- PTAB · Nov 21, 2023 · IPR2023-00865 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–19, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 14 are obvious over Carr and Lauka.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“III. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, we determine that the information presented in the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that at least claims 1 and 14 of the ’465 patent are unpatentable as obvious over Carr and Lauka. And because Instacart demonstrates that at least one claim of the ’465 patent meets the threshold for institution, we institute an inter partes review of all claims as challenged in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a),(c); SAS, 138 S. Ct. at 1359–60. IV. ORDER Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review of claims 1–19 of the ’465 patent is instituted; and” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Consumeron responds that one skilled in the art would have been “someone with a background in electrical engineering, computer science, or the like” and that “industry experience can make up for a lack of technical training, and more education can make up for a lack of industry experience.” Prelim. Resp. 29. Consumeron’s definition appears to overlap significantly with Instacart’s definition. Accordingly, for purposes of institution, we adopt the level of skill in the art as articulated by Instacart.” slip op. at 5
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“product ordered by the customer is available and does not contemplate a scenario where the product is unavailable or otherwise describe the action to be taken if the product is unavailable. See Pet. 17–22. We agree, at least based on the preliminary record. In particular, with reference to Figures 2 and 3, the ’848 parent application describes a method where (1) a customer chooses “a store where a desired product is being sold” (step 105), (2) the customer selects a delivery agent and sends an “acquisition request” to the delivery agent (steps 108, 109, 110), and (3) “the selected delivery agent travels to the store location . . . and finds the desired product to be acquired” (step 113). Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 17, 20, 23 (emphasis added). “The delivery agent then communicates to the customer that the product has been identified, and the customer has the option of inspecting the product in real-time” (step 117). Id. ¶ 23 (emphasis added). “Next, the customer either approves or rejects acquisition of the inspected product” (steps 119, 120, 122). Id. ¶ 24 (emphasis added). That description in the ’848 parent application clearly presumes that the product ordered by the customer has been located and is available for inspection, which is at odds with the additional requirements of claims 1 and 14 of “failing to locate an identified product” and “determining that the identified product is not available.” Ex. 1001, 11:20 (claim 1), 12:30 (claim 14) (emphases added). To the extent Consumeron argues otherwise, we are not persuaded at this preliminary stage. According to Consumeron, the customer’s rejection of the product means that “the agent fails to locate a product that is satisfactory.” See Prelim Resp. 11. But nowhere do we discern that the ’848 parent application hinges the identity and availability of a product on whether it is satisfactory to the customer. That a product might not meet a customer’s satisfaction does not negate the description in the ’848 parent application that the agent locates and identifies the product in the first instance before giving the customer the option to inspect and reject the product. Indeed, because the customer placed the online order with a store advertising the product, the presumption is that the advertised product is available and satisfactory to the customer.8 And, while conceivably the purchase of a product cannot be fulfilled in the event the product is unavailable, it would seem to be improper hindsight to derive written description support by “[w]orking backward from a knowledge of the claims.” Novozymes A/S v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS, 723 F.3d 1336, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “Entitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed. It extends only to that which is disclosed.” Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Thus, based on the preliminary record, the ’848 parent application does not provide sufficient written description for the terms noted above. As such, we find that Instacart demonstrates a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in showing that the asserted references are prior art to the challenged claims.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“and Lauka. See Pet. 30–44, 47–49. We begin with Instacart’s challenge of method claim 1. Instacart provides a detailed mapping of how Carr satisfies all the recited limitations of claim 1, except limitation [1.0.3], for which Instacart points to Lauka. See id. at 35–44. In particular, Instacart cites the following evidence in support of its contentions that Carr and Lauka, when combined, teach or suggest each of the recited limitations of claim 1: Limitation 1.0.1—“A method for remote acquisition and delivery of goods through one or more agents of a service provider” (Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 36, 39, 43, 45, 92, Figs. 1, 3, 6;; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 97–100)); Limitation 1.0.2—“each agent having a mobile agent system in communication with at least one remote server,” (Pet. 35–37 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 2, 6, 40–43, 53, Fig. 1 (annotated); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 101–104)); Limitation 1.0.3—“with each mobile agent system including: a digital image capture device and a communication device, said method comprising:” (Pet. 37–38 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 74, 88, 94, 122; Ex. 1006, 3:19–28, 3:49–57, 4:10–21; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 105– 109)); Limitation 1.1—“receiving, through the at least one remote server, a first acquisition request from a customer for a first set of one or more goods;” (Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 9, 60, 73, Fig. 1; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 110–112)); Limitation 1.2—“contacting, through the communications device, the one or more agents;” (Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 57, 74; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 113–115)); Limitation 1.3—“upon failing to locate an identified product of the set of one or more goods, electronically transmitting information on a replacement product for the identified product of the set of one or more goods to the customer using the digital image capture device of the agent, including:” (Pet. 38–40 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 90, 95, 96, 105, 107, ; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 116– 119)); Limitation 1.4—“obtaining a bar or QR code of the replacement product;” (Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 95, 107; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 120– 122)); Limitation 1.5—“determining the information from the bar or QR code, wherein the information includes at least one image of the replacement product; and” (Pet. 40–42 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 95–96, 116; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 123–127)); Limitation 1.6—“sending the information for the customer to approve the purchase of the replacement product based on the information determined from the bar or QR code; and” (Pet. 42– 43 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 51, 96–99, Fig. 12; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 128– 130)); and Limitation 1.7—“upon receiving approval of the purchase from the customer, acquiring the replacement product, via the agent.” (Pet. 43–44 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 99, 101; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 131–132)); Instacart also provides a reason why one skilled in the art would have combined the teachings of Carr and Lauka with a reasonable expectation of success. See Pet. 31–34 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 86–96); see also id. at 37 (“In view of the teachings of Lauka, a POSITA would have recognized that it was obvious to implement the UPC scanner functionality of Carr’s handheld device using an ‘imaging device’ such as that taught by Lauka, which specifies that the ‘imaging device 206 can comprise a video or still camera’ and ‘can be used to capture images.’ Ex.1006, 3:49-57; Ex.1003, ¶¶105- 107.”).” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 11,238,465 - Yamaha Golf Car Company v. Club Car, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 2, 2019 · IPR2017-02144 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision
The Board found claims 11 and 17–19 not shown unpatentable: claim 11 was entitled to priority over the ’918 Publication, and the obviousness challenge to claims 17–19 was unsupported.
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“slows the speed of the golf car until it returns to the course—“[Y]our cart has been slowed down because you are outside the boundaries of the course. Your car will continue to slow down until you return to the course.” Ex. 1004, 30 (emphases added) (also showing that “Reduce Maximum Speed” may be adjusted to a select speed as similarly set forth in Figure 3 of the ’569 patent). The ’894 Provisional specifies that the Curtis 1510 controller includes a configuration setting for “REVERSE SPEED,” and we find persuasive Mr. Andrews’ testimony that this control setting is separate from the maximum forward speed settings, “M1 MAX SPEED,” “M2 MAX SPEED,” “M3 MAX SPEED,” and “M4 (HIGH) MAX SPEED.” Ex. 1004, 12; Ex. 2009 ¶ 58 (“‘REVERSE SPEED’ is a separate configuration setting that the controller can configure based on GPS location.”). We find that these disclosures in the ’894 Provisional—slowing or stopping the car until it reverses course and separate configurable settings for reverse speed in the motor controller—establish affirmative support for a configuration as claimed where the car’s forward movement is disabled, but the car may still move in a reverse direction, as required by claim 11. Because the maximum forward speed can be set to zero to stop the vehicle from further movement towards the restricted area, but setting the maximum speed to zero leaves the separate “REVERSE SPEED” configuration setting in the motor controller unchanged, Patent Owner has shown how the vehicle is capable of operation only in a reverse direction. See Ex. 1004, 10, 12, 16, 30. From a functional capability, there is simply no difference between the descriptions found in the ’894 Provisional and the claimed limitations. See Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 49–60. Thus, Patent Owner has met its burden of showing adequate written description support for claim 11 in the earlier ’894 Provisional. Accordingly, the ’918 Publication does not qualify as prior art against claim 11. Based on the final trial record before us, Petitioner does not present sufficient arguments and credible evidence to support a finding that claim 11 is anticipated by the ’918 Publication.” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedReference not prior artDecided for patent owner
“slows the speed of the golf car until it returns to the course—“[Y]our cart has been slowed down because you are outside the boundaries of the course. Your car will continue to slow down until you return to the course.” Ex. 1004, 30 (emphases added) (also showing that “Reduce Maximum Speed” may be adjusted to a select speed as similarly set forth in Figure 3 of the ’569 patent). The ’894 Provisional specifies that the Curtis 1510 controller includes a configuration setting for “REVERSE SPEED,” and we find persuasive Mr. Andrews’ testimony that this control setting is separate from the maximum forward speed settings, “M1 MAX SPEED,” “M2 MAX SPEED,” “M3 MAX SPEED,” and “M4 (HIGH) MAX SPEED.” Ex. 1004, 12; Ex. 2009 ¶ 58 (“‘REVERSE SPEED’ is a separate configuration setting that the controller can configure based on GPS location.”). We find that these disclosures in the ’894 Provisional—slowing or stopping the car until it reverses course and separate configurable settings for reverse speed in the motor controller—establish affirmative support for a configuration as claimed where the car’s forward movement is disabled, but the car may still move in a reverse direction, as required by claim 11. Because the maximum forward speed can be set to zero to stop the vehicle from further movement towards the restricted area, but setting the maximum speed to zero leaves the separate “REVERSE SPEED” configuration setting in the motor controller unchanged, Patent Owner has shown how the vehicle is capable of operation only in a reverse direction. See Ex. 1004, 10, 12, 16, 30. From a functional capability, there is simply no difference between the descriptions found in the ’894 Provisional and the claimed limitations. See Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 49–60. Thus, Patent Owner has met its burden of showing adequate written description support for claim 11 in the earlier ’894 Provisional. Accordingly, the ’918 Publication does not qualify as prior art against claim 11. Based on the final trial record before us, Petitioner does not present sufficient arguments and credible evidence to support a finding that claim 11 is anticipated by the ’918 Publication.” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“slows the speed of the golf car until it returns to the course—“[Y]our cart has been slowed down because you are outside the boundaries of the course. Your car will continue to slow down until you return to the course.” Ex. 1004, 30 (emphases added) (also showing that “Reduce Maximum Speed” may be adjusted to a select speed as similarly set forth in Figure 3 of the ’569 patent). The ’894 Provisional specifies that the Curtis 1510 controller includes a configuration setting for “REVERSE SPEED,” and we find persuasive Mr. Andrews’ testimony that this control setting is separate from the maximum forward speed settings, “M1 MAX SPEED,” “M2 MAX SPEED,” “M3 MAX SPEED,” and “M4 (HIGH) MAX SPEED.” Ex. 1004, 12; Ex. 2009 ¶ 58 (“‘REVERSE SPEED’ is a separate configuration setting that the controller can configure based on GPS location.”). We find that these disclosures in the ’894 Provisional—slowing or stopping the car until it reverses course and separate configurable settings for reverse speed in the motor controller—establish affirmative support for a configuration as claimed where the car’s forward movement is disabled, but the car may still move in a reverse direction, as required by claim 11. Because the maximum forward speed can be set to zero to stop the vehicle from further movement towards the restricted area, but setting the maximum speed to zero leaves the separate “REVERSE SPEED” configuration setting in the motor controller unchanged, Patent Owner has shown how the vehicle is capable of operation only in a reverse direction. See Ex. 1004, 10, 12, 16, 30. From a functional capability, there is simply no difference between the descriptions found in the ’894 Provisional and the claimed limitations. See Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 49–60. Thus, Patent Owner has met its burden of showing adequate written description support for claim 11 in the earlier ’894 Provisional. Accordingly, the ’918 Publication does not qualify as prior art against claim 11. Based on the final trial record before us, Petitioner does not present sufficient arguments and credible evidence to support a finding that claim 11 is anticipated by the ’918 Publication.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“sufficiently how the ’918 Publication’s disclosure of a “signal . . . of the violation” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 68) also teaches or suggests the additional claim requirements of “the driver interface unit . . . operable to communicate an alarm to the base station of a controller limiting the performance of a driver command” as required by claim 17. Petitioner recognizes the distinction by arguing “that the system could also provide a message to the course personnel . . . of any remedial corrective measures taken in response.” Pet. 25 (emphasis added). Based on the evidence cited, the ’918 Publication does not provide any such notification. Petitioner cannot suggest that a reference could have a feature that it does not have without some rational basis as to why such a feature would have been suggested by the reference. Mr. Breen’s explanation mirrors Petitioner’s contention (Ex. 1001 ¶ 277) and likewise states “that the system could also provide a message to the course personnel” (emphasis added) but no further explanation is provided as to how this unsupported conclusion was reached. Petitioner has also failed to lay the necessary foundation to establish that “common sense” could fill the gap for the missing limitation, or provide a basis for modifying the ’918 Publication to teach the claim 17 limitation. We recognize that in certain instances “common sense” can be used to supply the missing claim limitation, but only if the art is “unusually simple and the [patented] technology particularly straightforward.” Arendi Sarl v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In this proceeding, we have no testimony or evidence to establish either condition is met. Neither Petitioner nor Mr. Breen explain adequately why the limitations of claim 17” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 7,480,569 not shown unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,480,569
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.