- Tesla, Inc. v. Iqar Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Sep 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00630 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–16 under all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Koebler anticipates claims 1, 15, and 16 and that the asserted obviousness grounds succeed for at least some claims.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute only when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . 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). A decision to institute may not institute on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1354, 1359–60 (2018). If the Board institutes a trial, the Board will institute on all challenges raised in the petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting . . . review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”). We have authority, acting on the designation of the Director, to determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the parties’ briefs and evidence of record, we conclude that the information presented shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Thus, we institute inter partes review of all challenged claims based on all asserted grounds.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateOther
“require the Enumerated Current Conditions to be determined by analyzing data from the Enumerated Sensors, and it is this claimed invention for which the specification must provide written description support. 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(a), 120. Although, as discussed above, the claim requires only one Enumerated Sensor and one Enumerated Current Condition, it additionally requires that data from the sensor be analyzed to determine the current condition. Thus, to support the full scope of the claims, Koebler must disclose that each of the Enumerated Current Conditions is determined by analyzing data from one of the Enumerated Sensors. Although Petitioner asserts that Koebler does not provide written description support for ten of the Enumerated Sensors (see Pet. 10–11), Petitioner focuses its arguments on three of the current conditions (moisture, an amount of vibration, and traction) (see id. at 15–20), and we likewise focus our analysis on these three current conditions. Petitioner’s arguments for these three current conditions are substantially identical, including that Koebler does not teach or suggest using data from an Enumerated Sensor to determine each of the three current conditions. See id. at 15–19.” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artOther
“Thus, at this preliminary stage of the proceeding and based on the present record, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that Koebler does not provide written description support for the claims of the ’616 patent. For completeness, we note that we find Petitioner’s arguments that Koebler does not provide verbatim or synonymous disclosure of the words “moisture,” “vibration,” or “traction” (see, e.g., Pet. 15–16) unavailing, as there is no requirement for verbatim or synonymous disclosure in the prior application. PowerOasis, 522 F.3d at 1306; Purdue Pharma, 230 F.3d at 1323. Similarly, there is no requirement for “inherent disclosure” of the recited current conditions. See, e.g., Pet. 16–17. Rather, as explained above, the relevant inquiry is whether the application relied upon (here, Koebler) 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., 598 F.3d at 1351.” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDecided for petitioner
“Thus, under § 325(d), the Board uses the following two-part framework: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of [the] first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of [the] challenged claims. Id. at 8.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,850,616 - PTAB · Apr 10, 2024 · PGR2024-00004 · APJ Scott A Daniels · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–24 and all petition grounds, finding it more likely than not that claims 1–3, 5–6, 8–11, 13–17, and 20–24 are obvious over Emma, Butt, and Smith.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 324(c) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). A post-grant review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . demonstrate[s] that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) (2018). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine, for the reasons set forth below, that Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable based on the grounds presented. Therefore, we institute a post-grant review of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering . . . [a]lternatively, a POSITA could have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, industrial engineering, physics, or a related engineering or discipline, plus at least two years of experience working with control circuits, sensors, kitchen appliances, or similar fields. ordinary skill in the art and states that “[t]he differences do not matter for purposes of this Petition.” Prelim. Resp. 4–5. On this record, Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’746 patent and the asserted prior art references. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). For purposes of this Decision, we rely on Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“level of smoke” Neither Patent Owner nor Petitioner expressly indicate that any claim terms require express construction. See Petition 13–14; Prelim. Resp 5. However, Petitioner contends that for the phrase “level of smoke,” recited in claims 1, 15, and 22, “Patent Owner interprets ‘level of smoke’ as merely detecting smoke.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1009, 6). Patent Owner argues that it “does not offer a special definition” and “asked the [district] court to give these terms their plain and ordinary meaning.” Prelim. Resp. 5, n 2. Patent Owner explains that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would similarly understand ‘level of smoke’ when read in the full context of the intrinsic record.” Id. in light of the specification, we understand “level of smoke” as a predetermined level of smoke “indicative of a dangerous condition” as the specification of the ’746 patent explains. Ex. 1001, 15:43–44, see also id. at 15:63–65 (The ’746 patent describing “[t]he determination of a level of smoke corresponding to a dangerous condition.”). To the extent the parties disagree, they may address this issue more directly in subsequent briefing. slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“POSITA to reasonably combine Emma with a smoke sensor reference.” Prelim. Resp. 44. We agree that Emma does not disclose a smoke sensor, but Petitioner has provided other prior art references, namely Butt and Smith, and presented several reasons, namely safety reasons, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider adding a smoke detector from Butt and Smith to Emma’s microwave oven. Pet. 24, 74–75. Obviousness is not determined from the perspective of the inventors or authors of a single prior art reference. Rather, obviousness is determined from the perspective of a hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art. It is only that hypothetical person who is presumed to be aware of all pertinent prior art. Standard Oil Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 454 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Petitioner argues, for instance, that Butt teaches the fire safety aspects of “a controller for interrupting a supply of electricity to an appliance upon detection of a trigger, such as [s]moke.” Pet. 24 (quoting Ex. 1015, 1:16– 18). Dr. Horenstein testifies that from a safety perspective, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “combine[d] the additional kitchen-safety appliance features of Butt with the Emma microwave/refrigerator so as to enable the Emma microwave to shut down upon the detection of smoke, and to reenable the Emma microwave for a further cooking session when the smoke had cleared.” Ex. 1023 ¶ 124. Where Butt arguably discloses a smoke detector external to an appliance, Dr. Horenstein testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to “Smith to include the smoke sensor in operative connection with the microwave oven with the reset functionality disclosed by Butt for the added benefit of reusing the microwave oven.” Id. ¶ 127 (emphasis added). each directed towards shutting down a component of the device in response to a sensor output indicative of an unwanted condition.” Id. ¶ 127. Dr. Horenstein testifies further that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have combined the elements as disclosed by known methods for the purposes of modifying Emma’s microwave / refrigerator combination to include Smith’s smoke sensor to be operatively connected with its cooking area and to include Butt’s smoke sensor and reset functionality.” Id. ¶ 126. Dr. Horenstein explains that inclusion of Butt’s reset functionality with Smith’s smoke sensor operatively connected with the cooking area into Emma would result in such elements merely performing the same function as they do separately, i.e., sensing smoke to withdraw electrical power from an electrical cooking appliance and then re-enabling the electrical cooking appliance. Id. Moreover, Dr. Horenstein testifies that the prior art, for example, Butt, specifically recognized the need to solve the problem of fires in the home started by cooking appliances. Id. ¶ 128 (citing Ex. 1015, 1:22–44). Butt explains, that “[h]ome fires are a serious problem in the United States. The National Fire Protection Association reports that between the years 1999- 2002, for example, there were 114,000 reported home fires associated with cooking alone.” Ex. 1015, 122–25. Similarly, Smith expressly teaches “[a] method and apparatus for anticipating the occurrence of a fire in the cooking cavity of a microwave oven.” Ex. 1014, Abstract.” slip op. at 36
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,674,746 - PTAB · Apr 10, 2024 · PGR2024-00003 · APJ Scott A Daniels · PGR · Institution
Instituted PGR on claims 1–28 and all petition grounds; the Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 13, 15, 20, 22, and 24–25 are obvious over Emma, Butt, and Smith.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 324(c) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). A post-grant review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . demonstrate[s] that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) (2018). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine, for the reasons set forth below, that Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable based on the grounds presented. Therefore, we institute a post-grant review of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering . . . [a]lternatively, a POSITA could have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, industrial engineering, physics, or a related engineering or discipline, plus at least two years of experience working with control circuits, sensors, kitchen appliances, or similar fields. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 50; Ex. 1023 ¶ 6). Patent Owner provides a similar level of ordinary skill in the art and states that “[t]he differences do not matter for purposes of this Petition.” Prelim. Resp. 4. On this record, Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’745 patent and the asserted prior art references. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). For purposes of this Decision, we rely on Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningOther
“level of smoke” Neither Patent Owner nor Petitioner indicate that any claim terms require express construction. See Petition 13–14; Prelim. Resp 5. However, Petitioner contends that for the phrases “level of smoke” and “amount of smoke,” recited in claims 1, 15, and 24, it has “applie[d] what it understands Patent Owner contends is the meaning of this term in this Petition[,] and shows below the claims are invalid under Patent Owner’s construction.” Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1009, 6). Patent Owner argues that it has “does not offer a special definition” and “asked the [district] court to give these terms their plain and ordinary meaning.” Prelim. Resp. 5, n 2. Patent Owner explains that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would similarly understand ‘level of smoke’ when read in the full context of the intrinsic record.” Id. For purposes of this Decision, reading the plain language of the claims in light of the specification, we understand “level of smoke,” or amount of smoke, in the claims generally as a predetermined level of smoke “indicative of a dangerous condition” as the specification of the ’745 patent explains. Ex. 1001, 15:48–49, see also id. at 16:1–2 (The ’745 patent describing “[t]he determination of a level of smoke corresponding to a dangerous condition.”). To the extent the parties disagree, they may expressly address this issue more directly in subsequent briefing. slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“from Butt and Smith to Emma’s microwave oven. Pet. 24. Obviousness is not determined from the perspective of the inventors or authors of a single prior art reference. Rather, obviousness is determined from the perspective of a hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art. It is only that hypothetical person who is presumed to be aware of all pertinent prior art. Standard Oil Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 454 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Petitioner argues, for instance, that Butt teaches the fire safety aspects of “a controller for interrupting a supply of electricity to an appliance upon detection of a trigger, such as [s]moke.” Pet. 24 (quoting Ex. 1015,1:16– 18). Dr. Horenstein testifies that from a safety perspective, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “combine[d] the additional kitchen-safety appliance features of Butt with the Emma microwave/refrigerator so as to enable the Emma microwave to shut down upon the detection of smoke, and to reenable the Emma microwave for a further cooking session when the smoke had cleared.” Ex. 1023 ¶ 124. Where Butt arguably discloses a smoke detector external to an appliance, Dr. Horenstein testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to “Smith to include the smoke sensor in operative connection with the microwave oven with the reset functionality disclosed by Butt for the added benefit of reusing the microwave oven.” Id. ¶ 127 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 38
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,674,745 - PTAB · Jul 12, 2023 · IPR2023-00319 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 2, 3, 5, 12, 13, 15, 22, 23, and 25 because the petition showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Id. at 13, 17. Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a Master’s degree in an academic area emphasizing electrical engineering or a similar discipline, and at least two years of experience in the field working with, teaching, or researching communication systems including the use of con-stellations in transmitting signals between devices. [Ex.]1003, ¶[93]. Superior education could compensate for a deficiency in work experience, and vice-versa. Id. Pet. 28. Though Patent Owner makes arguments with reference to “a person of ordinary skill,” Patent Owner does not directly address or contest Petitioner’s level of skill. See e.g., Prelim. Resp. 3. We are persuaded, on the present record, that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’700 patent and prior art of record. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner asserts that no terms require express construction. Pet. 28. Patent Owner does not argue that terms in the challenged claims should be construed. We determine that no terms need to be construed at this time. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 9
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateWritten description adequateMixed
“Under the present record, we determine that Petitioner has satisfied its burden with respect to a lack of written description support for at least some of the claims. In particular, each of claims 3, 13, and 23 require QAM-16, QAM-64, QAM-256, and QAM-1024 constellations, and the beginning end points of the code rate ranges appear to have been selected for different reasons, without any discussion or support that would apply across the board. For example, Patent Owner argues that for the QAM-16 and QAM-64 constellations the first identified code rate that covers an unequally spaced constellation is important because that was “the object of the invention” and thus establishes the beginning end point. Id. at 46–47, 49–50. However, Patent Owner provides no reason why in the QAM-256 constellation the claimed range covers equally and unequally spaced constellations. See id. at 52 (locus plot of Figure 14c). Rather, Patent Owner merely asserts that the claimed range is “coextensive with the values in [the table of] Figure 15b.” Id. at 51. For the QAM-1024 constellations Patent Owner also asserts that the claimed range is “coextensive with the values in [the table of] Figure 17b,” and again makes no mention of unequally spaced constellations. Id. at 53. Not only is Patent Owner’s logic applied inconsistently across the different types of QAM constellations, but this also results in inconsistency in the logic behind claims 3, 13, and 23 which require all of the different types of QAM constellations. Thus, we preliminarily determine that Petitioner has shown that a person of skill in the art would not understand that the patentee had possession of the claimed invention of claims 3, 13, and 23 at the time of the application, as there does not appear to be a way in Barsoum for determining how to select the beginning end points of the code rate ranges. See Pet. 3 (citing Lizardtech, Inc. v. Earth Res. Mapping Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Claims 2, 12, and 22 each only require a QAM-16 constellation and do not require the other QAM constellation types. Thus, these claims are not internally inconsistent in how they select the beginning end point of the code rate range. We determine, in view of the current record, the written description support for these claims is a close issue, as is the question of whether the disclosed locus plots, without more, are sufficient to disclose a range, rather than just specific points. As we have determined that claims 3, 13, and 23 have been shown preliminarily to lack written description support, we reserve these questions for trial.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“12, 13, 22, and 23 are obvious over the combination of Barsoum and ATSC322. Pet. 28–67. The Petition argues that dependent claims 5, 15, and 25 are obvious over the combination of Barsoum and ATSC327. Id. at 67– 79. Apart from the written description support arguments above, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s obviousness analysis of the challenged claims. See generally, Prelim. Resp. We note that it would seem inconsistent for Patent Owner to argue that Barsoum has written description support for the claims and yet does not teach a feature of the claims. At the same time, Patent Owner also does not address ATSC322 or ATSC327, or Petitioner’s reasons to combine the references. Each of the Petition’s grounds relies entirely on Barsoum to teach or suggest each limitation of independent claims 1, 11, and 21, upon which the challenged claims depend. Pet. 39–51, 75. Concerning claims 2, 3, 12, 13, 22, and 23 the Petition relies on ATSC322 for teaching QAM-16, QAM-64, QAM-256, and QAM-1024 constellations with a code rate of 7/15 which is within the claimed ranges for each of the constellations. See e.g., id. at 54 (reproducing Ex. 1023, Tables 6.12 and 6.13 at 30–31 which show all four constellations with a code rate of 7/15). Petitioner also provides a number of reasons why one of skill in the art would look to ATSC322, which is a technical standard, for combination with Barsoum. Id. at 37–39. After review, we determine that the Petition preliminarily establishes a reasonable likelihood that claims 3, 13, and 23 are obvious over the combination of Barsoum and ATSC322. We also determine that if Barsoum is prior art to claims 2, 12, and 22, the Petition preliminarily establishes a reasonable likelihood that claims 2, 12, and 22 are obvious over the combination of Barsoum and ATSC322.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,693,700 - PTAB · Apr 8, 2022 · IPR2022-00017 · APJ Hubert C Lorin · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–5 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“The Board uses a two-part framework for evaluating arguments under § 325(d): (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (“Advanced Bionics”). “[T]he Becton, Dickinson factors provide useful insight into how to apply the framework under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” Id. at 9 (footnote omitted). The non-exclusive Becton, Dickinson factors are: (a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art or Patent Owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments.” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner contends: A POSA in February of 2005 would have at least a bachelor’s degree in biomechanics or engineering (or equivalent) and about five years or more industry experience or equivalent experience in designing cardiovascular exercise equipment (such as treadmills, bicycles, steppers, ellipticals) or in a similar field. A POSA could substitute directly relevant additional education for experience, e.g., substituting an advanced degree relating to the design of cardiovascular exercise equipment (such as treadmills, bicycles, steppers, ellipticals) or biomechanics (or equivalent), for industry experience in a related field, and vice versa, substituting additional industry experience for a formal degree in a relevant field. Sargeant-328 ¶¶52-53. Pet. 4. Patent Owner states that “the Petition essentially repeats the same proposed standard [as in the District Court Action]. As such, there appears to be no significant dispute over the level of skill in the art possessed by a POSA.” Prelim. Resp. 11. Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art appears reasonable, and we adopt that definition for our analysis in this decision.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“When read in the context of the entirety of the first paragraph, the phrase “direct drive or fixed gear configuration” suggests that the two configurations are alternatives but it does not necessarily indicate that they equate to each other. When read in the context of the entirety of the second paragraph, the phrase “direct drive (fixed gear)” also does not necessarily suggest that they equate to each other. The entire phrase is “direct drive (fixed gear) and/or non direct drive e.g., freewheeling configuration.” Ex. 1002, 3:13–14; cited at Pet. Prelim. Reply 7. In other words, “direct drive (fixed gear)” configurations are not non–direct drive configurations, such as freewheeling configurations. Other than indicating that they are not non–direct drive configurations, there is insufficient additional indication that “direct drive” and fixed gear mechanisms equate to each other. Accordingly, the evidence at this stage more strongly supports Patent Owner’s argument that the ’328 patent does not disclose that “direct drive” configurations equate to fixed gear configurations. Given no other evidence at this stage to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the ’328 patent’s disclosure of “direct drive (fixed gear)” (Ex. 1002, 3:13) and “a direct drive or fixed gear configuration” (id. at 2:10) to mean that 4 Warner (Ex. 1009). “direct drive” equates to fixed gear, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that the ’328 patent equates “direct drive” to fixed gear configurations.” slip op. at 30
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of claims 1–5 of the ’328 patent. Accordingly, we grant the Petition and institute an inter partes review of the ’328 patent. Because a decision to institute is “a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition,” PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 & n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018) and corresponding USPTO Guidance, https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/trials/guidance-impact-sas-aia-trial (Apr. 26, 2018)), and because we have determined that at least one ground set forth in the Petition satisfies the threshold for institution, trial is instituted on the proposed grounds based on Rice, Warner, Sotokoshi, and Baudhuin–429. IV. ORDER It is hereby: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review of claims 1–5 of the ’328 patent is instituted with respect to all grounds set forth in the Petition; and” slip op. at 70
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,137,328 - PTAB · Apr 8, 2022 · IPR2022-00016 · APJ Hubert C Lorin · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–13, 16, and 17 on all petitioned grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim; claims 14 and 15 were disclaimed.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“(1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (“Advanced Bionics”). “[T]he Becton, Dickinson factors provide useful insight into how to apply the framework under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” Id. at 9 (footnote omitted). The non-exclusive Becton, Dickinson factors are: (a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art or Patent Owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments.” slip op. at 12
- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“Based on our review of the Disclaimer and Office public records, we conclude that a disclaimer of claims 14 and 15 of the ’240 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) has been recorded in the Office as of February 22, 2022. Accordingly, claims 14 and 15 have been disclaimed under 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a). As a result, no inter partes review shall be instituted as to claims 14 and 15. 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e); Intuitive Surgical, Inc. v. Ethicon LLC, IPR2018-01248, Paper 7 at 2 n.1, 9–10 (PTAB Feb. 7, 2019) (discussing interplay of a disclaimed claim, Federal Circuit precedent, and our governing statutes and rules); Daikin Indus. Ltd. v. The Chemours Co., IPR2018-00993, Paper 12 at 5–7 (PTAB Nov. 13, 2018) (noting that adverse judgment following partial disclaimer was not appropriate at least because the nondisclaimed claims “ha[d] yet to be ‘decided.’”); cf. General Electric Co. v. United Techs. Corp., IPR2017-00491, Paper 9 (PTAB July 6, 2017) (precedential) (declining to institute inter partes review when all challenged claims were disclaimed under 35 U.S.C. § 253(a)). Accordingly, we treat claims 14 and 15 as having never been part of” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of claims 1–13, 16 and 17 of the ’240 patent. Accordingly, we grant the Petition and institute an inter partes review of the ’240 patent. Because a decision to institute is “a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition,” PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 & n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018) and corresponding USPTO Guidance, https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/trials/guidance-impact-sas-aia-trial (Apr. 26, 2018)), and because we have determined that at least one ground set forth in the Petition satisfies the threshold for institution, trial is instituted on the proposed grounds based on Rice, Warner, Sotokoshi, and Baudhuin–429. IV. ORDER It is hereby: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review of claims 1–13, 16 and 17 of the ’240 patent is instituted with respect to all grounds set forth in the Petition; and” slip op. at 78
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“A POSA in February of 2005 would have at least a bachelor’s degree in biomechanics or engineering (or equivalent) and about five years or more industry experience or equivalent experience in designing cardiovascular exercise equipment (such as treadmills, bicycles, steppers, ellipticals) or in a similar field. A POSA could substitute directly relevant additional education for experience, e.g., substituting an advanced degree relating to the design of cardiovascular exercise. Pet. 3–4 (citing Sargeant–240 Decl. ¶¶ 50–54). Patent Owner states that “the Petition essentially repeats the same proposed standard [as in the District Court Action]. As such, there appears to be no significant dispute over the level of skill in the art possessed by a POSA.” Prelim. Resp. 14. Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art appears reasonable, and we adopt that definition for our analysis in this decision.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,694,240 - PTAB · Mar 24, 2022 · PGR2021-00112 · APJ Bryan F Moore · PGR · Institution
Instituted PGR on claims 1–20 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 lacks written description support; all petition grounds were included.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“content for output.” Id. at 89. We determine, however, that Petitioner’s argument under Step 2A Prong One that claim 1 is directed to the “obtaining content for output” is not substantially different from the Examiner’s determination that claims 1‒20 recite “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis.” Compare Pet. 37–88 (citing e.g. Electric Power), with Ex. 2001, 193–194 (also citing Electric Power). In both cases, the argument is the same or substantially the same, i.e., that similarly identified subject matter of the claim is obtaining (collecting) data and displaying (outputting) it. Nevertheless, as to Step 2A Prong Two, we determine that the claims at issue in the ’096 prosecution differ in material ways from the ’903 patent claims at issue in this PGR. Specifically, the ’096 patent claims recite a touchscreen interface not recited in the ’903 patent claims. Additionally, the ’903 claims focus on the “output device” as performing the patented steps but in the ’096 prosecution history the “‘information apparatus performs the patented steps and “is integral to the claims” (as the Applicant argued). See Ex. 2008 [comparison of ’096 prosecution claims and ’903 claims]; Ex. 2001, 150; see also Pet. 89 (“the claims at issue in the ’067 application were different than the claims of the ’903 patent addressed here.”). rejection and arguments in the ’096 prosecution history turns on whether the claims in this PGR recite different elements that must be determined to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (i.e., Prong Two of Step 2A). Petitioner argues that an essential element different than the ’096 claims, i.e. the output device, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claims do not amount to an improvement to computer functionality. Pet. 37–72. We find this a close case. Nevertheless, due to the differences in the claims, we determine that the Examiner’s withdrawal of the § 101 rejection in light of the applicant’s arguments regarding the claim being directed to a specific technical solution is not substantially the same argument that Petitioner’s presents in the Petition as to Prong Two of Step 2A.” slip op. at 22
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“C. Lack of Written Description Support Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable for lack of written description for the same reasons it contends the ’903 patent is PGR eligible. Pet. 13–36. The Specification of the ’903 patent has substantially the same disclosures as the Specification of the ’413 application relied on by Patent Owner (see Prelim. Resp. 20) to which the ’903 patent claims priority. Having determined that the disclosures in the ’903 patent Specification and the ’413 application is insufficient to provide written description support for the at least claim 1, we also determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least claim 1 is unpatentable for the same reasons. Thus, we exercise our discretion and institute post grant review of claims 1–20 challenged under this ground. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1369–60 (2018).” slip op. at 33
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateInstituted
“in the art at the time of the invention] would have understood that an output system/device could be (or include) an information apparatus. Prelim. Resp. 24. We determine that Patent Owner’s argument has a logical flaw––i.e., the fact that a particular device could be used alternately as an information apparatus or an output device does not necessarily mean that it was known by one of ordinary skill in the art to use a combined information apparatus/output device and have the new combined device perform all the additional functions required by the claims. “The knowledge of ordinary artisans may be used to inform what is actually in the specification, but not to teach limitations that are not in the specification, even if those limitations would be rendered obvious by the disclosure in the specification.” Rivera v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 857 F.3d 1315, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Rivera”). “The question is not whether a claimed invention is an obvious variant of that which is disclosed in the specification . . . . It extends only to that which is 1997). Patent Owner has not pointed to any disclosure in the ’413 application teaching that an “output device” can perform the functions of the “information apparatus” including its interactions with the “output device.” For example, claim 1 recites “wirelessly receiving, by the output system . . . output data from at least one server of the one or more servers over the Internet.” Ex. 1001, 37:28–32. At this stage, we find sufficiently persuasive Petitioner’s argument, which we discuss above, that the only written description support for an “output device” that performs the claimed functions by accessing the Internet provided by Patent Owner is not an “output device” but an “information apparatus.” Prelim. Resp. at 27–29.” slip op. at 29
§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Mayo · Bilski · Electric PowerPatents in suitUS 11,029,903
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.