- 3M Company v. Bay Materials, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Jan 18, 2023 · IPR2022-01215 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–4, 7, 11–14, 18, and 31 on all asserted grounds, finding at least one claim sufficiently shown anticipated by Yu.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“The Petition includes detailed arguments that map the limitations of the challenged claims to specific disclosures in Yu (Sample 1). Id. at 50–62. The Petition also maps adequately the limitations of the challenged claims to specific disclosures in Stewart (Example 2). Id. at 62–66. For example, Petitioner shows sufficiently that Yu (Example 1) coextrudes “a multilayered polymeric film,” that is, a “sheet,” arranged in the hard-soft-hard-soft-hard, five-layer configuration required by claim 11. Pet. 50–51; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 124, 126–128; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 63, 78, 92. Petitioner also shows sufficiently that the hard layers in that configuration of Yu (Example 1) are “hard” and the hard layers are “hard” within the meaning of claim 11. Pet. 53; Ex. 1002 ¶ 131; Ex. 1012 ¶ 78. In other words, Petitioner shows sufficiently, on this record, that Yu (Example 1) anticipates claim 11. Based on the information presented, we find that Petitioner shows sufficiently, for purposes of trial institution, that at least one challenged claim of the ’263 patent is anticipated by Yu (Sample 1).” slip op. at 12
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“That prior art disclosure of elastomeric materials for use as the outer layers in an unclaimed and disfavored soft-hard-soft layer configuration does not convey, with reasonable clarity, that the inventors had possession of the claimed subject matter, in which the elastomeric material forms the inner layer of a polymeric sheet in a hard-soft-hard layer configuration. 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 of the ’176 application (Ex. 2001 ¶ 109), that circumstance is insufficient to establish written description support. “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 precedent). Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that the invention that Patent Owner seeks to protect in the ’263 patent does not appear to be “part of the invention” described in the ’176 application. Pet. 40; see Ex. 2001 ¶ 109 (describing elastomeric materials, having the specified hardness, only in the context of an unclaimed prior art soft-hard-soft embodiment). On this record, we preliminarily agree with Petitioner that the earliest effective filing date to which the ’263 patent appears to be entitled is December 18, 2019, namely, the filing date of the ’256 application, from which the ’263 patent issued. Ex. 1001, codes (21), (22). Patent Owner may contest this issue in a timely response to the Petition.” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelNot reached
“The parties disagree about whether the ordinarily skilled artisan would have had specific “experience with dental appliances or access to individuals with such experience.” Prelim. Resp. 17; see Pet. 14–15 n.1 (disagreeing with that proposition). Neither party explains why a resolution of that Stat. 284 (September 16, 2011), includes revisions to Section 102(a) that became effective on March 16, 2013. For reasons explained in this Decision, on this record it appears Petitioner is correct that the challenged claims are entitled to an effective filing date no earlier than December 18, 2019 and, therefore, the AIA provisions apply in this proceeding. See Pet. 22, 39–40; Ex. 1001, code (60). 2 WO 20010/043419 A1, published Apr. 22, 2010, with English Translation (Ex. 1015). 3 We take notice that the first and second grounds identified in the Petition assert anticipation based on the same prior art disclosure. 4 US Pub. 2004/0224283 A1, published Nov. 11, 2004 (Ex. 1008). dispute is necessary to this Decision to institute review. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 17 n.2 (“even under Petitioner’s proposed definition, the Petition fails to show a reasonable likelihood that any claim is unpatentable”); Pet. 14–15 & n.1 (arguing about the issue without explaining how a resolution of the dispute would change the outcome of the decision on institution). If either party believes that the difference in level of skill would have a material effect on the analysis of the patentability of the challenged claims, that issue should be specifically addressed in briefing during the trial. We will resolve that dispute only to the extent necessary in any final written decision. Based on the information presented, we find that the asserted prior art itself is sufficient to demonstrate the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“We construe terms in controversy only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). “Petitioner discusses the terms “layer A,” “layer B,” “layer C,” “layer C,” “layer B',” inner layer B,” “inner layer B',” and “inner layer D.” Pet. 15–20. Patent Owner discusses the terms “layer” and “inner.” Prelim. Resp. 19–22. Taking account of the information presented, we determine that no claim term requires express construction for purposes of deciding whether to institute review. Compare Pet. 15–20 (addressing issues of claim construction, without demonstrating that an express construction is necessary to resolve whether to institute review), with Prelim. Resp. 19–22 (same).” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,870,263 - Beckman Coulter, Inc. v. Sysmex Corporation And Sysmex America, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 18, 2022 · IPR2020-01503 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 7–15 are unpatentable as obvious over Nagai and Jagtiani; the priority applications lack written-description support for the claimed electrical detection and cell-counting combination.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In the Institution Decision, we determined that Petitioner’s definition was consistent with the disclosure of the ’351 patent and the scope and content of the asserted prior art to the extent that Petitioner’s definition requires familiarity with the design and operation of automated hematology analyzers available in the market. Dec. 8 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:45–61, 15:52– 58). We also determined that Petitioner’s proposal was more reasonable than Patent Owner’s with respect to the duration of a POSA’s practical experience, whether such practical experience is in addition to or possibly as experience could be merely using hardware and/or software for an analyzer, as opposed to developing such hardware and/or software. Id. at 8–9. Neither party contends that the differences in proposals affect the outcome of this proceeding, and we find that they do not. Nonetheless, on the full record now before us, we find that our identification of the level of ordinary skill in the art in the Institution Decision, modified to state that a higher level of experience can compensate for less technical education, is supported by the ’351 patent, the prior art of record, and the opinions of Mr. Roche and Dr. Robinson (which, as discussed above, recognize that additional work experience can compensate for technical education). Thus, we find that a POSA would have had at least a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree in biologic science, biomedical engineering, and/or electrical engineering or a related field and at least five years of experience in developing hardware and/or software for hematology analyzers, and would have been familiar with the design and operation of hematology analyzers available in the market. We also find that less technical education may be compensated by a higher level of experience, or vice versa.” slip op. at 10
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“a controller programmed to,” “optical detector,” “electrical detector,” and “mono-nucleated cells and poly-nucleated cells” as recited in claim 7, and “total count of nucleated cells” as recited in claims 8 and 13. Pet. 22–29. Patent Owner responds that “[t]he District Court issued an opinion regarding claim construction on April 6, 2021,” and, “[f]or purposes of this proceeding, Patent Owner applies the District Court’s constructions.” PO Resp. 13. Patent Owner also specifically addresses the terms “controller programmed to” and “electrical detector.” Id. at 13–14. Petitioner replies that its proposed claim constructions are consistent with the District Court’s constructions. Pet. Reply 4–5. At the oral hearing, the parties confirmed that they do not dispute the District Court’s claim constructions. See Tr. 16 (Petitioner’s counsel stating that “Petitioner would request that this Board adopt these same [District Court] constructions in this IPR”), 34 (Patent Owner’s counsel agreeing that “neither side has objected to the court’s claim construction”). Based on the parties’ apparent agreement, and considering the record before us and the Report and Recommendation from the District Court (Ex. 2065), we agree with and adopt the District Court’s claim constructions. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (“Any prior claim construction determination concerning the claim in a civil action . . . that is timely made of record in the inter partes review proceeding will be considered.”). Accordingly, we construe the terms “controller programmed to,” “electrical detector,” and “optical detector” as set forth below. slip op. at 12
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable
“that Petitioner has established that the priority applications do not provide adequate written description support for the challenged claims. More specifically, we find that the priority applications do not reasonably convey to a POSA that the inventors were in possession of a sample analyzer that both (1) uses an electrical detector to electrically sense cells in a body fluid measurement sample, and (2) from the analysis of the cells sensed by the electrical detector, counts the number of mono-nucleated cells and poly-nucleated cells in the body fluid measurement sample as required by claim 7.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Based on our review of the record, we determine that Petitioner has established that a POSA would have had reason to combine the teachings of Nagai and Jagtiani to achieve the claimed subject matter. Nagai describes an electrical detector (RBC/PLT detection unit 42) that “is capable of measuring the number of red blood cells and platelets by a sheath flow-DC detection method.” Ex. 1044, 6:58–63, Fig. 5. Nagai also describes WBC detection unit 41 that produces a DIFF scattergram that, in the body fluid measuring mode, is analyzed in order to classify the white blood cells into two subclasses, namely, mono-nucleated cells and poly-nucleated cells. Id. at 5:56–58, 12:27–36. Nagai teaches that WBC detection unit 41 is “configured as an optical detection unit” that performs white blood cell classification in the body fluid measurement mode using a combination of electrical resistance and absorbed light. Id. at 5:56–58, 15:52–16:6. Jagtiani teaches a channel sensor that can detect impedance to differentiate between different types of cells in a biological sample, including differentiating between red blood cells, white blood cells, and platelets. Ex. 1045 ¶¶ 21, 25; see also id. ¶ 187 (“The channel sensor is based on impedance sensing using the Coulter principle.”). Jagtiani teaches the sensor can be configured to differentiate between and count the number of eosinophils, basophils, neutrophils, monocytes, and lymphocytes in the biological sample. Id. ¶ 25; see also id. ¶ 121 (“In some embodiments, the cell count can include a white blood differential, and can include a count of basophils, a count of eosinophils, a count of lymphocytes, a count of neutrophils, and/or a count of monocytes.”). Jagtiani further teaches that “[s]uch biological samples can include, for example, blood, serum, saliva, sweat, tears, urine, or any other biological sample or derivative suspended in a fluid.” Id. ¶ 119. In light of these teachings in Nagai and Jagtiani, we credit Mr. Roche’s testimony that Jagtiani demonstrates a known technique of detecting poly-nucleated and mono-nucleated white blood cells using an electrical detector. A POSA at the time of the invention would have been led to modify Nagai with the teaching of Jagtiani in the manner claimed to allow the body fluid measurement of Nagai to differentiate poly-nucleated and mono-nucleated blood cells (instead of measuring red blood cells alone). Such a motivation is found, for example, in Petitioner’s DxH system, which discloses use of an electrical detector in both a blood measuring mode and a fluid measuring mode. Ex. 1042 ¶¶ 30, 31. In the DxH system, use of an electrical detector in both the blood measuring mode and body fluid measuring mode allows identification of total number of cells in measured body fluid.” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 10,401,351 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,401,351 - Satco Products, Inc. v. The Regents Of The University Of CaliforniaInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 8, 2021 · IPR2021-00661 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of review for claims 1 and 2 under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors weighed against review because of the advanced, overlapping ITC investigation.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“The Fintiv factors “relate to whether efficiency, fairness, and the merits support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding.” Fintiv, IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 6. A stay of parallel litigation pending resolution of a Board proceeding “allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts.” Id. That the E.D.N.Y. case was stayed “at its earliest stage,” however, does not “allay[] concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts” in view of the 1220 investigation. Additionally, the E.D.N.Y. case was stayed “pending completion” of the 1220 investigation, not because of any Board proceeding. Ex. 3002, 1. With dates set in the 1220 investigation for the ALJ’s initial determination and the ITC’s final determination, a stay seems highly unlikely, especially with the initial determination date about a week away. Hence, factor (1) weighs against institution. See Fitbit, Inc. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., IPR2020-00771, Paper 14 at 16–17 (PTAB Oct. 19, 2020).” slip op. at 18
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“to institute an inter partes review. We may institute an inter partes review only if “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 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). But we have discretion to deny a petition even when a petitioner satisfies the “reasonable likelihood” threshold standard for instituting trial. See, e.g., Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2140 (2016) (“[T]he agency’s decision to deny a petition is a matter committed to the Patent Office’s discretion.”). Based on the current record and for the reasons explained below, we exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not reached
“essentially the same argument about the ’557 patent’s effective filing date for its challenge based on Nakamura-959 and Nakamura-949 as for its invalidity defense based on insufficient written-description support for claim 1. See Pet. 7, 12–21, 37; Ex. 2004, 29–33; Ex. 2005, 245–48; Ex. 2014, 64–65, 70. As we understand the arguments, resolving the ’557 patent’s effective filing date does not require interpreting any part of § 1.57. See Pet. 12–21; Prelim. Resp. 29–31. Instead, the issue turns on whether the ’154 application supports claim 1 according to § 112’s first paragraph. See Pet. 12–21; Prelim. Resp. 29–31. Also, the challenges based on Tanda present a similar issue whether the ’447 provisional supports claim 1 according to § 112’s first paragraph. See Pet. 12–21, 61; Prelim. Resp. 29–31, 36–37. “[T]he test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Under the circumstances here, the ITC can apply the test for sufficiency of disclosure to the ’154 application and the ’447 provisional just as well as the Board.” slip op. at 27
§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,658,557 - BASF Corporation v. Ingevity South Carolina, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 9, 2021 · PGR2020-00037 · APJ Julia Heaney · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10, 14–28, 32–38, 51, 52, 55–57, 59, 64–72, and 76–82 were not shown unpatentable for indefiniteness or obviousness over Hiltzik, Clontz WIPO, and Clontz SAE.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“art include “(1) educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of workers active in the field.” Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696–697 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Not all such factors may be present in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case. Id. Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would possess at least a B.S. in chemistry or chemical or mechanical engineering and would have at least one year of experience working on control of automotive evaporative emissions,” and “would also understand the chemistry and physics associated with the phenomena of fuel vapor adsorption, desorption, and diffusion.” Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 17). Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the ’553 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner and Dr. Rockstraw present peer-reviewed scientific literature demonstrating that gravimetric and volumetric measurement techniques were known to measure equivalent adsorption capacities and were viewed as compatible with each other. See Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 95–107 (addressing Anson7 (Ex. 2007), Belmabkhout8 (Ex. 1021), Zielinski9 (Ex. 2069)). For example, Belmabkhout reported similar results between measurements by gravimetric and volumetric instruments, except at very high pressures. Ex. 1021, 856–57. Zielinski reported “excellent agreement” between volumetric and gravimetric adsorption capacity measurements (Ex. 2069, 5–6); Dr. Zielinski (who oversaw the testing reported by Intertek 7 Anson, A., et al., “Hydrogen adsorption on a single-walled carbon nanotube material: a comparative study of three different adsorption techniques,” Nanotechnology 15 (2004), 1503. 8 Belmabkhout, Y., et al., “High-pressure adsorption measurements. A comparative study of the volumetric and gravimetric methods,” Measurement Science and Technology 15 (2004) 848. 9 Zielinski, J. et al., “High pressure sorption isotherms via differential pressure measurements,” Adsorption 13 (2007), 1–7. in Ex. 1020) also testified that he would expect capacity measurements for either a gravimetric or volumetric technique to yield the same results, or be “superimposable” under ideal conditions, because they represent “the same experimental measured quantities.” Ex. 2026, 52:11–53:7, 54:13–22, 69:12– 70:3, 139:8–19. Petitioner’s argument that these papers are not relevant because they do not address measurements on the adsorption capacity of n-butane (see Pet. Reply 26) is not persuasive, because Petitioner does not direct us to sufficient evidence showing a reason why measurements of n-butane’s adsorption capacity would have been subject to different measurement inconsistencies. Further, Petitioner’s argument about a 3% deviation in results between the measurement techniques reported in Anson and Belmabkhout is not persuasive because the papers’ conclusions suggest a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have seen such a deviation as significant (e.g., Ex. 1021, 849: “we have not observed important discrepancies” between gravimetric and volumetric measurements). Dr. Rockstraw also testifies as to numerous additional texts and standards that confirm persons of ordinary skill in the art understood that gravimetric and volumetric measurement techniques would provide consistent results when proper experimental protocols are followed and the instruments’ accuracy and precision are taken into consideration. See Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 88–91, 119–127. This evidence is essentially unrebutted by Petitioner. We find that the evidence submitted by Patent Owner as to the gravimetric and volumetric measurement techniques demonstrates that they were well established in the art as comparable methods of measuring adsorption capacity, and accordingly, not a basis for determining claim” slip op. at 16
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted in part
“Exhibit 2027. Paper 57 (“Pet. Mot.”). We do not discuss or cite Exhibit 2080 or paragraph 39 of Exhibit 2027 in this Decision, and consideration of them played no part in our determinations set forth herein. Because their presence in the record would not affect our analysis in this Decision, we dismiss as moot Petitioner’s motion with respect to these exhibits. B. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Patent Owner filed a motion to exclude Exhibits 1015–1016, 1023– 1025, 1032, 1038–1039, 1042 (certain paragraphs), 1044, 1046–1049, and 1052–1054. Paper 56 (“PO Mot.”). Patent Owner groups these exhibits into four categories, which we apply in discussing the motion below. 1. Patent Owner moves to exclude Exhibits 1015 and 1046 as “irrelevant determinations from other adjudicative bodies regarding different patents.” PO Mot. 1. We do not discuss or cite these exhibits in this Decision, and have not considered them in reaching our decision herein. Because the presence of these exhibits in the record would not affect our analysis in this Decision, we dismiss as moot Patent Owner’s motion with respect to these exhibits. 2. Patent Owner moves to exclude Exhibits 1023, 1024, 1025,” slip op. at 46
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the gravimetric and volumetric methods provide fundamentally different measurements of adsorption capacity. Patent Owner and Dr. Rockstraw present peer-reviewed scientific literature demonstrating that gravimetric and volumetric measurement techniques were known to measure equivalent adsorption capacities and were viewed as compatible with each other. See Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 95–107 (addressing Anson7 (Ex. 2007), Belmabkhout8 (Ex. 1021), Zielinski9 (Ex. 2069)). For example, Belmabkhout reported similar results between measurements by gravimetric and volumetric instruments, except at very high pressures. Ex. 1021, 856–57. Zielinski reported “excellent agreement” between volumetric and gravimetric adsorption capacity measurements (Ex. 2069, 5–6); Dr. Zielinski (who oversaw the testing reported by Intertek 7 Anson, A., et al., “Hydrogen adsorption on a single-walled carbon nanotube material: a comparative study of three different adsorption techniques,” Nanotechnology 15 (2004), 1503. 8 Belmabkhout, Y., et al., “High-pressure adsorption measurements. A comparative study of the volumetric and gravimetric methods,” Measurement Science and Technology 15 (2004) 848. 9 Zielinski, J. et al., “High pressure sorption isotherms via differential pressure measurements,” Adsorption 13 (2007), 1–7. in Ex. 1020) also testified that he would expect capacity measurements for either a gravimetric or volumetric technique to yield the same results, or be “superimposable” under ideal conditions, because they represent “the same experimental measured quantities.” Ex. 2026, 52:11–53:7, 54:13–22, 69:12– 70:3, 139:8–19. Petitioner’s argument that these papers are not relevant because they do not address measurements on the adsorption capacity of n-butane (see Pet. Reply 26) is not persuasive, because Petitioner does not direct us to sufficient evidence showing a reason why measurements of n-butane’s adsorption capacity would have been subject to different measurement inconsistencies. Further, Petitioner’s argument about a 3% deviation in results between the measurement techniques reported in Anson and Belmabkhout is not persuasive because the papers’ conclusions suggest a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have seen such a deviation as significant (e.g., Ex. 1021, 849: “we have not observed important discrepancies” between gravimetric and volumetric measurements). Dr. Rockstraw also testifies as to numerous additional texts and” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 10,323,553 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,323,553 - PTAB · Mar 31, 2021 · IPR2020-00001 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Final written decision
The Board canceled claims 1, 5, 8, and 10–12, but denied entry of substitute claims 20–25 because claims 20 and 24 were indefinite and claims 21–23 and 25 were obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART In the Institution Decision, we determined that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had sufficient experience and/or education in the food industry to possess an understanding of (1) sugar particle size as it pertains to brewed beverages and (2) sugar particle size screening.” Inst. Dec. 7. We observed that this level of ordinary skill is consistent with the level of ordinary skill that we adopted in a related case that involves similar subject matter. See Red Diamond, Inc. v. Southern Visions, LLP, PGR2019- 00045, Paper 9 at 6–8 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2019). We also asked the parties to expressly discuss the level of ordinary skill in the art in the remaining briefing if either party disagreed with our determination. Inst. Dec. 7–8. For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we maintain our determination from the Institution Decision because neither party disputes the level of ordinary skill identified in the Institution Decision (see Revised MTA 7–8), and because we continue to find that the stated level of ordinary skill is consistent with the record.” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“consider” the Revised Motion to Amend and cancel original claims 1, 5, 8, and 10–12. Revised MTA 1. Because Patent Owner has not indicated that our consideration of the Revised Motion to Amend is contingent on a determination that original challenged claims 1, 5, 8, and 10–12 are unpatentable, we grant Patent Owner’s request to cancel original challenged claims 1, 5, 8, and 10–12. See Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018- 01129, Paper 15 at 3 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2019) (precedential) (“Lectrosonics”) (“A request to cancel claims will not be regarded as contingent.”). The remaining issue before us is whether to grant the Revised Motion to Amend as to proposed substitute claims 20–25.” slip op. at 6
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteUnpatentable
“sugar, which indicates that between 2–25% of the particles in EFG sugar can have a size in the range of U.S mesh sieve nos. 20–30. Ex. 2003, 42 (showing the “Typical Analysis” for “X-fine” granulated sugar). Even if we were to agree with Patent Owner that this shows a typical analysis for EFG sugar, it still presents a variance of up to 20% for particles having a size in the range of U.S. mesh sieve nos. 20 and 30. Ex. 2003, 42. Thus, the evidence of record suggests that the particle size distribution for EFG sugar, including the number of particles falling in the range of U.S. mesh sieve nos. 3–35, can vary among different EFG sugars. Thus, the term “typical grocery store sugar,” “might mean several different things” in terms of the number of its particles having a size in the range of U.S. mesh sieve nos. 3–35, and “no informed and confident choice is available among the contending definitions.” HZNP Meds. LLC v. Actavis Labs UT, 940 F.3d 680, 698 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Media Rights Techs., Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 800 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015)); Opp. 9; Reply 4.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“sugar in its products (Ex. 1008, 11:2–5), and Mr. Ebersole’s testimony demonstrates that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known that Standard Grade and Medium Grade sugars are commercial grade granulated sugars and that the particles in Standard Granulated and Medium Granulated sugars “are almost entirely within the range of U.S. mesh nos. 3–35” (Ex. 2076 ¶ 51). The evidence of record thus supports Petitioner’s assertion that following the typical industry practice of using 1 ounce of tea particles and 1 pound of sugar per gallon of tea, and using a commercial grade granulated sugar (as taught by Cooper) such as Standard Granulated or Medium Granulated sugar (which are known to be “almost entirely within the range of U.S. mesh nos. 3–35”), would yield a product having a blend ratio of tea particles to sugar granules having a size in the range of U.S. mesh sieve nos. 3–35 in the range of 1:16–1:25, as recited in proposed substitute claims 21 and 23. Opp. 20–21; Ex. 1008, 11:2–5; Ex. 1001, 17–20, 57–65. In view of the foregoing, we find Petitioner has established sufficiently that the teachings of Cooper, considered in view of admitted prior art sweetening practices, teaches or suggests all of the limitations of proposed substitute claims 21 and 23. Petitioner has presented evidence demonstrating sufficiently that Cooper teaches the use of sugar having particle sizes falling “almost entirely” within the range of mesh 3–35, that following typical industry practices using such sugar would result in the claimed blend ratio of tea to sugar having a size in the range of mesh 3–35, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to brew commercial-sized batches of tea, with a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, as Cooper allows.” slip op. at 26
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · NautilusPatents in suitUS 9,549,634 - Red Diamond, Inc. v. Southern Visions, LLPAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 31, 2021 · IPR2019-01671 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Final written decision
The Board canceled claims 1, 6, and 10–12 and denied entry of substitute claims 18–22, finding claims 18–21 indefinite and claim 22 obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“C. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART In the Institution Decision, we determined that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had sufficient experience and/or education in the food industry to possess an understanding of (1) sugar particle size as it pertains to brewed beverages, (2) sugar particle size screening, and (3) the storage and use of sugar in commercial settings.” Inst. Dec. 6–7. We observed that this level of ordinary skill is consistent with the level of ordinary skill that we adopted in a related case that involves similar subject matter. See Red Diamond, Inc. v. Southern Visions, LLP, PGR2019-00045, Paper 9 at 6–8 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2019). We also asked the parties to expressly discuss the level of ordinary skill in the art in the remaining briefing if either party disagreed with our determination. For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we maintain our determination from the Institution Decision because neither party disputes the level of ordinary skill identified in the Institution Decision (see Revised MTA 11–12), and because we continue to find that the stated level of ordinary skill is consistent with the record.” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“II. MOTION TO AMEND A. ORIGINAL CHALLENGED CLAIMS As noted above, Patent Owner requests that we “unconditionally consider” the Revised Motion to Amend and cancel original claims 1, 6, and 10–12. Revised MTA 1. Because Patent Owner has not indicated that our consideration of the Revised Motion to Amend is contingent on a determination that original challenged claims 1, 6, and 10–12 are unpatentable, we grant Patent Owner’s request to cancel original challenged claims 1, 6, and 10–12. See Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018- 01129, Paper 15 at 3 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2019) (precedential) (“Lectrosonics”) (“A request to cancel claims will not be regarded as contingent.”). The remaining issue before us is whether to grant the Revised Motion to Amend as to proposed substitute claims 18–22.” slip op. at 6
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteUnpatentable
“Particle size is a critical factor for proposed substitute claims 18 and 20, which require a comparison of the particle size of the sugar used in the recited mesh pouch against the particle size of Sugar in the Raw. For all of the reasons discussed above, we find a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the trademark Sugar in the Raw identifies sugar having particles of a particular size with sufficient specificity to allow the comparison of particle sizes that proposed substitute claims 18 and 20 require. Accordingly, proposed substitute claims 18 and 20 are indefinite because they “fail[ ] 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)6; MPEP 2173.05(e) (9th ed., Rev. 08.2017, June 2020).” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“analogous art. Reply 7. “A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination under § 103 only when it is analogous to the claimed invention.” In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Even if we were to agree with Patent Owner that Thijssen is not from the same field of endeavor because, inter alia, it involves the use of a packed bed, we still find Thijssen to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventors were involved. The ’330 patent teaches that “[t]he larger sugar granules allow the water to flow around it at the same time you are extracting tea from the tea blend.” Ex. 1001, 7:15–17. This indicates that among the problems “with which the inventor[s were] involved” were extraction of flavor from tea and the flow of water around the particles involved in the tea brewing process. Thijssen likewise addresses the flow of solvent through solid particles during extraction of a beverage product. See, e.g., Ex. 1022, 2:46–48. In view of this, we find Thijssen is “reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor[s were] involved.” Bigio, 381 F. 3d at 1325.” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 9,468,330 unpatentable§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites NautilusPatents in suitUS 9,468,330 - PTAB · Mar 31, 2021 · IPR2019-01662 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Final written decision
The Board canceled claims 1, 8, 13, and 17; it denied entry of substitute claims 23–26 because claims 23 and 25 lacked written-description support and claims 24 and 26 were indefinite.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“C. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART In the Institution Decision, we determined that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had sufficient experience and/or education in the food industry to possess an understanding of (1) sugar particle size as it 1 “One degree Brix is one gram of sucrose in 100 grams of solution . . . . Brewed sweetened tea has a typical Brix level of 10½ to 11.” Ex. 1001, 1:35–43. pertains to brewed beverages, (2) sugar particle size screening, and (3) the storage and use of sugar in commercial settings.” Inst. Dec. 7. We observed that this level of ordinary skill is consistent with the level of ordinary skill that we adopted in a related case that involves similar subject matter. See Red Diamond, Inc. v. Southern Visions, LLP, PGR2019-00045, Paper 9 at 6– 8 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2019). We also asked the parties to expressly discuss the level of ordinary skill in the art in the remaining briefing if either party disagreed with our determination. Inst. Dec. 8. For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we maintain our determination from the Institution Decision because neither party disputes the level of ordinary skill identified in the Institution Decision (see Revised MTA 12–13), and because we continue to find that the stated level of ordinary skill is consistent with the record.” slip op. at 4
- 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“Structurally, Patent Owner has claimed a broad genus of brewing products – any product that includes sugar having particles in the range of U.S. mesh size nos. 3–35. Patent Owner attempts to further distinguish the genus by including the functional limitation of requiring the product to be capable of producing a tea with a Brix level of at least 10.5 degrees. Patent Owner does not dispute that there are products falling within the structural limitations that do not satisfy the functional limitations. Indeed, there is undisputed testing evidence on the record demonstrating that the entire range of recited structures does not perform the recited function. See Ex. 2076 at Exhibit C, 20–29 (Table 3); Revised MTA 8 (Patent Owner arguing the claims only cover products that include particles within the claimed range that perform the recited function). Here, we discern no evidence on this record of “a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can ‘visualize or recognize’ the members of the genus.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1350. Nor do we discern “a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, physical properties, or other properties, of species falling within the genus sufficient to distinguish the genus from other materials” in the disclosures, or evidence that “the art has established a correlation between structure and function.” Id. Instead, we view Patent Owner’s proposed substitute claims to involve “merely drawing a fence around the outer limits of a purported genus,” which “is not an adequate substitute for describing a variety of materials constituting the genus and showing that one has invented a genus and not just a species.” Id. We recognize that the subject matter here is different from, and less complex than, the chemical and biochemical subject matter in Ariad. Nevertheless, the written description requirement still requires sufficient description to convey to one of skill in the relevant art that the inventors “had possession of the claimed invention” and “showing that the applicant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus.” Id. at 1351, 1356. Thus we consider the difference in technology in determining “the level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement,” but do not consider the difference in technology to eliminate entirely the need for some disclosure in the specification indicating possession of the claimed invention. Id. at 1351. Patent Owner has not directed us to any portion of the ’526 or ’881” slip op. at 20
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot shown unpatentable
“Structurally, Patent Owner has claimed a broad genus of brewing products – any product that includes sugar having particles in the range of U.S. mesh size nos. 3–35. Patent Owner attempts to further distinguish the genus by including the functional limitation of requiring the product to be capable of producing a tea with a Brix level of at least 10.5 degrees. Patent Owner does not dispute that there are products falling within the structural limitations that do not satisfy the functional limitations. Indeed, there is undisputed testing evidence on the record demonstrating that the entire range of recited structures does not perform the recited function. See Ex. 2076 at Exhibit C, 20–29 (Table 3); Revised MTA 8 (Patent Owner arguing the claims only cover products that include particles within the claimed range that perform the recited function). Here, we discern no evidence on this record of “a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can ‘visualize or recognize’ the members of the genus.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1350. Nor do we discern “a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, physical properties, or other properties, of species falling within the genus sufficient to distinguish the genus from other materials” in the disclosures, or evidence that “the art has established a correlation between structure and function.” Id. Instead, we view Patent Owner’s proposed substitute claims to involve “merely drawing a fence around the outer limits of a purported genus,” which “is not an adequate substitute for describing a variety of materials constituting the genus and showing that one has invented a genus and not just a species.” Id. We recognize that the subject matter here is different from, and less complex than, the chemical and biochemical subject matter in Ariad. Nevertheless, the written description requirement still requires sufficient description to convey to one of skill in the relevant art that the inventors “had possession of the claimed invention” and “showing that the applicant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus.” Id. at 1351, 1356. Thus we consider the difference in technology in determining “the level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement,” but do not consider the difference in technology to eliminate entirely the need for some disclosure in the specification indicating possession of the claimed invention. Id. at 1351. Patent Owner has not directed us to any portion of the ’526 or ’881” slip op. at 20
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteUnpatentable
“which indicates that between 2–25% of the particles in EFG sugar can have a size in the range of U.S mesh sieve nos. 20–30. Ex. 2003, 42 (showing the “Typical Analysis” for “X-fine” granulated sugar). Even if we were to agree with Patent Owner that this shows a typical analysis for EFG sugar, it still presents a variance of up to 20% for particles having a size in the range of U.S. mesh sieve nos. 20 and 30. Ex. 2003, 42. Thus, the evidence of record suggests that the particle size distribution for EFG sugar, including the number of particles falling in the range of U.S. mesh sieve nos. 3–35, can vary among different EFG sugars. Thus, the term “typical grocery store sugar,” “might mean several different things” in terms of the number of its particles having a size in the range of U.S. mesh sieve nos. 3–35, and “no informed and confident choice is available among the contending definitions.” HZNP Meds. LLC v. Actavis Labs UT, 940 F.3d 680, 698 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Media Rights Techs., Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 800 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015)); Opp. 7–10; Reply 4. Proposed substitute claims 24 and 26 compare the dissolution of the claimed beverage brewing product against the dissolution of a product using typical grocery store sugar (i.e., EFG). Patent Owner explains that the size of the particles affects dissolution – namely that larger sugar is more advantageous – in the claimed invention. See, e.g., Revised MTA 5; Ex. 1001, 9:23–27, 10:19–22. This suggests that an EFG sugar product having a greater percentage of large particles will be capable of dissolving “more of granulated sugar” as compared to an EFG sugar product having a lower percentage of large particles. As a result, using the dissolution properties of “typical grocery store sugar” as a comparator in the claims is problematic as there is a potential for inconsistent results based on which particular EFG sugar product is used. The potential for inconsistent results undermines Patent Owner’s argument that these claims satisfy the definiteness requirement because a person of ordinary skill in the art “can buy EFG . . . and perform brew tests with it in order to determine the scope of the claims.” Reply 4. Particle size is a critical factor for proposed substitute claims 24 and 26, which require a comparison of dissolution properties of the sugar used in the recited brewing product and typical grocery store sugar. Patent Owner contends “[t]here is an ‘informed and confident’ choice for ‘typical grocery store sugar’ - EFG sugar.” Reply 4. The evidence of record, however, shows the number of large particles (3–35 mesh) varies among EFG sugars. Ex. 2003, 42; Ex. 1004, at pages 51–53. In view of this, we find a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood “typical grocery store sugar” identifies sugar having particles of a particular size with sufficient specificity to allow the comparisons that proposed substitute claims 24 and 26 require. Accordingly, proposed substitute claims 24 and 26 are indefinite because they “fail[ ] 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); MPEP 2173.05(e) (9th ed., Rev. 08.2017, June 2020).” slip op. at 25
§ 112 disclosurecites NautilusPatents in suitUS 9,725,232 - PTAB · Oct 13, 2020 · PGR2019-00045 · APJ Christopher C Kennedy · PGR · Final written decision
The Board cancelled claims 13, 18, and 19, but denied substitute claims 23–25 because their percentage-and-range limitations introduced new matter.
RulingsFinal written decision- ScopeMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“3. Scope of Proposed Substitute Claims A motion to amend “may not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(2)(ii). Although Patent Owner does not appear to separately address this requirement in the Revised Motion to Amend, see generally Revised MTA, we have reviewed the proposed substitute claims and determine that they do not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent because they add limitations that render each proposed substitute claim narrower than original challenged claim 13.2 Petitioner does not contend otherwise. See generally Opp. On this record, we determine that the Revised Motion to Amend satisfies this requirement.” slip op. at 9
- 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“description support for numerical ranges identified by the parties is General Hospital Corp. v. Sienna Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., 888 F.3d 1368, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2018).4 In that case, the Federal Circuit explained: The disclosure of a broad range of values does not by itself provide written description support for a particular value within that range. Instead, where a specification discloses a broad range of values and a value within that range is claimed, the disclosure must allow one skilled in the art to immediately discern the limitation at issue in the claims. Id. (emphasis added); cf. Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp., 441 F.3d 991, 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]he disclosure of a range is no more a disclosure of the end points of the range than it is of each of the intermediate points.”). The Federal Circuit has also stated that, “[i]n the absence of blazemarks” that point to a particular species or sub-genus, “simply describing a large genus of compounds is not sufficient to satisfy the written description requirement.” Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1996). We find those cases to be instructive because we discern no guidance in the original disclosure that points to the percentage+range limitation of proposed substitute claim 23. Nor do we find anything in the original disclosure that would “allow one skilled in the art to immediately discern” 4 Despite the fact that Sienna was cited in (1) Petitioner’s opposition to Patent Owner’s original Motion to Amend, Paper 24 at 11; (2) the Preliminary Guidance issued by the Board, PG at 8; and (3) Petitioner’s opposition to Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend, Opp. at 12, Patent Owner fails to cite or discuss Sienna, see generally Revised MTA; Reply. the percentage+range limitation. See Sienna, 888 F.3d at 1372. Patent Owner has not persuasively identified any portion of the original disclosure that attributes any significance to any mesh sieve number range other than 3–35, and Patent Owner has not persuasively identified any portion of the original disclosure that attributes any significance to having a particular proportion of particles (e.g., 61 wt%) falling within some narrower mesh sieve number range. See Ex. 1021 (Coffield Decl.) ¶¶ 23–24.” slip op. at 14
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateDecided for petitioner
“description support for numerical ranges identified by the parties is General Hospital Corp. v. Sienna Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., 888 F.3d 1368, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2018).4 In that case, the Federal Circuit explained: The disclosure of a broad range of values does not by itself provide written description support for a particular value within that range. Instead, where a specification discloses a broad range of values and a value within that range is claimed, the disclosure must allow one skilled in the art to immediately discern the limitation at issue in the claims. Id. (emphasis added); cf. Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp., 441 F.3d 991, 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]he disclosure of a range is no more a disclosure of the end points of the range than it is of each of the intermediate points.”). The Federal Circuit has also stated that, “[i]n the absence of blazemarks” that point to a particular species or sub-genus, “simply describing a large genus of compounds is not sufficient to satisfy the written description requirement.” Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1996). We find those cases to be instructive because we discern no guidance in the original disclosure that points to the percentage+range limitation of proposed substitute claim 23. Nor do we find anything in the original disclosure that would “allow one skilled in the art to immediately discern” 4 Despite the fact that Sienna was cited in (1) Petitioner’s opposition to Patent Owner’s original Motion to Amend, Paper 24 at 11; (2) the Preliminary Guidance issued by the Board, PG at 8; and (3) Petitioner’s opposition to Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend, Opp. at 12, Patent Owner fails to cite or discuss Sienna, see generally Revised MTA; Reply. the percentage+range limitation. See Sienna, 888 F.3d at 1372. Patent Owner has not persuasively identified any portion of the original disclosure that attributes any significance to any mesh sieve number range other than 3–35, and Patent Owner has not persuasively identified any portion of the original disclosure that attributes any significance to having a particular proportion of particles (e.g., 61 wt%) falling within some narrower mesh sieve number range. See Ex. 1021 (Coffield Decl.) ¶¶ 23–24.” slip op. at 14
§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 10,071,852 - Intel Corporation / Globalfoundries U.S., Inc. et al. v. Daniel L. FlammAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 30, 2020 · IPR2017-00279 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 13–26, 64, and 65 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over the combinations of prior art listed in the decision.
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“not entitled to claim priority to a filing date any earlier than the September 11, 1997 filing date of the ’650 provisional application, and, therefore, each of the asserted references qualify as prior art to the challenged claims. See Pet. 9. Specifically, Petitioner contends that the ’264 patent is not entitled to claim priority to the December 4, 1995 filing date of the ’224 application because the ’224 application fails to disclose a chuck having a “thermal mass” or selecting that thermal mass to” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“in the art at the relevant time would have had (i) a Bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering, materials science engineering, electrical engineering, physics, chemistry, or a similar field, and three or four years of work experience in semiconductor manufacturing or related fields; or (ii) a Master’s degree in chemical engineering, materials science engineering, electrical engineering, physics, chemistry, or a similar field, and two or three years of work experience in semiconductor manufacturing or related fields; or (iii) a Ph.D. in chemical engineering, materials science engineering, electrical engineering, physics, chemistry, or a similar field. Pet. 19–20 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 21). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in its Response. Based on our review of the ’264 patent, the cited prior art, and the testimony of the parties’ declarants, we agree with Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art and apply it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355 (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”).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“terms appearing in the challenged claims. Dec. on Inst. 10–11. First, we construed selected thermal mass to mean “thermal mass selected by selecting the mass of the substrate holder, the material of the substrate holder, or both.” Id. at 10. Second, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed 13 Neither party disputes that the ’264 patent is expired. The earliest patent application referenced for the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C. § 120 for the ’264 patent was filed on December 4, 1995, and the patent has no term extensions. The term of the ’264 patent, therefore, expired no later than December 4, 2015. See 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(2) (2012 & Supp. III 2015) (stating that the term of a patent grant ends twenty (20) years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States, “or, if the application contains a specific reference to an earlier filed application or applications under section 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), from the date on which the earliest such application was filed”). 13 construction of thermal mass . . . selected for a predetermined temperature change within a specific interval of time as meaning “the material and/or mass of the substrate holder are chosen to effect a predetermined change in substrate holder temperature from a selected first temperature to a selected second temperature within a specific time period.” Id. at 11. During the instituted trial, neither party disagreed with these constructions; nor did either party ask that we construe additional claim terms. We, therefore, leave our prior constructions in place unaltered.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“claimed invention. PO Resp. 15–19. As Patent Owner correctly notes, art is analogous if it is either: (1) from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention; or (2) reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Id. at 15–16 (citing MPEP § 2141.01(a)). As we find below that Hinman satisfies the second prong of this test, we need not address Patent Owner’s arguments regarding field of endeavor. A reference is “reasonably pertinent” to a problem if it “logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” In re Icon Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658, 23 USPQ2 1058, 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Petitioner argues that Hinman and the ’264 patent address the same problem, namely “controlling temperature to increase throughput.” Reply 5; Ex. 1025 ¶¶ 45, 48. Patent Owner disagrees, alleging that the ’264 patent is “concerned with achieving or improving etch selectivity in a high throughput etch process for semiconductor processing,” 32 and that this is different than the problems addressed by the prior art. PO Resp. 18. In defining the problem addressed by the inventor, the specification of the challenged patent is often instructive. Here, the ’264 patent notes that prior art substrate etching processes used “batch” modes in which etching was done at a single temperature, and that the invention improves upon these processes by providing a multi-stage etching process using different temperatures. Ex. 1001, 1:65–2:11. As such, the invention allegedly overcame disadvantages of prior art processes, which required lowered throughput and etch rate in order to avoid excessive damage to a workpiece. Id. at 2:11–14. Despite Patent Owner’s arguments, we cannot agree that etch selectivity, as opposed to throughput, is the problem addressed by the ’264 patent. As Dr. Bravman points out, “[t]he specification of the ’264 patent is devoid, however, of description of improved or high selectivity processes or explanation of how the purported invention achieves both high selectivity and high etch rates.” Ex. 1025 ¶ 46. This is in contrast to the specification’s direct statement that the invention “overcomes serious disadvantages of prior art methods in which throughput and etching rate were lowered in order to avoid excessive device damage.” Ex. 1001, 2:11– 14 (emphasis added). It is clear to us that the problem faced by the ’264 patent is one of throughput and etching rate. The applicability of the cited prior art, including Hinman, to” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS RE40,264 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Daniel L. FlammAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 12, 2018 · IPR2016-01512 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 27, 31, 32, 34, 37, 40, 41, 44, 47, 48, and 50 are unpatentable under § 103 over the stated combinations of prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the knowledge level of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Samsung’s declarant, Dr. Shanfield, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art as of September 1997 would be an individual who possesses the following: (i) a Bachelor’s degree in engineering, physics, chemistry, materials science, or a similar field, and three or four years of work experience in semiconductor manufacturing or related fields[;] or (ii) a Master’s degree in engineering, physics, chemistry, materials science, or a similar field[,] and two or three years of work experience of work experience in semiconductor manufacturing or related fields[]. Ex. 1002 ¶ 18. According to Dr. Shanfield, “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Id. Conversely, the named inventor of the ’264 patent, Dr. Flamm, does not offer an assessment of the level of skill in the art as of September 1997, nor does Dr. Flamm explicitly state his intent to adopt Dr. Shanfield’s assessment. See generally Ex. 2001.3 Given Dr. Flamm’s silence on this matter, we adopt Dr. Shanfield’s assessment because it is consistent with the ’264 patent and the asserted prior art, and apply it to our obviousness evaluation below.” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“halogen lamp with Kadomura’s dry etching apparatus would degrade uniformity and control. In particular, we do not credit Dr. Flamm’s supporting testimony on this particular issue because it is conclusory in nature. Ex. 2001 ¶ 34. According to 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a), “[e]xpert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” See Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (stating a lack of objective support for expert opinion “may render the testimony of little probative value in [a patentability] determination”). For instance, Dr. Flamm testifies that: A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would not have combined Narita with Kadomura to effectuate a temperature change because a [person of ordinary of skill in the art] would know that heating through intimate contact with Kadomura’s electrostatic chuck was operable to provide better uniformity and control than an [IR] lamp or halogen lamp taught by Narita. Such [IR] lamp or halogen lamp is primarily for rapid heating, commonly called “RTP,” which would not be combined with Kadomura’s technique that emphasizes better uniformity and control for cryogenic processing. A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would recognize that these different techniques teach away from each other. Ex. 2001 ¶ 34. Dr. Flamm, however, provides little, if any, support for these statements. Absent underlying facts or data to support his opinion, we are not convinced that heating with an IR lamp or halogen lamp, as taught by Narita, would degrade uniformity and control. See Pet. Reply 19–20 (referencing teachings in Narita that provide for control and uniformity).” slip op. at 37
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“Flamm does not dispute that the priority date of the challenged claims of the ’264 patent is the September 11, 1997 filing date of the ’650 provisional application. Consequently, because all the references that serve as the basis of the grounds instituted in this proceeding were filed before September 11, 1997, they qualify as prior art to the challenged claims of the ’264 patent.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“The relevant inquiry here is whether Samsung has set forth “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. In KSR, the Supreme Court framed the question as whether “[one] of ordinary skill, facing the wide range of needs created by developments in the field of endeavor, would have seen a benefit to upgrading [the prior art].” 550 U.S. at 424. The Supreme Court explained that we “must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” Id. at 417. The Supreme Court stated that, “[i]f a person of ordinary skill [in the art] can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. Based on the record developed during trial, we agree with Samsung that using Matsumura’s control recipes in Kadomura’s dry etching apparatus and method is a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions—an obvious combination that would provide better temperature control, particularly with respect to accurately controlling the thermal history curve. See Pet. 31–33; Pet. Reply 8–9; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 43, 60, 61; KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. We begin our analysis by examining the problem addressed by Matsumura. In its “Background of the Invention” section, Matsumura discloses that the thermal history curve (i.e., the temperature changing pattern) of the wafer-stage has a large influence on the resolution” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS RE40,264 unpatentable§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
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.