• Askeladden LLC v. Leigh M. RothschildAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 19, 2020 · IPR2019-00855 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board canceled original claims 1, 2, 11, 14–19, and 21 and denied the motion to amend because the proposed substitute claims were obvious over Karthik, Robinson, and Ortiz.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The claim language itself implies that the financial services provider decides which biometric information is required during the enrollment stage because the Decision Limitation is added to element 17A, which is the first step in the enrollment stage recited in elements 17A–D. However, “in assessing definiteness, claims are to be read in light of the patent’s specification and prosecution history.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 908 (2014). Patent Owner identifies support for the Decision Limitation in the Specification that favors interpreting the Decision Limitation as occurring during the transaction stage (i.e., during elements 17E–G). Mot. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:9–14). The cited portion of the Specification states: “In another embodiment, the financial service provider may have the system set up such that the server 114 queries through the point-of-sale terminal 102 and informs the merchant which biometric identification data is/are required for the desired transaction.” Ex. 1001, 9:9–14 (emphasis added). The plain language of the claim is consistent with our interpretation because it specifies that the biometric data is the data “required for the transaction,” which refers to the “transaction” recited in element 17G (describing the operation of the claimed system during a transaction stage). Based on our review of the Specification and claim language, we conclude that the Decision Limitation is sufficiently definite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. Based on that review, we also interpret the Decision Limitation to require that the financial services provider informs, through the server, which type(s) of user biometric identification data must be received at the terminal (e.g., a point-of-sale terminal) to validate the transaction. E. WHETHER THE MOTION MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.121” slip op. at 14

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteDecided for patent owner

    “The claim language itself implies that the financial services provider decides which biometric information is required during the enrollment stage because the Decision Limitation is added to element 17A, which is the first step in the enrollment stage recited in elements 17A–D. However, “in assessing definiteness, claims are to be read in light of the patent’s specification and prosecution history.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 908 (2014). Patent Owner identifies support for the Decision Limitation in the Specification that favors interpreting the Decision Limitation as occurring during the transaction stage (i.e., during elements 17E–G). Mot. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:9–14). The cited portion of the Specification states: “In another embodiment, the financial service provider may have the system set up such that the server 114 queries through the point-of-sale terminal 102 and informs the merchant which biometric identification data is/are required for the desired transaction.” Ex. 1001, 9:9–14 (emphasis added). The plain language of the claim is consistent with our interpretation because it specifies that the biometric data is the data “required for the transaction,” which refers to the “transaction” recited in element 17G (describing the operation of the claimed system during a transaction stage). Based on our review of the Specification and claim language, we conclude that the Decision Limitation is sufficiently definite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. Based on that review, we also interpret the Decision Limitation to require that the financial services provider informs, through the server, which type(s) of user biometric identification data must be received at the terminal (e.g., a point-of-sale terminal) to validate the transaction. E. WHETHER THE MOTION MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.121” slip op. at 14

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “Petitioner argues that if Patent Owner were to argue that the Decision Limitation can be met by the financial services provider deciding which biometric information is required for a transaction during the enrollment or transaction stages, then the claims would be unpatentable for lack of written description support in the Specification. Opp. 8. Petitioner concedes that the portion of the Specification relied upon by Patent Owner for support describes making the decision about what biometric information is needed during the transaction stage. Id. at 9. As explained in Part II.D above, we have narrowly interpreted the Decision Limitation to encompass only such decisions. Accordingly, Petitioner does not persuade us that the Specification fails to provide the required written description for the 7 Normally, a Patent Owner must identify material in the originally filed application leading to issuance of the patent at issue that supports the proposed amendment. Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at 7. Failing to cite the original disclosure is a basis for denying a motion to amend. Id. However, because Patent Owner appears pro se, we reviewed the original disclosure ourselves to verify that the portion of the Specification cited is identically found in that disclosure. Compare Ex. 1016 ¶ 42, with Ex. 1001, 9:9–14. Accordingly, in this case, we find that Patent Owner’s citation to the Specification functionally refers to material in the original disclosure. Decision Limitation as we have interpreted it. Additionally, we conclude that Patent Owner has established that the Specification meets the written description requirement for the Decision Limitation. F. PROPOSED SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS 1, 2, 11, 14–19, AND 21:” slip op. at 17

  • ScopeDecided for patent owner

    “3. Whether the Amendments Enlarge the Scope of the Claims An amendment may not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent. 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(ii). We determine that Patent Owner’s addition of the Decision Limitation narrows the scope of every challenged claim and thus satisfies the prohibition against enlarging the scope of any claim.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 8,799,088 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 8,799,088
• Donghee America, Inc. / Donghee Alabama, LLC v. Plastic Omnium Advanced Innovation And ResearchAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 7,166,253
• BMW Of North America, LLC / Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v. Theodore & Associates, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 20, 2018 · IPR2017-01380 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2, 4, 19, 23, 24, 27–31, 35, 44–46, 48, and 49 are unpatentable under § 103; claims 3, 6, 8–10, 32–34, 36, 37, and 43 were not proven unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Mr. Kunselman, neither of whom supports his opinion with objective evidence. Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 20); PO Resp. 11–12 (referring to Mr. Kunselman’s opinion appearing at Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 15–21); Reply 20–21 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 20; Ex. 1061 ¶¶ 11–13). The level of skill is determined “in the art to which the claimed invention pertains,” 35 U.S.C. § 103, and neither party identifies that art explicitly. The Specification describes the field of invention as follows: “This invention is related to the field of automotive chassis design and more specifically to the area of interchangeable chassis for use with many models of vehicles.” Ex. 1001, 1:17–19. The Specification repeatedly refers to the chassis as having “universal” characteristics. Id. at Title, passim. The Specification also describes an advantage of its chassis as having “an ability to adapt to different bodies and body styles,” id. at 2:17–21, and criticizes prior art chassis designs that “are not readily adaptable to a wide variety of vehicles without forcing major and expensive redesign work for each vehicle,” id. at 1:29–33. Claims 43 and 44 expressly require that the claimed chassis be “universally adapted” for more than one type of vehicular configuration. Id. at 16:40–17:19. Based on these descriptions of the chassis and the express requirements in at least some of the claims at issue, we determine that the art to which the claimed invention pertains is the design of interchangeable chassis for use with many models of vehicles. We consider Mr. Kunselman’s testimony on the level of ordinary skill to be tied more closely to this relevant art of designing a chassis for use with many models of vehicles. Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill for purposes of this Decision and evaluate priority of invention and obviousness from that perspective. We note that both Mr. Parker and Mr. Kunselman possess such a skill level. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 6–13; Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 4–9.” slip op. at 7

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateNot entitled to earlier dateMixed

    “in claims 9 and 32–43 when it states that: “During attachment of the central backbone between the front and rear structures, the operational components (e.g., quill shaft for conventional vehicle, battery for electric or hybrid vehicle), are suitably coupled or connected.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 43. Based on this disclosure in the ’490 App, Mr. Kunselman opines without citing any objective evidence in support that: “The only suitable connection it could be is a wire and a cable. No other option has ever been used, not a metal tab, buss bar, or printed circuit board.” Ex. 2012 ¶ 75 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 43). Because the testimony cited by the parties on this issue leads to stalemate, we examine other aspects of the ’490 App and other evidence. Figure 16 of the ’490 App, reproduced at right, illustrates batteries located in a central structure that connects one end of a chassis with a generator to the other end of the chassis with an electric motor. Mr. Parker testifies that components such as wires connecting batteries were “conventional components” that were “well known” and “found in almost all vehicles decades before the ’163 patent was filed.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 61. Figure 16 illustrates batteries within the central spine of the plug-in hybrid chassis, along with the generator on one end, which would charge those batteries, and an e-motor on the other end, which would be powered by those batteries. Ex. 1006, Figure 16. Both experts agree that an electrical wire is a well known type of electrical connection that would be suitable. Ex. 1003 ¶ 61, Ex. 2012 ¶ 75. On the record before us, we determine that Figure 16 in the ’490 App, along with the description of batteries being “suitably coupled and connected” constitutes a description of an electrical connection spanning the batteries within the central spine and to components connected to opposite ends of that spine. This is especially true given the high degree of skill possessed by an ordinarily skilled artisan. Such an artisan would have no trouble recognizing that the ’490 App described using wire to connect batteries located within the central structure and that those wires would span the entire central spine. Ex. 2012 ¶ 75. For this reason, we determine that the wire features of claims 9, 32–37, and 43 are supported by the description in the ’490 App.” slip op. at 12

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

    “lexicographically define “chassis” but merely describes “another aspect of the universal chassis apparatus.” Reply 17–18. We agree. To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must “clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term” other than its plain and ordinary meaning. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed.Cir.2002). It is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must “clearly express an intent” to redefine the term. Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed.Cir.2008); see also Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com, 582 F.3d 1341, 1347–48 (Fed.Cir.2009). At most, we understand the passage quoted by Patent Owner to be describing aspects of the “universal chassis apparatus” rather than providing a lexicographical definition of “chassis.” Petitioner also contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that “chassis” generally refers to the supporting structure or frame upon which the vehicle’s body, drive train, and suspension components are mounted. Reply 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 31). Petitioner notes that such an understanding is consistent with the definitions of “chassis” provided in two automotive industry dictionaries, one of which is provided by Patent Owner. Id. at 18–19 (citing Ex. 2024;5 Ex. 1063, 45:4–46:2, 46:20–47:14, 52:15–24; Ex. 1061, ¶ 25); see also Ex. 1052, 3 (defining “chassis” as the “[s]tructural lower part of a vehicle to which the running 5 Exhibit 2024 is an excerpt of a 1993 publication entitled “Auto Dictionary” in which “chassis” is defined as follows: “Lower structure of a vehicle to which the running gear and body are attached. On older cars, the chassis was a separate part of the vehicle with its own frame but, today, it is usually an integral part of the body structure.” Ex. 2024, 3. gear6 and body is attached.”). Mr. Kunselman testifies that “a variety of possible definitions for a chassis” exist. Ex. 1063, 74:12–14. Petitioner also points out that Patent Owner’s proffered definition for “chassis” conflicts with the Abstract of the ’163 patent, which indicates that “other components” including the suspension are attached to—and therefore separate from—a “vehicle chassis.” Reply 19 (citing Ex. 1001, Abstract, Ex. 1061 ¶ 26). Based on our review of the entire record, we conclude that “chassis” is neither precisely defined in the Specification nor understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan to have a precise universally agreed upon definition. Rather, “chassis” refers generally to the supporting structure or frame upon which the vehicle’s body, drive train, and suspension components are mounted.” slip op. at 22

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

    “Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive for at least three reasons. First, claims 2 and 27 merely require that the backbone have two sections or segments that together define “a substantially T-shape as viewed from above.” Ex. 1001, 13:41–44 (claim 2), 15:15–24 (claim 27). Even with Brandt’s heel plate 40 positioned between the compartments holding battery units 24 and 28, we consider the combination of Brandt’s two compartments to be arranged in “a substantially T-shape as viewed from above” as recited in claims 2 and 27. Additionally, “[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted). Third, both Greil and Brandt describe locating batteries in the lower central portion of a vehicle. Ex. 1016, ¶ 38, Figure 5; Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 21– 22, Figure 1. Brandt explicitly suggests arranging batteries in a T-shape configuration. Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 21–22, Figure 1. We conclude that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of evidence that the combination of Greil and Brandt renders claims 2, 4, and 27–31 unpatentable as obvious.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 9,045,163 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,045,163
• Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 8, 2018 · PGR2017-00002 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 are unpatentable under § 112(a) for lack of written description; Petitioner did not prove lack of enablement.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenUnpatentable

    “Written Description and the ’506 Application The test for written description is an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a POSA. Using this test, the invention must be described in a manner sufficient to demonstrate that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “One shows that one is ‘in possession’ of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Written description is a question of fact judged as of the relevant filing date. Falko–Gunter Falkner v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2006). An ipsis verbis disclosure, however, is not necessary to satisfy the written description requirement. Vas–Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The disclosure need only reasonably convey to a POSA that the inventor had possession of the subject matter in question, even if every nuance of the claims is not explicitly described in the specification. Id.; see Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351.” slip op. at 23

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable

    “Written Description and the ’506 Application The test for written description is an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a POSA. Using this test, the invention must be described in a manner sufficient to demonstrate that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “One shows that one is ‘in possession’ of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Written description is a question of fact judged as of the relevant filing date. Falko–Gunter Falkner v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2006). An ipsis verbis disclosure, however, is not necessary to satisfy the written description requirement. Vas–Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The disclosure need only reasonably convey to a POSA that the inventor had possession of the subject matter in question, even if every nuance of the claims is not explicitly described in the specification. Id.; see Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351.” slip op. at 23

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not enabledNot shown unpatentable

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), enablement is separate and distinct from the written-description requirement. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1344. “The test of enablement is whether one reasonably skilled in the art could make or use the invention from the disclosures in the patent coupled with information known in the art without undue experimentation.” United States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 785 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “[A] patent specification complies with the statute even if a ‘reasonable’ amount of routine experimentation is required in order to practice a claimed invention.” Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Calgene, Inc., 188 F.3d 1362, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Whether undue experimentation is needed is not a single, simple factual determination, but rather is a conclusion reached by weighing many factual considerations. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988). These factors, referred to as the Wands factors, include: (1) the quantity of experimentation necessary, (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or absence of working examples, (4) the nature of the invention, (5) the state of the prior art, (6) the relative skill of those in the art, (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and (8) the breath of the claims. Wands, 858 F.2d at 737. It is Petitioner’s burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims of the ’989 patent lack enablement. 35 U.S.C. § 326(e). Petitioner’s evidence and argument does not sufficiently establish that the ’989 patent fails to teach those in the art to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation. See PO Resp. 58–66. The Petition does not address the Wands factors sufficiently so as to show that undue experimentation is required to make or use the claimed invention. For example, neither the Petition nor Dr. Pearce sufficiently addresses the state of the prior art or the relative skill of those in the art. See Pet. 64–65; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 145–152; PO Resp. 62. As Patent Owner argues, this is an “omission[] that [is] particularly fatal” to Petitioner’s enablement argument, because Petitioner argues that mechanical expansion and inflation expansion are incompatible and cannot be combined. PO Resp. 62; see Pet. 30–38, 64. Dr. Grundfest, however, testifies that it was well known to combine mechanical and balloon-based expansion in surgical devices. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 132–136; PO Resp. 56. During cross-examination, Dr. Pearce testified that he “thought about the state-of-the-art in minimally invasive surgery during the 1990s.” Ex. 2003 18:1–14. Dr. Pearce’s testimony is conclusory and does not sufficiently address whether he considered whether it was well known to combine mechanical expansion and inflation expansion in surgical devices. For another example, relying upon the testimony of Dr. Pearce, the Petition asserts that a redesign of the expansion design disclosed in the ’989 patent “would take a substantial amount of time and cost to achieve.” Pet. 65 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 149). Likewise, Dr. Pearce testifies, “[s]uch a redesign would take a substantial amount of time and cost to achieve.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 149. Dr. Pearce, however, does not explain sufficiently why combining mechanical expansion and inflation expansion would require a substantial amount of time and cost. See id. For these reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden of showing by a preponderance of evidence that claims 1–19 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for lack of enablement.” slip op. at 33

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Factors that may be considered in determining level of ordinary skill in the art include: (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field. Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). We are not persuaded that Dr. Pearce’s testimony concerning the level of skill in the art is erroneous to the extent it does not explicitly require experience related to devices used for uterine surgical procedures or surgical devices that employ expandable inflation-based and mechanical-based components. Patent Owner’s argument and Dr. Grundfest’s testimony is inconsistent with the ’989 patent, which does not disclose an ablation device or method of using an ablation device that solves problems unique to endometrial ablation or unique to surgical devices that employ expandable inflation-based and mechanical-based components. The ’989 patent does not limit the art to be “the field of minimally invasive surgical and uterine devices” (Ex. 2005 ¶ 60). The ’989 patent states: “The present invention relates generally to the field of apparatuses and methods for ablating or coagulating the interior surfaces of body organs. Specifically, it relates to an apparatus and method for ablating the interior linings of body organs such as the uterus and gallbladder.” Ex. 1001, 1:20–24; see also id. at 2:36–38 (“The present invention is an apparatus and method of ablation and/or coagulating tissue, such as that of the uterus or other organ”).” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 9,247,989 unpatentable
  § 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 9,247,989
• Captioncall, L.L.C. / Sorenson Communications, Inc. v. Ultratec, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 7, 2016 · IPR2015-00637 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–30 are unpatentable as obvious; Patent Owner’s contingent motion to amend is denied for lack of written-description support and indefiniteness.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedGranted in part

    “admitted that the patented features of voice and revoiced text are responsible for ‘giv[ing] the phone back to folks with hearing loss.’” PO Resp. 48 (emphasis added). Thus, Patent Owner is offering the statement for the truth that voice and re-voiced text gives the phone back to folks with hearing loss. Patent Owner’s argument that Mr. Puzey was discussing the existence of features in his company’s product rather than features in Patent Owner’s product does not change that his statement is offered as proof regarding an alleged long-felt need for the features. Accordingly, his testimony is hearsay. slip op. at 15

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “art is telecommunication systems. Thus, a [POSA] is a person familiar with at least that technology by way of background and/or experience.” CaptionCall, LLC v. Ultratec, Inc., Case IPR2013-00549, Paper 71, 13 (Final Written Decision) (PTAB 2015); see also CaptionCall, LLC v. Ultratec, Inc., Case IPR2013-00780, Paper 35, 9 (Final Written Decision) (PTAB 2015) (reaffirming our finding in IPR2013- 00549). Patent Owner states that it “does not agree” with that definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, and that, “without waiving the foregoing objection and reserving all rights,” states that it will “appl[y]” our prior definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art “for purposes of this Response.” PO Resp. 3. By not setting forth arguments advocating a particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, and by applying our prior definition, Patent Owner has waived arguments for any other definition. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, as expressed by its declarant, Mr. Occhiogrosso. Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 26–27. This person typically has “a bachelor’s degree” slip op. at 35

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

    “understand a “communication link,” as claimed, to refer to the “communication line” described in the specification. In particular, the link is “intended not only to apply to a traditional land-line . . . but also to all equivalents that offer similar functionality.” Id. at 8:60–63. A link could be “a portion of the bandwidth” of a particular connection, such that a single mode of connection (e.g., IP) could carry out two types of communication (voice and text), with each type corresponding to a different “communication link.” See id. at 8:44–47, 8:63–65. For example, as explained in the ’838 patent, “[e]ach of the telephone lines could be . . . a portion of the bandwidth of an ISDN or DSL service.” Id. at 8:53–65. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s construction of “communication link” as “any communication session, protocol, link, connection, or path distinguishable from [another] communication link[].”” slip op. at 22

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

    “3. Combination of References As we discussed above, Petitioner’s combination takes the two-line” slip op. at 43

  Patent outcomesUS 8,908,838 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,908,838
• Westerngeco, L.L.C. v. PGS Geophysical AsSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 8, 2016 · IPR2015-00309 · APJ Justin Busch · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 11, 16, 17, 21, and 22 are unpatentable; claims 3–5 are not shown unpatentable, and challenges to claims 18–20 are dismissed.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenMixed

    “Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 11, 16, 17, 21, and 22 are unpatentable, but has failed to do so for claims 3–5 and 12–15. We dismiss the Petition with respect to the challenges asserted against claims 18–20.” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “more than merely “selecting” times. Petitioner offers no explanation how Dr. Ikelle’s testimony that “indexed” should be construed broadly to mean “selected,” Ex. 2002, 184:8–11, would be consistent with the rest of the limitation that requires enabling separate identification of events originating from different sources. Patent Owner’s proposed construction, however, is unduly narrow to the extent it requires recording. As explained in the passage cited by Patent Owner, recording the signal and indexing are two separate aspects of the process involved in the ’981 patent. Ex. 1001, 5:62–67 (“A recording is made of the signal . . . that is indexed to a known time reference with respect to time of firing of the first source) (emphases added). The ’981 patent demonstrates that the term “indexed” is used in the “indexed” limitation according to one of its ordinary meanings that one thing is arranged in reference to another. Id.; see also id. at 6:66–7:1 (“[A] time of firing of each source with respect to a time index” is shown in Figure 4.), 8:33–40 (“[W]hen time is indexed with respect to the firing time of source A,” source B events are not coherent between firing sequences.).” slip op. at 9

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

    “Although a prior art reference may anticipate when the claim limitations not expressly found in that reference are inherent in it, inherency requires that “the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the claimed limitations, it anticipates.” In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Here, Petitioner’s arguments and evidence fail to persuade us that de Kok disclosure of suppressing random noise inherently includes determining trace to trace coherence. Merely demonstrating a step may be done is not sufficient to show that step is inherently anticipated. Accordingly, based on the arguments and evidence submitted, we find Petitioner has failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that de Kok anticipates claims 12 and 17. Similarly, because claims 13–15 ultimately depend from claim 12, we find Petitioner has failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that de Kok anticipates claims 13–15.” slip op. at 19

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

    “The relevant passages cited by both parties demonstrate that Beasley distinguishes between alternating and concurrent firings. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, 7:52–63. Although Herkenhoff states that the concurrent disclosure in Beasley means “exactly concurrently,” Patent Owner has not pointed to any clear disclosure in Beasley itself indicating “concurrently” should be understood as excluding any amount of time delay. Petitioner, however, has pointed to multiple references where Beasley explains that sources may be fired “simultaneously or nearly simultaneously.” Pet. Reply 15 (citing Ex. 1004, 8:46–47); Pet. 47 (quoting Ex. 1004, 1:19–25 (“The present invention, in certain aspects, is directed to seismic survey systems and methods in which two or more seismic sources are fired simultaneously, or significantly close together temporally . . . .”)); see also Ex. 1004, 1:47–51, 8:44–47, 9:5–10, 12:26–29. Moreover, claim 1 of the ’655 patent, which Patent Owner asserts claims the “first embodiment” of the ’981 patent, recites a method including the step of “substantially simultaneously launching a first acoustic wavefield,” from the leading source, “the first wavefield being characterized by a first unique code and launching a second acoustic wavefield” from the trailing source, “the second acoustic wavefield being characterized by a second unique code.” Ex. 2009, 6:46–53. Accordingly, Beasley does not exclude time delay encoding from its disclosed “concurrent” activation embodiments.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 6,906,981 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,906,981
• TRW Automotive U.S. LLC v. Magna Electronics Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 21, 2015 · IPR2015-01450 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 5, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 34–36 were unpatentable under § 103.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Pet.”) requesting inter partes review of claims 1–3, 5, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 34–36 of U.S. Patent No. 8,692,659 B2 (Ex. 1002, “the ’659 patent”). Magna Electronics Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”) to the Petition. An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . 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). For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of claims 1–3, 5, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 34–36 of the ’659 patent. Accordingly, the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted. slip op. at 2

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

    “reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015). On this record and for purposes of this decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 5

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner

    “As best understood from FIG. 16B, extension 8513 of header console 8512 extends downwardly behind the upper portion of windshield W (such portion of windshield W which typically includes a shadeband element as known in the art) and includes a forked portion 8513a, such as an inverted V-shaped or U-shaped portion, which straddles a mirror mounting button 8536 that is mounted to windshield W. Optionally, the downwardly extending portion of header/header console 8512 may be mounted to the inner surface of windshield W, such as by an adhesive or may be releasably, mechanically attached such as by being received by and/or supported by one or more attaching members adhered to the inner surface of the windshield, such as by attachment members, including rails, channels, or the like. Ex. 1012, col. 28, ll. 15–28 (emphasis added). The above disclosure in the ’287 patent describes a console that straddles (and thus is local to) a mirror mounting button and is mounted to a vehicle windshield using attachment members, such as rails or channels. Id. As such, the above disclosure in the ’287 patent is sufficient to show that the inventors had possession of the claimed attachment members. See Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010).” slip op. at 6

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

    “obvious to combine the cited teachings of Schofield and Klappenbach. Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to use the vehicle headlight dimming control in Schofield rather than the rain sensor in Klappenbach because the vehicle headlight dimming control in Schofield provides more functionality. Id. at 46–48 (citing Ex. 1113 ¶¶ 56, 59). Petitioner’s argument explains why one of ordinary skill in the art would select the vehicle headlight dimming control in Schofield rather than the rain sensor in Klappenbach, but does not explain why it would have been obvious to mount the vehicle headlight dimming control in Schofield using the fastening device and housing in Klappenbach. Petitioner argues that the housing in Klappenbach would advantageously seal the components of the camera in Schofield to prevent intrusion of elements from the environment. Pet. 47–48 (citing Ex. 1113 ¶ 58). Petitioner’s argument is not persuasive because Schofield teaches that the imaging sensor module disclosed therein already is protected from such intrusions. Ex. 1007, col. 3, l. 67–col. 4, l. 4. Further, the housing in Klappenbach is not just a protective housing for sensor components, but, rather, a structure designed specifically to accommodate transmitter 10 and receiver 11, as shown in Figure 1. Ex. 1010, col. 3, ll. 46–67, Fig. 1. Petitioner also argues that the fastening device in Klappenbach can be preinstalled. Pet. 48 (citing Ex. 1113 ¶ 58). Petitioner does not explain, though, why that would have made it obvious to use the fastening device and housing in Klappenbach with the vehicle headlight dimming control in Schofield. Moreover, Petitioner does not provide a specific explanation or identify specific evidence showing that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the housing in Figures 1 and 2 of Klappenbach is, or can be, configured to accommodate a forward facing camera generally or the vehicle headlight dimming control in Figure 1 of Schofield particularly. Pet. 45–48. Therefore, on this record, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the cited teachings of Blank, Schofield, and Klappenbach in the manner proposed by Petitioner.” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 8,692,659
• TRW Automotive U.S. LLC v. Magna Electronics Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 21, 2015 · IPR2015-01436 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 78–80 and 83–89 were unpatentable under § 103.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Pet.”) requesting inter partes review of claims 78–80 and 83–89 of U.S. Patent No. 8,692,659 B2 (Ex. 1002, “the ’659 patent”). Magna Electronics Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”) to the Petition. An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . 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). For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of claims 78–80 and 83–89 of the ’659 patent. Accordingly, the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted. slip op. at 2

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner

    “written description of an attachment member attached to a vehicle windshield and local to a mirror mounting button, as recited in the challenged claims. Pet. 10–13 (citing Ex. 1913 ¶¶ 31–33, 40, 44–46). Petitioner’s argument is not persuasive. The ’287 patent discloses the following: As best understood from FIG. 16B, extension 8513 of header console 8512 extends downwardly behind the upper portion of windshield W (such portion of windshield W which typically includes a shadeband element as known in the art) and includes a forked portion 8513a, such as an inverted V-shaped or U-shaped portion, which straddles a mirror mounting button 8536 that is mounted to windshield W. Optionally, the downwardly extending portion of header/header console 8512 may be mounted to the inner surface of windshield W, such as by an adhesive or may be releasably, mechanically attached such as by being received by and/or supported by one or more attaching members adhered to the inner surface of the windshield, such as by attachment members, including rails, channels, or the like. Ex. 1012, col. 28, ll. 15–28 (emphasis added). The above disclosure in the ’287 patent describes a console that straddles (and thus is local to) a mirror mounting button and is mounted to a vehicle windshield using attachment members, such as rails or channels. Id. As such, the above disclosure in the ’287 patent is sufficient to show that the inventors had possession of the claimed attachment member. See Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010).” slip op. at 7

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

    “camera.” Ex. 1002, col. 53, l. 63–col. 54, l. 2. Petitioner argues that the housing in Klappenbach corresponds to the claimed structure configured to accommodate a forward facing camera, and that the vehicle headlight dimming control in Schofield includes the claimed forward facing camera. Pet. 39–42. The housing in Klappenbach is designed specifically to accommodate transmitter 10 and receiver 11, as shown in Figure 1. Ex. 1010, col. 3, ll. 46–67, Fig. 1. Petitioner does not provide a specific explanation or identify specific evidence showing that the housing in Figures 1 and 2 of Klappenbach also is configured to accommodate a forward facing camera. Pet. 39–42. Therefore, on this record, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the combined teachings of Blank, Schofield, Klappenbach, and Carter would have taught or suggested the limitation “said structure is configured to accommodate a forward facing camera” to one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11

  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 8,692,659
• TRW Automotive U.S. LLC v. Magna Electronics Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 21, 2015 · IPR2015-01431 · APJ Phillip J Kauffman · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 62–66 and 69 were unpatentable under § 103.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of claims 62–66 and 69 of the ’659 patent. Accordingly, the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted. B.” slip op. at 2

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner

    “§ 112, first paragraph, does not require the description to be literally the same as the claim language at issue. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 265 (CCPA 1976); In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 969 (CCPA 1971). Rather, by whatever language, the specification only must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date of the application, the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing with approval the standard in Vas Cath, and stating “the test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.”). Petitioner contends that pursuant to the holding in Lockwood, the specific combination found in each of the challenged claims of the ’659 patent must be disclosed in the ’287 patent in order to meet the written description standard. See Pet. 10–17 (citing Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). To the extent that Petitioner suggests that the combination must be disclosed in a single embodiment, we disagree. Rather, in Lockwood, the court relied upon the written description standard found in Vas-Cath, and held that because one of the continuations in the chain of five applications did not describe the claim features, the later patent could not claim priority to the earlier patent. Lockwood, 107 F3d at 1571–72 (citing Vas-Cath Inc., 935 F.2d at 1563–64). Consequently, we agree with Patent Owner that the written description requirement does not compel that a single embodiment fully describe the invention. See Prelim. Resp. 9–12. With this standard in mind we analyze Petitioner’s contentions.” slip op. at 7

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “We have reviewed the parties’ assertions and supporting evidence, and, for the reasons discussed below, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that the ’287 patent is prior art.” slip op. at 6

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

    “b) Rationale Petitioner’s rationale for the proposed modification is not persuasive. First, Petitioner contends that it would have been obvious to utilize Klappenbach’s housing 2 in Blank’s device to provide rain sensor functionality. Pet. 37. Then Petitioner reasons it would have been obvious to replace Klappenbach’s rain sensor with the improved functionality of Schofield’s camera that includes rain sensing capability. See id. at 43. Petitioner’s argument explains why one of ordinary skill in the art would select Schofield’s camera, rather than the Klappenbach’s rain sensor, but does not explain why it would have been obvious to mount Schofield’s camera in Klappenbach’s housing. See Prelim. Resp. 32–33. Second, Petitioner reasons that Klappenbach’s housing would advantageously seal the components of Schofield’s camera to prevent intrusion of elements from the environment. Pet. 38, 43–44 (citing Ex. 1713 ¶ 59). However, Schofield’s camera already is protected from such intrusions. See Ex. 1007, 3:67–4:4; Prelim. Resp. 32, 34. Third, Petitioner reasons that Klappenbach’s technique of attaching the fastening device during windshield manufacture is a manufacturing advantage because the sensor is not mounted until after the motor vehicle is built. Pet. 37–38 (citing Ex. 1010, 2:11–16; Ex. 1713 ¶ 58). As discussed above, Klappenbach’s device is mounted pressed against and at the angle of the windshield, while Schofield’s is mounted spaced from the windshield and horizontal. Petitioner does not explain persuasively how Klappenbach’s technique provides a manufacturing advantage for a device such as Schofield’s camera that is mounted in a different manner. See Prelim. Resp. 32 (noting this advantage is particular to a refractive rain sensor). Further, Petitioner’s reasoning is contradictory in that it touts that Schofield’s camera “advantageously eliminates the requirement for optical coupling,” yet relies upon Klappenbach’s mounting technique for optical coupling. See Ex. 1713 ¶ 59. 5. Conclusion For at least the foregoing reasons, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 62, 63, 65, 66, and 69 would have been obvious over Blank, Schofield, Klappenbach, and Batavia. C. OBVIOUSNESS OVER BLANK, SCHOFIELD, KLAPPENBACH, BATAVIA, CARTER, AND ADMITTED PRIOR ART” slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,692,659
• TRW Automotive U.S. LLC v. Magna Electronics Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 21, 2015 · IPR2015-01430 · APJ Phillip J Kauffman · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 14–21 and 24 were unpatentable under § 103.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of claims 14–21 and 24 of the ’659 patent. Accordingly, the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted. B.” slip op. at 2

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “specific combination found in each of the challenged claims of the ’659 patent must be disclosed in the ’287 patent in order to meet the written description standard. See Pet. 10–16 (citing Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). To the extent that Petitioner suggests that the combination must be disclosed in a single embodiment, we disagree.. Lockwood contains no such explicit holding. Rather, in Lockwood, the court relied upon the written description standard found in Vas-Cath, and held that because one of the continuations in the chain of five applications did not describe the claim features, the later patent could not claim priority to the earlier patent. Lockwood, 107 F3d at 1571–72 (citing Vas-Cath Inc., 935 F.2d at 1563–64). Consequently, we agree with Patent Owner that the written description requirement does not compel that a single embodiment fully describe the invention. See Prelim. Resp. 9–12. With this standard in mind we analyze Petitioner’s contentions.” slip op. at 7

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

    “a) Structure Configured to Accommodate a Camera Independent claim 1 requires a structure configured to accommodate a forward facing camera. Petitioner relies on Klappenbach’s housing 2 as the claimed structure to accommodate Schofield’s forward facing camera (dimming control 12 having image sensor module 14 that may be a video camera). Pet. 40–44. As Petitioner acknowledges, Klappenbach’s rain sensor does not include a camera; rather, Klappenbach’s outer housing part 2 is designed specifically to accommodate transmitter 10 and receiver 11. See id. at 43; Ex. 1010, 3:46–67, Figs. 1, 2. Rather, Klappenbach’s outer housing part 2 is designed specifically to accommodate transmitter 10 and receiver 11, as shown in Figure 1. Ex. 1010, 3:46–67, Fig. 1. Klappenbach’s sensor is pressed against, and at the angle of the windshield. Id. at 1:45–59; Figs. 1, 2. In contrast, Schofield’s camera is spaced from the windshield, and oriented horizontally. See Ex. 1007, Fig. 1; Prelim. Resp. 27–28. Petitioner does not provide a specific explanation or identify specific evidence showing that the housing in Figures 1 and 2 of Klappenbach also is configured to accommodate a forward facing camera. See Pet. 36–38, 41– 44. Consequently, Petitioner has not addressed persuasively this difference between the prior art and the claimed subject matter, nor explained sufficiently how claim 56 is unpatentable. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966) (factor 2); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4).” slip op. at 13

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

    “b) Rationale Petitioner’s rationale for the proposed modification is not persuasive. First, Petitioner contends that it would have been obvious to utilize Klappenbach’s housing 2 in Blank’s device to provide rain sensor functionality. Pet. 37. Then Petitioner reasons it would have been obvious to replace Klappenbach’s rain sensor with the improved functionality of Schofield’s camera that includes rain sensing capability. See id. at 43. Petitioner’s argument explains why one of ordinary skill in the art would select Schofield’s camera rather than the Klappenbach’s rain sensor, but does not explain why it would have been obvious to mount Schofield’s camera in Klappenbach’s housing. See Prelim. Resp. 32–33. Second, Petitioner reasons that Klappenbach’s housing would advantageously seal the components of Schofield’s camera to prevent intrusion of elements from the environment. Pet. 38, 43–43 (citing Ex. 1613 ¶ 58). However, Schofield’s camera already is protected from such intrusions. See Ex. 1007, 3:67–4:4; Prelim. Resp. 32, 34. Third, Petitioner reasons that Klappenbach’s technique of attaching the fastening device during windshield manufacture is an advantage because the sensor is not mounted until after the motor vehicle is built. Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1010, 2:11–16; Ex. 1613 ¶ 58). As discussed above, Klappenbach’s device is mounted pressed against and at the angle of the windshield, while Schofield’s is mounted spaced from the windshield and horizontal. Petitioner does not explain persuasively how Klappenbach’s technique provides a manufacturing advantage for a device such as Schofield’s camera that is mounted in a different manner. See Prelim. Resp. 32 (noting this advantage is particular to a refractive rain sensor). Further, Petitioner’s reasoning is contradictory in that it touts that Schofield’s camera “advantageously eliminates the requirement for optical coupling,” yet relies upon Klappenbach’s mounting technique for optical coupling. See Ex. 1613 ¶ 59.” slip op. at 14

  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,692,659

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.