• Beckman Coulter, Inc. v. Sysmex Corporation And Sysmex America, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 18, 2022 · IPR2020-01503 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7–15 are unpatentable as obvious over Nagai and Jagtiani; the priority applications lack written-description support for the claimed electrical detection and cell-counting combination.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In the Institution Decision, we determined that Petitioner’s definition was consistent with the disclosure of the ’351 patent and the scope and content of the asserted prior art to the extent that Petitioner’s definition requires familiarity with the design and operation of automated hematology analyzers available in the market. Dec. 8 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:45–61, 15:52– 58). We also determined that Petitioner’s proposal was more reasonable than Patent Owner’s with respect to the duration of a POSA’s practical experience, whether such practical experience is in addition to or possibly as experience could be merely using hardware and/or software for an analyzer, as opposed to developing such hardware and/or software. Id. at 8–9. Neither party contends that the differences in proposals affect the outcome of this proceeding, and we find that they do not. Nonetheless, on the full record now before us, we find that our identification of the level of ordinary skill in the art in the Institution Decision, modified to state that a higher level of experience can compensate for less technical education, is supported by the ’351 patent, the prior art of record, and the opinions of Mr. Roche and Dr. Robinson (which, as discussed above, recognize that additional work experience can compensate for technical education). Thus, we find that a POSA would have had at least a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree in biologic science, biomedical engineering, and/or electrical engineering or a related field and at least five years of experience in developing hardware and/or software for hematology analyzers, and would have been familiar with the design and operation of hematology analyzers available in the market. We also find that less technical education may be compensated by a higher level of experience, or vice versa.” slip op. at 10

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “a controller programmed to,” “optical detector,” “electrical detector,” and “mono-nucleated cells and poly-nucleated cells” as recited in claim 7, and “total count of nucleated cells” as recited in claims 8 and 13. Pet. 22–29. Patent Owner responds that “[t]he District Court issued an opinion regarding claim construction on April 6, 2021,” and, “[f]or purposes of this proceeding, Patent Owner applies the District Court’s constructions.” PO Resp. 13. Patent Owner also specifically addresses the terms “controller programmed to” and “electrical detector.” Id. at 13–14. Petitioner replies that its proposed claim constructions are consistent with the District Court’s constructions. Pet. Reply 4–5. At the oral hearing, the parties confirmed that they do not dispute the District Court’s claim constructions. See Tr. 16 (Petitioner’s counsel stating that “Petitioner would request that this Board adopt these same [District Court] constructions in this IPR”), 34 (Patent Owner’s counsel agreeing that “neither side has objected to the court’s claim construction”). Based on the parties’ apparent agreement, and considering the record before us and the Report and Recommendation from the District Court (Ex. 2065), we agree with and adopt the District Court’s claim constructions. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (“Any prior claim construction determination concerning the claim in a civil action . . . that is timely made of record in the inter partes review proceeding will be considered.”). Accordingly, we construe the terms “controller programmed to,” “electrical detector,” and “optical detector” as set forth below. slip op. at 12

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

    “that Petitioner has established that the priority applications do not provide adequate written description support for the challenged claims. More specifically, we find that the priority applications do not reasonably convey to a POSA that the inventors were in possession of a sample analyzer that both (1) uses an electrical detector to electrically sense cells in a body fluid measurement sample, and (2) from the analysis of the cells sensed by the electrical detector, counts the number of mono-nucleated cells and poly-nucleated cells in the body fluid measurement sample as required by claim 7.” slip op. at 17

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

    “Based on our review of the record, we determine that Petitioner has established that a POSA would have had reason to combine the teachings of Nagai and Jagtiani to achieve the claimed subject matter. Nagai describes an electrical detector (RBC/PLT detection unit 42) that “is capable of measuring the number of red blood cells and platelets by a sheath flow-DC detection method.” Ex. 1044, 6:58–63, Fig. 5. Nagai also describes WBC detection unit 41 that produces a DIFF scattergram that, in the body fluid measuring mode, is analyzed in order to classify the white blood cells into two subclasses, namely, mono-nucleated cells and poly-nucleated cells. Id. at 5:56–58, 12:27–36. Nagai teaches that WBC detection unit 41 is “configured as an optical detection unit” that performs white blood cell classification in the body fluid measurement mode using a combination of electrical resistance and absorbed light. Id. at 5:56–58, 15:52–16:6. Jagtiani teaches a channel sensor that can detect impedance to differentiate between different types of cells in a biological sample, including differentiating between red blood cells, white blood cells, and platelets. Ex. 1045 ¶¶ 21, 25; see also id. ¶ 187 (“The channel sensor is based on impedance sensing using the Coulter principle.”). Jagtiani teaches the sensor can be configured to differentiate between and count the number of eosinophils, basophils, neutrophils, monocytes, and lymphocytes in the biological sample. Id. ¶ 25; see also id. ¶ 121 (“In some embodiments, the cell count can include a white blood differential, and can include a count of basophils, a count of eosinophils, a count of lymphocytes, a count of neutrophils, and/or a count of monocytes.”). Jagtiani further teaches that “[s]uch biological samples can include, for example, blood, serum, saliva, sweat, tears, urine, or any other biological sample or derivative suspended in a fluid.” Id. ¶ 119. In light of these teachings in Nagai and Jagtiani, we credit Mr. Roche’s testimony that Jagtiani demonstrates a known technique of detecting poly-nucleated and mono-nucleated white blood cells using an electrical detector. A POSA at the time of the invention would have been led to modify Nagai with the teaching of Jagtiani in the manner claimed to allow the body fluid measurement of Nagai to differentiate poly-nucleated and mono-nucleated blood cells (instead of measuring red blood cells alone). Such a motivation is found, for example, in Petitioner’s DxH system, which discloses use of an electrical detector in both a blood measuring mode and a fluid measuring mode. Ex. 1042 ¶¶ 30, 31. In the DxH system, use of an electrical detector in both the blood measuring mode and body fluid measuring mode allows identification of total number of cells in measured body fluid.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 10,401,351 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,401,351
• Red Diamond, Inc. v. Southern Visions, LLPAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 31, 2021 · IPR2019-01671 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board canceled claims 1, 6, and 10–12 and denied entry of substitute claims 18–22, finding claims 18–21 indefinite and claim 22 obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “C. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART In the Institution Decision, we determined that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had sufficient experience and/or education in the food industry to possess an understanding of (1) sugar particle size as it pertains to brewed beverages, (2) sugar particle size screening, and (3) the storage and use of sugar in commercial settings.” Inst. Dec. 6–7. We observed that this level of ordinary skill is consistent with the level of ordinary skill that we adopted in a related case that involves similar subject matter. See Red Diamond, Inc. v. Southern Visions, LLP, PGR2019-00045, Paper 9 at 6–8 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2019). We also asked the parties to expressly discuss the level of ordinary skill in the art in the remaining briefing if either party disagreed with our determination. For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we maintain our determination from the Institution Decision because neither party disputes the level of ordinary skill identified in the Institution Decision (see Revised MTA 11–12), and because we continue to find that the stated level of ordinary skill is consistent with the record.” slip op. at 5

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part

    “II. MOTION TO AMEND A. ORIGINAL CHALLENGED CLAIMS As noted above, Patent Owner requests that we “unconditionally consider” the Revised Motion to Amend and cancel original claims 1, 6, and 10–12. Revised MTA 1. Because Patent Owner has not indicated that our consideration of the Revised Motion to Amend is contingent on a determination that original challenged claims 1, 6, and 10–12 are unpatentable, we grant Patent Owner’s request to cancel original challenged claims 1, 6, and 10–12. See Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018- 01129, Paper 15 at 3 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2019) (precedential) (“Lectrosonics”) (“A request to cancel claims will not be regarded as contingent.”). The remaining issue before us is whether to grant the Revised Motion to Amend as to proposed substitute claims 18–22.” slip op. at 6

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteUnpatentable

    “Particle size is a critical factor for proposed substitute claims 18 and 20, which require a comparison of the particle size of the sugar used in the recited mesh pouch against the particle size of Sugar in the Raw. For all of the reasons discussed above, we find a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the trademark Sugar in the Raw identifies sugar having particles of a particular size with sufficient specificity to allow the comparison of particle sizes that proposed substitute claims 18 and 20 require. Accordingly, proposed substitute claims 18 and 20 are indefinite because they “fail[ ] to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014); see USPTO Memorandum on the Approach to Indefiniteness Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings (Jan. 6, 2021)6; MPEP 2173.05(e) (9th ed., Rev. 08.2017, June 2020).” slip op. at 18

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

    “analogous art. Reply 7. “A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination under § 103 only when it is analogous to the claimed invention.” In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Even if we were to agree with Patent Owner that Thijssen is not from the same field of endeavor because, inter alia, it involves the use of a packed bed, we still find Thijssen to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventors were involved. The ’330 patent teaches that “[t]he larger sugar granules allow the water to flow around it at the same time you are extracting tea from the tea blend.” Ex. 1001, 7:15–17. This indicates that among the problems “with which the inventor[s were] involved” were extraction of flavor from tea and the flow of water around the particles involved in the tea brewing process. Thijssen likewise addresses the flow of solvent through solid particles during extraction of a beverage product. See, e.g., Ex. 1022, 2:46–48. In view of this, we find Thijssen is “reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor[s were] involved.” Bigio, 381 F. 3d at 1325.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 9,468,330 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 9,468,330
• Intel Corporation / Globalfoundries U.S., Inc. et al. v. Daniel L. FlammAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 30, 2020 · IPR2017-00279 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 13–26, 64, and 65 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over the combinations of prior art listed in the decision.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “not entitled to claim priority to a filing date any earlier than the September 11, 1997 filing date of the ’650 provisional application, and, therefore, each of the asserted references qualify as prior art to the challenged claims. See Pet. 9. Specifically, Petitioner contends that the ’264 patent is not entitled to claim priority to the December 4, 1995 filing date of the ’224 application because the ’224 application fails to disclose a chuck having a “thermal mass” or selecting that thermal mass to” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “in the art at the relevant time would have had (i) a Bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering, materials science engineering, electrical engineering, physics, chemistry, or a similar field, and three or four years of work experience in semiconductor manufacturing or related fields; or (ii) a Master’s degree in chemical engineering, materials science engineering, electrical engineering, physics, chemistry, or a similar field, and two or three years of work experience in semiconductor manufacturing or related fields; or (iii) a Ph.D. in chemical engineering, materials science engineering, electrical engineering, physics, chemistry, or a similar field. Pet. 19–20 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 21). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in its Response. Based on our review of the ’264 patent, the cited prior art, and the testimony of the parties’ declarants, we agree with Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art and apply it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355 (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”).” slip op. at 12

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

    “terms appearing in the challenged claims. Dec. on Inst. 10–11. First, we construed selected thermal mass to mean “thermal mass selected by selecting the mass of the substrate holder, the material of the substrate holder, or both.” Id. at 10. Second, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed 13 Neither party disputes that the ’264 patent is expired. The earliest patent application referenced for the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C. § 120 for the ’264 patent was filed on December 4, 1995, and the patent has no term extensions. The term of the ’264 patent, therefore, expired no later than December 4, 2015. See 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(2) (2012 & Supp. III 2015) (stating that the term of a patent grant ends twenty (20) years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States, “or, if the application contains a specific reference to an earlier filed application or applications under section 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), from the date on which the earliest such application was filed”). 13 construction of thermal mass . . . selected for a predetermined temperature change within a specific interval of time as meaning “the material and/or mass of the substrate holder are chosen to effect a predetermined change in substrate holder temperature from a selected first temperature to a selected second temperature within a specific time period.” Id. at 11. During the instituted trial, neither party disagreed with these constructions; nor did either party ask that we construe additional claim terms. We, therefore, leave our prior constructions in place unaltered.” slip op. at 13

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

    “claimed invention. PO Resp. 15–19. As Patent Owner correctly notes, art is analogous if it is either: (1) from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention; or (2) reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Id. at 15–16 (citing MPEP § 2141.01(a)). As we find below that Hinman satisfies the second prong of this test, we need not address Patent Owner’s arguments regarding field of endeavor. A reference is “reasonably pertinent” to a problem if it “logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” In re Icon Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658, 23 USPQ2 1058, 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Petitioner argues that Hinman and the ’264 patent address the same problem, namely “controlling temperature to increase throughput.” Reply 5; Ex. 1025 ¶¶ 45, 48. Patent Owner disagrees, alleging that the ’264 patent is “concerned with achieving or improving etch selectivity in a high throughput etch process for semiconductor processing,” 32 and that this is different than the problems addressed by the prior art. PO Resp. 18. In defining the problem addressed by the inventor, the specification of the challenged patent is often instructive. Here, the ’264 patent notes that prior art substrate etching processes used “batch” modes in which etching was done at a single temperature, and that the invention improves upon these processes by providing a multi-stage etching process using different temperatures. Ex. 1001, 1:65–2:11. As such, the invention allegedly overcame disadvantages of prior art processes, which required lowered throughput and etch rate in order to avoid excessive damage to a workpiece. Id. at 2:11–14. Despite Patent Owner’s arguments, we cannot agree that etch selectivity, as opposed to throughput, is the problem addressed by the ’264 patent. As Dr. Bravman points out, “[t]he specification of the ’264 patent is devoid, however, of description of improved or high selectivity processes or explanation of how the purported invention achieves both high selectivity and high etch rates.” Ex. 1025 ¶ 46. This is in contrast to the specification’s direct statement that the invention “overcomes serious disadvantages of prior art methods in which throughput and etching rate were lowered in order to avoid excessive device damage.” Ex. 1001, 2:11– 14 (emphasis added). It is clear to us that the problem faced by the ’264 patent is one of throughput and etching rate. The applicability of the cited prior art, including Hinman, to” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS RE40,264 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Daniel L. FlammAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 12, 2018 · IPR2016-01512 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 27, 31, 32, 34, 37, 40, 41, 44, 47, 48, and 50 are unpatentable under § 103 over the stated combinations of prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “the knowledge level of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Samsung’s declarant, Dr. Shanfield, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art as of September 1997 would be an individual who possesses the following: (i) a Bachelor’s degree in engineering, physics, chemistry, materials science, or a similar field, and three or four years of work experience in semiconductor manufacturing or related fields[;] or (ii) a Master’s degree in engineering, physics, chemistry, materials science, or a similar field[,] and two or three years of work experience of work experience in semiconductor manufacturing or related fields[]. Ex. 1002 ¶ 18. According to Dr. Shanfield, “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Id. Conversely, the named inventor of the ’264 patent, Dr. Flamm, does not offer an assessment of the level of skill in the art as of September 1997, nor does Dr. Flamm explicitly state his intent to adopt Dr. Shanfield’s assessment. See generally Ex. 2001.3 Given Dr. Flamm’s silence on this matter, we adopt Dr. Shanfield’s assessment because it is consistent with the ’264 patent and the asserted prior art, and apply it to our obviousness evaluation below.” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “halogen lamp with Kadomura’s dry etching apparatus would degrade uniformity and control. In particular, we do not credit Dr. Flamm’s supporting testimony on this particular issue because it is conclusory in nature. Ex. 2001 ¶ 34. According to 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a), “[e]xpert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” See Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (stating a lack of objective support for expert opinion “may render the testimony of little probative value in [a patentability] determination”). For instance, Dr. Flamm testifies that: A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would not have combined Narita with Kadomura to effectuate a temperature change because a [person of ordinary of skill in the art] would know that heating through intimate contact with Kadomura’s electrostatic chuck was operable to provide better uniformity and control than an [IR] lamp or halogen lamp taught by Narita. Such [IR] lamp or halogen lamp is primarily for rapid heating, commonly called “RTP,” which would not be combined with Kadomura’s technique that emphasizes better uniformity and control for cryogenic processing. A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would recognize that these different techniques teach away from each other. Ex. 2001 ¶ 34. Dr. Flamm, however, provides little, if any, support for these statements. Absent underlying facts or data to support his opinion, we are not convinced that heating with an IR lamp or halogen lamp, as taught by Narita, would degrade uniformity and control. See Pet. Reply 19–20 (referencing teachings in Narita that provide for control and uniformity).” slip op. at 37

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

    “Flamm does not dispute that the priority date of the challenged claims of the ’264 patent is the September 11, 1997 filing date of the ’650 provisional application. Consequently, because all the references that serve as the basis of the grounds instituted in this proceeding were filed before September 11, 1997, they qualify as prior art to the challenged claims of the ’264 patent.” slip op. at 12

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

    “The relevant inquiry here is whether Samsung has set forth “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. In KSR, the Supreme Court framed the question as whether “[one] of ordinary skill, facing the wide range of needs created by developments in the field of endeavor, would have seen a benefit to upgrading [the prior art].” 550 U.S. at 424. The Supreme Court explained that we “must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” Id. at 417. The Supreme Court stated that, “[i]f a person of ordinary skill [in the art] can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. Based on the record developed during trial, we agree with Samsung that using Matsumura’s control recipes in Kadomura’s dry etching apparatus and method is a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions—an obvious combination that would provide better temperature control, particularly with respect to accurately controlling the thermal history curve. See Pet. 31–33; Pet. Reply 8–9; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 43, 60, 61; KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. We begin our analysis by examining the problem addressed by Matsumura. In its “Background of the Invention” section, Matsumura discloses that the thermal history curve (i.e., the temperature changing pattern) of the wafer-stage has a large influence on the resolution” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS RE40,264 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
• HTC Corporation / HTC America, Inc. v. Advanced Audio Devices, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 22, 2016 · IPR2014-01158 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable as obvious over Nathan ’259 and Nathan ’255, and over Sound Blaster, Lucente, and Ozawa; the Keller and Martin ground was not proven.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “The Federal Circuit recently addressed written description support for negative limitations, and what constitutes a “reason to exclude,” in Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Specifically, the court asked whether “describing alternative features—without articulating advantages or disadvantages of each feature—can constitute a ‘reason to exclude’ under the standard articulated in Santarus.” Id. at 1355. Rejecting the appellant’s argument that a specification must state the advantage of excluding a particular feature, the court held that “Santarus simply reflects the fact that the specification need only satisfy the requirements of § 112, paragraph 1 as described in this court’s existing jurisprudence.” Id. at 1356. The “reason to exclude,” therefore, may be provided by properly describing alternative features of the patented invention. Id. The court proceeded to analyze whether there was sufficient evidence that the patentee possessed the negative claim limitation as of the filing date. Id. at 1357. In view of Inphi, we reject HTC’s argument that claims 1–15 are not entitled to an earlier priority date because AAD allegedly “fails to identify any teaching in the specification of any of its applications . . . that excludes a connection to a ‘network service center containing the names,’ fails to identify any disadvantages of such a network service center, and fails to otherwise provide a reason to exclude a network service center.” Pet. Reply 12 5 (emphasis added). We need not find a recitation in the originally-filed specification of any disadvantage of a network service center; rather, the proper inquiry is whether the priority application reasonably conveys that the inventor was in possession of an apparatus that could—without connecting to a network service center—display a list of names of sound tracks. We conclude that it does. As AAD points out, the device disclosed in the priority applications includes a number of inputs, but as Mr. McAlexander testifies, none of these inputs could be used to connect to a network service center. PO Resp. 12; Ex. 2011 ¶ 65. Furthermore, the applications disclose displaying a list of names of sound tracks, which are entered into the memory of the device by the user (as opposed to being obtained from a network service center). PO Resp. 12–13. Mr. McAlexander testifies that the specifications reasonably convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the described apparatus could display a list of names of sound tracks without being connected to a network service center. Ex. 2011 ¶ 65. After evaluating the specifications and the expert testimony, we agree. We, therefore, conclude that HTC has not met its burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–15 of the ’888 patent are not entitled to a priority date before the effective date of Keller. As such, HTC has not established that Keller is prior art to the ’888 patent, and has not proven that claims 1–15 are unpatentable as having been obvious over Keller and Martin.” slip op. at 12

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

    “The Federal Circuit recently addressed written description support for negative limitations, and what constitutes a “reason to exclude,” in Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Specifically, the court asked whether “describing alternative features—without articulating advantages or disadvantages of each feature—can constitute a ‘reason to exclude’ under the standard articulated in Santarus.” Id. at 1355. Rejecting the appellant’s argument that a specification must state the advantage of excluding a particular feature, the court held that “Santarus simply reflects the fact that the specification need only satisfy the requirements of § 112, paragraph 1 as described in this court’s existing jurisprudence.” Id. at 1356. The “reason to exclude,” therefore, may be provided by properly describing alternative features of the patented invention. Id. The court proceeded to analyze whether there was sufficient evidence that the patentee possessed the negative claim limitation as of the filing date. Id. at 1357. In view of Inphi, we reject HTC’s argument that claims 1–15 are not entitled to an earlier priority date because AAD allegedly “fails to identify any teaching in the specification of any of its applications . . . that excludes a connection to a ‘network service center containing the names,’ fails to identify any disadvantages of such a network service center, and fails to otherwise provide a reason to exclude a network service center.” Pet. Reply 12 5 (emphasis added). We need not find a recitation in the originally-filed specification of any disadvantage of a network service center; rather, the proper inquiry is whether the priority application reasonably conveys that the inventor was in possession of an apparatus that could—without connecting to a network service center—display a list of names of sound tracks. We conclude that it does. As AAD points out, the device disclosed in the priority applications includes a number of inputs, but as Mr. McAlexander testifies, none of these inputs could be used to connect to a network service center. PO Resp. 12; Ex. 2011 ¶ 65. Furthermore, the applications disclose displaying a list of names of sound tracks, which are entered into the memory of the device by the user (as opposed to being obtained from a network service center). PO Resp. 12–13. Mr. McAlexander testifies that the specifications reasonably convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the described apparatus could display a list of names of sound tracks without being connected to a network service center. Ex. 2011 ¶ 65. After evaluating the specifications and the expert testimony, we agree. We, therefore, conclude that HTC has not met its burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–15 of the ’888 patent are not entitled to a priority date before the effective date of Keller. As such, HTC has not established that Keller is prior art to the ’888 patent, and has not proven that claims 1–15 are unpatentable as having been obvious over Keller and Martin.” slip op. at 12

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

    “expansive and flexible approach” to obviousness set forth by the Supreme Court in KSR. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Our inquiry is, therefore, not “whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole.” In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). Based on the combination of references proposed by HTC, Mr. Schmandt testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the advantages of Sound Blaster’s functionality, and sought to incorporate those features into Lucente. Ex. 1009 ¶ 181 (“a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine a system with the flexibility, portability, and ease of use of Lucente with the audio management capabilities of Sound Blaster”); id. at ¶ 183 (“it would be 34 obvious to design a system with physical (e.g. push-button) controls to carry out the various functions designed by Sound Blaster, particularly in view of Lucente and Ozawa”) (emphasis added). The record reflects that such a modification would not have been outside the level of ordinary skill, which both experts define similarly. Ex. 1009 ¶ 25 (Schmandt: at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent, and 1–3 years of experience in designing and programming consumer electronic devices); Ex. 2007 ¶ 8 (McAlexander: bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering, and at least two years of experience in the design of audio systems). This level of skill is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). AAD’s focus on whether the Sound Blaster hardware sound card could be installed on the Lucente device, or whether the Sound Blaster software could run on Lucente’s operating system, ignores that a person of ordinary skill is a “person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that it would not have been outside the level of ordinary skill in the art, as defined by both experts, to modify the device of Lucente to have the functionality described in Sound Blaster—including grouping and ordering songs—as well as the ability to download songs as described in Ozawa. We, therefore, find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the disclosures of Sound Blaster, Lucente, and Ozawa, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. slip op. at 34

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “In cases in which the proffered evidence of commercial success is licenses, rather than sales of products embodying the invention, there is a 23 danger that the licenses may have been taken only because they were cheaper than defending an infringement suit. See EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 908 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In such situations, nexus between the commercial success and the patent cannot be inferred; rather, “affirmative evidence of nexus” is required. Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In other words, a patent owner must demonstrate “a nexus between the merits of the invention and the licenses of record”; otherwise the licenses are to be accorded little weight. In re GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1580 (emphasis added). HTC notes that each of the licenses listed by Mr. Keller includes at least two patents that explicitly claim a compact disc recorder, an element not present in the claims of the ’888 patent. Pet. Reply 24. HTC also contends that AAD fails to demonstrate any link between the invention of the ’888 patent and the taking of the license; for example, AAD provides no apportionment of revenues to show the amount attributable to the ’888 patent, as opposed to the other members of the licensed family. Id. We agree with HTC that the evidence provided by AAD does not establish a sufficient link between the merits of the invention claimed in the ’888 patent and the taking of the licenses. Although Mr. Keller notes that some of the provided licenses were taken in situations where there was no pending litigation against the licensee (Ex. 2004 ¶ 9), he does not address whether litigation had been threatened against those parties. We, therefore, cannot determine whether the licenses reflect the commercial value of the invention claimed in the ’888 patent, or whether they were taken merely to 24 avoid the cost of litigation, either pending or threatened. Absent a persuasive showing of nexus, AAD’s evidence of licensing fails to establish commercial success. We conclude that the evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness is insufficient to overcome the evidence of obviousness over the combined Nathan references.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,400,888 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,400,888
• Butamax™ Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 5, 2015 · IPR2014-00402 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12 and 14–15 are unpatentable as obvious over Gruber and ASTM D7566-09; claim 13 is unpatentable as obvious over those references and Mossman.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “shown by a preponderance of the evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art4 would have had a reason to combine the teachings of Gruber and ASTM 4 The parties do not dispute the level of skill in the art. We also note that “[a] specific finding on the level of skill in the art is not . . . required where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is D7566-09, and in doing so, would have had a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the claimed invention.” slip op. at 6

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

    “As an initial matter, we reject Patent Owner’s position that to establish prima facie obviousness, “each claim limitation must be provided by the prior art or inherently be present in the applied references.” Id. at 4. As the Supreme Court instructed, “there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness,” but such reasoning “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Instead, the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art is an integral part of an obviousness analysis. Id. In this case, whether Gruber inherently discloses ASTM D7566 is irrelevant to our analysis, because Petitioner does not rely on inherency to 5 We assign page numbers sequentially to Patent Owner’s Response as the document itself does not include any. establish obviousness. Indeed, Petitioner points to Gruber for suggesting that renewable jet fuel must meet ASTM specifications for jet fuels. Pet. 23. Petitioner also relies on the knowledge of a skilled artisan that U.S. government agencies would adopt ASTM D7566, which provides the requirements for jet fuels containing synthesized hydrocarbons, to regulate their sale and use. Id. at 26 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 21). After reviewing the complete record, we determine that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to modify the teachings of Gruber to make a renewable jet fuel blendstock that meets or exceeds the requirement of ASTM D7566-09, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Claims 2–12, 14, and 15 Petitioner points out that claims 2–8 and 9–11 in Gruber recite the same limitations as those in challenged claims 2–8 and 10–12, respectively. Pet. 27–31. In addition, Petitioner refers to Gruber for teaching using Amberlyst-35 to trimerize olefins, which it argues it satisfies the limitations recited in challenged claim 9. Id. at 30 (citing Ex. 1003, 76:14–15). Furthermore, Petitioner contends that Gruber teaches blending the renewable jet fuel blendstock prepared according to its process with conventional jet fuels derived from petroleum and with aromatics, and thus, satisfies the requirements of challenged claims 14 and 15. Id. at 32 (citing Ex. 1003, 34:32–34, 47:7–8); see also Ex. 1003, 51:30–33 (teaching blending aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons, and blending biofuel with petroleum based components, both to produce a product that meets all jet fuel specifications); id. at claim 16 (reciting combining saturated alkanes “with one or more C10– C14 aromatic hydrocarbons, thereby forming a jet fuel”). Patent Owner does not dispute any of these assertions. Based on the evidence of record, we determine that Gruber teaches the additional limitations recited in dependent claims 2–12, 14, and 15.” slip op. at 12

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

    “In its Response, Patent Owner does not dispute the priority-date determination as set forth in the Decision to Institute. Having considered the complete record developed at trial, we see no reason to change our conclusion that the priority date of the challenged claims is May 9, 2011. Thus, Gruber, ASTM D7566-09, and Mossman all qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” slip op. at 4

  Patent outcomesUS 8,373,012 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,373,012
• Butamaxtm Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 3, 2015 · IPR2013-00539 · APJ Kerry Begley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 and 11–19 are unpatentable: claims 1–4, 6–8, and 11–19 are anticipated by Flint, and the remaining claims are obvious over the stated combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “art, which is relevant to the governing standards we apply in the remainder of our analysis. Petitioner proposes a standard for one of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 6; see Ex. 1002 (Decl. of Dennis J. Thiele, Ph.D.) ¶ 17. Patent Owner has not contested this proposal or proffered an alternative standard. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed standard and, therefore, determine that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had either: (1) “a Ph.D. in the life sciences or a similar related discipline, and . . . familiarity, training, and experience in molecular biology, microbial genetics and/or microbial metabolism,” or (2) “a scientific background such as a Bachelor’s degree in the life sciences (e.g., biology, microbiology, molecular biology or biochemistry) or a similar related discipline, and . . . substantial familiarity, training, and experience in molecular biology, microbial genetics and/or microbial metabolism.” Pet. 6; see Ex. 1002 ¶ 17.” slip op. at 5

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

    “The plain and ordinary meaning of “inactivated” is having destroyed biologic activity; chemically or biologically inert; non-functional. See Ex. 3005 (The American Heritage Medical Dictionary 402 (Rev. ed. 2007)) (defining “inactivate” as “[t]o render nonfunctional”); Ex. 3006 (Stedman’s Medical Dictionary 959 (28th ed., Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2006)) (defining “inactivate” as “[t]o destroy the biologic activity or the effects of an agent or substance”); Ex. 3007 (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 584 (10th ed. 2000)) (defining “inactivate” as “to make inactive,” and “inactive” as “chemically” or “biologically inert”); Ex. 3008 (Dictionary of Science and Technology 1092 (Christopher Morris, ed. 1992)) (defining “inactivate” as “to render inactive; destroy the activity of”). This customary meaning, thus, requires a lack of all activity or functionality.” slip op. at 6

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

    “invention be described in “such detail that . . . future claims can be determined to be encompassed within the . . . original creation.” Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Specifically, to satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure of the earlier-filed application must “reasonably convey[]” to one of ordinary skill in the art that, as of the filing date sought, “the inventor had possession” of the subject matter now claimed. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351–52 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1563–64. The test for written description, therefore, requires “an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art” to determine whether the specification “show[s] that the inventor [had] actually invented,” or possessed, each feature now included as a claim limitation. Ariad Pharm., 598 F.3d at 1351; see New Railhead Mfg., 298 F.3d at 1295.” slip op. at 13

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artPriority date, deniedDecided for petitioner

    “establish unpatentability—including “all issues relating to the status of [Flint] as prior art,” Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 79 F.3d 1572, 1576–78 (Fed. Cir. 1996)—by a “preponderance of the evidence,” 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). This burden of persuasion remains with Petitioner, while the burden of production—the burden to come forward with evidence—shifts between the parties. See Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1327– 29 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Mahurkar, 79 F.3d at 1576–77; Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V., Case IPR2013-00053, slip op. at 6–8 (PTAB May 1, 2014) (Paper 66) (“[T]hough the patent owner bears the burden of production in antedating a reference, the burden of persuasion to prove unpatentability . . . remains with the petitioner.”). Now, “with all of the evidence from both sides before [us]”—the burden of production having shifted back and forth between the parties—Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of persuasion to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Flint is prior art to the ’565 patent, including that the ’565 patent is not entitled to the benefit of the earlier filing date of the ’952 provisional. Tech. Licensing, 545 F.3d at 1327–29; Mahurkar, 79 F.3d at 1578. We determine that Petitioner has met its burden, as we explain below.” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 8,273,565 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,273,565

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.