings, “M1 MAX SPEED,” “M2 MAX SPEED,” “M3 MAX SPEED,” and “M4 (HIGH) MAX SPEED.” Ex. 1004, 12; Ex. 2009 ¶ 58 (“‘REVERSE SPEED’ is a separate configuration setting that the controller can configure based on GPS location.”). We find that these disclosures in the ’894 Provisional—slowing or stopping the car until it reverses course and separate configurable settings for reverse speed in the motor controller—establish affirmative support for a configuration as claimed where the car’s forward movement is disabled, but the car may still move in a reverse direction, as required by claim 11. Because the maximum forward speed can be set to zero to stop the vehicle from further movement towards the restricted area, but setting the maximum speed to zero leaves the separate “REVERSE SPEED” configuration setting in the motor controller unchanged, Patent Owner has shown how the vehicle is capable of operation only in a reverse direction. See Ex. 1004, 10, 12, 16, 30. From a functional capability, there is simply no difference between the descriptions found in the ’894 Provisional and the claimed limitations. See Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 49–60. Thus, Patent Owner has met its burden of showing adequate written description support for claim 11 in the earlier ’894 Provisional. Accordingly, the ’918 Publication does not qualify as prior art against claim 11. Based on the final trial record before us, Petitioner does not present sufficient arguments and credible evidence to support a finding that claim 11 is anticipated by the ’918 Publication.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“sufficiently how the ’918 Publication’s disclosure of a “signal . . . of the violation” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 68) also teaches or suggests the additional claim requirements of “the driver interface unit . . . operable to communicate an alarm to the base station of a controller limiting the performance of a driver command” as required by claim 17. Petitioner recognizes the distinction by arguing “that the system could also provide a message to the course personnel . . . of any remedial corrective measures taken in response.” Pet. 25 (emphasis added). Based on the evidence cited, the ’918 Publication does not provide any such notification. Petitioner cannot suggest that a reference could have a feature that it does not have without some rational basis as to why such a feature would have been suggested by the reference. Mr. Breen’s explanation mirrors Petitioner’s contention (Ex. 1001 ¶ 277) and likewise states “that the system could also provide a message to the course personnel” (emphasis added) but no further explanation is provided as to how this unsupported conclusion was reached. Petitioner has also failed to lay the necessary foundation to establish that “common sense” could fill the gap for the missing limitation, or provide a basis for modifying the ’918 Publication to teach the claim 17 limitation. We recognize that in certain instances “common sense” can be used to supply the missing claim limitation, but only if the art is “unusually simple and the [patented] technology particularly straightforward.” Arendi Sarl v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In this proceeding, we have no testimony or evidence to establish either condition is met. Neither Petitioner nor Mr. Breen explain adequately why the limitations of claim 17” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 7,480,569 not shown unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,480,569 - Donghee America, Inc. / Donghee Alabama, LLC v. Plastic Omnium Advanced Innovation And ResearchAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 11, 2018 · IPR2017-01605 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 7, 11, 12, and 14 are unpatentable: claims 1–3, 12, and 14 are anticipated by Linden, and claims 7 and 11 are obvious over Linden and Hata.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“article whose surface has at least one empty or concave part.” Id. at 11 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:66–67; Ex. 1007 ¶ 15). Patent Owner agrees. PO Resp. 15. The ’253 patent states that “[t]he term ‘hollow body’ is understood to mean any article whose surface has at least one empty or concave part.” Ex. 1001, 1:66–67. Where an inventor defines specific terms used to describe an invention, we will give effect to those definitions, as long as they are set out “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision,” “so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change” in meaning. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Here, the phrase “is understood to mean,” as used in the ’253 patent, signals that the inventor presents a clear, deliberate, and precise definition. Accordingly, we interpret “hollow body” as having the definition given it in the ’253 patent, “any article whose surface has at least one empty or concave part.”” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“supporting its proposed construction of “incorporate” as “insert.” First, Petitioner argues that the language of the ’253 patent requires a construction of “incorporating” as encompassing “inserting” rather than as limited to “attaching.” Reply 2–4. Both parties argue that the “incorporating” recited in the challenged claims must occur before the mold closes to form the hollow body. PO Resp. 16; Reply 2–3. We agree. Ex. 1001, 6:2–14 (“. . . after said step of incorporating, closing said mould . . .”). Thus, it is important to note the processes that the ’253 patent describes as occurring before, during, and after mold closure. Because “incorporating” must occur before mold closure, the process of “incorporating” may not be limited to any process that the patent describes as occurring during or after mold closure. Petitioner is correct that the ’253 patent describes a process in which a preassembled structure for supporting an accessory “may . . . be fastened by welding to the wall of the hollow body, upon closing the mould,” i.e., during, not before, mold closure. Ex. 1001, 4:23–30. Thus, the language of the ’253 patent does not support construing the term “incorporating” as limited to “attaching.” Petitioner also argues that both parties agreed in the related infringement suit in District Court that the proper construction of “incorporating” under the Phillips standard, used in that forum, was “inserting.” Reply 7–8 (citing Ex. 1010, at Ex. A, 4). Specifically, in that litigation, Patent Owner agreed that the correct construction of “incorporating at least one of an accessory or a duct within the hollow body” was “inserting an accessory or duct into the hollow body.” Ex. 1010, at Ex. A, 4. Here, we apply the broadest-reasonable-interpretation standard. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2016). “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim term may be the same as or broader than the construction of a term under the Phillips standard. But it cannot be narrower.” Facebook, Inc. v. Pragmatus AV, LLC, 582 F. App’x 864, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (non-precedential). Here, for the term “incorporating,” Patent Owner’s proposed broadest reasonable interpretation (“attaching”) is narrower than the Phillips construction Patent Owner has advanced (“inserting”). Thus, “attaching” cannot be the broadest reasonable interpretation of “incorporating.” Other than Patent Owner’s proposed “attaching” construction, the only construction the parties have proposed either in this case or in the related District Court case is Petitioner’s proposed “inserting” construction. PO Resp. 15–20 (discussing only “inserting” and “attaching” constructions); Reply 2–9 (Petitioner arguing in favor of “inserting”); Ex. 1010, at Ex. A, 4 (both parties proposing “inserting”). The ’253 patent supports such a construction, because it describes at least some of its embodiments as involving only insertion of an object between the sheets that will form the hollow body before mold closure. Ex. 1001, 4:23–30. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of “incorporating” as “inserting.”” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Finally, Patent Owner directs us to the testimony of Professor Tim Osswald as support for its view that “incorporate” should mean “attach.” PO Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 40–42). In relevant part, this testimony states that, “[a]fter reading the specification of the ’253 patent, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand and interpret the word ‘incorporating’ to mean ‘fastening’ or ‘attaching’ so that the accessory or duct becomes part of the hollow body.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 42. Professor Osswald does not cite any evidence in support of his testimony. “[C]onclusory, unsupported assertions by experts as to the definition of a claim term are not useful.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Accordingly, we give little weight to Professor Osswald’s statement regarding the proper construction of “incorporate.” See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he [PTAB] is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations . . . .” (citations omitted)).” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“preform which has at least one opening for that purpose, to be applied to the inside surface of the wall of the expanded hollow body.” Id. at 3:62–4:3. Patent Owner argues that this teaching is insufficient to disclose attaching the surge cup to the wall of the hollow body before the mold closes. PO Resp. 23–24. We agree that Linden does not teach attaching its accessory to the inside wall of the fuel tank before the mold closes around the preform. Instead, in Linden, the mold halves are closed around the preform and the mandrel, and “a suitable blowing agent . . . is introduced under pressure” through the mandrel, causing the preform to expand to press “against the inside wall defining the mold cavity,” and only then is the holding means for the accessory displaced to be brought into contact with the inner wall of the expanded preform, welding the holding means to the wall. Ex. 1003, 7:27–55, 8:11–29, Figs. 1–3. But, as discussed above, we disagree with Patent Owner about the proper construction of “incorporating” in the challenged claims. Claim 1 requires only that an accessory or a duct be “incorporat[ed] . . . within the hollow body” before mold closure occurs, and we construe “incorporating” to mean “inserting,” without requiring “attaching.” Thus, it is unimportant that Linden fails to teach attaching the surge cup to the wall before mold closure. All that is required is that Linden disclose inserting the surge cup into the preform before mold closure, and Linden does disclose this. Id. at 3:62–4:3, 7:27–49, Figs. 1–3. The next question is whether Linden discloses “after said step of incorporating, closing [the mold] in a way which eliminates any interface between said at least one of said accessory or said duct and an external atmosphere outside of the hollow body.” As discussed above, Linden discloses closing the mold halves after placing the additional body within the preform. But Linden discloses that “[a]t its lower end the preform 28 is pressed around the mandrel 14 by virtue of closure of the mold halves 10a and 10b.” Id. at 7:40–42, Fig. 2. Because mandrel 14 is hollow, id. at 6:35–39; 6:46–54, it is not completely clear that closure of Linden’s hollow body around mandrel 14 necessarily eliminates any interface between the additional body inside Linden’s hollow body and the atmosphere outside the hollow body. On the other hand, the closure of the mold described in the ’253 patent occurs with blowing nozzle 6 “positioned between the two parts of the [mold],” and “blowing air is injected under pressure via the nozzle,” which is quite similar to the use of hollow mandrel 14 in Linden. Ex. 1001, 5:50–57. Given the similarity between Linden’s method and the method described in the ’253 patent, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Linden discloses the limitation of claim 1 requiring the step of, “after said step of incorporating, closing [the mold] in a way which eliminates any interface between said at least one of said accessory or said duct and an external atmosphere outside of the hollow body.” The final question with respect to claim 1 is whether Linden discloses that the additional body incorporated within the hollow body “is supported by a preassembled structure which comprises at least one device configured to anchor said preassembled structure to an internal wall of the hollow body.” Petitioner argues that Linden’s “[h]olding means 24 is a preassembled structure” in which “leg members 44, 45” have “enlarged foot portion[s] 36.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003, 9:23–34). We agree. “[H]olding means 24 . . . substantially comprises first and second support or leg members 44, 45,” and “support or leg members 44, 45 are each provided with an enlarged foot portion 36 of substantially plate-like configuration.” Ex. 1003, 9:23–34. Even if Linden’s holding means 24 were not in the aggregate the recited “preassembled structure,” each leg member 44, 45, taken together with its respective foot portion 36 is. Ex. 1001, 4:26–28 (describing a “preassembled structure” as “for example, an arm provided with a tab for fastening to the wall of the hollow body”). Linden’s “foot portions 36 are pressed against the inside surface, which is still hot and thus plastic, . . . of the hollow body . . . thereby to produce a welded joint between the foot portions 36 and the inside surface.” Id. at 9:34–42. Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Linden discloses the limitation of claim 1 requiring that the accessory or duct be “supported by a preassembled structure which comprises at least one device configured to anchor said preassembled structure to an internal wall of the hollow body.”” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 7,166,253 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,166,253 - Texas Association Of Realtors v. Uber Technologies, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 4, 2017 · IPR2016-00615 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–28 are unpatentable under § 103(a); the contingent motion to amend is denied because substitute claims are obvious and lack written-description support.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“II. ANALYSIS Petitioner bears the burden of proving unpatentability of the challenged claims, and that burden never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To prevail, Petitioner must establish the facts supporting its challenge by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). Petitioner relies on the Declaration of Michael Goodchild, Ph.D. (Ex. 1010) and the Reply Declaration of Dr. Goodchild (Ex. 1020). Patent Owner does not rely on any supporting declaration or cross-examination testimony. Below, we discuss whether Petitioner has met its burden with respect to claims 1–28. A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). Obviousness is resolved based on underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness,2 i.e., secondary considerations. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“First, Petitioner argues that based on the dictionary definition of “demarcate,” the broadest reasonable interpretation of “demarcating” is “‘to determine or mark off the boundaries or limits of’ something.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1013, RANDOM HOUSE WEBSTER’S UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY, (2d ed. 2001), 5); Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 35, 36. Next, Petitioner contends that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “delimiting” is “determining or marking off the boundaries or limits of something, such as by providing a perimeter line or highlighting.” Pet. 7; Ex. 1013, 4; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 37–39. Petitioner reasons that the Specification provides examples of delimiting “via a perimeter line in any graphical way” and by highlighting. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:34–39, 8:13–19). Patent Owner does not address these interpretations in its Response, but at oral hearing Patent Owner agrees that Petitioner’s interpretations were “a fair assessment.” Tr. 92:19–94:3. Patent Owner also responds that there was no substantive difference between the two terms – “demarcating” and “delimiting.” Id. at 93:19–29. Petitioner’s proposed interpretations for “demarcating” and “delimiting” are consistent with the claim language, written description of the ’045 patent, and the plain meaning of each term. We therefore interpret “demarcating” to mean “determining or marking off the boundaries or limits of something,” and interpret “delimiting” to mean “determining or marking off the boundaries or limits of something, such as by providing a perimeter line or highlighting.”” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The parties do not argue in the Petition or Patent Owner Response that we should adopt a specific formulation regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Dr. Goodchild, however, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’045 patent “would have had a Bachelor of Science degree (or its equivalent), and three years’ experience in the development, management, and use of geographic information systems and related geospatial technologies.” Ex. 1010 ¶ 14. Based on the record presented, including our review of the ’045 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’045 patent and cited prior art, we agree with Dr. Goodchild’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art and therefore adopt it for purposes of this Decision. As noted, we have also considered the cited references as representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the level of ordinary skill in the art may be evidenced by the cited references themselves).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner also provides a persuasive rationale for combining the teachings of O’Clair and Tadman. Id. at 9–10, 14–15. Specifically, Petitioner contends both references are in “similar fields,” with both references referring to the mapping application Google Maps, and [a] person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious and desirable at the time of the ’045 Patent’s filing to combine the features of Tadman into O’Clair to achieve, for example, the ability for a “user to conduct a joint query by using both spatial and non-spatial searches” and the other “advanced features” described by Tadman. Id. at 9–10 (quoting Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 50–51). As further explained by Dr. Goodchild, “[t]he combination of O’Clair’s systems and methods with Tadman’s teachings of polygon-based search would yield the predictable and desirable result of a GIS [geographic information] system which allowed a user to obtain search results located with a polygon-shaped area of interest.” Ex. 1010 ¶ 52; see also Tr. 17:17–19:19. In its Response, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s rationale for combining features of Tadman and O’Clair, nor does Patent Owner challenge Petitioner’s rationale for combining any of the prior art. See Tr. 38:21–39:33 (counsel for Patent Owner agreeing lack of motivation to combine is not argued in the Patent Owner Response). We find persuasive Petitioner’s arguments as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the references’ teachings in the manner asserted.” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 8,510,045 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,510,045
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.