• Penumbra, Inc. v. Rapidpulse, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 6, 2023 · IPR2022-00608 · APJ Jamie T Wisz · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–21 are unpatentable: claims 1–14, 17–19, and 21 as obvious over Teigen and Grey; claims 15–16 over Teigen, Grey, and Yang; and claim 20 over Teigen, Grey, and Matteo.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART In determining the level of skill in the art, we consider the type of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The level of ordinary skill in the art is “a prism or lens through which . . . the Board views the prior art and claimed invention” to prevent hindsight bias. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8

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

    “as adopted by the Board in the Institution Decision. The ’253 patent explicitly defines this term, stating: The term “forward flow” is used herein to define an amount of liquid in the lumen 662 that exits the distal end 664 in a distal direction. Forward flow is defined as greater than 6 microliters of fluid (approximately 1 mm of catheter length of ID 0.071″=5.7 μL). Ex. 1001, 38:18–23 (emphasis added). Moreover, in discussing problems with the prior art systems, the ’253 patent states that “[w]hen positive pressure exists at the distal end of the lumen, liquid from inside the lumen exits out from the distal end of the catheter in a distal direction. This is referred to as forward flow.” Id. at 3:8–11. In the ’253 patent, the patentee acted as its own lexicographer as evidenced by usage of language such as “is used herein to define,” “is defined,” and “is referred to as,” to discuss “forward flow.” We find that the definition of “forward flow” in the ’253 patent specification would provide a person of ordinary skill with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision” as to the meaning of the term. See Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480; see also Ex. 1034 ¶¶ 13–14. Thus, we construe the term, “forward flow,” to mean “an amount of liquid in the lumen that exits the distal end in the distal direction that is greater than 6 microliters.” We disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that our construction imports limitations from a single embodiment into the claims. As explained above, the ’253 patent clearly defines the term “forward flow” and this definition is not limited to a single embodiment. In fact, the ’253 patent indicates that, while “[f]orward flow is defined as greater than 6 microliters of fluid . . . [l]ess forward flow is also included in this definition.” Ex. 1001, 38:21–24. The ’253 patent specifies that “the amount of forward flow can be restricted to no greater than 2 microliters or, in a particularly beneficial embodiment, forward flow is approximately zero microliters.” Id. at 38:24– 29. This language indicates that our construction encompasses multiple embodiments from the ’253 patent. We also disagree with Patent’s Owner’s proposed construction of “forward flow” because it is not supported by the ’253 patent specification. Patent Owner contends that “there is ‘no forward flow’ until the full extent of the distal portion” exits the distal end and thus forward flow is prevented when only less than “the full extent of the distal portion” exits the distal end. PO Resp. 9 (emphasis omitted). To adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction, we would have to essentially ignore the ’253 patent’s express definition of this term. Further, there is no support in the ’253 patent specification for “full extent” or “fully exiting.” We also agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s construction effectively eliminates the concept of preventing forward flow because, as Patent Owner acknowledges, it could allow, for example, 20 milliliters of fluid to exit the catheter, which could displace the thrombus into the patient’s vasculature, a problem that the ’253 patent seeks to avoid. See PO Resp. 10–12 (citing Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 48–51); Pet. Reply 8–9 (citing Ex. 1034 ¶¶ 14–15).” slip op. at 13

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

    “As discussed above, we construe “forward flow” to mean “an amount of liquid in the lumen that exits the distal end in the distal direction that is greater than 6 microliters.” Thus, for the ’011 provisional to provide support for this limitation, the provisional must demonstrate that the inventors had possession of preventing greater than 6 microliters of fluid out of the distal end of the catheter. While Patent Owner points to disclosures from the ’011 provisional application that describe the desire to have “a minimal amount of momentum transfer from the fluid column to the stuck clot to unstick the clot sufficiently” and “[t]he exiting movement of fluid [being] limited to a specific volume and/or pressure and is automatically and precisely controlled” to prevent the “possibility of overshooting,” these disclosures would not convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventors were in possession of a device that limited forward flow to no greater than 6 microliters of fluid. PO Resp. 35 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 15, 16, 138). Patent Owner also contends that the ’011 provisional application provides “multiple examples of liquid flow exiting the distal end of the catheter such that no forward flow occurs, such as 1 microliter or 0.5 mm of column shift.” PO Resp. 36–37 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 91). However, the disclosure cited by Patent Owner provides ranges of liquid flow of “approximately 0.001 ml to approximately 1.0 ml, in particular, approximately 0.1 ml to approximately 0.5 ml” and exemplary length of shift distances of “approximately 0.5 mm to approximately 30 mm, in particular, approximately 0.5 mm to approximately 15 mm.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 91. There is nothing in the ’011 provisional application that specifically directs the person of ordinary skill to the portions of these ranges that fall within the ’253 patent’s definition of “forward flow” (i.e., no greater than 6 microliters of fluid). In fact, the majority of the cited ranges are greater than 6 microliters, going all the way up to 1,000 microliters, such that there would be forward flow in these examples. See Ex. 1034 ¶ 25; Purdue Pharma, 230 F.3d at 1326–27 (“[O]ne cannot disclose a forest in the original application, and then later pick a tree out of the forest and say here is my invention. In order to satisfy the written description requirement, the blaze marks directing the skilled artisan to that tree must be in the originally filed disclosure.”); Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Further, we note that the ’253 patent differentiates between embodiments that allow forward flow and embodiments in which no forward flow occurs. See Ex. 1001, 32:58–60, 37:19–22; Pet. Reply 10–11. For example, the ’253 patent describes an embodiment in which the “momentum causes a small amount of fluid to move through the distal portion of the catheter [] and create a small distal movement of the clot.” Ex. 1001, 32:47– 51. This same embodiment is disclosed in the ’011 provisional application. Compare Ex. 1003 ¶ 126 with Ex. 1001, 32:16–60. The ’253 patent describes this disclosure as an “exemplary embodiment” in which the “flow of fluid forward . . . is intentional, which is in contrast to other exemplary embodiments herein where substantially no forward flow occurs.” Ex. 1001, 32:57–60; see also, id. at 37:19–22 (“Turning now to embodiments . . . without the forward flow”).8 The ’011 provisional application does not include the subsequent embodiments from the ’253 patent that are described as being “without the forward flow.” See Ex. 1005 ¶ 68; Ex. 1034 ¶¶ 22–23. This further demonstrates that the ’011 provisional application does not support the limitation of “prevent[ing] forward flow.” We also note that the ’011 provisional application does not contain adequate support for the limitation of “substantially prevent[ing] forward flow” even under Patent Owner’s proposed construction. While the ’011 provisional discloses “controlling the distal movement of the fluid column” (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 15, 16), this does not support Patent Owner’s assertion that the ’011 provisional teaches that “the distal portion of the fluid column is substantially prevented from fully exiting the distal end.” PO Resp. 35–36. For example, as discussed above, the ’011 provisional application discloses permitting distal flow of up to 1,000 microliters, which would likely exceed the amount that could be characterized as the full distal portion. Ex. 1003 ¶ 91; Ex. 1034 ¶ 25. Thus, we find that the ’011 provisional application does not “clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventors] invented what is claimed.” In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 8 Patent Owner contends that the statement in the ’253 patent regarding the “exemplary embodiment” of “forward flow” is referring to an embodiment in which the volume of the liquid drawn out from the lumen of the catheter is “approximately 0.2 ml.” PO Resp. 40–41 (citing Ex. 1001, 32:35–36; Ex. 1003 ¶ 126; Ex. 2014 ¶ 99). Even if this is correct, the ’011 provisional application does not include the embodiments that the ’253 patent specifically characterizes as being “without the forward flow.” Pet. Reply 10–11; Ex. 1005 ¶ 68; Ex. 1034 ¶ 22–25.” slip op. at 20

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

    “Based on the above, we determine that, for prior-art determinations under AIA § 102, “there is no need to evaluate whether any claim of [a reference] patent document is actually entitled to priority or benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120.” MPEP § 2154.01(b) (emphasis added). Rather, under the AIA, a reference patent document need only meet the “ministerial requirements” of §§ 119 and 120, and the provisional or other earlier application(s) to which the reference patent document claims a right of priority must “describe[] the subject matter” relied upon in the reference patent document as prior art. 35 U.S.C. § 102(d)(2). Patent Owner has not contested that Teigen meets the procedural requirements for claiming priority to the ’712 patent or the ’095 PCT application. Teigen also appears to meet the ministerial requirements for claiming priority to the provisional applications because it properly claims the benefit of these applications, the ’095 PCT application was filed co-pending with the provisional applications, and the applications share common inventors. Ex. 1007, codes (22), (60), (63), (72); Ex.1008, 2; Ex. 1009, 2; Ex. 2005, codes (22), (30), (72). Patent Owner does not dispute that Teigen meets the “ministerial requirements” of § 119. Because we find that the Dynamic Drinkware analysis does not apply here, we agree with Petitioner and Patent Owner, that we need not reach the issue of whether a claim from Teigen is supported by either Teigen provisional application. PO Sur-Reply 8; Pet. Reply 12–13.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 10,722,253 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,722,253
• Hope Medical Enterprises, Inc. v. Oregon Health & Science UniversityOther
  PTAB · Apr 18, 2023 · IPR2022-00123 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board cancelled original claim 1 and denied substitute claim 2 for lack of written-description support; it did not reach the obviousness or enablement grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “ordinary skill is inappropriate because it “requires qualifications that exclude even the sole inventor of the ’190 Patent, Dr. Edward Neuwelt.” MTA Opp. 1. According to Petitioner, Dr. Neuwelt is “a neurosurgeon,” not a pediatric oncologist, and lacks the requisite “at least 2 years” experience in platinum-based therapies. Id. (citing Ex. 1003, 18; Ex. 1038, 98:9–17, 100:15–101, 4). We agree with Petitioner. It is well settled that inventors are typically persons skilled in the field of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Petitioner presents persuasive evidence to show that under Patent Owner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill, Dr. Neuwelt, the sole inventor, would not qualify as an ordinarily skilled artisan, because he is not a pediatric oncologist, even though he is considered “one of the world leading experts on this compound [STS] and otoprotection” and “an expert in the area of [STS] as a . . . drug to use in children with medulloblastoma.” Ex. 1038, 98:9–17, 99:17–18, 101:18–102:13.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Paragraph 102 of Dr. Rassekh’s Declaration, however, does not support Patent Owner’s assertion. Instead, Dr. Rassekh testifies that [t]he stratum of previous craniospinal radiation therapy contained 8 participants: 2 of the 4 (50%) participants receiving STS had hearing loss compared to 4 of the 4 (100%) participants not receiving STS, and none of the hearing loss assessments were changed at the 1 year follow up period. (Ex. 1001 at 20: 28-32, 47-50.) Ex. 2024 ¶ 102. Dr. Rassekh offers no opinion on how many osteosarcoma patients with prior cranial irradiation and how many medulloblastoma patients with prior cranial irradiation had hearing loss.” slip op. at 20

  • 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “In sum, we find the disclosures of the ’243 application that Patent Owner relies on do not provide sufficient written-description support for the ototoxicity efficacy limitation.” slip op. at 21

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

    “F. Petitioner’s Asserted Unpatentability Grounds In light of our determination above that Patent Owner has not shown sufficient written-description support for proposed substitute claim 2 in the ’243 application, we do not reach the grounds of unpatentability set forth in Petitioner’s Opposition. See Revised MTA Opp. 17–25 (alleging non-enablement and obviousness).” slip op. at 26

  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,596,190
• Penumbra, Inc. v. Rapidpulse, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 10, 2023 · IPR2021-01466 · APJ Jamie T Wisz · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–18 are unpatentable under §103: claims 1–12, 15, 16, and 18 over Teigen and Grey; claims 13–14 over Teigen, Grey, and Yang; claim 17 over Teigen, Grey, and Matteo.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Based on our consideration of the full record, we find that, overall, Patent Owner’s definition is more specifically tailored to the claimed subject matter of the ’883 patent. We also find that, a person with a biomedical engineering degree could have the required background in fluid mechanics. See Ex. 1031, 45:21–46:7. Therefore, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a B.S. in mechanical or biomedical engineering with at least three years of experience in designing systems for minimally invasive intravascular procedures for treating occluded vessels or the equivalent and in consultation with medical professionals such as interventional neurosurgeons. Although we agree with, and have primarily adopted Patent Owner’s definition for an ordinarily skilled artisan in this proceeding, our analysis and conclusions herein would not change even under Petitioner’s definition. The parties also do not indicate that the outcome would differ based on the definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. See Pet. 15; PO Resp. 6; Pet. Reply 1.” slip op. at 10

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

    “as adopted by the Board in the Institution Decision. The ’883 patent explicitly defines this term, stating: The term “forward flow” is used herein to define an amount of liquid in the lumen 662 that exits the distal end 664 in a distal direction. Forward flow is defined as greater than 6 microliters of fluid (approximately 1 mm of catheter length of ID 0.071″=5.7 μL). Ex. 1001, 36:18–23 (emphasis added). Moreover, in discussing problems with the prior art systems, the ’883 patent states that “[w]hen positive pressure exists at the distal end of the lumen, liquid from inside the lumen exits out from the distal end of the catheter in a distal direction. This is referred to as forward flow.” Id. at 2:62–65. In the ’883 patent, the patentee acted as its own lexicographer as evidenced by usage of language such as “is used herein to define,” “is defined,” and “is referred to as,” to discuss “forward flow.” We find that the definition of “forward flow” in the ’883 patent specification would provide a person of ordinary skill with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision” as to the meaning of the term. See Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480; see also Ex. 1030 ¶¶ 13–14; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 53, 62. Thus, we construe the term, “forward flow,” to mean “an amount of liquid in the lumen that exits the distal end in the distal direction that is greater than 6 microliters.”” slip op. at 14

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

    “As discussed above, we construed “forward flow” to mean “an amount of liquid in the lumen that exits the distal end in the distal direction that is greater than 6 microliters.” Thus, for the ’011 provisional to provide support for this limitation, the provisional must demonstrate that the inventors had possession of preventing greater than 6 microliters of fluid out of the distal end of the catheter. While Patent Owner points to disclosure from the ’011 provisional application which describes “a minimal amount of momentum transfer from the fluid column to the stuck clot to unstick the clot sufficiently” and “[t]he exiting movement of fluid [being] limited to a specific volume and/or pressure and is automatically and precisely controlled” to prevent the “possibility of overshooting,” it would not convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventors were in possession of a device that limited forward flow to no greater than 6 microliters of fluid. PO Resp. 33 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 16, 138). Patent Owner also contends that the ’011 provisional application provides “multiple examples of liquid flow exiting the distal end of the catheter such that no forward flow occurs, such as 1 microliter or 0.5 mm of column shift.” PO Resp. 34 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 91). However, the disclosure cited by Patent Owner provides ranges of liquid flow of “approximately 0.001 ml to approximately 1.0 ml, in particular, approximately 0.1 ml to approximately 0.5 ml” and exemplary length of shift distances of “approximately 0.5 mm to approximately 30 mm, in particular, approximately 0.5 mm to approximately 15 mm.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 91. There is nothing in the disclosure of the ’011 provisional application that specifically directs the person of ordinary skill to the portions of these ranges which fall within the ’883 patent’s definition of no “forward flow” (i.e., no greater than 6 microliters of fluid). In fact, the majority of the cited ranges are greater than 6 microliters, going all the way up to 1,000 microliters, such that there would be forward flow in these examples. See Ex. 1030 ¶ 29; Purdue Pharma, 230 F.3d at 1326–27 (“[O]ne cannot disclose a forest in the original application, and then later pick a tree out of the forest and say here is my invention. In order to satisfy the written description requirement, the blaze marks directing the skilled artisan to that tree must be in the originally filed disclosure.”); Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1996).” slip op. at 21

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

    “AIA § 102 draws a distinction between actually being entitled to a right of priority to, or the benefit of, a prior-filed application according to the definition of “effective filing date” of a claimed invention in AIA 35 U.S.C. § 100(i)(1)(B), and merely being entitled to claim a right of priority to, or the benefit of, a prior-filed application for prior-art purposes according to the use of “effectively filed” in AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(d). See 35 U.S.C. §§ 100(i)(1)(B), 102(a)(2), 102(d)(2); MPEP § 2154.01(b). USPTO guidance also indicates that AIA § 102 prior-art reference effective-filing-date determinations differ from pre-AIA law. For example, a 2018 Memorandum to the Patent Examining Corps states, in the context of prior-art determinations, that “[t]he requirement that one of the claims in the patent [document] . . . be supported by the written description of the provisional application in compliance with pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph (or AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)), is not applicable when examining an application subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.” Robert W. Bahr, Memorandum re: Critical Reference Date Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(e) (Apr. 5, 2018), available at http://www.uspto.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/dynamic_memo_05apr2018_0.pdf (emphasis added) (citing Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1381 n.2; 157 Cong. Rec. 3423 (2011) (explaining the distinction between being entitled to claim priority or benefit in AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(d) and actually being entitled to priority or benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 119, 120, or 365)). This Memorandum further indicates: The date subject matter was “effectively filed” under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(d) for purposes of considering a U.S. patent, a U.S. patent application publication, or an international application publication as prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) is discussed in MPEP § 2154.01(b), and is not affected by Dynamic Drinkware or [Amgen v. Sanofi, 872 F.3d 1367, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2017)] and is not being modified by this memorandum. Id. at 2. MPEP § 2154.01(b) explicitly states, as a result of the distinction discussed above, in application of the AIA version of § 102, “the question of whether a patent or published application is actually entitled to priority or benefit with respect to any of its claims is not at issue in determining the date the patent or published application was ‘effectively filed’ for prior art purposes.” MPEP § 2154.01(b) (emphases added).” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 10,531,883 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,531,883
• Shure Incorporated v. Clearone, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 14, 2022 · PGR2020-00079 · APJ David C Mckone · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 were not shown unpatentable because the petitioner failed to prove the asserted §112 grounds and obviousness grounds by a preponderance of the evidence.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “As we stated in the Institution Decision (at 30), Petitioner’s proposal is reasonable in light of the descriptions in the ’653 patent and prior art, and is supported by expert testimony. We further find that Patent Owner’s proposed addition, that a skilled artisan would have had experience with digital signal processing, is consistent with the descriptions in the ’653 patent and prior art. Because the parties do not contend that their disagreement over “at least” has any bearing on this proceeding, we need not evaluate whether a skilled artisan might have had more than three years of work experience or whether that would lead to vagueness. Instead, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, with Patent Owner’s addition, and omit “at least”: A skilled artisan would have possessed: (i) a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, physics, or acoustical engineering that included coursework on the design of acoustic and/or antenna arrays, phased arrays, and/or beamforming; or (ii) three years of work experience in the field of directional microphone arrays; and the skilled artisan would have had experience with digital signal processing.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We disagree with Patent Owner that the claim limitation at issue here specifies a single device that has multiple properties. Rather, claim 1 broadly recites “a ceiling tile combined with the beamforming microphone array.” We agree with Petitioner that the plain language of claim 1 does not require that the entire beamforming microphone array is physically integrated into a single ceiling tile, as combining a ceiling tile and a microphone array is broader than physically installing the microphone array in the ceiling tile. Nor can the language of claim 1 reasonably be read to exclude combining more than one ceiling tile with the microphone array. Where claim 1 assigns specific properties to a ceiling tile, it does so expressly, reciting “the ceiling tile being sized and shaped to be mountable in a drop ceiling in place of at least one of a plurality of ceiling tiles included in the drop ceiling.” Thus, the plain language of claim 1 requires at least one ceiling tile combined in some way with a beamforming microphone array, and each ceiling tile (if there is more than one) is a particular size and shape.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Second, Patent Owner argues that our construction “should reflect the fact the microphones of a [beamforming microphone array] are located in positions relative to each other, by design, to establish constructive interference in one or more preferred beam directions.” PO Resp. 18–19 (citing Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 31–37, 48). Petitioner responds that claim 1 recites “beamforming” broadly and that Patent Owner attempts to limit “beamforming” to one technique out of several, including techniques that determine time delay between microphones rather than knowing the distances between the microphones. Reply 3 (citing Ex. 1029 ¶¶ 11–21). The parties’ competing proposals here are directed to Petitioner’s allegations that CTG System and Levit render the challenged claims obvious. However, as explained below, Petitioner has not established whether CTG System performs beamforming under either proposed construction. Thus, we need not resolve the parties’ claim construction dispute. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017; Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803.” slip op. at 19

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteNot shown unpatentable

    “Despite an obligation to identify in the Petition the evidence that supports its indefiniteness allegations,5 Petitioner largely failed to discuss the Specification. Pet. 30; see also Dec. 41 (“Despite enumerating five techniques that it contends exemplify ‘adaptive acoustic processing,’ Petitioner does little to address the description of those techniques in the Specification.”). In one passage cited by Petitioner, the Specification states that an “embodiment of Array 116 may include adaptive acoustic processing that automatically adjusts to the room configuration for the best possible audio pickup.” Ex. 1001, 6:13–16. Petitioner argues that this description “lacks any disclosure providing objective boundaries of the claim’s scope, either through definitions or working examples.” Pet. 30. Petitioner also acknowledges that the Specification “discusses acoustic echo cancellation (in general) as an additional feature from adaptive acoustic processing,” and admits that a skilled artisan “would have recognized that echo cancellation processing occurring automatically in response to a room configuration would be a meaning of adaptive acoustic processing.” Id. at 35 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:5–22). However, Petitioner does not discuss the rest of the Specification in the Petition. Petitioner should have addressed in the Petition the express descriptions of Dr. Vipperman’s enumerated examples of adaptive acoustic processing in the Specification in order to support its 5 Our rules require Petitioner to make its case in the Petition, including identifying “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed,” “the specific part of the claim that fails to comply with the statutory grounds raised and . . . how the identified subject matter fails to comply with the statute,” and “specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b). Indeed, “[t]he Board may exclude or give no weight to the evidence where a party has failed to state its relevance or to identify specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge.” Id. at § 42.204(b)(5). otherwise conclusory statement that “[n]one of these techniques are described in the specification,” Pet. 32. If it was Petitioner’s position that these express descriptions were nevertheless not examples of adaptive acoustic processing, Petitioner should have made those arguments in the Petition.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 10,728,653 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,728,653
• Unified Patents Inc. v. KCG Technologies LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 10, 2021 · IPR2019-01536 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 are unpatentable as obvious; the revised motion to amend is denied because proposed substitute claims 14–26 are unpatentable as obvious or indefinite.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We agree with Petitioner. Proposed substitute claim 24 recites “the handheld device” without antecedent basis. This lack of antecedent basis renders proposed substitute claim 24 indefinite, as we noted in our Preliminary Guidance. Pet. Opp. to RMTA 25; Prelim. Guidance 8 (“Proposed substitute claim 24 also recites ‘the handheld device’ and also suffers from the lack of antecedent basis). Despite having the opportunity to correct its error and amend proposed substitute dependent claim 24 when independent claim 14 was amended to remove the recitation of “a handheld device,” Patent Owner did not do so in its Contingent Revised Motion to Amend. RMTA 31. Proposed substitute claim 24 is indefinite because the claim “fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014); see USPTO Memorandum on the Approach to Indefiniteness Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings (Jan. 6, 2021)13; see MPEP 2173.05(e) (9th ed., Rev. 08.2017, June 2020). This is because “the handheld device” is only recited in proposed substitute claim 24, and the proposed substitute claim fails to inform one skilled in the art the scope of invention related to synchronizing “data on the handheld device” “in the virtual smart phone.” Because proposed substitute claims 25 and 26 depend from proposed substitute claim 24, we similarly agree with Petitioner that claims 25 and 26 also are indefinite for lacking an antecedent basis for the term “handheld device.” Pet. Opp. to RMTA 25. Accordingly, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claims 24–26 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as indefinite.” slip op. at 40

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner

    “Whether to treat a preamble term as a claim limitation is determined on the facts of each case in light of the claim as a whole and the invention described in the patent.” Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 329 F.3d 823, 831 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Absent clear reliance on the preamble in the prosecution history, or in situations where it is necessary to provide antecedent basis for the body of the claim, the preamble generally is not limiting.” Symantec Corp. v. Computer Assoc. Int’l, Inc., 522 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). When the limitations in the body of the claim rely upon or derive essential structure from the preamble, then the preamble acts as a necessary component of the claimed invention and is limiting. See Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003). A claim preamble also is limiting if the preamble is “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality” to the claim. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 182 F.3d at 1305. We disagree with Patent Owner. Specifically, we do not agree that limitations in the body of the claims require the preamble to serve as an antecedent basis nor do they derive essential structure from the preamble. Rather, all of the elements recited in the body of claim 1 comprise a “virtual smart phone.” That is, we do not discern, and Patent Owner fails to persuasively point us to, any structure imparted by the preamble’s recitation of a “virtual smart phone.” See Pet. Reply 1–2. We similarly do not agree that the without the term “virtual smart phone” there would be no understanding of the “emulating” or “handheld device” limitations. Rather, the recited “software application executing on the processor” limitation provides the structure and meaning for the “emulating” of the “handheld device” features. Furthermore, we agree with the Petitioner that there is no evidence in the record that the prosecution history requires that the preamble is limiting, and the claims were distinguished during prosecution based on the recitation of a “virtual” smart phone. Id. at 2–3. Accordingly, we do not agree with Patent Owner that the preamble is limiting. slip op. at 7

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

    “on the process to . . . emulate features of a handheld device.” Ex. 1001, 12:58–60 (emphasis added). Patent Owner argues that the term “‘emulate’ has a meaning in the art that is common and understood to mean ‘to imitate.’” PO Resp. 18. Patent Owner provides a dictionary definition to support its contention. Ex. 2004 (defining “emulate” as “to imitate in an effort to equal or surpass”). Patent Owner contends the use of “emulate” in claim 1 comports with its commonly understood meaning as “to imitate,” as does the use of the term “emulate” in the written description. Pet. 18–20 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:66–2:3, 2:6–3:5, 12:54–13:2 (claim 1)). Petitioner argues that the term “emulate” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning and does not contest Patent Owner’s construction of the term “emulate” as “to imitate.” Pet. 6–7; Pet. Reply 7. Petitioner, however, contests Patent Owner’s application of that construction to the asserted prior art. Pet. Reply 4–7 (citing Ex. 1034 ¶¶ 24–26). Petitioner specifically argues that Patent Owner implies that “(1) the imitation must be an exact duplicate in display and manner of input . . . or (2) the imitation relates only to the display and touch screen aspects.” Pet. Reply 4–5. In support of its position that Patent Owner’s interpretation of “to imitate” improperly narrows the meaning of “emulate,” Petitioner contends the written description discloses “less than full replication as emulation” and “controlling the handheld device th[r]ough control of a projected image using a variety of control input mechanisms provides emulation.” Pet. Reply 5–6 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:2–5, 3:57–61, 4:63–66, 6:24–42). Petitioner also notes that the dictionary definition Patent Owner proffered indicates that an exact duplication is not required. Pet. Reply 7 (“The complete definition of emulate [as] ‘to imitate in an effort to equal or surpass.’ Ex. 1004, 3”). We conclude that a preponderance of evidence supports the construction of the term “emulate” to mean “to imitate,” without any further restriction such as exact duplication or only display or touch screen aspects. Accordingly, we construe the term “emulate” as “to imitate.”” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at or before the priority date of the ’955 patent “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, physics, or a related subject, and two to three years of work experience in the field of automotive information systems.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 38–39); Ex. 1034 ¶ 14 (Petitioner’s expert reiterating the same level of ordinary skill in the art). Patent Owner does not propose an ordinary level of skill in the art. We agree with and adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art as articulated by Petitioner.” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 9,671,955 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,671,955
• Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 7, 2019 · IPR2018-00972 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14 are unpatentable over Strub-based grounds; the Board grants the motion to amend, allowing substitute claims 15–28.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that the “combined” limitation encompasses the multitrack embodiment of the ’307 patent. Both independent claims 1 and 12 recite that the “local audio data” is “combined with said remotely recorded audio data.” In view of Mr. DeFilippis’s testimony that the “combined” limitation allows “multiple individually recorded audio tracks to be combined into one or more multi-track audio files” (Ex. 2086 ¶ 18), we determine that claims 1 and 12 do not require the claimed “local audio data” and “remotely recorded audio data” to be derived from the same source. Furthermore, every occurrence of the term “combined” in the ’307 patent specification outside of the claims refers to the combination of audio into a multi-track file. See,e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:12–14 (“This accuracy allows multiple individually recorded audio tracks to be combined into one or more multi-track audio files electronically post-recording.”), 5:6–7 (“the multiple audio recordings are combined to create one single recording”), 16:40–44 (“[T]he local audio device of each performer . . . may be combined to create one or more multitrack audio files that are stored with master timestamps generated by the receiver/recorder's internal master timecode generator.”), 19:2–4 (“[A]ll of the individual audio files may be combined to provide one or more comprehensive audio files.”). Although we agree with Patent Owner that the ’307 patent specification describes an embodiment of a through the replacement of data, we are not persuaded that the recited “combined” limitation is limited to that embodiment, but rather also encompasses the multi-track embodiment of the ’307 patent. Id. at 4:15–18. Thus, we determine that the limitation “said local audio data is retrieved during or subsequent to said audio event and is combined with said remotely recorded audio data” does not require that the local and remote audio data originate from the same source because the ’307 patent specification contemplates a broader definition—one that includes the combination of local audio data and remotely recorded audio data to create a multi-track audio file. See Ex. 1001, 4:12–14, 5:6–7, 16:40–44, 19:2–4; Ex. 2086 ¶ 18. Based on the foregoing, we construe the “combining” limitation as broad enough to encompass combining local audio data and remotely recorded audio data, without a requirement that the local audio data and remotely recorded audio data are the same. In other words, we construe the “combining” limitation to encompass the disclosed multitrack embodiment in the ’307 patent specification, where separate audio tracks are combined to form a multitrack audio file. See Ex. 1001, 4:12–14, 5:6–7, 16:40–44, 19:2– 4.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “and in a condition to be worn.” Pet. Reply 1–2 (quoting Ex. 2110, 1628). This definition is consistent with the plain meaning of “wearable,” and we find no credible evidence on the record that requires a narrower definition. Furthermore, we are not persuaded that Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Tinsman, provides a definition consistent with Patent Owner’s narrow definition. Rather than defining “wearable,” Mr. Tinsman explains that the term “bodypack” is “[s]omething relatively small and lightweight.” Pet. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 2109, 41:18–22). Further, when describing “wearable” as “unobtrusive, easily hidden,” Mr. Tinsman clarifies this description as “[y]ou know, reasonable to carry around.” Ex. 2109, 47:20–22. We determine that no other express claim construction analysis of any” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “of the ’307 patent, would have “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related subject and two to five years working with audio and wireless communications systems.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 24). Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. DeFilippis, similarly opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a “Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and two years of experience working with audio and wireless communications systems either in industry or in graduate school.” Ex. 2086 ¶ 13. We adopt Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art as it is agreed upon and consistent with the prior art of record. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966); Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he level of skill in the art is a prism or lens through which a judge, jury, or the Board views the prior art and the claimed invention.”); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.”). Specifically, we adopt that a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the ’307 patent, would have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and two or more years of experience working with audio and wireless communications systems. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 24); Ex. 2086 ¶ 13. To that end, we note that the prior art itself often reflects an appropriate skill level. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableUnpatentable

    “We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. Petitioner identifies a first local audio device disclosed by Strub as “a small, lightweight, wearable recording unit.” Pet. 19 (quoting Ex. 1003, 4:29–31; citing Ex. 1003, 4:29–31, 14:59–15:11, 16:66–17:24, 38:65–39:11, 66:33– 51, 67:54–68:10, 72:10–19, Figs. 1, 8A–8C, 9A, 9B; Ex. 1011 ¶ 46). Petitioner further identifies the first local audio device as including position position data or biometric data, and time data. Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1003, 12:39–52, 35:53–61, 37:55–62, 63:41–60; Ex. 1011 ¶ 47). Finally, Petitioner identifies Strub’s disclosure of other recording devices to which local audio data is transmitted via transmitter 309 or wired connections. Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1003, 12:4–39, 66:7–25, Fig. 3). In summary, Strub discloses a local audio device that records local audio and transmits the local audio to other remote devices. Ex. 1001, Fig. 1, 105–108, 8:50–53, 12:4–39, 66:7–25). Therefore, Petitioner has identified two devices in Strub—a local audio device and a remote audio device that receives the transmitted audio. Ex. 1003, 12:4–39, 66:7–25, Fig. 3. Petitioner has also identified the claimed local audio as the audio that is stored by a local audio device and transmitted to a remote audio device. Id. Furthermore, Patent Owner’s argument that Strub fails to disclose “that the same local audio is stored at both the wearable local audio device as local audio data and the remote receiver/recorder as remotely recorded audio data and that the local audio data is combined with the remotely recorded audio data” is not persuasive because it is inconsistent with our claim construction discussed above. See Section II.B.1; PO Resp. 32. We do not construe the limitation “said local audio data may be retrieved after said locally recording and combined with said remotely recorded audio data” to require that the local audio data and remotely recorded audio data be the same data. Id. Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that Strub discloses the disputed element because Strub discloses local audio devices transmitting recordings to other recording units and the recording units timestamping the recorded audio and synchronizing, i.e., combining, processing. Ex. 1003, 13:50–67. Patent Owner further argues that Strub does not disclose a local audio device “wearable by a creator of said locally generated audio.” PO Resp. 34–35. Patent Owner argues that Strub’s device is not “small, lightweight, unobtrusive, easily hidden, not visible, and designed to be worn on the body of a creator of audio (i.e., performer)” based on its claim construction. Id. at 34; see Section II.B.2. Mr. DeFilippis, Patent Owner’s expert, opines that Strub’s system “would require a computer that could compare content from multiple mpeg sources in real time and multiplex the results to a recording,” and the “hardware and software to do this could not be incorporated into a back pack, let alone a bodypack.” Id. at 34–35 (citing Ex. 2086 ¶ 43).” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 9,336,307 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,336,307
• DISH Network Corporation / DISH Network L.L.C. v. Customedia Technologies, L.L.C.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 25, 2018 · CBM2017-00032 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–7, 16–19, 23–24, 26–28, 32–36, and 41 are unpatentable under § 101; the petitioner did not show claims 17, 18, 23, 24, and 28 unpatentable under § 112.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenOther

    “Considering each claim limitation, as well as each explicit citation to the specification expressly set forth in the Petition, we are persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of showing, via analysis and evidence explicitly set forth on pages 6–7 of the Petition, that independent claim 1, as a whole, does not recite a technological feature that is novel or unobvious.” slip op. at 22

  • Adverse judgmentOther

    “Response (Paper 24, “PO Resp.”) and disclaimed claims 5, 25, 39, and 43 (Ex. 2006). Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 38, “Pet. Reply”). Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply (Paper 40, “PO Sur”), and Petitioner filed a Response to the Sur-Reply (Paper 41, “Pet. Sur”).” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Claim Construction Petitioner and Patent Owner dispute the construction of certain claim terms. Pet. 23–28; PO Resp. 34–46. We apply the constructions of those terms set forth in Paper 49 in this decision.” slip op. at 7

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable

    “We agree. The preambles of independent claims 1, 19, and 33 expressly state as much. In particular, the preamble of claims 1 and 33 provide: “A system for providing targeted advertising to a multimedia content end user” (claim 1) or “a plurality of multimedia content end users” (claim 33). Ex. 1003, 46:13–14, 49:59–60. Likewise, claim 19’s preamble refers to “[a] device for providing targeted advertising to an end user.” Id. at 48:20–21. Taking claim 1 as a representative example, the remainder of the claim recites certain tangible components, namely a “storage device” and specifically, an “addressable and reserved storage space”; a “processor”; and “software implemented by” the processor. Id. at 46:13–28. The claim further requires the following functionalities: the processor “reserv[ing]” the storage space; the processor “select[ing] particular advertising data suitable for targeting to at least one end user based upon predefined criteria data”; the storage space “storing digital advertising data” and specifically, the “particular advertising data”; and the “particular advertising data” being “accessible to” the user. Id. Thus, we are persuaded that claim 1, taken as a whole, is focused on the concept of providing targeted advertising to a user. Further, the claims merely invoke computers as a tool to implement the concept of targeted advertising, and are not directed to any improvement in computer functionality. See Pet. 34; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 944–945. The claims recite generic components and functionality. For example, in claim 1, the required components, outlined above—a storage device and specifically, a storage space, a processor, and software— are conventional. The recited functionalities—reserving the storage space for advertising data, selecting advertising data targeted to a user, storing that data, and making that data accessible to the user—are likewise basic and routine. As Petitioner points out, the specification expressly acknowledges that some of the tangible components of the recited system were known. See Pet. 7–8, 33–34, 40–75; Ex. 1008 ¶ 949. For instance, the specification refers to storage device 14 as “any medium known in the art for storing electronic data” and similarly, “any storage device for audio/video information known in the art.” Ex. 1003, 13:22–28, 15:1–5, 24:66–25:7; see id. at [57], 5:3–6, 21:42–22:2. The testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Negus, also persuade us that each recited component and functionality was generic, conventional, and known. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 945, 949–954; see id. ¶¶ 955–987.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 9,053,494 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Mayo · Enfish
  Patents in suitUS 9,053,494
• Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. William Beaumont HospitalNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 4, 2017 · IPR2016-00160 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14, 16–29, 33, and 35–38 were not held unpatentable because Petitioner failed to show the Jaffray references were prior art or that the asserted combination rendered the claims obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Having considered the arguments and evidence, we agree with Patent Owner that the ’590 Application provides sufficient written description support for “said computer receives said image of said object and based on said image sends a signal to said radiation source that controls said path of said radiation source.” In particular, we credit the testimony of Dr. Hashemi that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the ’590 Application that components of the disclosed system were computer-controlled based upon, e.g., the depiction of an Elekta SL-20 in 9 Both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion. Figure 3 of the ’590 Application and from the depiction of an electronic portal imaging device. (Ex. 2080 ¶¶ 109–116, 125–132). Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive because they are based upon a construction of the disputed limitation that excludes human intervention. We have construed that limitation, however, to encompass a person or user operating the computer to perform the recited control functions. In post-hearing briefing, both parties agree that this is the proper construction. Papers 80, 81. As a result, even if we assume, as Petitioner contends in Reply, that a person of ordinary skill in the art reading the ’590 Application would have understood that “the step of controlling the path of the beam based on image data was performed by a human operator, not a computer acting autonomously” (Pet. Reply 9) and that “[t]he computer elements connected to table control . . . are all operated in response to commands received from a human operator, and none are tied to table movements specifically based on image data” (id.), it would not show a lack of support for the disputed limitation, because the disputed limitation does not exclude human intervention. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently,” slip op. at 18

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedNot shown unpatentable

    “Having considered the arguments and evidence, we agree with Patent Owner that the ’590 Application provides sufficient written description support for “said computer receives said image of said object and based on said image sends a signal to said radiation source that controls said path of said radiation source.” In particular, we credit the testimony of Dr. Hashemi that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the ’590 Application that components of the disclosed system were computer-controlled based upon, e.g., the depiction of an Elekta SL-20 in 9 Both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion. Figure 3 of the ’590 Application and from the depiction of an electronic portal imaging device. (Ex. 2080 ¶¶ 109–116, 125–132). Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive because they are based upon a construction of the disputed limitation that excludes human intervention. We have construed that limitation, however, to encompass a person or user operating the computer to perform the recited control functions. In post-hearing briefing, both parties agree that this is the proper construction. Papers 80, 81. As a result, even if we assume, as Petitioner contends in Reply, that a person of ordinary skill in the art reading the ’590 Application would have understood that “the step of controlling the path of the beam based on image data was performed by a human operator, not a computer acting autonomously” (Pet. Reply 9) and that “[t]he computer elements connected to table control . . . are all operated in response to commands received from a human operator, and none are tied to table movements specifically based on image data” (id.), it would not show a lack of support for the disputed limitation, because the disputed limitation does not exclude human intervention. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently, on this record, that both Jaffray 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO are prior art to independent claim 1, and the challenged claims that depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” slip op. at 18

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “Having considered the parties arguments and evidence regarding “[t]he content and nature of the printed publication, as well as the circumstances surrounding its publication” (Katz, 687 F.2d at 455), we are not persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of persuasion by showing sufficiently that the portions of Jaffray 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO on which it relies are the work “others.” Unlike in Katz, where the question was “the sufficiency of applicant’s showing to establish that the subject disclosure was his original work, and his alone” (687 F.2d at 455), the question before us is the sufficiency of Petitioner’s showing to establish that the subject disclosure was the work of the non-inventor coauthors of Jaffray 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378 (“In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the 10 Both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion. 11 At oral argument, counsel for Petitioner indicated that, in his view, it does not matter who has the burden of production. Tr. 20:9, 20:16–17. petitioner to prove ‘unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence,’ 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), and that burden never shifts to the patentee.”); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In the context of the present case, however, the notion of burden-shifting is inapposite because the patentee’s position is that the patent challenger failed to meet its burden of proving obviousness.”); see also Duncan Parking Techs., Inc. v. IPS Group Inc., Case IPR2016-00067, slip op. at 8–13 (PTAB Mar. 27, 2017) (Paper 29). Patent Owner presents testimony of Dr. Jaffray and Mr. Drake that the subject matter relied upon by Petitioner was not the work of the non-inventor coauthors, and after considering all relevant arguments and evidence, we are unpersuaded by Petitioner’s assertions that this testimony is unreliable. Dr. Jaffray testifies, for example, that “[t]he JRO article and the SPIE article disclose work done at the direction of me and Dr. Wong in support of the joint research conducted by the two of us.” Ex. 2077 ¶ 2. Dr. Jaffray further testifies that “with the exception of Dr. Siewerdsen coming up with the pre-reconstruction image processing for the SPIE article, the [non-inventor] co-authors did not come up with the ideas for the systems described in those articles.” Id. ¶ 6. Dr. Jaffray describes the contributions of the co-authors as follows:” slip op. at 22

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

    “D. The Challenged Claims – Obviousness over Jaffray 1999 SPIE, Jaffray 1999 JRO, Adler, and Depp Petitioner asserts that a combination of Jaffray 1999 SPIE, Jaffray 1999 JRO, Adler, and Depp renders obvious claims 1–14, 16–29, 33, and 35–38. Pet. 18–58. Petitioner relies solely upon Jaffray 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO for several limitations of claim 1, including, for example, “a cone-beam computed tomography system comprising: an x-ray source that emits an x-ray beam in a cone-beam form towards said object,” and “a flat-panel imager receiving x-rays after they pass through the object, said imager providing an image of said object.” Pet. 29–31. As discussed above, however, we not persuaded that Jaffray 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO are prior art to claims 1–14, 16–29, 33, and 35–38. Moreover, Petitioner does not contend that Adler or Depp teach these limitations. As a result, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–14, 16–29, 33, and 35–38 are obvious over a combination of Jaffray 1999 SPIE, Jaffray 1999 JRO, Adler, and Depp.” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 6,842,502 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,842,502
• Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. William Beaumont HospitalNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 4, 2017 · IPR2016-00163 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 43–46, 48–55, 57, 59–66, and 68 were not held unpatentable because Petitioner did not establish that the Jaffray references were prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “ordinary skill in the art, with respect to and at the time of the’502 patent, would have the following qualifications: “a medical physicist with a Ph.D. (or similar advanced degree) in physics, medical physics, or a related field, and two or more years of experience in radiation oncology physics and image processing/computer programming related to radiation oncology applications.” Ex. 1202 ¶ 13. Dr. Hashemi, Patent Owner’s expert, essentially agrees, with the only major differences to the above being that an M.S. is acceptable in lieu of a Ph.D., and that three years of experience is preferred. Ex. 2080 ¶ 17. Nominally, we accept Petitioner’s proffered level because it is based on Dr. Balter’s more complete explanation. We note, however, that neither party has explained substantively any significance that the difference in the proffered levels of ordinary skill in the art would play in the obviousness analysis. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966); Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he level of skill in the art is a prism or lens through which a judge, jury, or the Board views the prior art and the claimed invention.”); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu- Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.”). To that end, we note that the prior art itself often reflects an appropriate skill level. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Owner that the ’590 Application provides sufficient written description support for “controlling [said path of / a radiation therapy treatment plan involving] said radiation source based on said image.” In particular, we credit the testimony of Dr. Hashemi that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the ’590 Application that components of the disclosed system were computer-controlled based upon, e.g., the depiction of an Elekta SL-20 in Figure 3 of the ’590 Application and from the depiction of an electronic portal imaging device. (Ex. 2080 ¶¶ 109–116, 125–132). Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive because, even assuming that controlling the source path and controlling a radiation therapy treatment plan are “an entirely different class of control step” from controlling patient position (Pet. Reply 8–9), Petitioner has not explained why the portions of the ’590 Application relied upon by Patent Owner do not disclose controlling the source path or controlling a radiation therapy treatment plan.” slip op. at 19

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedNot shown unpatentable

    “Owner that the ’590 Application provides sufficient written description support for “controlling [said path of / a radiation therapy treatment plan involving] said radiation source based on said image.” In particular, we credit the testimony of Dr. Hashemi that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the ’590 Application that components of the disclosed system were computer-controlled based upon, e.g., the depiction of an Elekta SL-20 in Figure 3 of the ’590 Application and from the depiction of an electronic portal imaging device. (Ex. 2080 ¶¶ 109–116, 125–132). Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive because, even assuming that controlling the source path and controlling a radiation therapy treatment plan are “an entirely different class of control step” from controlling patient position (Pet. Reply 8–9), Petitioner has not explained why the portions of the ’590 Application relied upon by Patent Owner do not disclose controlling the source path or controlling a radiation therapy treatment plan.” slip op. at 19

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Applicant-admitted prior artReference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “[t]he content and nature of the printed publication, as well as the circumstances surrounding its publication” (Katz, 687 F.2d at 455), we are not persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of persuasion by showing sufficiently that the portions of Jaffray 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO on which it relies are the work “others.” Unlike in Katz, where the question was “the sufficiency of applicant’s showing to establish that the subject disclosure was his original work, and his alone” (687 F.2d at 455), the question before us is the sufficiency of Petitioner’s showing to establish that the subject disclosure was the work of the non-inventor coauthors of Jaffray 13 Both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion. 14 At oral argument, counsel for Petitioner indicated that, in his view, it does not matter who has the burden. Tr. 20:9, 20:16–17. 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378 (“In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the petitioner to prove ‘unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence,’ 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), and that burden never shifts to the patentee.”); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In the context of the present case, however, the notion of burden-shifting is inapposite because the patentee’s position is that the patent challenger failed to meet its burden of proving obviousness.”); see also Duncan Parking Techs., Inc. v. IPS Group Inc., Case IPR2016-00067, slip op. at 8–13 (PTAB Mar. 27, 2017) (Paper 29). slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 6,842,502 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,842,502
• Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. William Beaumont HospitalNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 4, 2017 · IPR2016-00169 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 and 20–31 were not held unpatentable under § 103 because the petitioner did not establish that Jaffray 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO were prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Having considered the arguments and evidence, we agree with Patent Owner that the ’590 Application provides sufficient written description support for “wherein said receiving said x-rays by said flat panel imager is performed substantially at a time of occurrence of said controlling said path of said beam of radiation through said object.” As an initial matter, we understand that Petitioner acknowledges that the ’590 Application supports the limitation “substantially at a time,” and arguments raised towards this limitation were originally presented as arguments towards indefiniteness.” slip op. at 19

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedNot shown unpatentable

    “1. Principles of Law Petitioner has the burden of persuasion to prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Petitioner also has the initial burden of production to show that a reference is prior art to certain claims under a relevant section of 35 U.S.C. § 102. Id. Once Petitioner has met that initial burden, the burden of production shifts to Patent Owner to argue or produce evidence that the asserted reference is not prior art to certain claims, for example, because those claims are entitled to the benefit of priority of an earlier-filed application. Id. at 1380. Once Patent Owner has met that burden of production, the burden is on Petitioner to show that the claims at issue are not entitled to the benefit of priority of the earlier filed application. Id.” slip op. at 14

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityReference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “Having considered the parties arguments and evidence regarding, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of persuasion by showing sufficiently that the portions of Jaffray 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO on which it relies are the work “others.” Unlike in Katz, where the 10 Both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion. 11 At oral argument, counsel for Petitioner indicated that, in his view, it does not matter who has the burden of production. Tr. 20:9, 20:16–17. question was “the sufficiency of applicant’s showing to establish that the subject disclosure was his original work, and his alone” (687 F.2d at 455), the question before us is the sufficiency of Petitioner’s showing to establish that the subject disclosure was the work of the non-inventor coauthors of Jaffray 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378 (“In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the petitioner to prove ‘unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence,’ 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), and that burden never shifts to the patentee.”); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In the context of the present case, however, the notion of burden-shifting is inapposite because the patentee’s position is that the patent challenger failed to meet its burden of proving obviousness.”); see also Duncan Parking Techs., Inc. v. IPS Group Inc., Case IPR2016-00067, slip op. at 8–13 (PTAB Mar. 27, 2017) (Paper 29). Patent Owner presents testimony of Dr. Jaffray and Mr. Drake that the subject matter relied upon by Petitioner was not the work of the non-inventor coauthors, and after considering all relevant arguments and evidence, we are unpersuaded by Petitioner’s assertions that this testimony is unreliable. Dr. Jaffray testifies, for example, that “[t]he JRO article and the SPIE article disclose work done at the direction of me and Dr. Wong in support of the joint research conducted by the two of us.” Ex. 2077 ¶ 2. Dr. Jaffray further testifies that “with the exception of Dr. Siewerdsen coming up with the pre-reconstruction image processing for the SPIE article, the [non-inventor] co-authors did not come up with the ideas for the systems described in those articles.” Id. ¶ 6. Dr. Jaffray describes the contributions of the co-authors as follows:” slip op. at 23

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

    “1999 JRO, Adler, and Depp renders obvious claims 1–13 and 20‒31. Pet. 28–59. Petitioner relies solely upon Jaffray 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO for several limitations of independent claims 1, 7, 20 and 26. For example, claim 1 recites “a cone-beam computed tomography system comprising: an x-ray source that moves about said object and emits toward said object from multiple positions around said object x-ray beams in a cone-beam form” and “a flat-panel imager positioned to receive x-rays after at least a portion of said x-ray beams pass through said object, said imager providing an image that contains three-dimensional information concerning said object based on a plurality of two-dimensional projection images.” Petitioner relies solely on Jaffray 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO to meet these claim limitations. See Pet. 36‒38 (citing Ex. 1005, 17, 25; Ex. 1006, 9; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 82‒84). Independent claims 7, 20, and 26 recite substantially similar limitations that Petitioner again solely relies on Jaffray 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO as disclosing these limitations. As discussed above, however, we not persuaded that Jaffray 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO are prior art to claims 1–13 and 20‒31. Moreover, Petitioner does not contend that Adler or Depp teach these limitations. As a result, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–13 and 20–31 are obvious over a combination of Jaffray 1999 SPIE, Jaffray 1999 JRO, Adler, and Depp.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 7,471,765 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,471,765

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.