- Samsung Electroncis Co. Ltd. v. Acorn Semi, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 9, 2022 · IPR2020-01183 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 17–18, and 21–24 are unpatentable: claims 1–3 and 17–18 are obvious over Jammy, and claims 21–24 are anticipated by Grupp ’483 and Jammy.
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“mental steps that an ordinarily skilled artisan theoretically might have taken after reviewing the minimal disclosure in the ’423 patent. The ’423 patent does not discuss any properties of metal oxides (other than the lower barrier of the metal oxide TiO2) or design considerations concerning the selection of particular oxides to use in the claimed structure, particularly in the context of MIGS separation. Dr. Kuhn cites very little, if any, evidence to support her testimony regarding the knowledge of an ordinarily skilled artisan. Thus, we do not credit this analysis as showing that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found that the inventors of the pre-2011 priority applications possessed the recited genus. See Ariad, 593 F.3d at 1352 (a description that merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the written description requirement); PowerOasis Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Entitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed.”) (quoting In re Huston, 308 F.3d 1267, 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2002),” slip op. at 22
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“As discussed above, Petitioner has demonstrated Grupp ’483 is prior art to challenged claims 1–3, 17–18, and 21–24 of the ’261 patent. It is undisputed that the priority applications disclose at least some group IV semiconductors. Thus, claims reciting the metal oxide interface layer and Group IV semiconductor are anticipated under In re Slayter, 276 F.2d 408, 411 (CCPA 1960) (“It is well settled that a generic claim cannot be allowed to an applicant if the prior art discloses a species falling within the claimed genus; in other words, whatever would infringe if subsequent will anticipate if prior.”) and In re Gosteli, 872 F. 2d 1008, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The additional limitations of the challenged dependent claims are also disclosed in Grupp ’483. See Pet. 25–26. For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3, 17–18, and 21–24 are anticipated by Grupp ’483.” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“On this record Patent Owner has not provided sufficient evidence of a nexus between the long felt and the specific limitations recited in claims 1–3 and 17–18, e.g., the structure recited in independent claim 1, in which a metal oxide interface layer interposed between a metal and a group IV semiconductor comprising the source or drain of a transistor has a thickness between 0.1 nm and 5 nm.” slip op. at 39
Patent outcomesUS 9,209,261 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,209,261 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Acorn Semi, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 12, 2022 · IPR2020-01205 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 6, 8–12, and 14–16 are unpatentable as anticipated by Grupp ’483; the priority applications do not support or enable the claims’ full scope.
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateEntitled to earlier dateMixed
“To support a claim to a genus, a specification must disclose “either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can ‘visualize or recognize’ the members of the genus.” Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Here, the recited genus is an interface layer comprising a metal oxide, where the interface layer is configured to provide a specific contact resistivity between a contact metal and a semiconductor of than 1 Ω- μm2. Ex. 1001, 18:37–43. It is undisputed that the only species the pre- 2011 priority applications disclose is TiO2, as set forth in the following passage: Two other properties of the dielectric deserve mention. First is the property of the height of the barrier compared to the semiconductor conduction band (for electrons). In making the barrier thinner than a silicide barrier, the tradeoff may be a higher tunnel barrier (e.g., 2 eV for nitride, compared with about half the gap of 0.6 eV for silicide). Spacer layers may be used with lower barriers (e.g., TiO2 has a barrier of less than 1 eV). Nevertheless, even with the higher barrier to electrons, the present inventors have determined that the resistance can still be one hundred times lower than a contact to silicon with a silicide barrier. Id. at 17:59–18:2 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 18
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not enabledNot entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“evidence shows, that the disclosure does not enable specific contact resistance down to zero. Ex. 1016, Schubert Decl. ¶¶ 87–90. Instead, Patent Owner argues that one of skill in the art would have understood there to be an “inherent lower limit” and that the claims are enabled because one of skill in the art could achieve that lower limit through experimentation based on the disclosure of patent. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument, for two main reasons. First, we do not agree that the cases cited by Patent Owner establish that the enablement requirement is satisfied if one of skill in the art could experiment in accordance with the disclosure to find a practical end of an open ended range recited in a claim. Patent Owner principally relies on Andersen Corp. v. Fiber Composites, but the Federal Circuit in that case affirmed the jury verdict of enablement because “the upper limit of the Young’s modulus of the structural member would lie somewhere between the Young’s modulus of the wood fiber and that of the polymer used in the composition.” 474 F.3d at 1377. In other words, there were two known quantities that provided a fixed range. That is not the case here, where Patent Owner does not point to any such predefined limits. Patent Owner also cites a district court case, PerkinElmer Health Scis., Inc. v. Agilent Techs., Inc., 962 F. Supp. 2d 304, 310 (D. Mass. 2013). That case is not directly on point, because it was considering claim construction and not enablement, but that court also found an existing practical upper limit to the” slip op. at 36
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Neither party asks for a construction of the subject claim language, and we determine that the plain meaning of “a specific contact resistivity . . . of less than 1Ω μm2” would encompass all specific contact resistances below 1 Ω-μm2 and down to zero.” slip op. at 35
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableReference is prior artUnpatentable
“reference for purposes of anticipation under section 102 [] differs from the enablement standard under section 112.” Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Enablement under section 112, which is required for priority under section 120, requires enablement of the full breadth of a claim. Wyeth and Cordis Corp. v. Abbott Laboratories, 720 F.3d 1380, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2013); MagSil, 687 F.3d at 1384; 35 U.S.C. § 120. Enablement for anticipation does not; rather it requires only enablement of an embodiment or embodiments that fall within the scope of the claim. Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“a CIP's claim for a genus might not be enabled by a parent's disclosure, but that parent may enable a species that anticipates the CIP's claim for a genus . . . . the Court of Custom and Patent Appeals [] made clear the differences between the requirements for claim-anticipating disclosures and for claim-supporting disclosures”) (citing In re Lukach, 442, F.2d 967, 969–970 (CCPA 1971)). Here, the enablement challenge for priority is for a lack of enablement of the full breadth of the recited range, and in particular, a lack of enablement of the lower part of the recited range (that which is at or near zero). No party has argued that the upper part of the recited range (just below 1 Ω-μm2) is not enabled by either the priority applications or Grupp ’483. See, e.g., Pet. 20; PO Resp. 1–2; Pet. Reply 27–28; PO Sur-reply 17– 18. And enablement by a prior art patent is presumed. In re Antor Media Pharm., Inc., 545 F.3d 1312, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Thus, the record does not reflect an inconsistency in holding the priority applications as not enabling the breadth of the recited range while treating Grupp ’483 as enabling the upper part of the range for anticipation. As set forth below, we find that Petitioner has proven that Grupp ’483 anticipates every challenged claim.” slip op. at 42
Patent outcomesUS 9,461,167 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,461,167 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Acorn Semi, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 12, 2022 · IPR2020-01204 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8, 13–16, and 77–80 are unpatentable as anticipated by Grupp ’483; the challenged claims are not entitled to the earlier priority date.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that “[a]ny of the following combinations of education and experience would have qualified someone as an ordinarily skilled artisan in the field of the ’336 Patent”: (a) “a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, physics, materials science”; (b) “chemical engineering, with two years of practical experience with semiconductor research and design”; (c) “a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, materials science, or chemical engineering, with four years of practical experience with semiconductor research and design”; or (d) “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, materials science, or chemical engineering, with six to eight years of practical experience with semiconductor research and design.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 70–71). Petitioner further asserts that “[m]ore education could compensate for less practical experience, and vice versa” and that “[t]he same level of ordinary skill would have been applicable in August 2002, February 2011, or November 2012.” Id. Patent Owner does not address the level of skill in the art. Because Petitioner’s proposal is consistent the disclosures of the ’336 patent and the cited art, we apply it in this Decision.” slip op. at 10
- ExcludeOther
“We dismiss Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude as moot because, unlike other cases in this family, this case does not include any claims that recite an “oxide of titanium.”” slip op. at 53
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Neither party seeks any claim constructions, and we see no terms that need to be expressly construed to resolve the issues before us, so we do not engage in any formal claim construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 11
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot entitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner that the pre-2011 priority applications do not describe the recited genus. To support a claim to a genus, a specification must disclose “either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can ‘visualize or recognize’ the members of the genus.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Here, the recited genus is an interface layer comprising a metal oxide, where the interface layer is configured to provide a specific contact resistivity between a contact metal and a semiconductor of less than or equal to approximately” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 8,766,336 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,766,336 - Wombat Security Technologies v. Phishme, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jul 20, 2017 · PGR2017-00009 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · PGR · Rehearing
The Board denied Wombat’s rehearing request, leaving institution of PGR denied because the petition did not show the patent was eligible for PGR.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“DISCUSSION The applicable standard for granting a request for rehearing is abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The requirements of a request for rehearing are set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides in relevant part: A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“sufficiently shown that the ’038 patent was eligible for post-grant review. Inst. Dec. 8–13. Specifically, we found deficient Petitioner’s contention that the challenged claims were not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of Application No. 13/785,252 (“the ’252 application”) to which the ’038 patent claims priority as a continuation-in-part. Inst. Dec. 8–13. This finding was based on the following deficiencies of the Petition: (1) the Petition did not discuss the relevant disclosure of the application to which the ’038 patent claims priority—Application No. 13/785,282 (“the ’252 application”)—as originally filed, citing instead to the ’940 patent, which issued from the ’252 application; (2) the Petition did not address the Examiner’s statements in the Notice of Allowability that “[t]he present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions”; and (3) Petitioner did not satisfy its burden to show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood the inventor to have possession of “providing feedback to the individual confirming that the identified email was a simulated phishing attack” (“the feedback limitation”). Id. For the third deficiency, we found the feedback limitation supported by at least paragraphs 5 and 18 of the ’252 application, which discuss training individuals who receive simulated phishing attacks such that users are better able to recognize and thwart a real phishing attack. Id. at 11–12.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“being recited expressly in the ’252 application it “satisf[ied] its burden to establish that it was more likely than not that the ’038 patent was not entitled to the filing date of the [’252 application].” Reh’g Req. 3. In Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., however, the Federal Circuit explicitly found that identifying a limitation as not being recited expressly in the specification at issue was not enough to support a finding of lack of written description. 815 F.3d 1331, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit explained that it was “troubled by the fact that the Board did not cite any evidence other than the fact that the terms were not present in the specification to support its finding,” concluding this placed “undue weight on the absence of the [exact] terms appearing in the specification.” Id. at 1345–46. Petitioner’s burden, therefore, is not established simply by pointing out that the ’252 application does not explicitly state the feedback limitation.” slip op. at 4
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not reached
“being recited expressly in the ’252 application it “satisf[ied] its burden to establish that it was more likely than not that the ’038 patent was not entitled to the filing date of the [’252 application].” Reh’g Req. 3. In Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., however, the Federal Circuit explicitly found that identifying a limitation as not being recited expressly in the specification at issue was not enough to support a finding of lack of written description. 815 F.3d 1331, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit explained that it was “troubled by the fact that the Board did not cite any evidence other than the fact that the terms were not present in the specification to support its finding,” concluding this placed “undue weight on the absence of the [exact] terms appearing in the specification.” Id. at 1345–46. Petitioner’s burden, therefore, is not established simply by pointing out that the ’252 application does not explicitly state the feedback limitation.” slip op. at 4
§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 9,398,038 - L’Oréal USA, Inc. v. Liqwd, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jul 19, 2017 · PGR2017-00011 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution of PGR on claims 1–10 because Petitioner did not show that any claim was more likely than not unpatentable under § 112.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 324(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting a post-grant review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), which provides that a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.”” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Moreover, “[a]pplicants can define . . . claim scope during prosecution,” just as they can in a patent specification. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 789 F.3d 1335, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Here, during prosecution of the ’419 patent, the applicant stated that “[t]he term ‘hair coloring agent’ refers to a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.” Ex. 1005, 7. To define specific terms used to describe an invention, the applicant need only set out the definition “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision,” “so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change” in meaning. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). On the present record, the definition of the term “hair coloring agent” set out in the prosecution history of the ’419 patent is sufficiently clear, deliberate, and precise to give a person of ordinary skill in the art notice that the term is used in the ’419 patent in a manner that does not include substances other than “colorant[s] or pigment[s] that [are] customarily used in hair care products,” even if those other substances might be described as “hair coloring agents” outside the context of the ’419 patent. Ex. 1005, 7. Accordingly, we should give effect to that definition. Because Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” gives effect to the prosecution history’s definition of “hair coloring agent,” we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction for purposes of the present decision. Thus, on the present record, and for purposes of the present decision, we construe “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” as “wherein the mixture applied to the hair does not have a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.”” slip op. at 6
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)Not shown unpatentable
“to determine the scope of the claims. As discussed above, however, we interpret “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” as “wherein the mixture applied to the hair does not have a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.” We have not been directed to evidence of record that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered a bleaching agent to be “a colorant or pigment.” Pet. 7 (describing bleaching as a “process[] that destroy[s] pigment to change hair color,” as opposed to a “process[] that deposit[s] dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair to change hair color”); Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 14–15 (contrasting “dyeing,” meaning “processes that alter or change hair color by depositing dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair,” with “bleaching,” meaning “the application of an oxidizing agent to hair to destroy the natural or artificial pigment”). Accordingly, on the present record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown that it is more likely than not that claims 1–10 of the ’419 patent are indefinite.” slip op. at 10
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not shown unpatentable
“wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent.” Pet. 36–39; Prelim. Resp. 39–40. If “a hair coloring agent” encompasses bleaching agents, then the claims all require a bleaching formulation and simultaneously exclude a bleaching agent, a scope that Petitioner argues is not described in the specification of the ’419 patent. As discussed above, however, we interpret “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” as “wherein the mixture applied to the hair does not have a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.” We have not been directed to evidence of record that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered a bleaching agent to be “a colorant or pigment.” Pet. 7 (describing bleaching as a “process[] that destroy[s] pigment to change hair color,” as opposed to a “process[] that deposit[s] dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair to change hair color”); Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 14–15 (contrasting “dyeing,” meaning “processes that alter or change hair color by depositing dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair,” with “bleaching,” meaning “the application of an oxidizing agent to hair to destroy the natural or artificial pigment”). Accordingly, on the present record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown it is more likely than not that claims 1–10 of the ’419 patent lack written description support. slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 9,498,419
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.