• Uatp IP LLC v. Slick Slide LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Apr 8, 2025 · PGR2024-00054 · APJ Julia Heaney · PGR · Institution

  The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–17 and 22–28 and all asserted grounds, finding a sufficient likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) (2018). Upon consideration of the parties’ submissions and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely than not that at least one claim challenged in the Petition is unpatentable. Further, Patent Owner has not persuaded us that it is appropriate to exercise our discretion not to institute review. Accordingly, we institute a post-grant review of all claims and all grounds asserted in the Petition.1” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedOther

    “On this record, we do not find Patent Owner’s proposed experience level of at least five years in measurement and analysis of coefficient of friction to be supported. As to the necessity of experience in textile engineering and fiber science, Patent Owner’s position, although not supported by declarant analysis of the factors listed above, is consistent with the disclosure of the ’854 patent, which describes features of a mesh layer in textile and fiber terms. See e.g., Ex. 1001, 10:17–11:14, 12:65–13:8, 14:20–24. On the whole, however, we do not discern on this record how specific experience in textile engineering and fiber science of a person of ordinary skill would materially alter the outcome at this stage of the proceeding. For purposes of this decision only, we apply Patent Owner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, except for the requirement of five years of experience in measurement and analysis of coefficient of friction. The level of skill in the art remains an open issue in this proceeding. Further submissions by the parties may include argument and evidence that would assist in the resolution of this issue at the close of trial.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner contends “no formal claim construction is necessary in this proceeding.” Pet. 10; Reply 1, 4. Patent Owner contends the terms “mesh layer” and “coefficient of friction” require construction. Prelim. Resp. 14–16; Sur-reply 2–5. We have considered the parties’ arguments and discuss them below with regard to each of the terms Patent Owner contends should be construed. Because our determination that Petitioner demonstrates at least one challenged claim meets the threshold for institution (see SAS Inst., 138 S. Ct. at 1359–60) is not based on construing the term “mesh layer” or “coefficient of friction,” we determine we need not construe either claim term at this stage of the proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)). As further discussed below, we invite the parties to address claim construction at trial.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner that the ’854 patent specification does not include clear and explicit lexicography or a disclaimer that would support requiring “coefficient of friction” to be determined by a specific ASTM test method. The portion of the specification Patent Owner asserts as a definition of “coefficient of friction” (see Ex. 1001, 11:31–42) is a description of an embodiment; we find it does not express patentee intent to redefine the term. Further, the statement that “the coefficient of friction … may be determined using the … ASTM D1894 standard test method” (id. at 11:32–35) indicates that use of that specific test method is optional. Accordingly, in the absence of patentee lexicography or disavowal, we do not limit the scope of the term “coefficient of friction” to require that it be measured by a specific ASTM standard. Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Elecs. Co., 814 F.3d 1343, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Absent lexicography or disavowal, we do not depart from the plain meaning of the claims.”); In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“We have cautioned against reading limitations into a claim from the preferred embodiment described in the specification, even if it is the only embodiment described, absent clear disclaimer in the specification.”). We note that the ’854 patent specification sets forth a definition for the coefficient of friction between the surfaces of the mesh material and the slide surface. Ex. 1001, 4:38–46. As stated above, however, we do not expressly construe any claim term at this stage of the proceeding. Should the parties address the construction of “coefficient of friction” at trial, we will make a determination after the close of evidence and any hearing.” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,998,854
• Innoscience (Zhuhai) Technology Company, Ltd / Innoscience America, Inc. v. Efficient Power Conversion CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01381 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 and 7–9 are unpatentable as obvious over Uemoto and Smith; the motion to amend is granted, and proposed substitute claims 13 and 14 are not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In order to determine whether an invention would have been obvious at the time the application was filed, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. In assessing the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quotation omitted). Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have possessed at least a four-year degree in electrical engineering, chemical engineering, physics, or material science, or a closely related field, and at least two years of experience in semiconductor device design or fabrication, including the processing of semiconductor materials, analysis of device operation, or the development of new device topologies.” Pet. 5–6. Petitioner contends “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience and vice versa.” Id. at 6. Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “at least a four-year degree in electrical engineering, physics, material science, or a closely related field, and three years of professional work experience in the epitaxial growth, design, and fabrication of semiconductor electronic devices, including those of GaN.” PO Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 82). Upon review of the evidence of record and the parties’ arguments, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art). We note, however, that the conclusions reached in this Decision would be the same under either proposed definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan. See Ex. 2009 ¶ 83 (Dr. Schubert testifying that his opinions would be the same under either proposed definition); Ex. 1033 ¶ 9 (Dr. Shealy testifying that the differences in proposed definitions of the ordinarily skilled artisan “would not change the outcome of the invalidity analysis in any material manner”); PO Resp. 7; Pet. Reply 1.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “compensated GaN layer above the barrier layer, and a gate contact above the compensated GaN layer.” Ex. 1001, 5:12–18. Petitioner contends the term “compensated” indicates that the step of compensating the GaN layer has already occurred, such that the term “compensated GaN layer” should be construed as a “‘[d]oped GaN layer formed with a step to passivate its impurities’ which is a ‘product-by-process’ limitation.”5 Pet. 12–14. And, because compensation with hydrogen was the “critical step” distinguishing the claims from the prior art, and because hydrogenation in as-grown III-nitride materials had been well known for over a decade by 2009, Petitioner contends “compensated” “cannot be interpreted as mere hydrogen presence in as-grown material, a well-known property of doped GaN.” Id. at 15. Patent Owner contends “compensated GaN material” should be construed as “a semiconductor GaN gate material in which one type of impurity (for example, donor) cancels the electrical effects of the other type of impurity (for example, acceptor).” PO Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 92) (emphasis added). Patent Owner contends this construction is consistent with the IEEE dictionary, which defines “compensated semiconductor” as 5 Given that product-by-process steps in a device claim are not entitled to patentable weight, Petitioner contends “the prior art only need show a material with passivated impurities to show unpatentability, not the step to achieve it.” Pet. 15–16. “[a] semiconductor in which one type of impurity or imperfection (for example, donor) partially cancels the electric effects of the other type of impurity or imperfection (for example, acceptor).” PO Resp. 14 (quoting Ex. 2004). Patent Owner contends its construction is also consistent with the written description of the ’294 patent, which explains that a compensated GaN material is part of the gate and includes a p-type impurity that imparts an electrical effect (i.e., conductivity), as well as a second impurity, e.g., hydrogen, that partially cancels the electrical effect of the p-type impurity, rendering the layer semi-insulating. Id. at 14–15 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:10–13, 3:43–45). On this record, we construe “compensated GaN layer” as “a GaN layer in which one type of impurity (for example, donor) partially cancels the electric effects of the other type of impurity (for example, acceptor).” This is consistent with the disclosures of the ’294 patent, the IEEE dictionary definition, and the construction ultimately adopted by the ITC. Ex. 2004, 3; Ex. 1049, 16–17 (ITC construing “compensated GaN layer” to mean “a GaN layer in which one type of impurity partially cancels the electrical effects of another type of impurity”); Ex. 1001, 3:43–45 (explaining that the compensated GaN layer of the ’294 patent is formed through the “passivation of a p-type impurity using hydrogen”). For the reasons set forth below, however, we decline to construe “compensated GaN layer” as a product-by-process claim term (as asserted by Petitioner), or to limit the compensated GaN layer to a gate material (as asserted by Patent Owner).” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner

    “There are two exceptions to the general rule that we apply the ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term: (1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution. See Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365. The standards for lexicography and disclaimer, however, are “exacting.” Id. at 1366. There is no argument that the patentees acted as their own lexicographer to redefine the term “compensated GaN layer.” With respect to disavowal, a “patentee may demonstrate intent to deviate from the ordinary and accustomed meaning of a claim term by including in the specification expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction, representing a clear disavowal of claim scope.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366 (quoting Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). As noted by Patent Owner, the title of the ’294 patent is, in part, “Compensated Gate MISFET” and much of the discussion of the ’294 patent is of a compensated GaN layer that is directly below the gate contact and above a barrier layer and operates in conjunction with the gate contact to control the on/off state of the transistor. PO Resp. 12–14. We are presented with insufficient argument or evidence to conclude, however, that these disclosures rise to the level of a disclaimer. For example, although the title of the ’294 patent is directed to a “Compensated Gate MISFET,” claim 1 is more broadly directed to “[a] column III Nitride transistor.” Ex. 1001, 5:12, code (54). Nor are we directed to an expression or statement of manifest exclusion in the ’294 patent that would serve to disclaim any “compensated GaN layer” that is not directly below the gate and/or that does not function in concert with the gate electrode to control the on/off state of the transistor. See Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366. With respect to the stated goals of the invention, as noted by Patent Owner, one of the primary purposes of the compensated GaN layer of the ’294 patent is to reduce gate leakage and gate capacitance. Ex. 1001, 2:13– 19, 3:18–21 (“[U]sing a compensated semiconductor layer 38 leads to low gate leakage during device operation.”). We cannot use the goals of the invention, however, to rewrite the claims or insert terms that are not present. See Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366. Moreover, the prior art of record indicates that a compensated GaN layer that is below the gate contact and above a barrier layer, but not part of the active gate structure, may also “decrease the leakage current between the gate and the drain.” Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 44 (“Even when a positive bias of 5 V or higher is applied to the gate electrode, no significant gate-leakage current is observed.”), 61. As such, evidence of record suggests that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that one of the primary goals disclosed in the ’294 patent is achieved regardless of whether the compensated GaN layer is part of the gate, or simply in close vicinity to the gate. In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded that the written description of the ’294 patent indicates that the “compensated GaN layer” must be part of the gate structure.” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “To be probative, Patent Owner must prove there is a nexus between the presented evidence and the merits of the claimed invention. See Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1988). A rebuttable presumption of nexus applies when the “patentee shows that the asserted evidence is tied to a specific product and that the product ‘is the invention disclosed and claimed.’” Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Demaco, 851 F.2d at 1392). “That is, presuming nexus is appropriate ‘when the patentee shows that the asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product and that product embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them.’” Id. (quoting Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). If the praise is not limited to the features of the claimed invention, the patent owner may still prove nexus “by showing that the evidence of secondary considerations is the ‘direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention.’” Id. at 1373–74 (quoting In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Patent Owner contends that the compensated gate of the ’294 patent “was a breakthrough invention and resulted in the first commercially viable enhancement-mode GaN transistor.” PO Resp. 60 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 192– 193, 197; Ex. 2021). Patent Owner further contends that this achievement required the counter-intuitive use of a compensated gate material in the gate structure, and represented “a technological leap that laid the foundation for viable enhancement-mode GaN transistors.” Id. at 61–62. For this achievement, Patent Owner contends the inventor, Dr. Alex Lidow, received the 2015 SEMI Award. Id. at 60 (citing Ex. 2021). Upon review of Patent Owner’s evidence and the parties’ arguments, we find that Patent Owner’s objective indicia evidence is entitled to little, if any, weight. The evidence of praise relied upon by Patent Owner is not clearly linked to the claimed invention or any particular product having each of the claimed features of the ’294 patent. Ex. 2021. For example, the 2015 SEMI award was provided to Dr. Lidow “for commercialization of GaN power devices.” Id. An article explaining the award indicates that “high cost” previously “limited [the] commercial success” of GaN technologies, but Dr. Lidow was able to overcome these issues, “from resolving packaging limitations to establishing a low-cost supply chain,” “through persistence.” Id. This praise is not demonstrably linked to the claimed invention or any particular device, and does not mention the use of a compensated gate, or any other relevant feature recited in the claims. In view of the foregoing, we determine that Patent Owner’s objective evidence of non-obviousness is entitled to little, if any, weight.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 8,350,294 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,350,294
• Inari Agriculture, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 1, 2024 · PGR2024-00025 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that claims 1–20 were more likely than not unpatentable over either obviousness ground, for lack of utility, or as indefinite.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 321 . . . demonstrates that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least one of claims 1–20 of the ’033 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny institution of a postgrant review of claims 1–20 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “level of skill, with a doctoral degree in plant breeding or a related field, at least five years of experience with corn breeding, and additional experience interfacing with laboratory-side personnel (including a computational biologist along with genetics specialists) and field-side personnel.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 19–22, 44–45). Petitioner also states that, “[a]lternatively, additional experience could take the place of an advanced degree.” Pet. 15. Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the qualifications of person of skill in the art” and “reserves its right to challenge Petitioner’s definition and to provide its own definition, should trial be instituted.” Prelim. Resp. 25. Petitioner’s unopposed proposed definition is consistent with the cited prior art and the disclosure of the ’033 patent, and we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that the prior art itself may “reflect[] an appropriate level”” slip op. at 6

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

    “Petitioner does not offer a specific construction for any claim terms. Pet. 19–20. Rather, Petitioner contends that “the outer boundary of the Challenged Claims lacks reasonable certainty,” and, therefore, “the Challenged Claims are unpatentable as indefinite under §112(b).” Pet. 20. Petitioner further contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable as obvious “regardless of the outer boundary of the claims.” Pet. 21. Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s arguments regarding indefiniteness, and does not construe any claim terms. See generally Prelim. Resp. As explained in detail below, based on the record before us, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s indefiniteness arguments, and determine that none of the claim terms require an explicit construction to determine whether to institute post-grant review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary” slip op. at 7

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

    “Patent Owner is correct that Petitioner focuses its obviousness challenge on 1PNZQ23’s phenotype, and does not address its genotype. Prelim. Resp. 41–42; see Pet. 26–32 (comparing 1PNZQ23’s phenotype with the phenotypes of the asserted prior art). Petitioner does not direct us to, nor do we discern, any information in the Petition or Reply regarding 1PNZQ23’s genotype that supports Petitioner’s arguments regarding obviousness. Furthermore, Patent Owner offers information suggesting that “the breeding of 1PNZQ23 was unpredictable even with both parents being known in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 47. Dr. Schnable addresses unpredictability in the breeding process, stating: distinct even when the F1 plant itself results from a cross of two inbreds. A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would not expect that a cross of the same parents will produce F2 or D1 progeny identical to 1PNZQ23. . . . [T]he genome of a progeny plant is the result of genetic segregation and recombination in the F1 plant of the two parental genomes and the chance of the exact same child resulting from that initial biparental cross is infinitesimally small. Ex. 2004 ¶ 123. This information undermines Petitioner’s arguments regarding an expectation of success in achieving the claimed invention.” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,707,033
• Inari Agriculture, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 15, 2024 · PGR2024-00023 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–20 because the petition did not show they were unpatentable on any asserted obviousness, utility, written-description, or enablement ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 321 . . . demonstrates that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least one of claims 1–20 of the ’545 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny institution of a postgrant review of claims 1–20 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “level of skill, with a doctoral degree in plant breeding or a related field, at least five years of experience with corn breeding, and additional experience interfacing with laboratory-side personnel (including a computational biologist as along with genetics specialists) and field-side personnel.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 50–51). Petitioner also states that, “[a]lternatively, additional experience could take the place of an advanced degree.” Pet. 16. Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the qualifications of person of skill in the art” and “reserves its right to challenge Petitioner’s definition and to provide its own definition, should trial be instituted.” Prelim. Resp. 24. Petitioner’s unopposed proposed definition is consistent with the cited prior art and the disclosure of the ’545 patent, and we adopt it for purposes” slip op. at 6

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

    “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) (2019). Under that standard, the words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would have to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, in the context of the entire patent including the specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Petitioner contends that “[b]ecause Petitioner’s grounds plainly render the claims unpatentable under any plausible construction, no outer boundary constructions are necessary.” Pet. 21. Patent Owner also does not construe any claim terms. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, and based on the record before us, we determine that none of the claim terms require an explicit construction to determine whether to institute post-grant review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). slip op. at 7

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

    “additional reasons. For example, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to demonstrate sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at PH4CYJ based on Smalley’s disclosure alone. Prelim. Resp. 51–52. According to the ’545 patent specification, the claimed PH4CYJ inbred maize variety is a cross between inbred line PH1VNA and inbred line PH1KTF. Ex. 1001, 37:62–64. In the simplest terms, PH1VNA and PH1KTF are the parents, and their cross ultimately resulted in the inbred variety PH4CYJ. The ’545 patent explains that after the initial crossing of the parental lines, the” slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,696,545
• Voltage, LLC v. Shoals Technologies Group, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Sep 30, 2024 · PGR2024-00022 · APJ Michael G Mcmanus · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–24 because Voltage did not show that any challenged claim was more likely than not unpatentable under the asserted grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We have authority to determine whether to institute a post-grant review. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). A post-grant review may not be instituted “unless. . . the information presented in the petition . . . if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the Petition (including its supporting testimonial evidence) and the evidence and arguments in the Preliminary Response (including its supporting testimonial evidence), we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that the ’153 patent is eligible for post-grant review. Accordingly, we decline to institute a post-grant review of claims 1–24 based on the grounds articulated in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelOther

    “In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “These factors are not exhaustive but are merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). We determine that no express finding is necessary, on the present record, and that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Further, for purposes of this institution decision, and on the present record, we determine that the adoption of either party’s proposal regarding requisite work experience would not change our analysis or conclusions. C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 12

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

    “The parties put forward several terms for construction. Pet. 14–17; Prelim. Resp. 9–12. With respect to Grounds I through VII, we have determined that no claim constructions are required in order to address the points at issue. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy” (internal citation omitted)). Claim construction is required to resolve certain issues arising in connection with Ground VIII. Accordingly, we construe certain terms in our discussion of that ground, infra.” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “through the undermold.” The term “aperture only partially extending through said undermold” was added to the claims of the ’254 parent application by amendment. Ex. 1021, 103–105; Ex. 1020, 6:60–8:47. With this amendment, the claims of the ’254 patent align with Figure 7, reproduced below. Figure 7 of the ’254 Patent (Figure 7 of the ’153 patent is identical to Figure 7 of the ’254 patent except for minor stylistic changes). As can be seen, the aperture occupied by drop line 12 extends partially through the undermold to compression lug 20 while the aperture occupied by feeder cable 14 extends completely through the undermold. This suggests a construction of “aperture extending partially through the undermold” where such aperture does not extend completely through the undermold. Such a construction of “aperture extending partially through the undermold” is consistent with the plain meaning of “extending partially.”” slip op. at 62

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 11,689,153
• The Noco Company, Inc. v. Pilot, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 6, 2024 · IPR2022-01417 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–27 are unpatentable: claims 1, 2, 5–12 and 13, 14, 17–19, 22–24, 27 are anticipated; the remaining claims are obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “had “a Bachelor’s Degree in a relevant engineering discipline such as electrical engineering and at least two years of relevant experience in the design and/or development of automotive electrical systems, or a Masters or more advanced degree in a relevant engineering discipline such as electrical engineering.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 46). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s definition or offer its own. In light of the record before us, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on our review of the ’236 patent and the prior art of record, we determine that the definition offered by Petitioner comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’236 patent and the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 9

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

    “Petitioner argues that “[a]ll of the claim terms are given their plain meaning, as understood by the [person of ordinary skill in the art], unless indicated otherwise.” Pet. 9. After considering the arguments and information Petitioner presents, we determine that we do not need to expressly construe any terms for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 10

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “with Petitioner that the ’236 patent is not entitled to the 2014 priority date of the original application, or any date earlier than April 21, 2021, which is the filing date of the ’236 patent. Whether the Specification complies with the written description requirement calls for a comparison of the scope of the claim with the scope of the description to determine whether the inventor has demonstrated possession of the claimed invention. See Ariad, 598 F.3d 1336 at 1353; Power Oasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The independent claims of the ’236 patent each require (1) a load detection sensor “configured to detect presence of a vehicle battery” and (2) a reverse polarity sensor “configured to detect polarity of a vehicle battery.” Ex. 1001, 5:16–27 (claim 1), 6:7–22 (claim 13), 6:65–7:13 (claim 18), 8:1– 15 (claim 23). The Specification of the ’236 patent does not expressly disclose both a load detection sensor and reverse polarity sensor configured to perform the recited functions. Instead, the Specification identifies a single circuit, the “automatic detection module,” that “can automatically detect[] whether the load is detected” and “whether the electrode is connected with the automobile storage battery reversely.” Ex. 1001, 2:51–54. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that the disclosure of a single circuit capable of performing two functions does not demonstrate the inventors had possession of an invention that requires two separate sensors configured to perform separate functions as recited in the claims. See Ariad, 598 F.3d 1336 at 1352 (“[A] description that merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the [written description] requirement.”); Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (holding that “the disclosure as originally filed does not have to provide in haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue,” but that “one skilled in the art, reading the original disclosure, must immediately discern the limitation at issue in the claims”); cf. PIN/NIP, Inc. v. Platte Chem. Co., 304 F.3d 1235, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding a claim for a method involving sequential application of two chemicals was invalid for lack of adequate written description where the specification indicated that the invention was a method of applying a “composition” containing the two chemicals). For all of the foregoing reasons, we agree with Petitioner that the Specification of the ’236 patent does not provide adequate written description support for distinct “load detection” and “reverse polarity” sensors, and, therefore, the challenged claims are not entitled to a priority date earlier than April 21, 2021, the filing date of the ʼ236 patent.” slip op. at 12

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

    “demonstrating that Nook-015 discloses the limitations in claim 1. After reviewing the undisputed evidence and arguments Petitioner presents in the Petition regarding claim 1, we agree, for the reasons stated by Petitioner and supported by Dr. Wood’s testimony, that Nook-015 discloses an internal power supply, output port, load detection sensor, reverse polarity sensor, power switch, and microcontroller, all connected and configured as claim 1 requires. Ex. 1004, 3:17–26, 3:67–4:2, 4:20–38, 5:35–37, 5:50–54, 8:4–37; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 78–79; Pet. 25–29. b. Claims 2 and 5–12 Claims 2 and 5–12 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. Petitioner directs us to portions of Nook-015 that disclose the additional limitations in these claims. Pet. 29–33. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s arguments or evidence regarding these dependent claims. For the reasons stated by Petitioner and supported by Dr. Wood’s testimony, we agree that Nook-015 discloses the limitations recited in these claims, as discussed below.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 11,104,236 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,104,236
• Sma Solar Technology America LLC v. Tigo Energy, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Jan 24, 2024 · IPR2023-01184 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–19 and all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2–4, 6–8, 15–16, and 18–19 are unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). Upon consideration of the Petition and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one claim challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all claims and all grounds asserted in the Petition.1” slip op. at 2

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateOther

    “Although Petitioner has asserted the absence of specific supporting disclosure for claims 1, 15, and 18 from the ’780, ’317, and ’977 applications and the ’155, ’587, ’601, ’977, and ’753 provisional applications, the burden to show an effective filing date (or dates) of the challenged claims prior to April 22, 2010 falls on Patent Owner here because Petitioner has asserted prior art references with earlier effective dates. In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (In an inter partes review, “a patentee bears the burden of establishing that its claimed invention is entitled to an earlier priority date than an asserted prior art reference.”). An earlier effective filing date is not presumed because, as shown in the above figure, the ’783 application is a continuation-in-part to each of the ’780, ’317, and ’977 applications that have filing dates earlier than April 22, 2010. See PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“When neither the PTO nor the Board has previously considered priority, there is simply no reason to presume that claims in a [continuation-in-part] application are entitled to the effective filing date of an earlier filed application.”). On this record, and in the absence of the development of any contrary argument, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently for institution that each of the asserted references are prior art to the challenged claims. The parties will have an opportunity to present their positions on the issue of the effective filing date of the challenged claims further during trial.” slip op. at 11

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

    “of Kronberg, discloses or suggests all of the elements of claim 6. Pet. 28–34 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 107–148). More particularly, Petitioner argues that Adest discloses the limitations of claims 6, but to the extent there is a dispute that Adest discloses the “watchdog unit” limitation [6A], a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the watchdog apparatus taught by Kronberg with the solar power system taught by Adest to monitor communications between signal mechanism 420 and power modules 405 of Adest. Id. at 32 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 127). Petitioner further argues that the watchdog taught by Kronberg was a well-known technique for detecting malfunctions at the time of the invention, and would have been one of a number of solutions for detecting the absence of a periodic signal. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 128–129; Ex. 1009, 1269). Petitioner further argues that Kronberg “suggests that its watchdog apparatus is to be used to provide ‘automatic shutdown of critical devices in case of failure,’” consistent with Adest’s objective of shutting down a power generating facility when a transmitter fails to send a communication because of, for example, a fire or theft of a photovoltaic module. Id. at 32–33 (citing Ex. 1006, 1:12–15; Ex. 1005, 7:6–12).” slip op. at 19

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner

    “The limitation “means to poll the central controller to determine if an interruption of the communication is transient” presumptively invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in relevant part). Claims subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 are construed in a “two-step process,” whereby we “first identify the claimed function,” and then “determine what structure, if any, disclosed in the specification corresponds to the claimed function.” Id. at 1351. Accordingly, our rules require that the Petition “identify the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Further, “the corresponding structure for a § 112 ¶ 6 claim for a computer-implemented function is the algorithm disclosed in the specification” Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc., 417 F.3d 1241, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Federal Circuit precedent requires disclosure of an algorithm in the specification for any computer-implemented function beyond “basic functions of a microprocessor.” See EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 623 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“A microprocessor or general purpose computer lends sufficient structure only to basic functions of a microprocessor. All other computer implemented functions require disclosure of an algorithm.”). Petitioner does not identify any portion of the ’218 patent specification that describes corresponding structure for performing the claimed function of “poll[ing] the central controller to determine if an interruption of the communication is transient.” See Pet. 39. Accordingly, Petitioner has not identified sufficient corresponding structure for performing the function of this presumptive means-plus-function limitation.” slip op. at 22

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,823,218
• 3M Company v. Bay Materials, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 16, 2024 · IPR2022-01215 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 7, 11–14, 16, 18, and 31 are unpatentable as anticipated by Yu; claims 1–4, 7, and 31 are also anticipated by Stewart.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The parties disagree about the appropriate definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan and, in particular, whether that artisan would have had experience or familiarity with the “processing of thermoformable polymer sheets” to form “orthodontic and dental appliances.” Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 14); see Pet. 14–15 n.1 (disagreeing with that proposition). Patent Owner’s definition is supported by the plain wording of challenged claim 18, which recites a dental appliance. Resp. 16 (citing Pet. 14 n.1); Ex. 1001, 26:50–52. The ’263 patent, moreover, includes an “extensive discussion of dental appliances and the unexpectedly good properties of dental aligners” thermoformed from polymeric sheets. Resp. 16; Ex. 1001, 1:20–47, 4:57–5:10, 5:26–6:6, 6:39–43, 10:25–51, 11:30–48, 12:22–24, 13:25–29, 21:1–6, 24:2–3, 24:30–57; see id. at 15:23– 38 (describing the thermoforming process for making dental appliances).” slip op. at 7

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “about 60A to about 85D” when employed as the two soft outer layers in an unclaimed and disfavored soft-hard-soft layer composition (id. ¶ 109) does not convey, with reasonable clarity, that the inventors had possession of the inventive hard-soft-hard layer composition in which the single soft, inner layer also is within that same hardness range (id. ¶ 110). Critically, when discussing the soft, inner layer of the inventive hard-soft-hard layer composition, the ’176 application nowhere indicates that the soft inner layer must have “a hardness of from about 60A to about 85D.” Id. ¶ 109 (discussing a prior art embodiment); see id. ¶¶ 7, 33–35, 109–110. Even if the hardness limitation of the challenged claims would have been obvious from the relied-upon disclosure in the ’176 application (id. ¶ 109), as a matter of law, that circumstance is insufficient to establish a filing date through that application. “Entitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed.” PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quotations omitted); see Pet. 21 (quoting that controlling precedent). Each of Patent Owner’s countervailing arguments is unpersuasive because, at best, Patent Owner attempts to show that it would have been obvious to import––from the description of the soft outer layers in an unclaimed and disfavored soft-hard-soft embodiment––a limitation not expressly imposed on the soft inner layer in the inventive hard-soft-hard embodiment. Ex. 2001 ¶ 109; Resp. 35–42. A showing of obviousness is not enough under the controlling precedent cited by Petitioner. PowerOasis, 522 F.3d at 1306.” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedDecided for petitioner

    “about 60A to about 85D” when employed as the two soft outer layers in an unclaimed and disfavored soft-hard-soft layer composition (id. ¶ 109) does not convey, with reasonable clarity, that the inventors had possession of the inventive hard-soft-hard layer composition in which the single soft, inner layer also is within that same hardness range (id. ¶ 110). Critically, when discussing the soft, inner layer of the inventive hard-soft-hard layer composition, the ’176 application nowhere indicates that the soft inner layer must have “a hardness of from about 60A to about 85D.” Id. ¶ 109 (discussing a prior art embodiment); see id. ¶¶ 7, 33–35, 109–110. Even if the hardness limitation of the challenged claims would have been obvious from the relied-upon disclosure in the ’176 application (id. ¶ 109), as a matter of law, that circumstance is insufficient to establish a filing date through that application. “Entitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed.” PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quotations omitted); see Pet. 21 (quoting that controlling precedent). Each of Patent Owner’s countervailing arguments is unpersuasive because, at best, Patent Owner attempts to show that it would have been obvious to import––from the description of the soft outer layers in an unclaimed and disfavored soft-hard-soft embodiment––a limitation not expressly imposed on the soft inner layer in the inventive hard-soft-hard embodiment. Ex. 2001 ¶ 109; Resp. 35–42. A showing of obviousness is not enough under the controlling precedent cited by Petitioner. PowerOasis, 522 F.3d at 1306.” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “For the above reasons, we determine that the challenged claims are not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the ’176 application because the application does not indicate that the inventors had possession of the hardness limitation of the claimed invention. See Reply 7–13 (Petitioner’s arguments on this issue). On the full trial record, we find that the earliest effective filing date to which the challenged claims are entitled is December 18, 2019, the filing date of the ’256 application from which the ’263 patent issued. Ex. 1001, codes (21), (22). Every challenged claim recites, or inherits via dependence, the hardness limitation “of from about 60A to about 85D” for the inner elastomeric layers of the inventive hard-soft-hard multilayer composition. Ex. 1001, 25:2–9 (independent claim 1), 26:1–8 (independent claim 11), 27:49–51 (independent claim 31). In view of our determination that the earliest effective filing date to which the challenged claims are entitled is December 18, 2019, we agree with Petitioner that Yu (Example 1) and Stewart (Example 2) qualify as prior art against the challenged claims. Pet. 43–49 (Petitioner’s persuasive arguments and evidence on point).” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 10,870,263 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,870,263
• Eden Park Illumination, Inc. / Larson Electronics LLC et al. v. S. Edward NeisterAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 14, 2023 · IPR2022-00381 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 and 12–18 are unpatentable as obvious; the revised contingent motion to amend is denied because proposed claims 19–25 lack written description support.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “1. Principles of Law In an inter partes review, the petitioner bears the ultimate burden of persuasion to show unpatentability, which never shifts to the patent owner. Dynamic Drinkware LLC v. National Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1379– 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “However, when a patent owner attempts to antedate an asserted prior art reference, the patent owner takes on a temporary burden of production.” Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Innovations S.À.R.L., 68 F.4th 1298, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (citing Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378– 79)). “Once that burden is met, the burden shifts back to the petitioner.” Id. “[A] patent’s claims are not entitled to an earlier priority date because the patentee claims priority. . . . Rather, for a patent’s claims to be entitled to an earlier priority date, the patentee must demonstrate that the claims meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120,” including a written description in the earlier-filed application that satisfies § 112. In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1276–77 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citations omitted)); see also Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 870–71 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “[T]he hallmark of written description is disclosure,” and “the test [for satisfaction of the written description requirement] requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description “must ‘clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed,’” and “reasonably” convey to those skilled in the art “that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Id. (alteration in original). Stated another way, “one skilled in the art, reading the original disclosure, must immediately discern the limitation at issue in the claims.” Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000). To provide sufficient written description support, “[a] ‘disclosure” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “3. Reason to Combine Petitioner contends it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine (1) Eckhardt’s method of disinfecting skin using any light source that emits light capable of sterilization or disinfection, with (2) Sosnin’s KrCl or XeBr light sources, which generate photons having a wavelength of 222 nm and 282 nm, respectively. Pet. 21– 22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 40, 81; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 31, 69; Ex. 1005, 1547). Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Eckhardt and Sosnin for several reasons: (1) Eckhardt’s teaching of using any light source capable of sterilization or disinfection, and specifically “narrow spectrum light (e.g., a line spectrum)” would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate other well-known germicidal UV light sources like Sosnin’s, and both references teach that their light sources kill bacteria; (2) a person of ordinary skill would have implemented Eckhardt’s high-level disclosure of using UV- C light to disinfect skin with Sosnin’s 222 nm excimer lamp because Sosnin’s lamp’s wavelength is within the range of 220 to 310 nm suggested by Eckhardt; (3) the effectiveness and relative safety of directing UV-C light of 222 nm on bare skin for disinfection was already understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art, even though there was general caution against exposing skin to excessive UV radiation. Pet. 22–24 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 40, 81–92; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 5, 31, 69, 70; Ex. 1005, 1545–47; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 28, 40; Ex. 1013 ¶ 8; Ex. 1015, 2:22–67; Ex. 1016, 2:23–26; Ex. 1017, 58).” slip op. at 25

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

    “with our analysis of the effective filing date of original claims 12–18 that Patent Owner does not meet its burden to demonstrate the inventor’s possession in the ’626 provisional of generating photons of at least two single line wavelengths. Having considered the additional disclosures of the ’626 provisional Patent Owner points to in its RMTA (see RMTA 9), we find that none of these disclosures describe using both 222 nm and 254 nm single line wavelengths. See Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 8, 12, 27, claim 9; Ex. 2047, 6–9. For example, the recitation of “apparatus that consists of a NUV source, ESP, ozone generator, mercury lamps, and humidifier with controls as defined in claims 3–8 and any combination therein” in claim 9 of the ’626 provisional generally identifies various sources that may be used, but would not have indicated to a person of ordinary skill that the inventor had possession of generating single line wavelengths of 222 nm and 254 nm. Mr. Lawal’s testimony supports this finding. Ex. 1053 ¶¶ 1–12. Accordingly, we determine that Patent Owner does not meet its burden to demonstrate written description support for generating photons of at least two single line wavelengths, in claims 19–25 of its RMTA.19 Because Patent Owner has not satisfied the statutory and regulatory prohibition against introducing new matter in the revised proposed substitute claims, we deny the RMTA as to claims 19–25. 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(2)(ii). Accordingly, we need not reach the patentability challenges Petitioner raises with regard to claims 19–25.” slip op. at 77

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

    “19 We also determine that claim 19 does not particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention sought to be patented, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), because “the microorganisms” in element [19B] lacks antecedent basis.” slip op. at 78

  Patent outcomesUS 9,700,642 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,700,642
• Tokyo Ohka Kogyo., Ltd. v. Fujifilm Electronic Materials U.S.A., Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 31, 2023 · PGR2022-00010 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable for lack of written description support under § 112(a); the Board did not reach either obviousness ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) “would have had a Bachelor degree in materials science, engineering, chemistry or similar technical discipline, and had at least two years of experience relating to the design and development of semiconductor manufacturing processes.” Pet. 14. Petitioner further submits that, “[a]lternatively, such a person may have had additional graduate education as a substitute for professional experience, or significant work experience as a substitute for formal education.” Id. Patent Owner states that, “[w]ithout taking a position on the correctness of this definition, Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s POSA definition.” PO Resp. 11 (citing Pet. 14). 3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), revised 35 U.S.C. § 103 effective March 16, 2013. Petitioner contends, and Patent Owner does not contest, that “the earliest priority date claimed by the ’329 patent” is December 6, 2013. Pet. 13; PO Resp. 6. Because the undisputed earliest claimed priority date of the ’329 patent is after March 16, 2013, we apply the AIA versions of §§ 102 and 103. record, and is consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art in this proceeding.” slip op. at 5

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

    “We disagree. It is clear from the plain language of claim 1 that the claimed “cleaning composition” is a composition for cleaning that includes four named components and has a specified pH. Ex. 1001, 29:2–9. The ’329 patent specification unambiguously teaches that the cleaning composition is for removing residues from semiconductor substrates. Id. at 1:23–29, 2:10–12, 2:17–33, 15:52–55. Although the ’329 patent describes a cleaning composition that comprises a redox agent, a chelating agent, a metal corrosion inhibitor, an organic solvent, and water, we see no reason to construe the term “cleaning composition” itself to require these components. Claim 1 expressly recites expressly including or precluding a chelating agent or a metal corrosion inhibitor. Ex. 1001, 29:2–9. The Federal Circuit advises that the specification “is not a suitable substitute for, nor can it be used to rewrite, the chosen claim language. ‘Specifications teach. Claims claim.’” SuperGuide, 358 F.3d at 875 (quoting SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 n. 14 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc)). The ’329 patent specification does teach a cleaning composition that includes a redox agent, a chelating agent, a metal corrosion inhibitor, an organic solvent, and water, but claim 1 is directed to a cleaning composition that expressly requires only a subset of those components. Patent Owner’s proposed construction would effectively rewrite the claim by adding unclaimed components, which we decline to do under the guise of claim construction. See id. (“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.”).” slip op. at 9

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

    “that Petitioner establishes that the ’329 patent does not provide sufficient written description support for the challenged claims. Pet. 15–43; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 56–82. More specifically, we find that the ’329 patent does not reasonably convey to a POSA that the inventor was in possession of cleaning compositions that do not include a chelating agent or a metal corrosion inhibitor. There is no dispute, on this record, that the ’329 patent specification explicitly teaches that a redox agent, a chelating agent, a metal corrosion inhibitor, an organic solvent, and water are mandatory components of the cleaning composition described therein. PO Resp. 15 (Patent Owner agreeing with Petitioner that “[t]he ’329 patent’s disclosure is unambiguously explicit regarding mandatory components of the cleaning compositions described therein.” (citing Pet. 17; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 56–57) (emphasis omitted, alteration in original)); see Ex. 1001, 3:47–48, 3:62–64, 10:24–26, 10:66–11:2, 12:3–4; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 56–67. Claim 1, however, does not require that the cleaning composition include a chelating agent or a metal corrosion inhibitor. Ex. 1001, 29:2–9. Therefore, establishing proper written description support for claim 1 requires more than showing that the inventor was in possession of a cleaning composition that includes a redox agent, a chelating agent, a metal corrosion inhibitor, an organic solvent, and water; the ’329 patent must also show that the inventor was in possession of a cleaning composition that includes only a redox agent (hydroxylamine), an organic solvent (an alkylene glycol), water, and an alkanolamine. Id.” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 10,927,329 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,927,329

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.