• Yamaha Golf Car Company v. Club Car, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,480,569
• 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
• Microsoft Corporation v. Smart Skins LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · Nov 21, 2017 · IPR2016-00404 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Microsoft's rehearing request, maintaining that claims 1, 12, 13, 15, 23, and 24 are entitled to the July 17, 2001 priority date and that Janik and Kehoe are not prior art.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. ANALYSIS When considering a request for rehearing, the Board reviews its decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2

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

    “part of U.S. Patent Application No. 10/087,098 (Ex. 1014, “the ’098 application”), which was filed on March 1, 2002, and that the ’864 patent and the ’098 application claim priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/306,326 (Ex. 1015, “the ’326 provisional”), which was filed on July 17, 2001. Dec. 14–15 (citing Paper 1 (“Pet.”), 10; Paper 14 (“PO Resp.”), 8; Ex. 1001; Ex. 1014, 2). We determined that Smart Skins LLC (“Patent Owner”) had shown sufficiently that the challenged claims of the ’864 patent are entitled to a filing date of July 17, 2001, because the disclosures of the ’098 application and the ’326 provisional (collectively, “the priority applications”) provide written description support for the challenged claims of the ’864 patent. Dec. 14–21.” slip op. at 3

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

    “established by Patent Owner for the challenged claims (July 17, 2001) predates the earliest filing dates of Janik and Kehoe established by Petitioner (September 4, 2001, and October 24, 2001, respectively). Dec. 22. We determined that, as a result, Petitioner had not shown sufficiently that either Janik or Kehoe qualifies as prior art to the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Dec. 22. Therefore, we concluded that Petitioner had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 12, 13, 15, 23, and 24 would have been obvious over Janik and Kehoe. Id. at 23. Petitioner argues that, because we erred in determining that the challenged claims of the ’864 patent are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the priority applications, we should reconsider our determination that Janik and Kehoe are not prior art. Req. Reh’g 15. For the reasons discussed above, we maintain our determination that the challenged claims are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the priority applications. Thus, we also maintain our determination that Petitioner had not shown sufficiently that either Janik or Kehoe qualifies as prior art to the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).” slip op. at 14

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

    “challenged claims of the ’864 patent are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the priority applications, we should reconsider our determination that Janik and Kehoe are not prior art. Req. Reh’g 15. For the reasons discussed above, we maintain our determination that the challenged claims are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the priority applications. Thus, we also maintain our determination that Petitioner had not shown sufficiently that either Janik or Kehoe qualifies as prior art to the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Petitioner requests that we address the asserted ground of unpatentability based on Janik and Kehoe “conditionally,” even if we do not change our determination regarding the priority date of the challenged claims. Req. Reh’g 15. We are not persuaded, though, that it would be an efficient use of resources to address all of the parties’ arguments and evidence regarding the asserted ground of unpatentability based on Janik and Kehoe when Petitioner has not met its burden to show that Janik and Kehoe are prior art to the challenged claims. Therefore, we decline to “conditionally” address any remaining issues regarding the asserted ground of unpatentability based on Janik and Kehoe.” slip op. at 15

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 7,079,864
• Texas Association Of Realtors v. Uber Technologies, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,510,045
• Microsoft Corporation v. Smart Skins LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 21, 2017 · IPR2016-00404 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 12, 13, 15, 23, and 24 are unpatentable as obvious over Lunsford and Canova; Janik and Kehoe do not qualify as prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The parties do not identify any material differences between their respective definitions of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 11–12; PO Resp. 5. Thus, we determine that both parties define the level of ordinary skill in the art appropriately in this case. Further, our findings and conclusions in this case would be the same under either party’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. To the extent necessary, though, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition, which is supported by the declaration of Dr. Ian Cullimore. PO Resp. 5; Ex. 2006 ¶ 27. As such, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a Bachelor’s degree or equivalent in engineering or computer science, a minimum of a few years of experience with designing and developing software and hardware systems for mobile devices, and general knowledge of embedded systems, and software principles, peripherals, communications protocols, and the like.” slip op. at 5

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “We agree that the specification of the ’864 patent supports construing the adding limitations to mean “configured to enable or contribute to enabling the peripheral device and the mobile device to function together,” as Petitioner proposes. For example, the ’864 patent states that “I/O interface 406 [of electronics 400] facilitates an application or a system service of mobile device 300 in reading the inputs provided by peripherals 102–104, and to writing the outputs to be outputted to peripherals 102–104.” Ex. 1001, col. 4, l. 65–col. 5, l. 1 (emphasis added). The ’864 patent further explains that “protocol processor 403 [of electronics 400] is employed to recover the input data” from peripherals 102–104 (id. at col. 4, ll. 43–48 (emphasis added)), and that “device driver 532 [of mobile device 300] notifies protocol processor 403 to package the data for output to peripherals 102–104” (id. at col. 5, l. 66–col. 6, l. 1 (emphasis added)). These portions of the ’864 patent indicate that the electronic component, which includes the protocol processor, facilitates the transmission of data between the peripheral device and the mobile device, and, thus, contributes to enabling the peripheral device and the mobile device to function together. Id. at col. 6, ll. 3–4 (“Accordingly, data may be . . . inputted and/or outputted for mobile device 300 and peripherals 102–104.”).” slip op. at 7

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

    “burden to come forward with evidence that claims 1 and 15 are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the priority applications. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379. As a result, the burden of production returns to Petitioner to show that claims 1 and 15 are not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the priority applications. Id. at 1380. Petitioner argues that the priority applications do not disclose that the electronic component is coupled to the LEDs or that the electronic component is configured (or designed) to add the LEDs to the mobile device. Pet. Reply 2–4. Specifically, Petitioner argues that “[t]he two ancestor applications . . . do not describe those LEDs interacting with either the mobile device or the supposed electronic component in the cover,” but instead imply “that the LEDs control themselves.” Id. at 3–4. Petitioner’s argument is not persuasive. First, the priority applications do not imply that the LEDs control themselves. The priority applications disclose that the electronic component on the cover includes data for personalizing various aspects of the mobile phone. PO Resp. 15–16; Ex. 1014, 8–9 (“having data . . . for personalizing various behavioral or non-visual aspects of the personality of exposed mobile phone”), 21 (“During this exchange of data, settings . . . complementary to the personalizing theme of the interchangeable covering [are] immediately implemented in the mobile electronic device”); Ex. 1015, 7–8, 20. The priority applications further disclose that the “included data control[s] the LEDs.” PO Resp. 15; Ex. 1014, 17; Ex. 1015, 16. Thus, the priority applications convey that the electronic component on the cover includes data for controlling the LEDs. Second, the priority applications describe the LEDs as interacting with the mobile device and the electronic component. As discussed above, the priority applications disclose that the electronic component and the mobile phone exchange data for personalizing various aspects of the mobile phone. PO Resp. 15–16; Ex. 1014, 8–9, 21; Ex. 1015, 7–8, 20. With respect to personalization of the mobile phone using the LEDs on the cover, the priority applications disclose that the “LEDs may be utilized for various visual activities, such as, but not limited to, displaying a message, or lighting up corresponding to sounds.” PO Resp. 15; Ex. 1014, 17; Ex. 1015, 16. Thus, the priority applications convey that the electronic component is coupled to the mobile phone and the LEDs, and that the electronic component enables the mobile device to function together with the LEDs (e.g., so that the LEDs can be used to display a message or light up corresponding to sounds). Therefore, Patent Owner has shown sufficiently that claims 1 and 15” slip op. at 18

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

    “Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the cited teachings of Lunsford and Canova. Pet. 23–26 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 32–38). We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s reasoning. Specifically, Lunsford and Canova relate to the same field of endeavor as the ’864 patent, that is, a cover for a mobile device that adds a peripheral to the mobile device.10 Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 27–30; Ex. 1003, col. 1, l. 66–col. 2, l. 3; Ex. 1004, col. 1, ll. 47–55, col. 2, ll. 25–28. Further, as discussed above, Lunsford teaches a connector disposed on the cover body, and Canova also teaches a connector disposed on the cover body. Ex. 1003, col. 2, l. 64–col. 3, l. 5, col. 10, ll. 34–45, Fig. 3E; Ex. 1004, col. 1, ll. 53– 55, col. 2, ll. 1–8, col. 2, ll. 41–47, Figs. 5A, 5B. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine these interrelated teachings of Lunsford and Canova so that the connector in Lunsford is disposed on the cover body as taught by Canova. Pet. 23–24; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 35–37; KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“Often, it will be necessary . . . to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents”). Also, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to 9 As a result, the challenged claims would have been obvious over Lunsford, even without Canova. 10 In addition, Canova incorporates by reference the contents of Lunsford. Pet. 24; Ex. 1004, col. 1, ll. 6–8, col. 1, ll. 19–20. dispose the connector in Lunsford on the cover body, as taught by Canova, in order to allow the connector in Lunsford to mate easily with the corresponding connector of a handheld computer. Pet. 25–26; Ex. 1007 ¶ 38; KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions”).” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 7,079,864 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,079,864
• 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
• TRW Automotive U.S. LLC v. Magna Electronics Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 21, 2015 · IPR2015-01451 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 90–97 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 90–97 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 90–97 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 6

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

    “written description of the attachment members attached to a vehicle windshield and local to a mirror mounting button, as recited in the challenged claims. Pet. 11–13 (citing Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 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 members. See Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Petitioner argues that the ’287 patent does not contain sufficient written description of “how the ‘rails, channels or the like’ would adhere to the windshield to permit co-engagement as the inverted U or V-shaped portion 8513a engages the mirror mounting button 8536.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 33, 40). Petitioner’s argument is not persuasive because the challenged claims of the ’659 patent do not recite that the attachment members or structure supported by the attachment members engage the mirror mounting button. See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351 (“[T]he test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure . . . reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter.”) (emphasis added). Further, as discussed above, the ’287 patent explains that the console supported by the attachment members straddles the mirror mounting button. Ex. 1012, col. 28, ll. 15–28.” slip op. at 7

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundDecided for patent owner

    “We also are not persuaded, on this record, that it would have been 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 42–44 (citing Ex. 2013 ¶ 56). 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. 43–44 (citing Ex. 2013 ¶ 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. 44 (citing Ex. 2013 ¶ 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. 41–44. 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, Klappenbach, and Carter in the manner proposed by Petitioner.” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosure
  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.