• Dynaenergetics Europe GmbH / Dynaenergetics US, Inc. v. Qinetiq LimitedNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 11, 2024 · PGR2023-00003 · APJ William A Capp · PGR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–5 not unpatentable; Petitioner failed to prove its asserted §101, §102, §103, and §112 grounds, including indefiniteness and written-description challenges.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “prevail, Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate that the challenged claims are unpatentable. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat'l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). The standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 326(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A. Level of Ordinary Skill Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Serra testifies that he is familiar with the” slip op. at 45

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

    “process of claim 1. The first principal decision is the selection of a known liner design from a library that is made at the beginning of the design process. The second principal decision is made at the conclusion of the design process where a “final liner design” emerges after hole shapes produced by modified liners converge toward the desired hole shape. A person of ordinary skill in the art, having read claim 1 in context, would understand that the term “optimized” in the claim refers to the hole shape of the known liner design that is selected from among the known liner designs in the library during the selection step of the claim. A person of ordinary skill in the art would similarly understand that the design that is chosen in the initial selection process is “optimized” with respect to the population of known liner designs in the library as opposed to being “optimized” relative to liner designs produced during the later varying and modelling steps of the design process.” slip op. at 26

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

    “Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that claims 1–5 of the ’039” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 11,215,039 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Bilski · Phillips · Markman · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 11,215,039
• Supercell OY v. Gree, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 14, 2019 · PGR2018-00029 · APJ Michael W Kim · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable: the Board found them ineligible under § 101 and also found claims 1–15 unpatentable under § 112(a).

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “division” to “way of managing a game and playing a game” does not alter our analysis, because “displaying a panel selection in a division” is no more than identifying high level details of a game that are substantively analogous to how “wagering game,” “dice game,” and “bingo game” are identified in the aforementioned cases. Accordingly, we find that independent claim 1 recites “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions),” which, under the Guidance, is one of certain methods of organizing human activity and, thus, an abstract idea.” slip op. at 26

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable

    “way of managing a game and playing a game involving displaying a panel selection in a division.” Accordingly, Petitioner is not required to account for any limitations within this characterization, at least for the purposes of determining whether a claim limitation is “well-understood, routine, conventional.” And when this framework is applied properly, we see how most of Patent Owner’s assertions fall away. First, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has provided no evidence that the claimed use of panels is well-understood, routine, or conventional. PO Resp. 32–39 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:36–38, 6:42–46, 7:27, 7:36, 7:44–53. 7:55–56; Ex. 2002, ¶¶ 22–30). More specifically, Patent Owner asserts that the panels disclosed in the ’583 patent may “display a still image,” “display a movie when the panels are emphasized and displayed,” “zoom in,” and may have portions of frames, in which the panels are disposed, that “display the texts showing the sound effect and/or an effect display portion.” PO Resp. 32–33 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:27, 7:36, 7:44–53, 7:55–56). Patent Owner asserts that these elements provide an interactive and dynamic format using panels that was unique and unconventional. PO Resp. 34. However, Petitioner is not required to show that those properties of the panels described in the ’583 patent, whether in an interactive and dynamic format or otherwise, are well-understood, routine, and conventional, because these elements are not recited in any of the independent claims.11 Relatedly, Petitioner is not slip op. at 45

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

    “2. Analysis Petitioner asserts that the Specification of the ’583 patent fails to provide adequate written description support for the following limitations of representative claim 1:” slip op. at 58

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

    “Pet. Reply 25; see also Tr. 37:3–11 (continuing line of argument). Here, once again, Petitioner mistakes breadth, which is permitted, for indefiniteness. See In re Miller, 441 F.2d at 693. As admitted by Patent Owner, the limitation and, in particular the term “allowed,” is certainly broad. See Tr. 73:15–74:2. But as stated by Mr. Crane, a person of ordinary skill would have understood that “one character would not be allowed to dispose a panel . . . into a division that is occupied by a panel belonging to another character,” or if “an attempt is being made to dispose a panel into a space where the panel will not fit, it will also not be allowed to be disposed.” PO Sur-Reply 22–23 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 44; Ex. 1009, 107:24–108:4). Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence or analysis to show that such an example from the ’583 patent is insufficient guidance to one of ordinary skill and compels a determination of indefiniteness.17 For these reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of showing that claims 1–15 are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).” slip op. at 69

  Patent outcomesUS 9,636,583 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Enfish · Electric Power · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 9,636,583
• Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 10, 2018 · PGR2017-00015 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · PGR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–4 not unpatentable: the obviousness grounds failed to establish the claimed elastic fastener limitation, and claim 3 was not shown indefinite or lacking written-description support.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner and determine that a POSA would have been a person having a general knowledge about, and experience with, expandable containers, including, without limitation, balloons, and at least an associate’s degree in mechanical engineering, or the equivalent. This level of skill is consistent with the types of problems and solutions described in the ’612 patent and cited prior art. For example, the ’612 patent describes a fluid inflatable system that uses elastic valve 20A (e.g., mechanical gasket, O-ring, etc.) for sealing fluid inside multiple containers (e.g., water balloons). See Ex. 1001, 1:22–24, 3:10–16. In any event, none of the issues in this case turn on the definition of a POSA, and the prior art of record provides ample evidence of the level of skill in the art. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (finding that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not err in concluding that the level of ordinary skill was best determined by the references of record); see also Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”’) (internal citation omitted).” slip op. at 13

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

    “1. Terms Construed in the Institution Decision We construed the term “elastic fastener” in our Decision on Institution, which is set forth in the following table. Inst. Dec. 14. Claim Term Construction in Institution Decision elastic fastener “an elastic element for attaching things together” Neither party disputes the language of this construction. See generally Prelim Resp. 17; Reply. We adopt them for this Final Written Decision. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting Rodale Press, Inc. v. FTC, 407 F.2d 1252, 1256–57 (D.C. Cir. 1968)) (“‘an agency may not change theories in midstream without giving respondents reasonable notice of the change’ and ‘the opportunity to present argument under the new theory.’”)” slip op. at 14

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

    “While the terms “unfilled state” and “filled state” describe the fullness for a container, we do not agree with Petitioner that the claim language requires determining the precise amount of fluid for each state. Section 112(b) requires that we read claim terms in the context of the surrounding claim language, not in isolation. Telebrands, 733 F. App’x at 1020. When we look at the entire claim phrase—“regardless whether the first and second ones of the plurality of containers are in a filled state or an unfilled state”— the plain language is clear that regardless of whether the balloons are in either state, the “at least first and second ones of the plurality of containers are disposed sufficiently close to each other such that they press against each other.” In other words, the exact volume of fluid or water needed to reach a “filled state” does not need to be determined in order to understand the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement. We are further persuaded because this is consistent with the district court’s construction of this term. See Ex. 1023, 19–20.” slip op. at 17

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

    “Based upon our review of the specification, and consideration of the arguments and evidence presented, Petitioner’s position is not persuasive. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to show that the ’612 patent does not provide such adequate guidance to a person of ordinary skill in the art. On its face, Figure 1 of the ’612 patent (reproduced below) shows containers 18 in contact or pressing against one another with the reasonable clarity required by Vas–Cath Inc. Figure 1 of the ’612 patent is reproduced above. Although the ’612 patent describes, as Petitioner notes, that tubes 16 can be different lengths, we are not persuaded that the ’612 patent’s disclosure of an embodiment with different tube lengths detracts from the concurrent disclosure in Figure 1 of an embodiment, where it is difficult to describe containers 18 as being not in contact with each other. Additionally, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to show adequately that a person of ordinary skill would not have understood the ’612 patent as describing the containers in Figure 1 as pressing against one another in an unfilled state. The ’612 patent indicates Figure 1 shows elastic valve 20A in an open configuration when container 18A is attached to tube 16A to allow container 18A to fill with fluid. Ex. 1001, 3:14–18. In this open configuration, container 18A is to be filled with fluid, after which, “it may be removed from tube 16A, whereupon elastic valve 20A closes, thereby closing the neck of container 18A and sealing the fluid inside.” Id. at 3:18–21 (emphasis omitted). The ’612 patent refers to Figure 1 to describe an embodiment where elastic valve 20A is in an open configuration to fill a container that has not been filled (i.e., unfilled) and removed from tube 16A. Thus, we are persuaded that, at least, Figure 1 and this accompanying description of Figure 1 in the ’612 patent provides sufficient written description for the recited limitation that “at least first and second ones of the plurality of containers are disposed sufficiently close to each other such that they press against each other . . . in a filled state or an unfilled state.”” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 9,527,612 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,527,612
• DISH Network Corporation / DISH Network L.L.C. v. Customedia Technologies, L.L.C.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 25, 2018 · CBM2017-00032 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · CBM · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenOther

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

  • Adverse judgmentOther

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

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

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

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

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

  Patent outcomesUS 9,053,494 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Mayo · Enfish
  Patents in suitUS 9,053,494
• Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 8, 2018 · PGR2017-00002 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 are unpatentable under § 112(a) for lack of written description; Petitioner did not prove lack of enablement.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenUnpatentable

    “Written Description and the ’506 Application The test for written description is an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a POSA. Using this test, the invention must be described in a manner sufficient to demonstrate that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “One shows that one is ‘in possession’ of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Written description is a question of fact judged as of the relevant filing date. Falko–Gunter Falkner v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2006). An ipsis verbis disclosure, however, is not necessary to satisfy the written description requirement. Vas–Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The disclosure need only reasonably convey to a POSA that the inventor had possession of the subject matter in question, even if every nuance of the claims is not explicitly described in the specification. Id.; see Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351.” slip op. at 23

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable

    “Written Description and the ’506 Application The test for written description is an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a POSA. Using this test, the invention must be described in a manner sufficient to demonstrate that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “One shows that one is ‘in possession’ of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Written description is a question of fact judged as of the relevant filing date. Falko–Gunter Falkner v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2006). An ipsis verbis disclosure, however, is not necessary to satisfy the written description requirement. Vas–Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The disclosure need only reasonably convey to a POSA that the inventor had possession of the subject matter in question, even if every nuance of the claims is not explicitly described in the specification. Id.; see Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351.” slip op. at 23

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not enabledNot shown unpatentable

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), enablement is separate and distinct from the written-description requirement. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1344. “The test of enablement is whether one reasonably skilled in the art could make or use the invention from the disclosures in the patent coupled with information known in the art without undue experimentation.” United States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 785 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “[A] patent specification complies with the statute even if a ‘reasonable’ amount of routine experimentation is required in order to practice a claimed invention.” Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Calgene, Inc., 188 F.3d 1362, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Whether undue experimentation is needed is not a single, simple factual determination, but rather is a conclusion reached by weighing many factual considerations. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988). These factors, referred to as the Wands factors, include: (1) the quantity of experimentation necessary, (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or absence of working examples, (4) the nature of the invention, (5) the state of the prior art, (6) the relative skill of those in the art, (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and (8) the breath of the claims. Wands, 858 F.2d at 737. It is Petitioner’s burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims of the ’989 patent lack enablement. 35 U.S.C. § 326(e). Petitioner’s evidence and argument does not sufficiently establish that the ’989 patent fails to teach those in the art to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation. See PO Resp. 58–66. The Petition does not address the Wands factors sufficiently so as to show that undue experimentation is required to make or use the claimed invention. For example, neither the Petition nor Dr. Pearce sufficiently addresses the state of the prior art or the relative skill of those in the art. See Pet. 64–65; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 145–152; PO Resp. 62. As Patent Owner argues, this is an “omission[] that [is] particularly fatal” to Petitioner’s enablement argument, because Petitioner argues that mechanical expansion and inflation expansion are incompatible and cannot be combined. PO Resp. 62; see Pet. 30–38, 64. Dr. Grundfest, however, testifies that it was well known to combine mechanical and balloon-based expansion in surgical devices. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 132–136; PO Resp. 56. During cross-examination, Dr. Pearce testified that he “thought about the state-of-the-art in minimally invasive surgery during the 1990s.” Ex. 2003 18:1–14. Dr. Pearce’s testimony is conclusory and does not sufficiently address whether he considered whether it was well known to combine mechanical expansion and inflation expansion in surgical devices. For another example, relying upon the testimony of Dr. Pearce, the Petition asserts that a redesign of the expansion design disclosed in the ’989 patent “would take a substantial amount of time and cost to achieve.” Pet. 65 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 149). Likewise, Dr. Pearce testifies, “[s]uch a redesign would take a substantial amount of time and cost to achieve.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 149. Dr. Pearce, however, does not explain sufficiently why combining mechanical expansion and inflation expansion would require a substantial amount of time and cost. See id. For these reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden of showing by a preponderance of evidence that claims 1–19 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for lack of enablement.” slip op. at 33

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Factors that may be considered in determining level of ordinary skill in the art include: (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field. Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). We are not persuaded that Dr. Pearce’s testimony concerning the level of skill in the art is erroneous to the extent it does not explicitly require experience related to devices used for uterine surgical procedures or surgical devices that employ expandable inflation-based and mechanical-based components. Patent Owner’s argument and Dr. Grundfest’s testimony is inconsistent with the ’989 patent, which does not disclose an ablation device or method of using an ablation device that solves problems unique to endometrial ablation or unique to surgical devices that employ expandable inflation-based and mechanical-based components. The ’989 patent does not limit the art to be “the field of minimally invasive surgical and uterine devices” (Ex. 2005 ¶ 60). The ’989 patent states: “The present invention relates generally to the field of apparatuses and methods for ablating or coagulating the interior surfaces of body organs. Specifically, it relates to an apparatus and method for ablating the interior linings of body organs such as the uterus and gallbladder.” Ex. 1001, 1:20–24; see also id. at 2:36–38 (“The present invention is an apparatus and method of ablation and/or coagulating tissue, such as that of the uterus or other organ”).” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 9,247,989 unpatentable
  § 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 9,247,989
• Twilio Inc. v. Telesign CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 6, 2018 · IPR2016-01688 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, and 17 are unpatentable as obvious over Bennett and Campbell under § 103(a).

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’792 patent would have had “at least an undergraduate degree in computer science, or equivalent experience, and in addition would be familiar with Internet and telephone communications.” Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 11–20). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assessment in its Response. Based on the record developed during trial, including our review of the ’792 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’792 patent and cited prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art and apply it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8

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

    “As shown in the chart above, the ’792 patent claims priority as a continuation or divisional application of a series of applications, and as a continuation-in-part (CIP) of U.S. Patent Application No. 11/034,421 (Ex. 1027, “the ’421 application”), filed on January 11, 2005. See Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 7–25. Petitioner argues that there is no presumption that the challenged claims are entitled to the filing date of the ’421 application, because the Office did not consider priority during prosecution of the ’792 patent, and the ’421 application does not provide written description support for certain limitations pertaining to the recited “notification event” in independent claims 1 and 10 of the ’792 patent. Pet. 9–15. In our Decision on Institution, we agreed with Petitioner, based on the record at the time, that the challenged claims are not entitled to the filing date of the ’421 application, and the earliest effective filing date of the challenged claims is October 5, 2006. Dec. on Inst. 10–12. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertions regarding the effective filing date of the challenged claims in its Response, and we do not perceive any reason or evidence that compels any deviation from our earlier conclusion. Thus, we adopt the previous analysis, and conclude that Bennett is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and Campbell is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).” slip op. at 13

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

    “reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which [they] appear[ ].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard). In the Decision on Institution, we preliminarily interpreted the claim term “notification event” to mean an event that results in the user being notified that the event occurred. Dec. on Inst. 6–10. The parties apply this interpretation in their Response and Reply, and we do not perceive any reason or evidence that compels any deviation from our earlier interpretation. See Resp. 14–15; Reply 11. We adopt the previous analysis and conclude that no other terms require interpretation.” slip op. at 6

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

    “Patent Owner’s position, in effect, would require that a single prior art reference have to disclose the full concept of a “notification event” “associated with” an “action” requiring user acknowledgement. See, e.g., PO Resp. 18–19 (arguing that “[t]he Petition would need to rely on Campbell to teach the notification-event limitations . . . because Bennett does not, . . . but Petitioner fails to adequately argue or show that Campbell teaches such actions”); Tr. 18:7–19:9 (acknowledging that there need not be one reference disclosing the entire limitation, but arguing that “one cannot untether the action from the notification event”). The test for obviousness, however, is “what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those having ordinary skill in the art.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332–33 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1166 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (explaining that in an obviousness analysis, “the prior art must be considered as a whole for what it teaches”); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.”). Petitioner explains sufficiently what the combined teachings of Bennett and Campbell would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art, namely, “events” in Bennett that trigger an SMS message to the user and that have associated “actions,” and adding a sentence to the SMS message in Bennett to provide notification to the user that the event occurred. See Pet. 37–59; Reply 16 (“Bennett discloses different types of ‘actions’ and Campbell discloses ‘notification events.’ . . . Thus, it is the combination of Bennett and Campbell that discloses ‘notification events associated with actions.’”). Thus, we are persuaded that, collectively, Bennett and Campbell account for a “notification event” “associated with” an “action” requiring user acknowledgement, as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 9,300,792 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,300,792
• Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 30, 2017 · PGR2017-00024 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims, finding the § 103 and written-description challenges previously considered under § 325(d), and the remaining written-description and indefiniteness challenges insufficient.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that we should exercise our discretion in denying institution of review based on Petitioner’s § 103 challenges because the same art and arguments were considered by the Examiner during the original prosecution. There is no dispute that Saggio and Lee were expressly considered by the Examiner and discussed in the Examiner’s Reasons for Allowance in the May 24, 2016 Notice for Allowance. See Ex. 1008, 86–88. In the Notice of Allowance, the Examiner considered expressly the teachings of Saggio and Lee, and explained in detail that neither one of these disclosed the claimed “elastic fastener.” Id. Moreover, the Examiner expressly also considered Donaldson and found that it was “cumulative with Lee [ ] in that both references disclose that moving mechanical components must be used to detach the balloons.” Id. at 17.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Based on our review of the record, including the claim language and the Specification of the ’779 patent, we agree with Patent Owner’s position. Here, the restriction of the claimed elastic ring is limited such that the balloon, if filled with a sufficient amount of water, is detachable by (1) gravity or (2) by gravity combined with a manually applied acceleration of the tube. Further, we agree with Patent Owner’s explanation that a person of ordinary skill in the art would know when the amount of water has reached a “sufficient amount,” because the elastic rings would allow detachment by gravity or by gravity and manually applied acceleration of the tube. See Prelim. Resp. 42. Indeed, the claim language itself provides the conditions” slip op. at 21

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “the effective filing date of the ’779 patent (“POSA”) was a person having general knowledge about, and experience with, expandable containers, including, without limitation, balloons, and at least an associate’s degree in a technical science or engineering. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 10–14). For purposes of this Decision, we agree with Petitioner and determine that a POSA would have been a person having a general knowledge about, 2 Claims 38, 46, 54, and 60 issued as claims 4, 7, 10, and 13. and experience with, expandable containers, including, without limitation, balloons, and at least an associate’s degree in mechanical engineering, or the equivalent. This level of skill is consistent with the types of problems and solutions described in the ’779 patent and cited prior art.” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “Petitioner argues that the present record is different than the one before the Examiner. Pet. 80. In particular, Petitioner asserts that the testimony of Dr. Kamrin was not before the Examiner. Id. Petitioner contends that “one of the issues in this petition is inherency of the prior art references, which benefits from the consideration of expert testimony.” Id. at 81. Nonetheless, having reviewed the record, we disagree with Petitioner’s position. The technology here does not appear to be particularly complex, and the Examiner’s explanation shows that he expressly considered the issues of inherency, and offered detailed findings why the functional limitations related to the elastic fastener were not necessarily present in the art at issue. See Ex. 1008, 87–88. Although not referred to expressly in the Examiner’s explanation, the Information Disclosure Sheet considered by the Examiner includes the Petitions in PGR2016-00030 and PGR2016-00031, which contain similar explanations of inherency to those at issue in this case. See PGR2016-00031, Paper 2, 43–45 (Petition discussing inherency issue with respect to Lee). Although the Examiner’s explanation does not refer to those papers expressly, the fact that those papers were listed on an IDS is, nevertheless, circumstantial evidence that Petitioner’s inherency arguments were considered when the Examiner provided his explanation concerning inherency. See Ex. 1008, 87 (“Because it is not true that all elastic bands have the same elastic force as an inherent property, it cannot be presumed that all elastic bands would function the same way.”). Moreover, as Patent Owner notes, Dr. Kamrin fails to even address Donaldson’s use of a mechanical means, i.e., a spring, to release the balloon. Prelim. Resp. 32. Thus, we are not persuaded that Dr. Kamrin’s testimony meaningfully distinguishes the record that is before us from the record that was before the Examiner.” slip op. at 12

  § 112 disclosureDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 9,533,779
• Google Inc. v. Performance Pricing Holdings, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 13, 2017 · CBM2016-00050 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14 are unpatentable under §§ 101 and 112(a) because they claim an abstract advertising-pricing idea implemented with conventional technology and lack written-description support.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Factors that may be considered in determining level of ordinary skill in the art include: (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field.” Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Considering these factors, we agree with Petitioner that a degree in computer science is not required for a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Reply 4. First, as Patent Owner admitted at the hearing, the named inventor, Mr. Rosenberg, does not have a computer science degree. Tr. 87:8–22. Second, as Patent Owner’s Response makes clear, the problems encountered in the field of the ’059 patent are problems of maintaining advertising customers, when viewer response to an ad can be tracked and there is an almost limitless inventory. PO Resp. 5–7. These are economic and business problems caused by the particular market conditions present in the Internet advertising market—large inventory and a high level of knowledge of behavior in the market. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 36. We are persuaded that a computer science degree would not provide a person with further useful insight into such economic and business problems. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 36–40. Indeed, this understanding is confirmed by the ’059 patent, which describes the business problems Internet advertising had on sellers of advertising. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, 1:55–59 (“As systems of accountability are developed and the amount of advertising inventory increases, vendors or publishers in all media will be faced with the problems of attracting advertisers while, at the same time, covering overhead costs.”); 1:60–63 (noting “[o]ne problem associated with current methods of selling Internet advertising is the difficulty of striking a fair and reasonable balance between fixed-fee pricing and performance-based pricing”); 1:63–3:24 (describing characteristics of the Internet advertising market); 3:27–31 (“[T]he present invention include methods and systems for selling advertising, which incorporates a unique pricing model wherein advertising Buyers earn bonus exposure to the advertising message based on the reflected interest by the Viewers in that advertising message.”). Third, the discussion of computer components in the ’059 patent is only at a very high level. See, e.g., id. at 8:33–9:9 (discussing the components of the claimed system as only “computers,” “servers,” “databases,” “network protocol (such as Hypertext Transfer Protocol or HTTP)”). This indicates that the focus is not on the computer technology, but the pricing strategy. Fourth, the prior art solutions discussed in the ’059 patent are all in terms of different pricing models—“fixed fee” or “performance based”—not in terms of technical solutions. See id. at 1:55– 3:24. Finally, Patent Owner submits a job announcement by Petitioner for hiring a “Technical Program Manager, Ads Quality, AdWords,” as evidence of the level of skill of workers in this field. PO Resp. 29 (citing Ex. 2006 (Google Technical Program Manager, Ads Quality, AdWords Job Announcement)). However, no evidence or explanation is provided why this announcement should be given particular weight for defining the educational level of active workers in the field of the ’059 patent, beyond the fact that they both nominally involve Internet advertising. See PO Resp. 29. Moreover, no evidence or explanation is provided why a job announcement from 2016 would relate to the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention, i.e., at the latest, 2001, the effective filing date of the ’059 patent. See id. Thus, we give Ex. 2006 little weight. Accordingly, considering this evidence together, we agree with Petitioner that a “person of ordinary skill in the art would have, through education or practical experience, the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree in business, economics, or a similar discipline and/or two years of experience with media buying or selling, including Internet advertising or e-commerce systems.” Pet. 17. slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “lacks a computer science degree, he is not a person of ordinary skill and we should give his testimony no weight. PO Resp. 29. As set forth above, we are unpersuaded that Patent Owner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill above is correct. Accordingly, this argument is unpersuasive. Dr. Farris is a tenured professor of business and during his career, Dr. Farris has written a number of articles and books on advertising, including Internet advertising. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 5–19, Appendix B. He has also taught a number of courses in Internet advertising, and has done extensive consulting on Internet advertising. Id. Thus, contrary to Patent Owner’s contentions, we are persuaded that Dr. Farris’s experience is more than sufficient for him to provide competent testimony on the subject matter of the ’059 patent. Accordingly, we decline to give his testimony no weight.” slip op. at 14

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

    “We construe the challenged claims according to these principles. In our Decision to Institute, we determined that no terms required express construction. In its Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner contends that we should construe the term “impression,” recited in claim 1, as “presentation of an Internet advertising message.” PO Resp. 29–31. In the Reply, Petitioner indicates that it agrees with Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation and points to the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant Dr. Farris and Patent Owner’s declarant Mr. Zatkovich for support. Reply 5–6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 27, Ex. 1017, 44:19–45:19, 142:15–143:12). This is also the construction we adopted in our Decision to Institute in the related proceeding, CBM2016- 00049. See Google Inc. v. Performance Price Holdings, LLC, Case CBM2016-00049, slip op. 5–6 (PTAB Sept. 21, 2016) (Paper 10). Given that this construction is consistent with the specification, we adopt Patent Owner’s construction of “impression” as “presentation of an Internet advertising message.” See Ex. 1002, 2:36–44, 5:12–16.” slip op. at 15

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that these claims are drawn to an abstract idea. Specifically, we agree with Petitioner that the claims of the challenged patent are directed to decreasing the cost of an advertisement based on the performance of the ad, and that such a concept is an abstract idea. Pet. 19. More succinctly, we are persuaded that the claims are directed to a performance-based pricing model for advertising, and that such a pricing model is an abstract idea. The clear language of the claims and unambiguous disclosure of the specification to the contrary belie Patent Owner’s arguments. For example, beginning with independent claims 1 and 6, the only equipment that those claims identify are a “processor” and “at least one storage device in communication with the at least one processor.” Ex. 1002, 12:24–25, 12:56–57. The remainder of the claim is simply a method embodied in instructions stored on the storage device. As discussed above, these claimed method steps include having the processor (i) “ascertain[ ] . . . a predetermined cost to an entity per impression of an advertising message,” (ii) “present[ ] . . . the advertising message for display on a website such that the advertising message is viewable via one or more viewer computers,” (iii) “detect[ ] . . . a quantity of actions performed by users of the one or more viewer computers,” and (iv) “decrease[e] the cost per impression of the advertising message to the entity below the predetermined cost” as the “quantity of detected actions increases.” Id. at 12:30–43. Thus, the focus of the claims is on collecting and analyzing data for the pricing method, not the hardware on which it is performed or the software that implicitly causes it to happen. The specification reinforces the abstract nature of the claimed invention. The “Summary of the Invention,” explains that “[e]mbodiments of the present invention include methods and system for selling advertising, which incorporates a unique pricing model wherein advertising Buyers earn bonus exposure to the advertising message based on the reflected interest by the Viewers in that advertising message.” Id. at 3:27–33. Indeed, the specification describes the advantages of the claimed invention include helping sellers secure fixed-fee pricing while offering a performance-based incentive to buyers, and attracting potential buyers, while maintaining customer loyalty, encouraging effective creative advertising design and placement, and assisting sellers in managing unsold inventory. Id. at 3:34– 39. These advantages all concern abstract concepts, and not technology.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 8,799,059 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Electric Power
  Patents in suitUS 8,799,059
• Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. William Beaumont HospitalNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 4, 2017 · IPR2016-00160 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Patent outcomesUS 6,842,502 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,842,502

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.