• Charles River Laboratories, Inc. v. Seikagaku CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 8, 2026 · PGR2025-00023 · APJ Per Curiam · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 are unpatentable as anticipated by the ’629 publication; the claims are not entitled to the 2013 priority date.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “We find that a rigid requirement as to the subject of a POSITA’s doctoral degree (e.g., biochemical engineering, enzymology), or experience working specifically with horseshoe crab proteins, is not consistent with the evidence of record. See, e.g., Ex. 1067, 20:23–21:2 (Dr. Schaefer testifying that the fact the “name of [his] Ph.D. is immunology . . . does not change the fact that the core of [his] thesis training was really in molecular biology”), 22:3–15 (explaining that “the fact that the production of proteins recombinantly is mostly species agnostic”); Ex. 1069, 45:20–47:17 (Dr. Morris testifying that whether a person is a POSITA depends on the person’s “experience, [ ] publications,” and work done for the Ph.D. rather than the name of the Ph.D. program). We also find that evidence of record supports Petitioner’s assertion that, for purposes of defining a POSITA, “[m]ore education could substitute for experience, and vice versa.” See, e.g., Pet. 22; Ex. 1065, 99:14–100:3. Accordingly, based on the entirety of the trial record, we find a POSITA with respect to the claims of the ’109 patent would have had a two years of experience with cloning genes, expressing cloned genes as proteins, and/or characterizing such cloned genes and proteins, with more education being able to substitute for experience, and vice versa. A POSITA may also have collaborated with others, including those with specific experience in utilizing or assessing horseshoe crab Factor C for endotoxin detection and quantitation.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Neither party proposes an express construction of any claim term. See Pet. 22–23 (not proposing any constructions); PO Resp. 23 (“Patent Owner agrees that the terms can be afforded their plain and ordinary meaning.”). However, Patent Owner states that some of Petitioner’s arguments implicitly construe claim 1 in an erroneous manner. PO Resp. 23–28. “For example, Petitioner argues that ‘an adequate written description would have to either disclose representative examples of the possible working cascades of various proteins or some accurate structural feature of the claimed proteins that allow them to function in the claimed assay as a whole.’” Id. at 23 (quoting Pet. 35). Patent Owner argues that, contrary to what Petitioner’s argument allegedly implies, “Claim 1 is directed to a method for producing an endotoxin assay agent” and does not require the use – Owner that claim 1 does not require the use of endotoxin assay agent. However, the claimed endotoxin assay agent must be capable of performing the assay, as counsel for Patent Owner acknowledged. Tr. 83:5–9.” slip op. at 10

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “In this case, to show that the claims of the ’109 patent are unpatentable for lack of written description, Petitioner would have needed to show that the specification as filed (i.e., the ’420 application) fails to reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that Patent Owner had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the July 3, 2023, filing date. Petitioner did not. Pet. 23–24. Nor does Petitioner’s declarant offer testimony that could support such a showing. See Ex. 1003 ¶50 (“I have been asked to provide my opinions as to the state of the art in this field for purposes of determining what the inventors disclosed as their invention as of December 10, 2013.”), ¶51 (“Whenever I offer an opinion in this declaration about the knowledge of a POSA, the manner in which a POSA would have understood the claims of the ’109 patent or its description, the manner in have been led to do based on the prior art, I am referencing the December 10, 2013 timeframe.”). In our Institution Decision, we stated: Although the ’420 application is essentially identical to the ’767 application, the person of ordinary skill in 2013 is not the same as in 2023. See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351 (“[T]he [written description] test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” (emphasis added)). Thus, the information presented in the Petition, which is limited to the perspective of a 2013 POSITA, does not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable for lack of written description. Inst. Dec. 12 (alterations in original). During trial, Petitioner did not present any further arguments in support of Ground 1. See generally Pet. Reply. Petitioner has failed to prove that claims 1–9 are unpatentable for failing to meet the written description requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” slip op. at 12

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot shown unpatentable

    “Although the evidence before us shows that, in 2013, a POSITA knew how to recombinantly express genes in expression systems such as CHO or HEK-293 cell lines, the evidence shows that this was true only for genes whose genetic sequences were known or readily available. See, e.g., Ex. 1069, 34:11–22 (“Q. Okay. So you would agree that the creation of the recombinant protein requires the underlying sequence of, as you said, the original animal? A. Of course.”) Because it is undisputed that, in 2013, the genetic sequence for Limulus polyphemus Factor C was unknown, or least not publicly available, Falko-Gunter does not support a finding of adequate written description here. See, e.g., Tr. 48:18–19 (“Patent Owner agrees that there had not been, as of 2013, the full length cDNA sequence for Limulus polyphemus Factor C published.”).” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 11,959,109 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 11,959,109
• Charles River Laboratories, Inc. v. Seikagaku CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 8, 2026 · IPR2025-00440 · APJ Tawen Chang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 21 is unpatentable as obvious over Mizumura with either the ’498 PCT or McClymont; the Revised Contingent Motion to Amend proposing claim 22 is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “overlap to a significant degree, i.e., a person with a Ph.D. in a discipline related to biological sciences and having had at least two years of work experience. However, the parties’ proposals differ slightly in the specific subjects in which a POSA would have had a doctoral degree, and whether the person’s work experience must have been directly related to horseshoe crab Factor C. As an initial matter, we find that a rigid requirement as to the subject of a POSA’s doctoral degree (e.g., biochemical engineering, enzymology), or experience working specifically with horseshoe crab proteins, is not consistent with the evidence of record. See, e.g., Ex. 1067, 20:23–21:2 (Dr. Schaefer testifying that the fact the “name of [his] Ph.D. is immunology . . . does not change the fact that the core of [his] thesis training was really in molecular biology”), 22:3–15 (explaining “the fact that the production of proteins recombinantly is mostly species agnostic”); Ex. 1069, 45:20–47:17 (Dr. Morris testifying that whether a person is a POSA depends on the person’s “experience, [ ] publications,” and work done for the Ph.D. rather than the name of the Ph.D. program). We also find that evidence of record supports Petitioner’s assertion that, for purposes of defining a POSA, “[m]ore education could substitute for experience, and vice versa.” See, e.g., Pet. 19; Ex. 1065, 99:14–100:3. with respect to the claims of the ’318 patent would have had a Ph.D. in molecular biology, biochemistry, or a related discipline, and about two years of experience with cloning genes, expressing cloned genes as proteins, and/or characterizing such cloned genes and proteins, with more education being able to substitute for experience, and vice versa. A POSA may also have collaborated with others, including those with specific experience in utilizing or assessing horseshoe crab Factor C for endotoxin detection and quantitation.” slip op. at 13

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

    “C. Claim Construction The parties agree that “the terms in claim 21 can be afforded their plain and ordinary meaning for purposes of this proceeding” without further construction. Pet. 19–20; PO Resp. 11. Because express claim construction is not needed to resolve the issues in this case, we need not, and do not, construe expressly any claim term for purposes of this Decision. 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 14

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “Carrying Out the Invention section, that “[t]he Factor C of the present invention is a Factor C derived from a horseshoe crab,” and states later in the same section that “[e]xamples of the horseshoe crab include . . . Limulus polyphemus.” Ex. 1006, 40. However, none of the remaining portions of ’767 application cited by Patent Owner relate directly to L. polyphemus; instead, the remaining portions of ’767 application cited by Patent Owner are directed to other species, in particular the Japanese horseshoe crab T. tridentatus. Further, Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Schaefer, conceded that the ’767 application does not contain Factor C sequence information for L. polyphemus. See, e.g., Ex. 1067, 44:25–45:23. Although “[n]o length requirement exists for a disclosure to adequately describe an invention,” Falko-Gunter, 448 F.3d at 1365–1366, we are persuaded that a POSA would not, based on the totality of the above disclosures, reasonably understand that the inventors were in possession of the claimed HEK-293 recombinant L. polyphemus Factor C protein, in view of the state of the art as of December 10, 2013. In this regard, we note that adequate written description of a biological molecule, such as a HEK293 recombinant L. polyphemus Factor C protein, requires “more than a mere statement that it is part of the invention and reference to a potential method for isolating it”; instead, what is required is “‘a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties,’ not a mere wish or plan for obtaining the claimed chemical invention.” The Regents of the” slip op. at 21

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

    “Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Neither do we see Petitioner’s arguments regarding the December 10, 2013 priority date to be “mutually opposed” as Dr. Schaefer testified. Ex. 1067, 216:4– 24. Instead, we credit evidence of record, including Dr. Jain’s testimony and the February 22, 2018 Mizumura Declaration, that existence of the full sequence would permit a more complete analysis and that such an analysis would provide a POSA with a reasonable expectation that the claimed L. polyphemus recombinant protein would have a residual activity within the claimed range. See, e.g., Ex. 1029, 2–5; Ex. 1010, 48; Ex. 1065, 117:14– 130:24 (explaining that comparison of partial sequences in the Tokunaga 1991 publication showed “difference around the cleavage site” between T. tridentatus and L. polyphemus but comparison of the full sequence revealed that “the catalytic triad of histidine, serine, aspartate . . . to be more similar between Tachypleus and Limulus”). Patent Owner asserts that “Petitioner’s reliance on a statement made by Dr. Mizumura in a declaration submitted during prosecution of the ’767 Application fails to fill the gap in the analysis” regarding reasonable expectation of success, because the declaration “offers no evidence of the percentage of conserved amino acid substitutions that exist to support the conclusion that a POSA would have expected residual activity to be maintained between Tachypleus tridentatus and Limulus polyphemus” PO Resp. 47. However, as noted above, Dr. Mizumura provides an alignment of Factor C proteins from the two different species of horseshoe crab, determines that the similarity between the amino acid sequence is 99.5%, states that the amino acid residues that can undergo N-type sugar chain that L. polyphemus, like T. tridentatus, would also be less susceptible to inhibition by ions. Ex. 1029, 4–5. For the reasons discussed above, we also disagree with Patent Owner’s assertion that Petitioner’s reasonable expectation of success argument is “nothing more than conclusory assertions with no support.” PO Resp. 46. Rather, we find Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a POSA would have had reason to combine the teachings of Mizumura and the ’498 PCT, with a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the Factor C protein recited in claim 21.” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 11,236,318 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,236,318
• Bayer Cropscience LP / Monsanto Company v. Corteva Agriscience LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Dec 19, 2023 · IPR2023-01037 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–29 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. Considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, for reasons explained below, we conclude that Petitioner shows a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail with respect to at least one of the ’283 patent’s challenged claims. We decline to deny the Petition on the basis of discretion under § 325(d). We institute an inter partes review on all challenged claims. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355 (2018).” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied

    “35 U.S.C. § 325(d). In evaluating whether to deny institution under 325(d), the Board has considered several non-exclusive factors: (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; (d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which a petitioner relies on the prior art or a patent owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether a petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Office erred in evaluating 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. See Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to § III.C.5, first para.). Factors (a), (b), and (d) relate to whether the art or arguments in the Petition are the same or substantially the same as those previously presented to the Office. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 10 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (“Advanced Bionics”). Factors (c), (e), and (f) “relate to whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office” in the Office’s prior consideration of that art or arguments. Id. Under Advanced Bionics’s two-part framework, we first determine whether the same or substantially the same art or arguments previously were presented to the Office. Id. at 8, 10. If “either condition of [the] first part of Office has been shown. Id. at 8, 10.” slip op. at 68

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s contentions are, at this stage, unavailing. Petitioner’s proposal could have been more specific, but it is not so lacking that the institution burden is unmet. It is reasonably clear that, in indicating that a POSA would have an advanced degree (like a Ph.D.) and years of experience in a “relevant discipline,” Petitioner is referring to the technical areas it cited previously, such as protein/enzyme biochemistry. Pet. 18. Petitioner’s definition does not ignore subject matter like “transgenic plants” because it states that the POSA would be able to apply key scientific concepts here (e.g., protein biochemistry, enzyme activity, and substrate selectivity) to such plants. Moreover, although Patent Owner complains about Petitioner’s POSA definition, it does not offer its own or explain why Petitioner’s challenge fails under any alternative definition. At this stage, Patent Owner’s suggestion that Dr. Hausinger lacks relevant expertise or qualifications of at least a POSA is unpersuasive. The ’283 patent relies on Dr. Hausinger’s own prior work. See, e.g., 1002, 18:44–50 (citing Hogan (Ex. 1027)), 50:51–55 (citing Fukumori (Ex. 2001)) (both references co-authored by Dr. Hausinger). Patent Owner also cites Dr. Hausinger’s work as evidencing what “skilled artisans” understood about the claimed and prior art technology, including αKGD dioxygenases, which is a focus of the parties’ arguments. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 8 (“Thus, as reflected in Hogan and Hotopp [(co-authored by Dr. Hausinger)], skilled artisans understood the structure-function relationships of Group II αKG-dependent dioxygenases . . . .”); Ex. 1029 (Hotopp 2002)). During prosecution, Dr. Wright’s declaration relied on Dr. Hausinger’s research. See, e.g., Ex. 1008, 462 (Wright I ¶ 13 (citing Hotopp)), 658 (Wright II artisans”)). And, Applicant’s other declarant, Dr. Nair, who testified about the POSA’s perspective at the time of the invention, appears to have academic and prior work history focused on chemistry, biochemistry, and enzymology without significant background in subjects like “controlling weeds” about which Patent Owner questions Dr. Hausinger’s qualifications. See, e.g., Ex. 1008, 590–591.17 Patent Owner will have the chance to cross-examine Dr. Hausinger in this proceeding. If Patent Owner feels we should discount Dr. Hausinger’s testimony due to lack of qualifications, it may raise such argument in trial. For now, we apply Petitioner’s proposed POSA level, with the” slip op. at 23

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

    “C. Claim Construction In inter partes review, we construe claims using the same claim construction standard used to construe claims in a civil action before the courts under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing claims in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning as understood by the POSA and the patent’s prosecution history. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). We need only construe terms that are in controversy and only as needed to resolve the matters in dispute. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019). 17 The closest work we see from Dr. Nair related to herbicide resistant transgenic plants is his 2019 paper co-written with the applicant’s employees (e.g., Dr. Wright), which paper appears to be a follow-on investigation into the AAD-1 proteins of the patent. Ex. 1008, 594–595; Ex. 1019, Abstr. proceeding. Pet. 17; Prelim. Resp. 20. It is not apparent at this stage that any terms need further interpretation to resolve the matters in dispute.18” slip op. at 24

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,149,283
• Chongqing Yanmei Technology Co., Ltd. v. Terves, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Aug 30, 2023 · IPR2023-00521 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 19–61 and 63–81 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Doud anticipates claims 19–61 and 63–75.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim of the ’740 patent. Accordingly, we grant institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateOther

    “the application describe the claim limitations exactly,” the application must demonstrate to persons of ordinary skill in the art that the applicants invented a composition including those limitations. Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262. On its face, the range of “at least 0.01 wt. %” encompasses a range that is broader than 0.01–35 wt. %, and Patent Owner does not sufficiently explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand from merely a disclosure of 35 wt.% that the inventors were in possession of the entire claimed range for copper, cobalt, or nickel in the magnesium composition.” slip op. at 11

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

    “On this record, the term “at least 0.01 wt. %” in the ’740 patent encompasses values for nickel, copper, and cobalt that are higher than the 35 wt. % (nickel and copper) and 20 wt. % (cobalt) limits outlined in the parent and grandparent applications. Accordingly, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that claim 19 of the ’740 patent is not entitled to the benefit of the filing dates of its priority applications. Challenged claims 20–61 and 63–75 depend from claim 19 and there is no argument presented that these claims have independent written description support in Doud. For example, there is no evidence presented that any of these dependent claims narrow the ranges for each of copper, nickel, and cobalt recited in in the ’295 application for these claims.7 Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we apply Doud as prior art to challenged claims 19–61 and 63–75.” slip op. at 12

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

    “as the ’740 patent. For example, Doud and the ’740 patent both disclose a method of forming a novel magnesium composite that includes melting an AZ91D magnesium alloy containing 90 wt. % magnesium, 9 wt. % aluminum, and 1 wt. % zinc. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 45, 47; Ex. 1001, 21:43–51, 22:48–53, 33:32–43, 34:9–12. To this alloy is added either 7 wt. % nickel or 10 wt. % copper. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 45, 47, 53, 57; Ex. 1001, 21:48–51, 22:53–56, 33:35–36, 34:12–13. These additives are mixed in the magnesium alloy at a temperature that is less than the melting point of copper or nickel, and the casting is then cooled. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 45, 47, 53, 57; Ex. 1001, 21:51–54, 22:56–58, 33:35, 34:12-13. Doud reports that nickel and copper, when added to molten magnesium, will form Mg2Ni and CuMg2 intermetallic, galvanically-active, in situ precipitates. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 12–13. Doud discloses that the dissolution rate of the resulting casting material is either 325 mg/cm2-hr (nickel) or 50 mg/cm2-hr (copper) in a 3% KCl solution at 90° C. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 45, 47, 53, 57; Ex. 1001, 21:60–62, 22:61–63, 33:41–43, 34:15–17. Doud also discloses that the average particle diameter of the additives used in the invention is generally “at least about 0.1 microns” and “typically no more than about 500 microns.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 6. Petitioner explains how the identified disclosures of Doud anticipate independent claim 19. Pet. 39–40. Petitioner also identifies where the limitations of dependent claims 20–61 and 63–75 are disclosed in Doud. Id. at 41–45. Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s anticipation arguments with respect to claims 19–61 and 63–75, apart from arguing that Doud is not prior art to these claims. Prelim. Resp. 27–39. demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that claims 19–61 and 63–75 are anticipated by Doud.” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,689,740
• Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. / Globalfoundries U.S. Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2018 · IPR2016-01376 · APJ Jennifer Meyer Chagnon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 13 and 15 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over Grill and Aoyama; the Board found a reason to combine and a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We note the parties’ proposals differ in the specific degree required (i.e., Master of Science vs. Bachelor’s of Science); however, neither party argues this distinction makes a difference in analyzing the asserted ground or other issues in this proceeding. For clarity of the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, as it is more specifically directed to the technology described in the ’696 patent. In addition, given the disclosures in the ’696 patent and cited prior art, we agree with Petitioner that a Master of Science degree (or equivalent) in the relevant area better reflects the level of education and training that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have possessed at the time than a Bachelor’s degree, as Patent Owner contends. Our findings and conclusions, however, would be the same under either party’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. The level of ordinary skill in the art in this case further is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 15

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

    “1. Construction of “using the [designated layer] as a mask” In the Institution Decision, we preliminarily construed the phrase “using the [designated layer] as a mask”6 as “using the [designated layer] to 6 Claim 13 recites several steps of etching “using” various layers—for example, the first resist pattern [step f]/second resist pattern and the mask pattern [step h]/patterned third insulating film [step i]—“as a mask.” As shorthand, we refer to the various layers as “the designated layer.” define areas for etching.”7 Inst. Dec. 11–15. We further determined that “to meet the limitation ‘using the [designated layer] for etching,’ the designated layer ‘must actually be used to define areas for etching.’” Id. at 15 (quoting Prelim. Resp. 6 (emphasis Patent Owner’s)). Patent Owner agrees with this construction—namely, that “‘using’ something ‘as a mask’ during etching means using it to define areas for etching.” PO Resp. 8–9. Petitioner also applied this construction in this proceeding. See Tr. 6:7–18; see also id. at 19:10–16 (Petitioner’s counsel: “No, no, we did not present a construction and we did not contest the Board’s construction.”). The parties do not dispute that “using the [designated layer] as a mask” means “using the [designated layer] to define areas for etching,” and we discern no reason from the evidence presented to change this construction. We, therefore, maintain our preliminary construction for purposes of this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 16

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

    “that “using the [designated layer] as a mask” encompasses a situation in which the modified mask pattern 358, having “edges that are in line and flush with” second resist pattern 359, is therefore used as a mask. For the reasons discussed above, we do not agree with Patent Owner that “us[ed] . . . as a mask” necessarily encompasses such a situation. See supra Section II.C.2. We note that the application of our construction would not preclude layer 358 as shown in Patent Owner’s modified Figure 16(a) from ever being a mask when etching layer 355, if it were in fact described as such. However, there is no such description in the Japanese priority application; instead, the corresponding discussion identifies only second resist pattern 359 as a mask for this etching step. See Ex. 1014 ¶ 96 (“If there is a concern that the second resist pattern 359 has been misaligned with the first resist pattern 357, then the mask pattern 358 should be dry-etched using the second resist pattern 359 as a mask before the second silicon dioxide film 355 is dry-etched using the second resist pattern 359 as a mask.” (emphasis added)). Further, as noted by Petitioner (Reply 10–11), the corresponding discussion is, at best, ambiguous as to whether mask pattern 358 is “used as a mask” for etching layer 355. Ex. 1014 ¶ 96 (“That is to say, if the mask pattern 358 is exposed to the openings of the second resist pattern 359 for the formation of contact holes because of the misalignment of the second resist pattern 359 with the first resist pattern 357, then the mask pattern 358 is dry-etched using the second resist pattern 359 as a mask. In this manner, the openings of the mask pattern 358 are expanded to include the openings for the formation of wiring grooves and contact holes.” (emphasis added)). This disclosure is not sufficient to provide support under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for step (h) of claim 13. See Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“For a claim in a later-filed application to be entitled to the filing date of an earlier application under 35 U.S.C. § 120 (1994), the earlier application must comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 (1994). . . . A disclosure in a parent application that merely renders the later-claimed invention obvious is not sufficient to meet the written description requirement; the disclosure must describe the claimed invention with all its limitations.” (citing Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1997))); see also K & K Jump Start, 13 F. App’x at 984 (“In order for claim 1 of the [U.S.] patent to be entitled to the priority date of the [foreign] application, the test set forth in [Tronzo, 156 F.3d at 1158] must be satisfied.”). 2. Conclusion as to Whether Grill Qualifies as Prior Art Having considered the evidence in this record, we determine that at least step (h) of claim 13 is not supported by the Japanese priority application.16 Accordingly, the effective filing date of the challenged claims is March 23, 1999, and Grill is available as prior art as to claims 13 and 15 of the ’696 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).” slip op. at 39

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

    “2. Conclusion as to Whether Grill Qualifies as Prior Art Having considered the evidence in this record, we determine that at least step (h) of claim 13 is not supported by the Japanese priority application.16 Accordingly, the effective filing date of the challenged claims is March 23, 1999, and Grill is available as prior art as to claims 13 and 15 of the ’696 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). 16 Because we find that claim 13 is not supported by the Japanese priority application, we need not discuss the parties’ arguments and evidence regarding whether or not Grill is entitled to the priority date of the Grill provisional application. Nor must we decide whether Petitioner’s corresponding arguments and evidence submitted in the Reply are proper.” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 6,197,696 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,197,696
• Euro-Pro Operating LLC v. Acorne Enterprises, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 9, 2015 · IPR2014-00351 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 13, and 14 are unpatentable as obvious over Hlava, Hlava and Nachumsohn, and Nachumsohn and Vallorani; the motion to amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Decision to Institute, in which we determined that the following claim terms invoke section 112, ¶ 6 because they specify a function but no structure for performing that function. Inst. Dec. 7.” slip op. at 6

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

    “not provided an articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings to support obviousness of claim 1 over Nachumsohn. PO Resp. 35–38. Patent Owner specifically contends that simply using a double pole triple (or four) throw switch to selectively energize the wrap-around and bottom heat elements “cannot reasonably be accomplished by a person of ordinary skill in the art following the teachings of the Nachumsohn invention.” Id. at 38. This argument is not persuasive for at least two reasons. First, a person of ordinary skill in the art is not limited to the teachings of Nachumsohn. One of ordinary skill can use his or her ordinary skill, creativity, and common sense to make the necessary adjustments and further modifications to result in a properly functioning device. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“[T]he [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”). Second, Petitioner showed that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such a function controlling means “to provide variable cooking modes” that constitute the many different cooking phases, such as, baking, searing, scalloping, stewing discussed in Nachumsohn. Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1004, pg. 1, col. 1, ll. 15–19). Petitioner reasoned that these cooking modes could be achieved by enabling multiple heating elements to be selectively energized, and that electromechanical rotary switches—such as a double pole triple throw switch, which would have enabled Nachumsohn’s bottom and side heating elements to be energized to provide cooking modes via the bottom heating element only, the side heating element only, or both heating elements; and such as a double pole four throw switch, which would have included an “off” setting (where neither heating element is energized) and enabled Nachumsohn’s bottom and side heating elements to be energized to provide cooking modes via the bottom heating element only, the side heating element only, or both heating elements—were known means of accomplishing same. Pet. 38–39 (citing Ex. 1017 ¶¶ 22, 36–39). Petitioner’s reasoning is supported by evidence from Nachumsohn that different modes of heating and cooking food were contemplated by those of skill in the cooking arts, and that modifying Nachumsohn’s circuit with a double pole triple (or four) throw switch to selectively energize, either, or both heating elements to achieve these modes “would have been routine for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time [the] ’262 patent was filed.” Id. Therefore, Petitioner has presented an articulated reasoning with rational underpinning based on Nachumsohn.” slip op. at 22

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “localized thermal stresses and cracking that would be caused by the proposed new bottom heating device.” PO Resp. 22 (citing Ex. 1003, 4:23– 34). However, teaching away requires a reference to actually criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the claimed solution. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The concern addressed by Hlava is that localized hot spots can compromise stoneware inserts, and therefore sensors are used to discriminate between a stoneware insert, and a metallic insert better suited to higher heat settings. Ex. 1003, 4:23–41. The passages in Hlava referred to by Patent Owner state that “when stoneware insert 16 is placed within housing 12, the maximum heat output permitted by heating device 30 is limited to prevent thermal shock and cracking of the stoneware.” Id. at 4:46–49. Patent Owner’s argument fails to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been discouraged from providing a bottom heating element even though Hlava specifically states that metallic inserts were available that could handle higher heat stress. See id. at 4:49– 52. Indeed, Patent Owner’s argument fails to explain why such a bottom heating element could not be regulated in temperature just like Hlava’s heating device 30, for any type of insert in such a deep well cooking apparatus including a stoneware insert. Patent Owner’s further contention that Hlava’s insert discriminating sensor 36 somehow dissuades one of skill in the art from using a bottom heating element is also unavailing. See PO Resp. 23–25. Even if a bottom heating element shifted, or added to Hlava, theoretically could “result in localized thermal stresses and cracking of the stoneware insert 16,” (id. at 25) Hlava expressly teaches how to avoid such a result with sensor 36 to limit the maximum heating temperature of the heating elements. See Ex. 1003, 4:46–49. Patent Owner’s conclusory argument, that shifting heating element 30c' to the bottom of Hlava’s cooker would “destroy the intent, purpose or function” of Hlava’s invention, does not explain persuasively why the temperature of a bottom heating element, either shifted or added to Hlava’s cooker, would not also be limited by operation of sensor 36, for instance when a stoneware insert is used in the cooker. For the above reasons, we conclude that a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that claim 1 is unpatentable based on Hlava and the admitted prior art.” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “under § 103 only when it is analogous to the claimed invention. In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011)); In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992). A reference is considered analogous prior art: (1) if the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed subjected matter, regardless of the problem addressed, or (2) if “the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved,” even though the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor. Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325. The “field of endeavor” test asks if the structure and function of the prior art is such that it would be considered by a person of ordinary skill in the art, because of the similarity to the structure and function of the claimed invention as disclosed in the application. Id. at 1325–27.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 6,515,262 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,515,262
• Euro-Pro Operating LLC v. Acorne Enterprises, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 9, 2015 · IPR2014-00352 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 12 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated prior-art combinations; the Patent Owner’s contingent motion to amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Decision to Institute, in which we determined that the following claim terms invoke section 112 ¶ 6 because they specify a function but no structure for performing that function. Inst. Dec. 7. Construed Term(s) Claim Construction Temperature The function of this means-plus-function term we controlling means determined to be “regulating the temperature of said heating elements,” and the structure to include “a temperature control switch as shown in Figures 1A–3, and its equivalents, which can be manipulated from outside the housing of the deep well cooker.” Inst. Dec. 6–7. Function controlling We determined the function for this means-plus- means function limitation we found to be “enabling [the] bottom heating element and [the] wrap-around heating element to be selectively energized to provide variable cooking modes,” and the corresponding structure we determined to be “the device, and its equivalents, as reflected in Figures 1A–3 of the ’392 patent mounted in the outer housing of the deep well cooker and manipulated separately from the temperature control means by a user, and as represented in the specification, can pass current individually to either the bottom heater or wrap-around heater, or in combination to both.” Inst. Dec. 7.” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “and education as an electrical engineer with 50 years of product development and design experience including electric cooking devices. Ex. 1019¶¶ 3–14. Mr. Sherwood’s testimony is offered by Petitioner, not as expert testimony on the specific legal criteria of obviousness, but as evidence of what one of ordinary skill in the art of electric cooker design would have understood at the time of the filing of the ’392 patent. Id. ¶ 22. Mr. Sherwood’s legal principal statements are informative as to his understanding of obviousness, but not expert testimony as to the specific legal elements and requirements for obviousness. Id. ¶¶ 20–21. Mr. Sherwood’s opinions and testimony as they relate specifically to the prior art, and his knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of 1 Fed. R. Evid. 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. filing of the ’392 patent, comport with the legal requirements for obviousness as explained to him by Petitioner’s counsel. See Ex. 1019 ¶ 20. Obviousness is a mixed question of law and fact and it is not necessary that an expert be a “legal” expert on the question of obviousness. See Soverain Software LLC, v. Newegg Inc., 705 F.3d 1333, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“precedent does not require ‘expert’ opinions on matters of law”). Also, we are persuaded that Mr. Sherwood’s testimony was undertaken with consideration as to the level of ordinary skill in the art within the 2000-2001 time frame of the alleged invention and filing of the ’392 patent. Although Mr. Sherwood did not state, explicitly, what the level of one of ordinary skill in the art would have been at the time of filing of the ’392 patent, it is reasonable to determine that a professional engineer having a master’s degree in electrical engineering and 50 years of electronic product design experience including extensive experience in the design of cooking appliances and electronic temperature control systems including slow cookers and crockpots, is qualified to testify as to what would have been known by, and obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the ’392 patent. Ex. 1019 ¶ 8. Mr. Sherwood specifically states that his opinions are “based on my personal knowledge, experience, and the materials I have reviewed, as to how someone of ordinary skill in the field of cooking appliances would understand the challenged claims of . . .the ’262 patent and the ’392 patent as of at least July 2001.” Id. ¶ 22. We determine that Mr. Sherwood’s opinions and testimony are entitled to weight, as they embrace the requirement of one of skill in the art at the time of filing of the ’392 patent, and are adequately supported by his professional experience and skill in the field of electronic cooking appliance design.” slip op. at 24

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

    “Patent Owner’s first argument is not persuasive because the fact that an element of claim 1, namely the bottom heating element, is missing from the Hlava reference is essentially the basis upon which Petitioner has asserted that claim 1 is obvious, as opposed to anticipated. See Pet. 24. Moreover, we are aware of no case law, nor has Patent Owner directed us to any, that all the features of a claim must be found in a prior art reference to properly support an obviousness analysis, or that the absence of a feature in the reference, “mitigates,” against a finding of obviousness. See 35 U.S.C § 103, see also In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (claimed invention would have been obvious over single reference or combination of references). We are also not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that Petitioner has failed to present an articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings in support of its obviousness positions. Petitioner has asserted several reasons why one of ordinary skill in the art would shift, or add a bottom heating element to Hlava, one reason being that: it was known in the prior art to use a bottom heating element in addition to a side heating element to facilitate heat distribution in roasting (see Nachumsohn at page 2, column 1, lines 61–71 (discussing properly proportioned heat for browning a roast, which is part of roasting)), and because roasting is a function for which Hlava’s heating element 30c' was designed. Pet. 24–25 (citing Ex. 1004, 8:17–22). Petitioner additionally asserts that although Hlava does not disclose expressly a bottom heating element, Hlava teaches that heating elements for other cooking situations, besides those shown in the reference itself, are contemplated: “the actual number of elements and wattage values could be varied in order to obtain the desired heating profile” . . . to accommodate “a wide variety of cooking situations,” [] which an extra heating element would have helped to accomplish by expanding the heating profiles of the Hlava cooking apparatus. Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1004, 1:53–64, 5:48–56). Petitioner has supported its reasoning with evidence from the prior art references, such as Hlava and Nachumsohn, which teach that it was well known in the art to use bottom heating elements in deep well cooking apparatus for particular cooking operations. Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1004, 4:11–19, 8:17–22, Fig. 5). Indeed, Petitioner points to the Background section of the ’392 patent itself, discussing certain prior art cooking devices having bottom heating elements. Pet. 7–8, 25 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:21–60). Mr. Sherwood testifies persuasively that shifting or adding a bottom heating element to Hlava was well within the ordinary skill in the art, and “would have yielded the predictable result of quicker heating of the bottom of Hlava’s cooking insert and/or would have resulted in providing Hlava’s cooking apparatus 10 associated with FIG. 9 with additional cooking modes.” Ex. 1019 ¶¶ 27–29. In view of such reasons and evidence, we are satisfied that Petitioner’s explanations constitute articulated reasoning with rational evidentiary underpinnings sufficient to justify the legal conclusion of obviousness.” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner next argues that Hlava teaches away from a bottom heating element because Hlava’s “stoneware insert 16 could not resist the localized thermal stresses and cracking that would be caused by the proposed new bottom heating device.” PO Resp. 22 (citing Ex. 1004, 4:23– 34). However, teaching away requires a reference to actually criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the claimed solution. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The concern addressed by Hlava is that localized hot spots can compromise stoneware inserts, and therefore sensors are used to discriminate between a stoneware insert, and a metallic insert better suited to higher heat settings. Ex. 1004, 4:23–41. The passages in Hlava referred to by Patent Owner state that “when stoneware insert 16 is placed within housing 12, the maximum heat output permitted by heating device 30 is limited to prevent thermal shock and cracking of the stoneware.” Id. at 4:46–49. Patent Owner’s argument fails to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been discouraged from providing a bottom heating element even though Hlava specifically states that metallic inserts were available that could handle higher heat stress. See id. at 4:49– 52. Indeed, Patent Owner’s argument fails to explain why such a bottom heating element could not be regulated in temperature just like Hlava’s heating device 30, for any type of insert in such a deep well cooking apparatus including a stoneware insert. Patent Owner’s further contention that Hlava’s insert discriminating sensor 36 somehow dissuades one of skill in the art from using a bottom heating element is also unavailing. See PO Resp. 23–25. Even if a bottom heating element shifted, or added to Hlava, theoretically could “result in localized thermal stresses and cracking of the stoneware insert 16” (id. at 26), Hlava expressly teaches how to avoid such a result with sensor 36 to limit the maximum heating temperature of the heating elements. See Ex. 1004, 4:46–49. Patent Owner’s conclusory argument, that shifting heating element 30c' to the bottom of Hlava’s cooker would “destroy the intent, purpose or function” of Hlava’s invention, does not explain persuasively why the temperature of a bottom heating element, either shifted or added to Hlava’s cooker, would not also be limited by operation of sensor 36, for instance when a stoneware insert is used in the cooker. For the above reasons, we conclude that a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that claim 1 is unpatentable based on Hlava and the admitted prior art.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 6,624,392 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,624,392
• Munchkin, Inc. / Toys “r” US, Inc. v. Luv N’ Care, Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 21, 2014 · IPR2013-00072 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision

  The sole claim is unpatentable as obvious over Hakim ’225 and Hakim ’604; the motion to amend is denied because it would enlarge claim scope.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The test for sufficiency of the written description, which is the same for either a design or a utility patent, has been expressed as “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.” Id. (quoting Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)). In the context of design patents, the drawings provide the written description of the invention. Thus, when an issue of priority arises under § 120 in the context of design patent prosecution, one looks to the drawings of the earlier application for disclosure of the subject matter claimed in the later application. Owens, 710 F.3d at 1366 (citations omitted).” slip op. at 6

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

    “likelihood that the claim of the ’465 patent would have been obvious over each of Hakim ’225 and Hakim ’604. Dec. on Pet. 23. In response, Patent Owner does not argue that the claim is patentably distinct from those references. PO Resp. 6-7; Tr. 31:10-17. Rather, Patent Owner argues that the references are not prior art. PO Resp. 6-7; Tr. 31:10-17.” slip op. at 5

  • ScopeMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “Owner relies on this distinction, between infringement of design patents and that of utility patents, to argue that the proposed amended claim is not broader than the issued claim because, to “an ordinary observer,” the designs are “substantially the same.” PO Reply 4 (emphasis added). However, Patent Owner does not direct us to, and we are not aware of, any authority that has applied the “ordinary observer” test—first enunciated as a test for infringement in Gorham Manufacturing Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511 (1871) and adopted as the sole test for design patent infringement in Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 678—to compare the scope of two claims. The scope of the issued claim and the proposed amended claim are defined by the respective drawings. See id. at 679 (design patents typically are claimed as shown in the drawings). Those drawings differ with respect to the spout tip and the vent. Specifically, the proposed amended claim is broader than the issued claim because it is broader with respect to racetrackshaped spout tips and raised rim vents, even though it may be narrower with respect to egg-shaped spout tips and vents without raised rims. See In re Rogoff, 261 F.2d 601, 603 (CCPA 1958) (“[A] claim is broadened if it is broader in any respect than the original claim, even though it may be narrowed in other respects.”). In other words, a drinking cup, having the racetrack-shaped spout tip and raised rim vent of the proposed amended claim, could infringe the proposed amended claim based on its overall design, yet not infringe the issued claim. See Thermalloy, Inc. v. Aavid Eng’g, Inc., 121 F.3d 691, 692 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“A new claim enlarges if it includes within its scope any subject matter that would not have infringed the original patent.”). Therefore, the proposed amended claim would enlarge the claimed subject matter in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(3) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(ii).” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS D617,465 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosure

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.