• Charles River Laboratories, Inc. v. Seikagaku CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 8, 2026 · PGR2025-00023 · APJ Per Curiam · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 are unpatentable as anticipated by the ’629 publication; the claims are not entitled to the 2013 priority date.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “We find that a rigid requirement as to the subject of a POSITA’s doctoral degree (e.g., biochemical engineering, enzymology), or experience working specifically with horseshoe crab proteins, is not consistent with the evidence of record. See, e.g., Ex. 1067, 20:23–21:2 (Dr. Schaefer testifying that the fact the “name of [his] Ph.D. is immunology . . . does not change the fact that the core of [his] thesis training was really in molecular biology”), 22:3–15 (explaining that “the fact that the production of proteins recombinantly is mostly species agnostic”); Ex. 1069, 45:20–47:17 (Dr. Morris testifying that whether a person is a POSITA depends on the person’s “experience, [ ] publications,” and work done for the Ph.D. rather than the name of the Ph.D. program). We also find that evidence of record supports Petitioner’s assertion that, for purposes of defining a POSITA, “[m]ore education could substitute for experience, and vice versa.” See, e.g., Pet. 22; Ex. 1065, 99:14–100:3. Accordingly, based on the entirety of the trial record, we find a POSITA with respect to the claims of the ’109 patent would have had a two years of experience with cloning genes, expressing cloned genes as proteins, and/or characterizing such cloned genes and proteins, with more education being able to substitute for experience, and vice versa. A POSITA may also have collaborated with others, including those with specific experience in utilizing or assessing horseshoe crab Factor C for endotoxin detection and quantitation.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Neither party proposes an express construction of any claim term. See Pet. 22–23 (not proposing any constructions); PO Resp. 23 (“Patent Owner agrees that the terms can be afforded their plain and ordinary meaning.”). However, Patent Owner states that some of Petitioner’s arguments implicitly construe claim 1 in an erroneous manner. PO Resp. 23–28. “For example, Petitioner argues that ‘an adequate written description would have to either disclose representative examples of the possible working cascades of various proteins or some accurate structural feature of the claimed proteins that allow them to function in the claimed assay as a whole.’” Id. at 23 (quoting Pet. 35). Patent Owner argues that, contrary to what Petitioner’s argument allegedly implies, “Claim 1 is directed to a method for producing an endotoxin assay agent” and does not require the use – Owner that claim 1 does not require the use of endotoxin assay agent. However, the claimed endotoxin assay agent must be capable of performing the assay, as counsel for Patent Owner acknowledged. Tr. 83:5–9.” slip op. at 10

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “In this case, to show that the claims of the ’109 patent are unpatentable for lack of written description, Petitioner would have needed to show that the specification as filed (i.e., the ’420 application) fails to reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that Patent Owner had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the July 3, 2023, filing date. Petitioner did not. Pet. 23–24. Nor does Petitioner’s declarant offer testimony that could support such a showing. See Ex. 1003 ¶50 (“I have been asked to provide my opinions as to the state of the art in this field for purposes of determining what the inventors disclosed as their invention as of December 10, 2013.”), ¶51 (“Whenever I offer an opinion in this declaration about the knowledge of a POSA, the manner in which a POSA would have understood the claims of the ’109 patent or its description, the manner in have been led to do based on the prior art, I am referencing the December 10, 2013 timeframe.”). In our Institution Decision, we stated: Although the ’420 application is essentially identical to the ’767 application, the person of ordinary skill in 2013 is not the same as in 2023. See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351 (“[T]he [written description] test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” (emphasis added)). Thus, the information presented in the Petition, which is limited to the perspective of a 2013 POSITA, does not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable for lack of written description. Inst. Dec. 12 (alterations in original). During trial, Petitioner did not present any further arguments in support of Ground 1. See generally Pet. Reply. Petitioner has failed to prove that claims 1–9 are unpatentable for failing to meet the written description requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” slip op. at 12

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

    “Although the evidence before us shows that, in 2013, a POSITA knew how to recombinantly express genes in expression systems such as CHO or HEK-293 cell lines, the evidence shows that this was true only for genes whose genetic sequences were known or readily available. See, e.g., Ex. 1069, 34:11–22 (“Q. Okay. So you would agree that the creation of the recombinant protein requires the underlying sequence of, as you said, the original animal? A. Of course.”) Because it is undisputed that, in 2013, the genetic sequence for Limulus polyphemus Factor C was unknown, or least not publicly available, Falko-Gunter does not support a finding of adequate written description here. See, e.g., Tr. 48:18–19 (“Patent Owner agrees that there had not been, as of 2013, the full length cDNA sequence for Limulus polyphemus Factor C published.”).” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 11,959,109 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 11,959,109
• Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. Regents Of The University Of Michigan And University Of South FloridaAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 5, 2025 · IPR2023-01346 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 10, 11, and 18 are unpatentable because Hickey anticipates each claim; the Board did not reach the alternative Almarsson grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “For a functionally-defined genus, “the written description requirement [can be met] when the art has established a correlation between structure and function.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1350. Here, the challenge claims recite two types of functional limitations. First, independent claim 10 requires the coformer to have a second chemical functionality, which is defined as being complementary to the first chemical functionality via non-covalent hydrogen bonding. That is, the co-former’s second chemical functionality must be complementary to either a carboxamide, carbonyl, or amine functionality of an API via non-covalent hydrogen bonding. Second, the non-covalent hydrogen bonding between the first chemical functionality of the API and the second chemical functionality of the co-former must result in the formation of supramolecular synthons.” slip op. at 21

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

    “We therefore find that the parent ’956 application lacks written description support for the challenged claims, and thus, on the record before us, we determine that the effective filing date of the challenged claims is February 13, 2014, the filing date the ’344 patent. Thus, the references relied upon by Petitioner (Hickey, Almarsson, and Martindale) qualify as prior art to the ’344 patent. Pet. 33, 45.” slip op. at 26

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “III. ANALYSIS A. Principles of Law To anticipate a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “a single prior art reference must expressly or inherently disclose each claim limitation.” Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Accordingly, “‘the dispositive question regarding anticipation [i]s whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer from the [prior art reference’s] teaching’ that every claim element was disclosed in that single reference.” Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (quoting In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 390 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).” slip op. at 26

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Pet. 7–8. “Patent Owners do not contest the level of ordinary skill in the art set forth in the Petition.” PO Resp. 11. Because Petitioner’s unopposed definition is consistent with the ’344 patent and the prior art of record, we adopt that definition. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579–80 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 8

  Patent outcomesUS 10,633,344 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,633,344
• Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. / Globalfoundries U.S. Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2018 · IPR2016-01377 · APJ Jennifer Meyer Chagnon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 10–12 are unpatentable as obvious over Grill and Aoyama because the combination teaches the claimed steps and a skilled artisan had reason and a reasonable expectation of success to combine them.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We note the parties’ proposals differ in the specific degree required (i.e., Master of Science vs. Bachelor’s of Science); however, neither party argues this distinction makes a difference in analyzing the asserted ground or other issues in this proceeding. For clarity of the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, as it is more specifically directed to the technology described in the ’696 patent. In addition, given the disclosures in the ’696 patent and cited prior art, we agree with Petitioner that a Master of Science degree (or equivalent) in the relevant area better reflects the level of education and training that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have possessed at the time than a Bachelor’s degree, as Patent Owner contends. Our findings and conclusions, however, would be the same under either party’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. The level of ordinary skill in the art in this case further is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 15

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

    “define areas for etching.”7 Inst. Dec. 11–15. We further determined that “to meet the limitation ‘using the [designated layer] for etching,’ the designated layer ‘must actually be used to define areas for etching.’” Id. at 15 (quoting Prelim. Resp. 6 (emphasis Patent Owner’s)). Patent Owner agrees with this construction—namely, that “‘using’ something ‘as a mask’ during etching means using it to define areas for etching.” PO Resp. 8–9. Petitioner also applied this construction in this proceeding. See Tr. 6:7–18; see also id. at 19:10–16 (Petitioner’s counsel: “No, no, we did not present a construction and we did not contest the Board’s construction.”). The parties do not dispute that “using the [designated layer] as a mask” means “using the [designated layer] to define areas for etching,” and we discern no reason from the evidence presented to change this construction. We, therefore, maintain our preliminary construction for purposes of this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 17

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

    “that “using the [designated layer] as a mask” encompasses a situation in which the modified mask pattern 358, having “edges that are in line and flush” with second resist pattern 359, is therefore used as a mask. For the reasons discussed above, we do not agree with Patent Owner that “us[ed] . . . as a mask” necessarily encompasses such a situation. See supra Section II.C.2. We note that the application of our construction would not preclude layer 358 as shown in Patent Owner’s modified Figure 16(a) from ever being a mask when etching layer 355, if it were in fact described as such. However, there is no such description in the Japanese priority application; instead, the corresponding discussion identifies only second resist pattern 359 as a mask for this etching step. See Ex. 1014 ¶ 96 (“If there is a concern that the second resist pattern 359 has been misaligned with the first resist pattern 357, then the mask pattern 358 should be dry-etched using the second resist pattern 359 as a mask before the second silicon dioxide film 355 is dry-etched using the second resist pattern 359 as a mask.” (emphasis added)). Further, as noted by Petitioner (Reply 10–11), the corresponding discussion is, at best, ambiguous as to whether mask pattern 358 is “used as a mask” for etching layer 355. Ex. 1014 ¶ 96 (“That is to say, if the mask pattern 358 is exposed to the openings of the second resist pattern 359 for the formation of contact holes because of the misalignment of the second resist pattern 359 with the first resist pattern 357, then the mask pattern 358 is dry-etched using the second resist pattern 359 as a mask. In this manner, the openings of the mask pattern 358 are expanded to include the openings for the formation of wiring grooves and contact holes.” (emphasis added)). This disclosure is not sufficient to provide support under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for step (i) of claim 10. See Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“For a claim in a later-filed application to be entitled to the filing date of an earlier application under 35 U.S.C. § 120 (1994), the earlier application must comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 (1994). . . . A disclosure in a parent application that merely renders the later-claimed invention obvious is not sufficient to meet the written description requirement; the disclosure must describe the claimed invention with all its limitations.” (citing Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1997))); see also K & K Jump Start, 13 F. App’x at 984 (“In order for claim 1 of the [U.S.] patent to be entitled to the priority date of the [foreign] application, the test set forth in [Tronzo, 156 F.3d at 1158] must be satisfied.”). 2. Conclusion as to Whether Grill Qualifies as Prior Art Having considered the evidence in this record, we determine that, at least, step (i) of claim 10 is not supported by the Japanese priority application.16 Accordingly, the effective filing date of the challenged claims is March 23, 1999, and Grill is available as prior art as to claims 10–12 of the ’696 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).” slip op. at 39

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “2. Conclusion as to Whether Grill Qualifies as Prior Art Having considered the evidence in this record, we determine that, at least, step (i) of claim 10 is not supported by the Japanese priority application.16 Accordingly, the effective filing date of the challenged claims is March 23, 1999, and Grill is available as prior art as to claims 10–12 of the ’696 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). 16 Because we find that claim 10 is not supported by the Japanese priority application, we need not discuss the parties’ arguments and evidence regarding whether or not Grill is entitled to the priority date of the Grill provisional application. Nor must we decide whether Petitioner’s corresponding arguments and evidence submitted in the Reply are proper.” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 6,197,696 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,197,696
• Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. / Globalfoundries U.S. Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2018 · IPR2016-01376 · APJ Jennifer Meyer Chagnon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 13 and 15 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over Grill and Aoyama; the Board found a reason to combine and a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We note the parties’ proposals differ in the specific degree required (i.e., Master of Science vs. Bachelor’s of Science); however, neither party argues this distinction makes a difference in analyzing the asserted ground or other issues in this proceeding. For clarity of the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, as it is more specifically directed to the technology described in the ’696 patent. In addition, given the disclosures in the ’696 patent and cited prior art, we agree with Petitioner that a Master of Science degree (or equivalent) in the relevant area better reflects the level of education and training that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have possessed at the time than a Bachelor’s degree, as Patent Owner contends. Our findings and conclusions, however, would be the same under either party’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. The level of ordinary skill in the art in this case further is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 15

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

    “1. Construction of “using the [designated layer] as a mask” In the Institution Decision, we preliminarily construed the phrase “using the [designated layer] as a mask”6 as “using the [designated layer] to 6 Claim 13 recites several steps of etching “using” various layers—for example, the first resist pattern [step f]/second resist pattern and the mask pattern [step h]/patterned third insulating film [step i]—“as a mask.” As shorthand, we refer to the various layers as “the designated layer.” define areas for etching.”7 Inst. Dec. 11–15. We further determined that “to meet the limitation ‘using the [designated layer] for etching,’ the designated layer ‘must actually be used to define areas for etching.’” Id. at 15 (quoting Prelim. Resp. 6 (emphasis Patent Owner’s)). Patent Owner agrees with this construction—namely, that “‘using’ something ‘as a mask’ during etching means using it to define areas for etching.” PO Resp. 8–9. Petitioner also applied this construction in this proceeding. See Tr. 6:7–18; see also id. at 19:10–16 (Petitioner’s counsel: “No, no, we did not present a construction and we did not contest the Board’s construction.”). The parties do not dispute that “using the [designated layer] as a mask” means “using the [designated layer] to define areas for etching,” and we discern no reason from the evidence presented to change this construction. We, therefore, maintain our preliminary construction for purposes of this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 16

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

    “that “using the [designated layer] as a mask” encompasses a situation in which the modified mask pattern 358, having “edges that are in line and flush with” second resist pattern 359, is therefore used as a mask. For the reasons discussed above, we do not agree with Patent Owner that “us[ed] . . . as a mask” necessarily encompasses such a situation. See supra Section II.C.2. We note that the application of our construction would not preclude layer 358 as shown in Patent Owner’s modified Figure 16(a) from ever being a mask when etching layer 355, if it were in fact described as such. However, there is no such description in the Japanese priority application; instead, the corresponding discussion identifies only second resist pattern 359 as a mask for this etching step. See Ex. 1014 ¶ 96 (“If there is a concern that the second resist pattern 359 has been misaligned with the first resist pattern 357, then the mask pattern 358 should be dry-etched using the second resist pattern 359 as a mask before the second silicon dioxide film 355 is dry-etched using the second resist pattern 359 as a mask.” (emphasis added)). Further, as noted by Petitioner (Reply 10–11), the corresponding discussion is, at best, ambiguous as to whether mask pattern 358 is “used as a mask” for etching layer 355. Ex. 1014 ¶ 96 (“That is to say, if the mask pattern 358 is exposed to the openings of the second resist pattern 359 for the formation of contact holes because of the misalignment of the second resist pattern 359 with the first resist pattern 357, then the mask pattern 358 is dry-etched using the second resist pattern 359 as a mask. In this manner, the openings of the mask pattern 358 are expanded to include the openings for the formation of wiring grooves and contact holes.” (emphasis added)). This disclosure is not sufficient to provide support under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for step (h) of claim 13. See Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“For a claim in a later-filed application to be entitled to the filing date of an earlier application under 35 U.S.C. § 120 (1994), the earlier application must comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 (1994). . . . A disclosure in a parent application that merely renders the later-claimed invention obvious is not sufficient to meet the written description requirement; the disclosure must describe the claimed invention with all its limitations.” (citing Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1997))); see also K & K Jump Start, 13 F. App’x at 984 (“In order for claim 1 of the [U.S.] patent to be entitled to the priority date of the [foreign] application, the test set forth in [Tronzo, 156 F.3d at 1158] must be satisfied.”). 2. Conclusion as to Whether Grill Qualifies as Prior Art Having considered the evidence in this record, we determine that at least step (h) of claim 13 is not supported by the Japanese priority application.16 Accordingly, the effective filing date of the challenged claims is March 23, 1999, and Grill is available as prior art as to claims 13 and 15 of the ’696 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).” slip op. at 39

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “2. Conclusion as to Whether Grill Qualifies as Prior Art Having considered the evidence in this record, we determine that at least step (h) of claim 13 is not supported by the Japanese priority application.16 Accordingly, the effective filing date of the challenged claims is March 23, 1999, and Grill is available as prior art as to claims 13 and 15 of the ’696 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). 16 Because we find that claim 13 is not supported by the Japanese priority application, we need not discuss the parties’ arguments and evidence regarding whether or not Grill is entitled to the priority date of the Grill provisional application. Nor must we decide whether Petitioner’s corresponding arguments and evidence submitted in the Reply are proper.” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 6,197,696 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,197,696
• Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited / Globalfoundries U.S. Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 20, 2017 · IPR2016-01249 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–7, and 9 and proposed claims 11–12 are unpatentable as obvious over Ding and Zhang; proposed claim 13 is patentable and allowed by amendment.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “essentially of” for “being composed of.” PO Resp. 11 (citing AFG Indus., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 239 F.3d 1239, 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). In AFG, the Court noted that, “[i]n 1942, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals [had] stated that ‘“composed of” should be regarded as synonymous with “consisting of.”’” AFG, 239 F.3d at 1245 (quoting In re Bertsch, 132 F.2d 1014, 1019 (CCPA 1942)). However, as further explained in AFG, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals had “qualified this statement . . . by remarking that ‘the words “composed of” may under certain circumstances be given, in patent law, a broader meaning than “consisting of.”’” Id. (quoting In re Bertsch, 132 F.2d at 1020). The Court in AFG ultimately construed “composed of” to mean “consisting essentially of.” Id. (“[W]e do agree based on the specification and other evidence before us that the term ‘composed of’ in this case is not completely closed. Rather, we think that ‘composed of’ in this case should be interpreted in the same manner as ‘consisting essentially of.’”). Thus, “composed of” means either “consisting of” or “consisting essentially of.” Id. The term “consisting of” prohibits any 4 <111> and <002> are indices that pertain to an orientation or direction of crystals. Ex. 1003 ¶51. unspecified components. Id. (citing PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). The term “consisting essentially of” prohibits only unspecified components that materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s) of a claimed invention. Id. (citing Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). By arguing that “being composed of” means “consisting essentially of” as opposed to “consisting of,” Patent Owner argues for broader claim scope. For purposes of this Decision, we construe “being composed of” to mean “consisting essentially of,” as Patent Owner argues.5 In conclusion, we construe “first film being composed of crystalline metal containing nitrogen therein,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 5, to mean “first film consisting essentially of crystalline metal containing nitrogen therein.”6” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “1. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The parties propose similar definitions of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “an equivalent of a Master of Science degree from an accredited institution in electrical engineering, materials science, or physics, or the equivalent, a working knowledge of semiconductor processing technologies for integrated circuits, and at least two years of experience in semiconductor processing analysis, design, and development.” Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶64). Patent Owner argues that such an individual would have had “at least a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical, Materials, Mechanical, or Chemical Engineering, or a related degree, and at least two years of experience working in semiconductor processing and fabrication, semiconductor equipment manufacturing, or semiconductor materials.” PO Resp. 18 (citing Ex. 2011 ¶24). Neither party explains in detail why its proposed level of ordinary skill in the art should be adopted nor how the different levels affect the parties’ analyses. Based on the evidence of record, including the testimony of the parties’ declarants, the subject matter at issue, and the prior art of record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 16

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

    “As to Petitioner’s predictable-results assertion, Petitioner persuasively argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have added nitrogen to the crystalline tantalum layer of Ding for three independent reasons. First, Petitioner argues that the presence of nitrogen in Ding’s crystalline tantalum layer would make it more easily removable by chemical mechanical polishing (“CMP”), which removal by polishing both Zhang and Ding teach to do. Pet. 24–26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶140, 142, 143; Ex. 1004, 1:30–34, 4:34–37; Ex. 1005, 7:56–65; Ex. 1019, 12–13; Ex. 1021, 354–63). Second, Petitioner argues that the presence of nitrogen in Ding’s crystalline tantalum layer would inhibit, to some additional extent, copper diffusion. Id. at 26–29 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶144–146; Ex. 1023, 8). Third, Petitioner argues that adding a small amount of nitrogen to Ding’s crystalline tantalum layer would reduce its resistivity, which was known to help reduce a device’s power consumption and RC delays. Id. at 29–30 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶147; Ex. 1015, 81 (Table 1)). Patent Owner counters that none of these purportedly predictable results are realistic. PO Resp. 46–52. With respect to the first reason offered by Petitioner (to make the first film more susceptible to CMP), Patent Owner argues that: (A) adding only “[a] small amount of nitrogen” to Ding’s crystalline tantalum layer would not change its CMP characteristics; and (B) “[a]dding significant amounts of nitrogen” would result in Ding’s previously crystalline layer becoming amorphous. Id. at 48. Patent Owner does not disclose what it considers “small” and “significant” amounts of nitrogen. Id. As a result, we cannot apply Patent Owner’s argument (even if it were persuasive) to the facts before us. Also, Patent Owner’s argument is based exclusively on declaration testimony that does not cite to any underlying evidence, let alone documentary evidence. See id. at 47–49 (citing Ex. 2011 ¶¶190–98). In contrast, Petitioner’s argument is supported by declaration testimony, which, in turn, is based on underlying evidence, including documentary evidence. See Pet. 24–26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶140, 142, 143; Ex. 1004, 1:30–34, 4:34– 37; Ex. 1005, 7:56–65; Ex. 1019, 12–13; Ex. 1021, 354–63); see also Ex. 1003 ¶139. With respect to the second reason offered by Petitioner (to inhibit, to some additional extent, copper diffusion), Patent Owner argues that, in Petitioner’s asserted combination, “there would be no nitrogen to provide any copper diffusion benefit.” PO Resp. 49. Patent Owner’s argument is premised on Zhang teaching exclusively an upper surface of pure tantalum. Id. But, Zhang explicitly teaches that the upper surface may have a nitrogen content of, for example, 1%, 2%, 3%, or 4%. See Ex. 1004, 3:59–62 (“At the upper surface, the atomic percent tantalum may be at least 95% and the atomic percent nitrogen may be less than 5% if copper adhesion is particularly problematic.”). With respect to the third reason offered by Petitioner (to reduce resistivity), Patent Owner argues that adding nitrogen would actually increase resistivity. As pointed out by Petitioner, however, Patent Owner’s declarant, Harlan R. Harris, Ph.D., conceded that adding nitrogen does lower resistivity. Reply 17–18 (quoting Ex. 1036, 125:3–20). Dr. Harris testified as follows: Q. When the nitrogen flow ratio is zero in the ’324 patent, and the power is kept constant, wouldn’t that result in a film that could be pure tantalum? A. All three of those data points are at the exact same position on the graph. The N2 concentration, which is the numerator of the ratio, is set at zero. And in this particular position, the nitrogen concentration would be assumed to be zero in the film. Q. So is it within the scope of what’s taught in the ’324 patent to have a film that would have no nitrogen at all? A. It’s also apparent to anyone who is examining this of skill in the art that you can decrease from that number, which is favorable in terms of the value of resistivity by adding flow rate in the data points for all of the positions greater than zero. So you decrease resistivity by the addition of any amount of nitrogen, therefore, a person skilled in the art would not be motivated to not have nitrogen, based on this data. Q. You’re referring to the decrease in resistivity as nitrogen is added? A. Yes. Q. Which is desirable? A. You want the resistivity to go down. Ex. 1036, 124:15–125:20. We are satisfied by each of Petitioner’s proffered reasons for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have added nitrogen to Ding’s crystalline tantalum layer, as taught by Zhang. Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1 and 5 would have been obvious over Ding and Zhang.” slip op. at 24

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

    “obvious over Ding in view of Zhang. Patent Owner’s proposed claims 11 and 12 are unpatentable because they introduce limitations—nitrogen throughout the first film (claim 11) and nitrogen at the upper surface of the first film (claim 12)—that are met by the very references asserted in the ground of unpatentability involved in this inter partes review. Patent Owner’s Motion to substitute claims 11 and 12 is premised, incorrectly, on Zhang requiring pure tantalum (and, thus, no nitrogen) at the upper surface of its tantalum-rich tantalum nitride film. In fact, Zhang does not require any portion of the tantalum-rich tantalum nitride film to be pure tantalum. Ex. 1004, 3:53–54 (“The tantalum-rich tantalum nitride film has a range of approximately 0-30 atomic percent nitrogen.”). And, Zhang explicitly teaches that the upper surface may include nitrogen. Id. at 3:57– 62 (“A lower atomic percent nitrogen at the upper surface typically gives better adhesion to copper films. At the upper surface, the atomic percent tantalum may be at least 95% and the atomic percent nitrogen may be less than 5% if copper adhesion is particularly problematic.”); Ex. 1036, 40:1–6, 42:2–9, 42:15–21, 54:14–20 (Dr. Harris acknowledging that the upper surface of the film would contain some nitrogen). Accordingly, a preponderance of the evidence establishes that Patent Owner’s proposed claims 11 and 12 are not patentable over the art of record in this inter partes review. Put another way, and as Petitioner argues, claims 11 and 12 (like challenged claim 5) are unpatentable as they claim subject matter that would have been obvious over Ding in view of Zhang. See 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); Amend Opp. 6–7 (“The instituted obviousness ground[] based on Zhang and Ding already include[s] the newly-added limitations Patent Owner seeks to add in its Substitute Claims 11–13. Thus, the Substitute Claims 11–13 remain unpatentable over each of the instituted grounds.”).14 Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend is denied with respect to claims 11 and 12.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 6,538,324 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,538,324
• 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
• Euro-Pro Operating LLC v. Acorne Enterprises, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 9, 2015 · IPR2014-00351 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 13, and 14 are unpatentable as obvious over Hlava, Hlava and Nachumsohn, and Nachumsohn and Vallorani; the motion to amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Decision to Institute, in which we determined that the following claim terms invoke section 112, ¶ 6 because they specify a function but no structure for performing that function. Inst. Dec. 7.” slip op. at 6

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

    “not provided an articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings to support obviousness of claim 1 over Nachumsohn. PO Resp. 35–38. Patent Owner specifically contends that simply using a double pole triple (or four) throw switch to selectively energize the wrap-around and bottom heat elements “cannot reasonably be accomplished by a person of ordinary skill in the art following the teachings of the Nachumsohn invention.” Id. at 38. This argument is not persuasive for at least two reasons. First, a person of ordinary skill in the art is not limited to the teachings of Nachumsohn. One of ordinary skill can use his or her ordinary skill, creativity, and common sense to make the necessary adjustments and further modifications to result in a properly functioning device. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“[T]he [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”). Second, Petitioner showed that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include such a function controlling means “to provide variable cooking modes” that constitute the many different cooking phases, such as, baking, searing, scalloping, stewing discussed in Nachumsohn. Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1004, pg. 1, col. 1, ll. 15–19). Petitioner reasoned that these cooking modes could be achieved by enabling multiple heating elements to be selectively energized, and that electromechanical rotary switches—such as a double pole triple throw switch, which would have enabled Nachumsohn’s bottom and side heating elements to be energized to provide cooking modes via the bottom heating element only, the side heating element only, or both heating elements; and such as a double pole four throw switch, which would have included an “off” setting (where neither heating element is energized) and enabled Nachumsohn’s bottom and side heating elements to be energized to provide cooking modes via the bottom heating element only, the side heating element only, or both heating elements—were known means of accomplishing same. Pet. 38–39 (citing Ex. 1017 ¶¶ 22, 36–39). Petitioner’s reasoning is supported by evidence from Nachumsohn that different modes of heating and cooking food were contemplated by those of skill in the cooking arts, and that modifying Nachumsohn’s circuit with a double pole triple (or four) throw switch to selectively energize, either, or both heating elements to achieve these modes “would have been routine for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time [the] ’262 patent was filed.” Id. Therefore, Petitioner has presented an articulated reasoning with rational underpinning based on Nachumsohn.” slip op. at 22

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “localized thermal stresses and cracking that would be caused by the proposed new bottom heating device.” PO Resp. 22 (citing Ex. 1003, 4:23– 34). However, teaching away requires a reference to actually criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the claimed solution. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The concern addressed by Hlava is that localized hot spots can compromise stoneware inserts, and therefore sensors are used to discriminate between a stoneware insert, and a metallic insert better suited to higher heat settings. Ex. 1003, 4:23–41. The passages in Hlava referred to by Patent Owner state that “when stoneware insert 16 is placed within housing 12, the maximum heat output permitted by heating device 30 is limited to prevent thermal shock and cracking of the stoneware.” Id. at 4:46–49. Patent Owner’s argument fails to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been discouraged from providing a bottom heating element even though Hlava specifically states that metallic inserts were available that could handle higher heat stress. See id. at 4:49– 52. Indeed, Patent Owner’s argument fails to explain why such a bottom heating element could not be regulated in temperature just like Hlava’s heating device 30, for any type of insert in such a deep well cooking apparatus including a stoneware insert. Patent Owner’s further contention that Hlava’s insert discriminating sensor 36 somehow dissuades one of skill in the art from using a bottom heating element is also unavailing. See PO Resp. 23–25. Even if a bottom heating element shifted, or added to Hlava, theoretically could “result in localized thermal stresses and cracking of the stoneware insert 16,” (id. at 25) Hlava expressly teaches how to avoid such a result with sensor 36 to limit the maximum heating temperature of the heating elements. See Ex. 1003, 4:46–49. Patent Owner’s conclusory argument, that shifting heating element 30c' to the bottom of Hlava’s cooker would “destroy the intent, purpose or function” of Hlava’s invention, does not explain persuasively why the temperature of a bottom heating element, either shifted or added to Hlava’s cooker, would not also be limited by operation of sensor 36, for instance when a stoneware insert is used in the cooker. For the above reasons, we conclude that a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that claim 1 is unpatentable based on Hlava and the admitted prior art.” slip op. at 16

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

    “under § 103 only when it is analogous to the claimed invention. In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011)); In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992). A reference is considered analogous prior art: (1) if the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed subjected matter, regardless of the problem addressed, or (2) if “the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved,” even though the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor. Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325. The “field of endeavor” test asks if the structure and function of the prior art is such that it would be considered by a person of ordinary skill in the art, because of the similarity to the structure and function of the claimed invention as disclosed in the application. Id. at 1325–27.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 6,515,262 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,515,262
• Euro-Pro Operating LLC v. Acorne Enterprises, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 9, 2015 · IPR2014-00352 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 12 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated prior-art combinations; the Patent Owner’s contingent motion to amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Decision to Institute, in which we determined that the following claim terms invoke section 112 ¶ 6 because they specify a function but no structure for performing that function. Inst. Dec. 7. Construed Term(s) Claim Construction Temperature The function of this means-plus-function term we controlling means determined to be “regulating the temperature of said heating elements,” and the structure to include “a temperature control switch as shown in Figures 1A–3, and its equivalents, which can be manipulated from outside the housing of the deep well cooker.” Inst. Dec. 6–7. Function controlling We determined the function for this means-plus- means function limitation we found to be “enabling [the] bottom heating element and [the] wrap-around heating element to be selectively energized to provide variable cooking modes,” and the corresponding structure we determined to be “the device, and its equivalents, as reflected in Figures 1A–3 of the ’392 patent mounted in the outer housing of the deep well cooker and manipulated separately from the temperature control means by a user, and as represented in the specification, can pass current individually to either the bottom heater or wrap-around heater, or in combination to both.” Inst. Dec. 7.” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “and education as an electrical engineer with 50 years of product development and design experience including electric cooking devices. Ex. 1019¶¶ 3–14. Mr. Sherwood’s testimony is offered by Petitioner, not as expert testimony on the specific legal criteria of obviousness, but as evidence of what one of ordinary skill in the art of electric cooker design would have understood at the time of the filing of the ’392 patent. Id. ¶ 22. Mr. Sherwood’s legal principal statements are informative as to his understanding of obviousness, but not expert testimony as to the specific legal elements and requirements for obviousness. Id. ¶¶ 20–21. Mr. Sherwood’s opinions and testimony as they relate specifically to the prior art, and his knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of 1 Fed. R. Evid. 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. filing of the ’392 patent, comport with the legal requirements for obviousness as explained to him by Petitioner’s counsel. See Ex. 1019 ¶ 20. Obviousness is a mixed question of law and fact and it is not necessary that an expert be a “legal” expert on the question of obviousness. See Soverain Software LLC, v. Newegg Inc., 705 F.3d 1333, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“precedent does not require ‘expert’ opinions on matters of law”). Also, we are persuaded that Mr. Sherwood’s testimony was undertaken with consideration as to the level of ordinary skill in the art within the 2000-2001 time frame of the alleged invention and filing of the ’392 patent. Although Mr. Sherwood did not state, explicitly, what the level of one of ordinary skill in the art would have been at the time of filing of the ’392 patent, it is reasonable to determine that a professional engineer having a master’s degree in electrical engineering and 50 years of electronic product design experience including extensive experience in the design of cooking appliances and electronic temperature control systems including slow cookers and crockpots, is qualified to testify as to what would have been known by, and obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the ’392 patent. Ex. 1019 ¶ 8. Mr. Sherwood specifically states that his opinions are “based on my personal knowledge, experience, and the materials I have reviewed, as to how someone of ordinary skill in the field of cooking appliances would understand the challenged claims of . . .the ’262 patent and the ’392 patent as of at least July 2001.” Id. ¶ 22. We determine that Mr. Sherwood’s opinions and testimony are entitled to weight, as they embrace the requirement of one of skill in the art at the time of filing of the ’392 patent, and are adequately supported by his professional experience and skill in the field of electronic cooking appliance design.” slip op. at 24

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

    “Patent Owner’s first argument is not persuasive because the fact that an element of claim 1, namely the bottom heating element, is missing from the Hlava reference is essentially the basis upon which Petitioner has asserted that claim 1 is obvious, as opposed to anticipated. See Pet. 24. Moreover, we are aware of no case law, nor has Patent Owner directed us to any, that all the features of a claim must be found in a prior art reference to properly support an obviousness analysis, or that the absence of a feature in the reference, “mitigates,” against a finding of obviousness. See 35 U.S.C § 103, see also In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (claimed invention would have been obvious over single reference or combination of references). We are also not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that Petitioner has failed to present an articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings in support of its obviousness positions. Petitioner has asserted several reasons why one of ordinary skill in the art would shift, or add a bottom heating element to Hlava, one reason being that: it was known in the prior art to use a bottom heating element in addition to a side heating element to facilitate heat distribution in roasting (see Nachumsohn at page 2, column 1, lines 61–71 (discussing properly proportioned heat for browning a roast, which is part of roasting)), and because roasting is a function for which Hlava’s heating element 30c' was designed. Pet. 24–25 (citing Ex. 1004, 8:17–22). Petitioner additionally asserts that although Hlava does not disclose expressly a bottom heating element, Hlava teaches that heating elements for other cooking situations, besides those shown in the reference itself, are contemplated: “the actual number of elements and wattage values could be varied in order to obtain the desired heating profile” . . . to accommodate “a wide variety of cooking situations,” [] which an extra heating element would have helped to accomplish by expanding the heating profiles of the Hlava cooking apparatus. Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1004, 1:53–64, 5:48–56). Petitioner has supported its reasoning with evidence from the prior art references, such as Hlava and Nachumsohn, which teach that it was well known in the art to use bottom heating elements in deep well cooking apparatus for particular cooking operations. Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1004, 4:11–19, 8:17–22, Fig. 5). Indeed, Petitioner points to the Background section of the ’392 patent itself, discussing certain prior art cooking devices having bottom heating elements. Pet. 7–8, 25 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:21–60). Mr. Sherwood testifies persuasively that shifting or adding a bottom heating element to Hlava was well within the ordinary skill in the art, and “would have yielded the predictable result of quicker heating of the bottom of Hlava’s cooking insert and/or would have resulted in providing Hlava’s cooking apparatus 10 associated with FIG. 9 with additional cooking modes.” Ex. 1019 ¶¶ 27–29. In view of such reasons and evidence, we are satisfied that Petitioner’s explanations constitute articulated reasoning with rational evidentiary underpinnings sufficient to justify the legal conclusion of obviousness.” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner next argues that Hlava teaches away from a bottom heating element because Hlava’s “stoneware insert 16 could not resist the localized thermal stresses and cracking that would be caused by the proposed new bottom heating device.” PO Resp. 22 (citing Ex. 1004, 4:23– 34). However, teaching away requires a reference to actually criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the claimed solution. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The concern addressed by Hlava is that localized hot spots can compromise stoneware inserts, and therefore sensors are used to discriminate between a stoneware insert, and a metallic insert better suited to higher heat settings. Ex. 1004, 4:23–41. The passages in Hlava referred to by Patent Owner state that “when stoneware insert 16 is placed within housing 12, the maximum heat output permitted by heating device 30 is limited to prevent thermal shock and cracking of the stoneware.” Id. at 4:46–49. Patent Owner’s argument fails to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been discouraged from providing a bottom heating element even though Hlava specifically states that metallic inserts were available that could handle higher heat stress. See id. at 4:49– 52. Indeed, Patent Owner’s argument fails to explain why such a bottom heating element could not be regulated in temperature just like Hlava’s heating device 30, for any type of insert in such a deep well cooking apparatus including a stoneware insert. Patent Owner’s further contention that Hlava’s insert discriminating sensor 36 somehow dissuades one of skill in the art from using a bottom heating element is also unavailing. See PO Resp. 23–25. Even if a bottom heating element shifted, or added to Hlava, theoretically could “result in localized thermal stresses and cracking of the stoneware insert 16” (id. at 26), Hlava expressly teaches how to avoid such a result with sensor 36 to limit the maximum heating temperature of the heating elements. See Ex. 1004, 4:46–49. Patent Owner’s conclusory argument, that shifting heating element 30c' to the bottom of Hlava’s cooker would “destroy the intent, purpose or function” of Hlava’s invention, does not explain persuasively why the temperature of a bottom heating element, either shifted or added to Hlava’s cooker, would not also be limited by operation of sensor 36, for instance when a stoneware insert is used in the cooker. For the above reasons, we conclude that a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that claim 1 is unpatentable based on Hlava and the admitted prior art.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 6,624,392 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,624,392
• Munchkin, Inc. / Toys “r” US, Inc. v. Luv N’ Care, Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 21, 2014 · IPR2013-00072 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision

  The sole claim is unpatentable as obvious over Hakim ’225 and Hakim ’604; the motion to amend is denied because it would enlarge claim scope.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The test for sufficiency of the written description, which is the same for either a design or a utility patent, has been expressed as “whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Id. (quoting Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)). In the context of design patents, the drawings provide the written description of the invention. Thus, when an issue of priority arises under § 120 in the context of design patent prosecution, one looks to the drawings of the earlier application for disclosure of the subject matter claimed in the later application. Owens, 710 F.3d at 1366 (citations omitted).” slip op. at 6

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

    “likelihood that the claim of the ’465 patent would have been obvious over each of Hakim ’225 and Hakim ’604. Dec. on Pet. 23. In response, Patent Owner does not argue that the claim is patentably distinct from those references. PO Resp. 6-7; Tr. 31:10-17. Rather, Patent Owner argues that the references are not prior art. PO Resp. 6-7; Tr. 31:10-17.” slip op. at 5

  • ScopeMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “Owner relies on this distinction, between infringement of design patents and that of utility patents, to argue that the proposed amended claim is not broader than the issued claim because, to “an ordinary observer,” the designs are “substantially the same.” PO Reply 4 (emphasis added). However, Patent Owner does not direct us to, and we are not aware of, any authority that has applied the “ordinary observer” test—first enunciated as a test for infringement in Gorham Manufacturing Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511 (1871) and adopted as the sole test for design patent infringement in Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 678—to compare the scope of two claims. The scope of the issued claim and the proposed amended claim are defined by the respective drawings. See id. at 679 (design patents typically are claimed as shown in the drawings). Those drawings differ with respect to the spout tip and the vent. Specifically, the proposed amended claim is broader than the issued claim because it is broader with respect to racetrackshaped spout tips and raised rim vents, even though it may be narrower with respect to egg-shaped spout tips and vents without raised rims. See In re Rogoff, 261 F.2d 601, 603 (CCPA 1958) (“[A] claim is broadened if it is broader in any respect than the original claim, even though it may be narrowed in other respects.”). In other words, a drinking cup, having the racetrack-shaped spout tip and raised rim vent of the proposed amended claim, could infringe the proposed amended claim based on its overall design, yet not infringe the issued claim. See Thermalloy, Inc. v. Aavid Eng’g, Inc., 121 F.3d 691, 692 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“A new claim enlarges if it includes within its scope any subject matter that would not have infringed the original patent.”). Therefore, the proposed amended claim would enlarge the claimed subject matter in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(3) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(ii).” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS D617,465 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosure

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.