- Donghee America, Inc. / Donghee Alabama, LLC v. Plastic Omnium Advanced Innovation And ResearchAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 11, 2018 · IPR2017-01605 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 7, 11, 12, and 14 are unpatentable: claims 1–3, 12, and 14 are anticipated by Linden, and claims 7 and 11 are obvious over Linden and Hata.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“article whose surface has at least one empty or concave part.” Id. at 11 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:66–67; Ex. 1007 ¶ 15). Patent Owner agrees. PO Resp. 15. The ’253 patent states that “[t]he term ‘hollow body’ is understood to mean any article whose surface has at least one empty or concave part.” Ex. 1001, 1:66–67. Where an inventor defines specific terms used to describe an invention, we will give effect to those definitions, as long as they are set out “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision,” “so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change” in meaning. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Here, the phrase “is understood to mean,” as used in the ’253 patent, signals that the inventor presents a clear, deliberate, and precise definition. Accordingly, we interpret “hollow body” as having the definition given it in the ’253 patent, “any article whose surface has at least one empty or concave part.”” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“supporting its proposed construction of “incorporate” as “insert.” First, Petitioner argues that the language of the ’253 patent requires a construction of “incorporating” as encompassing “inserting” rather than as limited to “attaching.” Reply 2–4. Both parties argue that the “incorporating” recited in the challenged claims must occur before the mold closes to form the hollow body. PO Resp. 16; Reply 2–3. We agree. Ex. 1001, 6:2–14 (“. . . after said step of incorporating, closing said mould . . .”). Thus, it is important to note the processes that the ’253 patent describes as occurring before, during, and after mold closure. Because “incorporating” must occur before mold closure, the process of “incorporating” may not be limited to any process that the patent describes as occurring during or after mold closure. Petitioner is correct that the ’253 patent describes a process in which a preassembled structure for supporting an accessory “may . . . be fastened by welding to the wall of the hollow body, upon closing the mould,” i.e., during, not before, mold closure. Ex. 1001, 4:23–30. Thus, the language of the ’253 patent does not support construing the term “incorporating” as limited to “attaching.” Petitioner also argues that both parties agreed in the related infringement suit in District Court that the proper construction of “incorporating” under the Phillips standard, used in that forum, was “inserting.” Reply 7–8 (citing Ex. 1010, at Ex. A, 4). Specifically, in that litigation, Patent Owner agreed that the correct construction of “incorporating at least one of an accessory or a duct within the hollow body” was “inserting an accessory or duct into the hollow body.” Ex. 1010, at Ex. A, 4. Here, we apply the broadest-reasonable-interpretation standard. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2016). “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim term may be the same as or broader than the construction of a term under the Phillips standard. But it cannot be narrower.” Facebook, Inc. v. Pragmatus AV, LLC, 582 F. App’x 864, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (non-precedential). Here, for the term “incorporating,” Patent Owner’s proposed broadest reasonable interpretation (“attaching”) is narrower than the Phillips construction Patent Owner has advanced (“inserting”). Thus, “attaching” cannot be the broadest reasonable interpretation of “incorporating.” Other than Patent Owner’s proposed “attaching” construction, the only construction the parties have proposed either in this case or in the related District Court case is Petitioner’s proposed “inserting” construction. PO Resp. 15–20 (discussing only “inserting” and “attaching” constructions); Reply 2–9 (Petitioner arguing in favor of “inserting”); Ex. 1010, at Ex. A, 4 (both parties proposing “inserting”). The ’253 patent supports such a construction, because it describes at least some of its embodiments as involving only insertion of an object between the sheets that will form the hollow body before mold closure. Ex. 1001, 4:23–30. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of “incorporating” as “inserting.”” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Finally, Patent Owner directs us to the testimony of Professor Tim Osswald as support for its view that “incorporate” should mean “attach.” PO Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 40–42). In relevant part, this testimony states that, “[a]fter reading the specification of the ’253 patent, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand and interpret the word ‘incorporating’ to mean ‘fastening’ or ‘attaching’ so that the accessory or duct becomes part of the hollow body.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 42. Professor Osswald does not cite any evidence in support of his testimony. “[C]onclusory, unsupported assertions by experts as to the definition of a claim term are not useful.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Accordingly, we give little weight to Professor Osswald’s statement regarding the proper construction of “incorporate.” See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he [PTAB] is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations . . . .” (citations omitted)).” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“preform which has at least one opening for that purpose, to be applied to the inside surface of the wall of the expanded hollow body.” Id. at 3:62–4:3. Patent Owner argues that this teaching is insufficient to disclose attaching the surge cup to the wall of the hollow body before the mold closes. PO Resp. 23–24. We agree that Linden does not teach attaching its accessory to the inside wall of the fuel tank before the mold closes around the preform. Instead, in Linden, the mold halves are closed around the preform and the mandrel, and “a suitable blowing agent . . . is introduced under pressure” through the mandrel, causing the preform to expand to press “against the inside wall defining the mold cavity,” and only then is the holding means for the accessory displaced to be brought into contact with the inner wall of the expanded preform, welding the holding means to the wall. Ex. 1003, 7:27–55, 8:11–29, Figs. 1–3. But, as discussed above, we disagree with Patent Owner about the proper construction of “incorporating” in the challenged claims. Claim 1 requires only that an accessory or a duct be “incorporat[ed] . . . within the hollow body” before mold closure occurs, and we construe “incorporating” to mean “inserting,” without requiring “attaching.” Thus, it is unimportant that Linden fails to teach attaching the surge cup to the wall before mold closure. All that is required is that Linden disclose inserting the surge cup into the preform before mold closure, and Linden does disclose this. Id. at 3:62–4:3, 7:27–49, Figs. 1–3. The next question is whether Linden discloses “after said step of incorporating, closing [the mold] in a way which eliminates any interface between said at least one of said accessory or said duct and an external atmosphere outside of the hollow body.” As discussed above, Linden discloses closing the mold halves after placing the additional body within the preform. But Linden discloses that “[a]t its lower end the preform 28 is pressed around the mandrel 14 by virtue of closure of the mold halves 10a and 10b.” Id. at 7:40–42, Fig. 2. Because mandrel 14 is hollow, id. at 6:35–39; 6:46–54, it is not completely clear that closure of Linden’s hollow body around mandrel 14 necessarily eliminates any interface between the additional body inside Linden’s hollow body and the atmosphere outside the hollow body. On the other hand, the closure of the mold described in the ’253 patent occurs with blowing nozzle 6 “positioned between the two parts of the [mold],” and “blowing air is injected under pressure via the nozzle,” which is quite similar to the use of hollow mandrel 14 in Linden. Ex. 1001, 5:50–57. Given the similarity between Linden’s method and the method described in the ’253 patent, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Linden discloses the limitation of claim 1 requiring the step of, “after said step of incorporating, closing [the mold] in a way which eliminates any interface between said at least one of said accessory or said duct and an external atmosphere outside of the hollow body.” The final question with respect to claim 1 is whether Linden discloses that the additional body incorporated within the hollow body “is supported by a preassembled structure which comprises at least one device configured to anchor said preassembled structure to an internal wall of the hollow body.” Petitioner argues that Linden’s “[h]olding means 24 is a preassembled structure” in which “leg members 44, 45” have “enlarged foot portion[s] 36.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003, 9:23–34). We agree. “[H]olding means 24 . . . substantially comprises first and second support or leg members 44, 45,” and “support or leg members 44, 45 are each provided with an enlarged foot portion 36 of substantially plate-like configuration.” Ex. 1003, 9:23–34. Even if Linden’s holding means 24 were not in the aggregate the recited “preassembled structure,” each leg member 44, 45, taken together with its respective foot portion 36 is. Ex. 1001, 4:26–28 (describing a “preassembled structure” as “for example, an arm provided with a tab for fastening to the wall of the hollow body”). Linden’s “foot portions 36 are pressed against the inside surface, which is still hot and thus plastic, . . . of the hollow body . . . thereby to produce a welded joint between the foot portions 36 and the inside surface.” Id. at 9:34–42. Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Linden discloses the limitation of claim 1 requiring that the accessory or duct be “supported by a preassembled structure which comprises at least one device configured to anchor said preassembled structure to an internal wall of the hollow body.”” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 7,166,253 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,166,253 - Bedra, Inc. / Berkenhoff GmbH et al. v. Seong, Ki ChulInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 29, 2018 · IPR2018-00667 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–5 were unpatentable over Tomalin or Mukherjee and Briffod I.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“On the present record, we are persuaded that Patent Owner’s construction is correct. Although it is true that the ’535 patent describes “produc[ing] uniform cracks in the coating layer and the alloy layer to form a porous structure on the surface,” Ex. 1002, 6:51–52, it is not clear on the present record that this necessarily means the cracks themselves are the surface pores. Instead, “the porous nature of the wire” merely “arises from the cracks in the alloy layer and the coating layer.” Id. at 4:32–33 (emphasis added). Thus, the ’535 patent does not necessarily treat the cracks as synonymous with the pores; it also may allow the creation of pores merely as a result of the creation of separate cracks. In addition, the ’535 patent places restrictions on the shape of cracks that are more consistent with Patent Owner’s proposed construction than with that proposed by Petitioner. The ’535 patent consistently describes the cracks as directional and oriented perpendicular to the length of the wire. Id. at 4:43–45 (“the alloy layer includes cracks having a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the wire”), 5:35–37 (“the cracks have a direction approximately perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the wire”), 6:53–55 (“These cracks are propagated through the grain boundary of the coating layer and the direction of the propagation is perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the wire”). Interpreting “crack” as synonymous with “pore,” which refers to any small hole or opening without any limit on shape, Ex. 2004, is inconsistent with the description of cracks in the ’535 patent as directional. Far more consistent with this description is Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “crack” as “narrow break.” Accordingly, on the present record, we construe “crack structure” as “an arrangement of narrow breaks.”” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“evidence currently of record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“In other words, for the ’535 patent to be entitled to the priority date of the Korean application, the Korean application must “contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same.” 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). The question Petitioner presents here is whether the Korean application adequately describes the presence of an alloy layer with the “crack structure on its surface” that is recited in the challenged claims.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedReference not prior artDecided for patent owner
“application are entitled to the benefit of a foreign priority date if the corresponding foreign application supports the claims in the manner required by [35 U.S.C. §] 112.” In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1989).” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 6,482,535 - L’Oréal USA, Inc. v. Liqwd, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jul 19, 2017 · PGR2017-00011 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution of PGR on claims 1–10 because Petitioner did not show that any claim was more likely than not unpatentable under § 112.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 324(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting a post-grant review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), which provides that a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.”” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Moreover, “[a]pplicants can define . . . claim scope during prosecution,” just as they can in a patent specification. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 789 F.3d 1335, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Here, during prosecution of the ’419 patent, the applicant stated that “[t]he term ‘hair coloring agent’ refers to a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.” Ex. 1005, 7. To define specific terms used to describe an invention, the applicant need only set out the definition “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). On the present record, the definition of the term “hair coloring agent” set out in the prosecution history of the ’419 patent is sufficiently clear, deliberate, and precise to give a person of ordinary skill in the art notice that the term is used in the ’419 patent in a manner that does not include substances other than “colorant[s] or pigment[s] that [are] customarily used in hair care products,” even if those other substances might be described as “hair coloring agents” outside the context of the ’419 patent. Ex. 1005, 7. Accordingly, we should give effect to that definition. Because Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” gives effect to the prosecution history’s definition of “hair coloring agent,” we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction for purposes of the present decision. Thus, on the present record, and for purposes of the present decision, we construe “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” as “wherein the mixture applied to the hair does not have a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.”” slip op. at 6
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)Not shown unpatentable
“to determine the scope of the claims. As discussed above, however, we interpret “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” as “wherein the mixture applied to the hair does not have a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.” We have not been directed to evidence of record that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered a bleaching agent to be “a colorant or pigment.” Pet. 7 (describing bleaching as a “process[] that destroy[s] pigment to change hair color,” as opposed to a “process[] that deposit[s] dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair to change hair color”); Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 14–15 (contrasting “dyeing,” meaning “processes that alter or change hair color by depositing dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair,” with “bleaching,” meaning “the application of an oxidizing agent to hair to destroy the natural or artificial pigment”). Accordingly, on the present record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown that it is more likely than not that claims 1–10 of the ’419 patent are indefinite.” slip op. at 10
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not shown unpatentable
“wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent.” Pet. 36–39; Prelim. Resp. 39–40. If “a hair coloring agent” encompasses bleaching agents, then the claims all require a bleaching formulation and simultaneously exclude a bleaching agent, a scope that Petitioner argues is not described in the specification of the ’419 patent. As discussed above, however, we interpret “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” as “wherein the mixture applied to the hair does not have a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.” We have not been directed to evidence of record that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered a bleaching agent to be “a colorant or pigment.” Pet. 7 (describing bleaching as a “process[] that destroy[s] pigment to change hair color,” as opposed to a “process[] that deposit[s] dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair to change hair color”); Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 14–15 (contrasting “dyeing,” meaning “processes that alter or change hair color by depositing dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair,” with “bleaching,” meaning “the application of an oxidizing agent to hair to destroy the natural or artificial pigment”). Accordingly, on the present record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown it is more likely than not that claims 1–10 of the ’419 patent lack written description support. slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 9,498,419 - Midwest Industrial Supply, Inc. v. Soilworks, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 9, 2016 · PGR2016-00004 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–26 because the petition did not show they were more likely than not unpatentable on any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 324(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting a post-grant review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), which provides that a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” After considering the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims it challenges is unpatentable. Accordingly, we do not institute post-grant review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“alkane with a methyl substituent,” that a “dimethyl-branched alkane” be construed as “an alkane with two methyl substituents,” and that “trimethyl-branched alkane” be construed as “an alkane with three methyl substituents.” Pet. 6. Patent Owner does not oppose these constructions, but, given that the precise construction of these terms does not appear to be important to the resolution of issues presented in the present Decision, we conclude that “methyl-branched alkane,” “dimethyl-branched alkane,” and “trimethyl-branched alkane” need not be construed expressly at this time. 3. “Binder” Petitioner suggests that the term “binder” should be construed. Pet. 5–6. Petitioner does not, however, offer a proposed construction for this term. Id. Given this, and given that the precise construction of “binder” does not appear to be important to the resolution of issues presented in the present Decision, we conclude that “binder” need not be construed expressly at this time.” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner has not directed us to evidence of record sufficient to establish that any of Hawkins ’266, Hawkins ’270, EK35, and EnviroKleen discloses the limitations requiring the acyclic and cyclic compounds in the synthetic fluid to be at least 65 weight percent compounds with carbon chain lengths in the range of C24 to C36. Petitioner’s argument with respect to these limitations is that Hawkins ’266 and Hawkins ’270 disclose the use of DSF-65, that the ’592 patent describes the use of Risella X 420, and that, according to Dr. Fetzer, DSF-65, Risella X 420, EK35, and EnviroKleen all have similar compositions. Pet. 14, 28– 29; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 33–34. But the ’592 patent does not mandate the use of Risella X 420 in its claimed invention; instead, this product is only one of several commercial products that can be included “[i]n certain embodiments” of the disclosed invention. Ex. 1003, 4:15–21. It does not necessarily follow that Risella X 420, or a similar composition, falls within the scope of any of the claims of the ’592 patent.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Hawkins ’266, Hawkins ’270, EK35, and EnviroKleen. Pet. 42–69. Relying on the testimony of Dr. Fetzer, Petitioner explains how these references teach each of the limitations of these claims. Id. Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Fetzer explains why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these references. Id.; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 35–36. Moreover, Petitioner’s obviousness arguments are identical to Petitioner’s anticipation arguments. Pet. 10–38, 42–69. The only exception is that the Fetzer Declaration includes the following language with 10 Even if we were to assume that compositional similarity to Risella X 420 was indicative of whether a compound fell within the scope of the claims, as Petitioner argues, it is not clear on the present record that the evidence of record is more likely than not to support a finding that the DSF-65, EK35, and EnviroKleen products have compositions similar to that of Risella X 420. Although Petitioner argues that they do, e.g., Pet. 14, and Dr. Fetzer testifies that they do, Ex. 1002 ¶ 33, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Fetzer explains how to interpret the data presented at pages 32–202 of Dr. Fetzer’s Declaration in order to reach this conclusion. respect to obviousness: “even if the claims are found not to be anticipated, all the claims would be obvious in view of [Hawkins ’266, Hawkins ’270, EK35, and EnviroKleen].” Ex. 1002 ¶ 36. This conclusory statement is not sufficient to satisfy Petitioner’s burden under 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b). As discussed above, at most, Petitioner has demonstrated that the DSF-65 product disclosed in Hawkins ’266 and Hawkins ’270 and the EK35 and EnviroKleen products all have compositions similar to the Risella X 420 described in the Specification of the ’592 patent, without demonstrating that those products have the compositions of the fluids claimed in the ’592 patent. Based on the evidence before us, we cannot conclude that it is more likely than not that Petitioner will be able to demonstrate that Hawkins ’266, Hawkins ’270, EK35, and EnviroKleen render obvious claims 1–26.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 8,968,592
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.