• Arkema Inc. / Arkema France v. Honeywell International Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 25, 2022 · PGR2016-00012 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · PGR · Remand

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable under § 102(a) for prior public use; the Board did not reach the remaining anticipation, obviousness, and enablement grounds.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “On October 1, 2019, the Federal Circuit held that we “abused [our] discretion by assuming the authority that 35 U.S.C. § 255 expressly delegates to the Director: to determine when a Certificate of Correction is appropriate,” and vacated our Final Written Decision. Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Arkema Inc., 939 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The Federal Circuit instructed us to “authorize Honeywell to file a motion seeking leave to petition the Director for a Certificate of Correction.” Id. at 1351. Pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s mandate, we gave our authorization, and Patent Owner filed its Motion for Leave to Request a Certificate of Correction. PGR11 Paper 61; PGR12 Paper 41. After additional briefing from the parties was complete, we granted Patent Owner’s Motion. PGR11 Paper 77; PGR12 Paper 57. Patent Owner filed its Request for a Certificate of Correction, as well as a Petition to Accept [Unintentionally] Delayed Claim to Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 120 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.78. PGR11 Ex. 2174; PGR12 Ex. 2172.” slip op. at 3

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

    “Synthes USA, LLC v. Spinal Kinetics, Inc., 734 F.3d 1332, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2013). And, although there are no bright-line rules for the amount of disclosure needed in an unpredictable art, that amount “necessarily changes with each invention” and “changes with progress in the field.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351. Here, we find that the art of AAC was unpredictable and that a heat-transfer composition for AAC required specific technical features that were unpredictable and unexpected. Thus, we conclude that the ’525 application requires a more-detailed disclosure than would be required in a predictable field to adequately demonstrate possession of a heat-transfer composition consisting essentially of HFO-1234yf and PAG for use in AAC. (iii) Disclosure in the ’525 Application With these background findings in mind, we now turn to the four corners of the ’525 application—and we find that the ’525 application does not contain the detailed disclosure needed in this case to reasonably convey possession of a heat-transfer composition consisting essentially of HFO- 1234yf and PAG for use in AAC.” slip op. at 37

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “develops new refrigerants for use as heat transfer fluids. Ex. 1002 ¶ 149. Such a person would have had a Ph.D. in Chemistry, Chemical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Material Science, or a related field or discipline and at least 3 to 5 years of experience, or alternatively an M.S. degree and 5 to 10 years of experience. Id. Patent Owner’s Declarant, Dr. Bivens, provides a similar description of the person of ordinary skill in the art, stating that such a person would have a B.S. degree in Chemical Engineering or Chemistry, and five years of work experience, or a Ph.D. or M.S. degree and 2–3 years of experience. Ex. 2001 ¶ 23. Based on these descriptions, we find that the parties’ definitions of ordinary skill in the art are substantially the same, and agree with the parties that an ordinarily skilled artisan would be educated in the Chemical and Chemical Engineering arts or related disciplines. We also agree with the parties that a person having less formal education, such as a B.S. or M.S. degree, would require more years of experience than a person with more formal education, such as a Ph.D., to qualify as an ordinarily skilled artisan. We also find that neither party states how any difference in the parties’ articulated levels of skill impacts this proceeding. Thus, our analysis would be the same regardless of any minor differences between the parties’ respective articulations. Finally, we note that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 20

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › On-sale bar (Pfaff, Helsinn)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Tr. 114:15–115:18 (emphases added). Thus, we find that Patent Owner does not contest that a heat-transfer composition consisting essentially of HFO- 1234yf and PAG for AAC was in public commercial use before the March 26, 2014, filing date of the ’017 patent. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner’s evidence, together with Patent Owner’s concessions, demonstrates by a preponderance of evidence that the claimed subject matter of the ’017 patent was in commercial use before its March 26, 2014, effective filing date. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 399–409. In particular, as to claims 1, 3–10, 12, 13, and 15–20, we credit Dr. Brown’s uncontested testimony that the refrigerant-lubricant AAC composition of the Ford Transit Custom Bus, the Mazda CX 5 (2.0i and 2.2D), and the Opel Mocca used HFO-1234yf and a PAG lubricant as early as 2012. Ex. 1002 ¶ 399 (citing Ex. 101324, 2, 38, 55, 70). We also credit Dr. Brown’s 24 Behr Hella Services, Refrigerant and Oil Filling Quantities Passenger Cars & Commercial Vehicles 2014–15. PGR12 Ex. 1013. (“Service Guide”). PGR12 Ex. 1013. The Service Guide provides tables setting forth specifications for refrigerant type, refrigerant quantity, vehicle manufacturers’ original equipment compressor oil type, and oil filling quantity for the air-conditioning system of each vehicle listed in the tables. Id. at 2–3. Petitioner and Dr. Brown direct us to the Sevice Guide’s entries calculations, which show that the Ford Transit Custom Bus had an AAC refrigerant-lubricant composition of 26.7% of PAG lubricant and 73.3% of HFO-1234yf (Ex. 1002 ¶ 401 (citing Ex. 1013, 38)); the Mazda CX 5 2.0i had 16.7% PAG lubricant and 83.3% HFO-1234yf (Ex. 1002 ¶ 402 (citing Ex. 1013, 55)); the Mazda CX 5 2.2D had a 17.5% PAG lubricant and 82.5% HFO-1234yf (id.); and the Opal Mocca had 11.6% PAG lubricant and 88.4% HFO-1234yf (Ex. 1002 ¶ 402 (citing Ex. 1013, 70)). As to dependent claims 2, 11, and 14, which all require that the lubricant is present “in an amount from about 30% to about 50% weight,” we credit Dr. Brown’s uncontested testimony that the refrigerant-lubricant composition of the Ford Transit Custom Bus recited lubricant amount. Ex. 1002 ¶ 403. In particular, we agree with Dr. Brown that, because the lubricant accounts for 26.7% of the AAC refrigerant-lubricant composition in the Ford Transit Custom Bus, the lubricant makes up “about 30%” of the refrigerant-lubricant composition as claimed. Id. For these reasons, we find that Petitioner has met its burden to show that claims 1–20 are unpatentable for anticipation under § 102(a)(1).” slip op. at 55

  Patent outcomesUS 9,157,017 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 9,157,017
• Arkema Inc. / Arkema France v. Honeywell International Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 25, 2022 · PGR2016-00011 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · PGR · Remand

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable under § 102(a) for prior public use; the Board did not reach the other anticipation, obviousness, and enablement grounds.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “On October 1, 2019, the Federal Circuit held that we “abused [our] discretion by assuming the authority that 35 U.S.C. § 255 expressly delegates to the Director: to determine when a Certificate of Correction is appropriate,” and vacated our Final Written Decision. Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Arkema Inc., 939 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The Federal Circuit instructed us to “authorize Honeywell to file a motion seeking leave to petition the Director for a Certificate of Correction.” Id. at 1351. Pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s mandate, we gave our authorization, and Patent Owner filed its Motion for Leave to Request a Certificate of Correction. PGR11 Paper 61; PGR12 Paper 41. After additional briefing from the parties was complete, we granted Patent Owner’s Motion. PGR11 Paper 77; PGR12 Paper 57. Patent Owner filed its Request for a Certificate of Correction, as well as a Petition to Accept [Unintentionally] Delayed Claim to Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 120 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.78. PGR11 Ex. 2174; PGR12 Ex. 2172.” slip op. at 3

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “develops new refrigerants for use as heat transfer fluids. Ex. 1002 ¶ 149. Such a person would have had a Ph.D. in Chemistry, Chemical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Material Science, or a related field or discipline and at least 3 to 5 years of experience, or alternatively an M.S. degree and 5 to 10 years of experience. Id. Patent Owner’s Declarant, Dr. Bivens, provides a similar description of the person of ordinary skill in the art, stating that such a person would have a B.S. degree in Chemical Engineering or Chemistry, and five years of work experience, or a Ph.D. or M.S. degree and 2–3 years of experience. Ex. 2001 ¶ 23. Based on these descriptions, we find that the parties’ definitions of ordinary skill in the art are substantially the same, and agree with the parties that an ordinarily skilled artisan would be educated in the Chemical and Chemical Engineering arts or related disciplines. We also agree with the parties that a person having less formal education, such as a B.S. or M.S. degree, would require more years of experience than a person with more formal education, such as a Ph.D., to qualify as an ordinarily skilled artisan. We also find that neither party states how any difference in the parties’ articulated levels of skill impacts this proceeding. Thus, our analysis would be the same regardless of any minor differences between the parties’ respective articulations. Finally, we note that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 20

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Petitioner that the ’525 application’s statement that the compounds are “adaptable for use” weighs against a finding of adequate written description. First, “adaptable for use” is vague, as Dr. Bivens acknowledges. See Ex. 1177, 151:15 (testifying that “adaptable for use can have a wide range of meaning”). Second, the ’525 application gives no direction on how a skilled artisan would need to adapt any particular composition for use in AAC, or even if any “adaptation” was necessary. We find that such a teaching is important in this case to show that the inventors had possession of the claimed invention, given our findings above that the art of AAC was unpredictable and that a heat-transfer composition for AAC required specific technical features that were unpredictable and unexpected. For completeness, we again reject Patent Owner’s argument that “[t]o show the inventors possessed claim 1 requires no more” than the statement in the written description that “‘the compositions of the present invention are believed to be adaptable . . . with or without system modification.’” PGR12 Resp. 27–28 (quoting Ex. 1001, 7:4–8). Regardless of the exact wording of claim 1, the inventors “still [had to have] describe[d] some way of performing the claimed methods.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1355. And here, with merely a passing reference to AAC, the ’525 application fails to provide any credible “technologic knowledge” to demonstrate to an ordinarily skilled artisan that Patent Owner “was in possession of the invention that is claimed.” Id.” slip op. at 43

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › On-sale bar (Pfaff, Helsinn)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “unless . . . the claimed invention was . . . in public use . . . before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). “The proper test for the public use prong . . . is whether the purported use was accessible to the public or was commercially exploited.” Delano Farms Co. v. Cal. Table Grape Comm’n, 778 F.3d 1243, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quotation omitted). “Commercial exploitation is a clear indication of public use . . . .” Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P., 424 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005).” slip op. at 53

  Patent outcomesUS 9,157,017 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 9,157,017
• General Electric Co. v. University Of Virginia Patent FoundationRehearing denied
  PTAB · Sep 19, 2017 · IPR2016-00357 · APJ J John Lee · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied the Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving in place the final written decision holding all challenged claims unpatentable under § 102(b) and/or § 103(a).

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “DISCUSSION A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify all matters it contends were misapprehended or overlooked by the Board. Id.” slip op. at 2

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateDecided for petitioner

    “The Final Written Decision acknowledged the disclosure in the ’182 Application of the objective of lengthening usable echo train durations while achieving desired image contrast characteristics. Final Dec. 22 (citing Ex. 1014, 4). We concluded this disclosure was similar to the disclosure of the key feature in Purdue Pharma. Id. (citing Purdue Pharma, 230 F.3d at 1327). UVAPF disputes that conclusion, arguing that the comparison with Purdue Pharma is not “meaningful,” because we purportedly overlooked the importance of lengthening the usable echo train duration while achieving comparable image contrast, and the relationship between this “primary objective” and the echo time ratio. Req. Reh’g 8–9. The Final Written Decision, however, specifically considered this “primary objective” described in the ’182 Application—including both the echo train duration and image contrast aspects. Final Dec. 22. We further concluded the alleged relationship between that key feature and the echo time ratio, which is not described in the ’182 Application, was insufficient to direct a skilled artisan to the recited echo time ratio limitations. Id. As we explained, the patent in Purdue Pharma similarly described a key feature and claimed a particular ratio related to that feature, but the court held the written description was inadequate because it failed to describe that ratio or ascribe any particular importance to that ratio. Id. at 20–22 (citing Purdue Pharma, 230 F.3d at 1326–28). The same is true of the claimed echo time ratio and the disclosure of the ’182 Application, which does not identify any such ratio much less describe its significance. Id. UVAPF has not identified any argument or evidence we have overlooked, nor has UVAPF shown our application of Purdue Pharma was erroneous.” slip op. at 5

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “not have been considered because they were untimely. Req. Reh’g 9–11. GE did not cite the Purdue Pharma case until the Petitioner Reply. See Paper 27, 13–14. We disagree that GE’s arguments were untimely, however, because Purdue Pharma was cited to rebut arguments made by UVAPF in its Patent Owner Response. In the Patent Owner Response, UVAPF argued that a person of ordinary skill would have been able to derive the full range recited for the echo time ratio limitations based on an example provided in the ’182 Application. Paper 21, 55–58. GE argued in the Petitioner Reply that UVAPF’s position is precluded by Purdue Pharma, which held that whether a claimed ratio can be derived from the written description is immaterial if the disclosure does not describe the ratio or direct a person of ordinary skill to the ratio as a part of the invention. Paper 27, 13–14 (citing Purdue Pharma, 230 F.3d at 1328). Thus, Purdue Pharma was cited to respond directly to arguments made by UVAPF in its Patent Owner Response, and GE’s arguments based on Purdue Pharma were not untimely. In addition, UVAPF also contends GE untimely raised its arguments that the ’182 Application does not provide sufficient support for the “at least twice” aspect of the echo time ratio limitations. Req. Reh’g 11–13. To the contrary, GE argued in the Petition that the ’182 Application failed to adequately support the “at least twice” limitation. Pet. 11–12 (“[N]owhere does the ’182 application make a comparison of the [effective echo time] of a pulse sequence derived according to the disclosed method, much less delineate a range with a boundary of ‘at least twice’ that of any other echo time.”). Thus, GE’s arguments regarding the “at least twice” limitation were not untimely.” slip op. at 6

  § 112 disclosure
• Wombat Security Technologies v. Phishme, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · 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 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 9,398,038
• L’Oréal USA, Inc. v. Liqwd, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · 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 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 9,498,419
• General Electric Co. v. University Of Virginia Patent FoundationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 21, 2017 · IPR2016-00359 · APJ J John Lee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 153–156, 161, 162, 252, and 253 are unpatentable as anticipated by Mugler 2000 and obvious over each of three stated reference combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “claims. Pet. 21–37. To anticipate a claim, a single prior art reference must disclose each and every limitation of the claim, either expressly or inherently. Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). A feature is disclosed inherently if it is necessarily present in the single anticipating reference. Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The Petition sets forth detailed contentions and supporting evidence demonstrating that Mugler 2000 discloses each limitation of the challenged claims either expressly or inherently. Pet. 21–37. GE’s analysis is persuasive and unrebutted. In its Patent Owner Response, UVAPF does not dispute that Mugler 2000 discloses each limitation of these claims and, thus, UVAPF has waived any such argument.17 Based on the full record after trial, GE has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are anticipated by Mugler 2000.” slip op. at 23

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Level of Ordinary Skill According to GE’s expert8 witness, Dr. Norbert J. Pelc, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “significant working knowledge of MR spin-echo imaging, especially fast-spin-echo imaging,” as well as “a Ph.D. in a physical science (e.g., electrical or biomedical engineering or medical physics) with experience in the development of MR imaging techniques, or an M.D. degree or an M.S. degree in a physical science with significant (3–5 years) of work experience in the development of MR imaging techniques.” Ex. 1009 ¶ 105. The expert9 witness proffered by” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Based on Dr. Pelc’s credible testimony, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have met Dr. Pelc’s description. We further find that Dr. Hennig’s testimony on this issue does not differ materially from that of Dr. Pelc, and, in any event, our analysis in this Decision would be unchanged were we to apply Dr. Hennig’s description. C.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Claim Construction In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). No claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Final Written Decision.7 See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that those terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy). B.” slip op. at 7

  Patent outcomesUS RE44,644 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
• General Electric Co. v. University Of Virginia Patent FoundationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 21, 2017 · IPR2016-00358 · APJ J John Lee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 141–146, 148, 151, 152, 159, 160, 242–246, 248, and 251 are unpatentable as anticipated; claims 141–152, 159, 160, and 242–251 are also unpatentable as obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “address the applicable burdens of proof on the parties. As an initial matter, the overall burden of persuasion of proving unpatentability on the asserted grounds based on Mugler 2000 lies with GE, and that burden never shifts. See In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, GE bears the burden to establish that Mugler 2000 qualifies as prior art. The burden of production, however, may shift between the parties. See Magnum Oil Tools, 829 F.3d at 1375–76; Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379–80. Here, GE satisfied the initial burden of production by asserting that Mugler 2000 is § 102(a) prior art, and presenting evidence that it was published and publicly available before the priority date of the ’644 Patent.9 See Pet. 11. The burden of production then shifted to UVAPF, and UVAPF met that burden by producing evidence to demonstrate that the relevant content of Mugler 2000 was solely the work of the inventors of the ’644 Patent, i.e., the declarations of Dr. Mugler and Dr. Kiefer.10 See PO Resp. 18–20; Magnum Oil Tools, 829 F.3d at 1376 (“[T]he shifting of the burden of production is warranted [when] the patentee affirmatively seeks to establish a proposition not relied on by the patent challenger and not a necessary predicate for the unpatentability claim asserted.”). Consequently, the burden returned to GE to prove that the evidence of record does not establish that Mugler 2000 was solely the work of the named inventors. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1380. GE did not carry this burden.” slip op. at 10

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

    “An inventor’s own work is not prior art under § 102(a). See Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 754 F.3d 952, 968 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Katz, 687 F.2d at 454. In determining whether a reference is the work of the named inventor(s), the relevant inquiry is whether the relevant content of the reference—such as “the methods, detailed results, statistical analysis and discussion,” or “the design, trial, and analysis of results”—was solely the work of the inventor(s). See Allergan, 754 F.3d at 969. For example, an article may be solely the work of an inventor if the remaining co-authors were merely students performing tasks under the inventor’s direction and supervision. See Katz, 687 F.2d at 455–56. Before turning to the evidence to apply these precepts, we first address the applicable burdens of proof on the parties. As an initial matter, the overall burden of persuasion of proving unpatentability on the asserted grounds based on Mugler 2000 lies with GE, and that burden never shifts. See In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, GE bears the burden to establish that Mugler 2000 qualifies as prior art. The burden of production, however, may shift between the parties. See Magnum Oil Tools, 829 F.3d at 1375–76; Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379–80.” slip op. at 10

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

    “For a patent to claim priority to the filing date of its provisional application, the written description of the provisional application must be sufficient to support the relevant claims of the patent under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378 (citing New Railhead Mfg., L.L.C. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 298 F.3d 1290, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Sufficient written description support requires providing enough information in the application to indicate to a person of ordinary skill that the inventor had possession of the full scope of the claims. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262–64 (C.C.P.A. 1976). The disclosure need not recite the claimed invention in haec verba, but a disclosure that “merely renders the invention obvious” is insufficient. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).” slip op. at 16

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedReference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “Resp. 21–59. More specifically, UVAPF argues the ’182 Application provides sufficient written description support for the challenged claims such that they are entitled to the priority date of the ’182 Application, i.e., December 21, 2000. Id. Based on the full record, however, the challenged claims have not been shown to have sufficient support in the written description of the ’182 Application and, thus, priority has not been established earlier than December 21, 2001. As with § 102(a), GE bears the burden to prove that Mugler is prior art under § 102(b) as part of its overall burden of persuasion to prove unpatentability. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378. GE also bears the initial burden of production, but satisfied that burden by asserting that Mugler 2000 is prior art under § 102(b). See id. at 1379. The burden then shifted to UVAPF to produce evidence that the challenged claims of the ’644 Patent are entitled to an earlier priority date. See id. at 1380. UVAPF met that burden by producing arguments and evidence to attempt to prove that the disclosure of the ’182 Application provides sufficient written description support for the challenged claims. See PO Resp. 22–59. Thus, the burden shifted back to GE to prove that the ’182 Application does not support the claims. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1380. GE met that burden successfully, as explained below. For a patent to claim priority to the filing date of its provisional application, the written description of the provisional application must be sufficient to support the relevant claims of the patent under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378 (citing New Railhead Mfg., L.L.C. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 298 F.3d 1290, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Sufficient written description support requires providing enough information in the application to indicate to a person of ordinary skill that the inventor had possession of the full scope of the claims. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262–64 (C.C.P.A. 1976). The disclosure need not recite the claimed invention in haec verba, but a disclosure that “merely renders the invention obvious” is insufficient. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS RE44,644 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
• General Electric Co. v. University Of Virginia Patent FoundationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 21, 2017 · IPR2016-00357 · APJ J John Lee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 75, 76, 78–82, 84–92, 94–96, 107, 111, 139, 140, 157, 158, 169–178, 180–184, 186–194, 196–198, 209, 213, 241, and 254–260 are unpatentable under § 102(b); the remaining challenged claims are unpatentable under § 103(a).

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Applicant-admitted prior artReference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “An inventor’s own work is not prior art under § 102(a). See Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 754 F.3d 952, 968 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Katz, 687 F.2d at 454. In determining whether a reference is the work of the named inventor(s), the relevant inquiry is whether the relevant content of the reference—such as “the methods, detailed results, statistical analysis and discussion,” or “the design, trial, and analysis of results”—was solely the work of the inventor(s). See Allergan, 754 F.3d at 969. For example, an article may be solely the work of an inventor if the remaining co-authors were merely students performing tasks under the inventor’s direction and supervision. See Katz, 687 F.2d at 455–56.” slip op. at 11

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

    “For a patent to claim priority to the filing date of its provisional application, the written description of the provisional application must be sufficient to support the relevant claims of the patent under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378 (citing New Railhead Mfg., L.L.C. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 298 F.3d 1290, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Sufficient written description support requires providing enough information in the application to indicate to a person of ordinary skill that the inventor had possession of the full scope of the claims. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262–64 (C.C.P.A. 1976). The disclosure need not recite the claimed invention in haec verba, but a disclosure that “merely renders the invention obvious” is insufficient. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).” slip op. at 18

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

    “For a patent to claim priority to the filing date of its provisional application, the written description of the provisional application must be sufficient to support the relevant claims of the patent under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378 (citing New Railhead Mfg., L.L.C. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 298 F.3d 1290, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Sufficient written description support requires providing enough information in the application to indicate to a person of ordinary skill that the inventor had possession of the full scope of the claims. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262–64 (C.C.P.A. 1976). The disclosure need not recite the claimed invention in haec verba, but a disclosure that “merely renders the invention obvious” is insufficient. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).” slip op. at 18

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityReference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “For a patent to claim priority to the filing date of its provisional application, the written description of the provisional application must be sufficient to support the relevant claims of the patent under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378 (citing New Railhead Mfg., L.L.C. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 298 F.3d 1290, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Sufficient written description support requires providing enough information in the application to indicate to a person of ordinary skill that the inventor had possession of the full scope of the claims. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262–64 (C.C.P.A. 1976). The disclosure need not recite the claimed invention in haec verba, but a disclosure that “merely renders the invention obvious” is insufficient. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS RE44,644 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
• Google Inc. v. Better Food Choices LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 18, 2016 · CBM2015-00071 · APJ Minn Chung · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable under § 101; claims 1–10 are also indefinite under § 112, ¶ 2 because the specification lacks an algorithm for the claimed correlating function.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenOther

    “As an initial matter, Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner has not met its burden of proof because Petitioner relies only on the ’115 patent and its prosecution history to argue unpatentability and does not present any other evidence, such as a witness. PO Resp. 6–7, 13–20. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has presented no evidence of unpatentability because the ’115 patent and its file history “shows the Patent Owner has a valid, issued patent and nothing more.” Id. at 7. We are not persuaded because, as discussed below, in this case we need to look only to the ’115 patent and its prosecution history to support a finding of unpatentability under §§ 101 and 112. See In re TLI Comm. LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 613–14 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (the patent alone is sufficient to sustain a finding of unpatentability under § 101).” slip op. at 12

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

    “rebuttable presumption that the limitation is written in a means-plus-function format under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 514 F.3d 1256, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). If, in addition to the word “means” and the functional language, the claim recites sufficient structure for performing the described functions in their entirety, the presumption is overcome, and § 112, ¶ 6 does not apply. Id. “Sufficient structure exists when the claim language specifies the exact structure that performs the functions in question without need to resort to other portions of the specification or extrinsic evidence for an adequate understanding of the structure.” Id. at 1259–60.” slip op. at 28

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

    “with the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedents on step one analysis under the Alice framework. In step one of the Alice analysis, to determine whether the challenged claims are directed to an abstract idea, the inquiry is to ask, considered in light of the Specification, whether “their character as a whole” is directed to an abstract idea, not, as Patent Owner contends, identifying the “core invention” of the patent. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Relying on the distinction made in Alice between, on one hand, computer-functionality improvements and, on the other, uses of existing computers as tools in aid of processes focused on “abstract ideas,” the court in Enfish clarified that a relevant inquiry in step one of the Alice framework is to ask whether the “focus” of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36 (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358–59). In this inquiry, claims “directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer” are contrasted with claims “simply adding conventional computer components to well-known business practices” or “generalized steps to be performed on a computer using conventional computer activity.” See TLI, 823 F.3d at 612 (quoting Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1338). The Federal Circuit further clarified recently and described the first-stage inquiry as “looking at the ‘focus’ of the claims, their ‘character as a whole.’” Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., No. 2015-” slip op. at 17

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

    “claims fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the abstract idea of collecting and correlating information to provide personalized nutritional information of food products to shoppers into a patent-eligible application of that idea. It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. TLI, 823 F.3d at 613. Rather, the recited components must involve more than performance of “‘well- understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294).” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 5,841,115 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 5,841,115
• Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC / Microsoft Corporation Inc. v. Adc Technology Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 1, 2016 · CBM2015-00026 · APJ Michael P Tierney · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 8–14 are unpatentable under §103 as obvious over the instituted prior-art combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “D. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Garry E. Kitchen, testifies that, based on his experience in the commercial software art, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science or a related engineering discipline or equivalent experience or education. Declaration of Garry Kitchen, Ex. 1011 ¶ 33. Patent Owner does not dispute this recitation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art identified by Mr. Kitchen as it is consistent with the prior art of record. See also Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Not reached

    “Petitioner provides specific constructions for each of the interference means appearing in the dependent claims. Pet. 22–24. Patent Owner disagrees that the dependent claims recitation of interference means requires “additional functional limitations piled on top of the disclosed structure.” PO Resp. 7. Specifically, Patent Owner contends that there is only one construction of interference means, namely that which Petitioner provided with respect to the interference means of claim 8. Petitioner disagrees with Patent Owner and contends that the four dependent claims themselves recite specific functions and must further limit the claim from which they depend. Reply 7. We determine that it is unnecessary to determine whether Patent Owner or Petitioner is correct as to the specific construction of the interference means recited in claims 11, 12, 13, and 14 as the claims are unpatentable under either construction. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “Program, Data and Combination of Program and Data Claim 8 contains the recitation “the program, the data, and a combination of the program and data together.” Petitioner contends that the term should mean “the program and/or the data.” Pet. 28; Reply 9. Petitioner, however, contends that Patent Owner was silent as to the meaning of the term during ex parte reexamination. Pet. 29. Patent Owner generally contends that the claim recitation is definite and requires operations to be performed either on “a program, or on data, or on a combination of the program and data.” PO Resp. 8. We adopt Patent Owner’s construction (operations are performed either on “a program, or on data, or on a combination of the program and data”) as it is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term and appears to be substantially the same as Petitioner’s construction. Reply, 9–10, Ex. 1011, ¶ 54.” slip op. at 11

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

    “The obviousness-type double patenting rejection does not demonstrate that the earlier filed ’995 patent described the invention, with all its claimed limitations. First, the rejection was based on obviousness, not anticipation. See Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). (“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.”). Second, the Examiner’s identification of “common subject matter” consists merely of that which appears in the preamble of challenged claim 8. Although the Examiner stated that there was no apparent reason why the present claims were not presented in the earlier application, Mr. Kitchen presents credible testimony that the clock means limitation “for keeping a predetermined time period after said executing means starts execution of the program or data processing,” did not appear in the earlier filed applications and written description support for it was added in the continuation-in-part ’784 application via new Figure 12. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 46–47 and 49; compare Ex. 1001, Figures 1–14, with Ex. 1014, Figures 1–11. Based on the evidence of record, we credit Mr. Kitchen’s testimony as it is consistent with the evidence of record and hold that Petitioner has established that claims 8–14 are limited to the July 2, 1998, filing date of the ’784 application, which resulted in the issuance of the ’520 patent.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 6,193,520 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,193,520

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.