- Painteq, LLC v. Orthocision, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 1, 2023 · IPR2023-00451 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–23 are unpatentable as obvious over Vestgaarden-981, Vestgaarden-818, and Lins, with Paltzer additionally applied to claims 6, 7, and 10–23.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is sufficiently supported by the record. Therefore, we apply that understanding in our analysis herein.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner submits that the parties have submitted joint claim construction in the Florida litigation, and asserts that “[t]he grounds set forth in this [P]etition render the challenged claims obvious under either party’s construction.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 34; Ex. 1017). Nevertheless, Petitioner urges that “express construction is not necessary.” Id. at 7. We agree that no express construction is required for this decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 9
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. Figures 30, 32A and 32B in the Specification depict a working channel with tangs 180a and 180b. See Ex. 1001, Figs. 30, 32A–B. These figures and all of the related description in the Specification describing a working channel with tangs appear in the Parent (Ex. 1006, Figs. 30, 32A–B, 3:17–21, 6:47–54, 15:25–51), but not in the Grandparent. See also Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 42–43 (explaining the same). Accordingly, the Grandparent application does not provide sufficient written description for the limitations requiring that the working channel have tangs in the independent claims. See Ex. 1001, 42:7 (limitation 1.b.4 “at least one tang on a distal end”), 43:9–11 (limitation 10.b.2 “two bilateral blunt tangs on a distal end”), 44:31–32 (limitation 18.b.2 “plurality of blunt tangs on a distal end”). For this reason, the challenged claims are not entitled to the benefit of the Grandparent’s filing date.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“We find that Petitioner has articulated sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning for combining the asserted references. Vestgaarden- 818 expressly incorporates the teachings of Vestgaarden-981, providing a motivation to use the implant and related tools taught in Vestgaarden-981 in its method for fusing a SI joint. Ex. 1010, 4:10–16. Moreover, we credit Dr. Bovinet’s testimony describing additional reasons for combining Vestgaarden-981’s implant and surgical implants with Vestgaaren-818’s method. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 67–74. Petitioner’s reasoning for combining Lins’s guidance slots and protrusions is also supported by the evidence of record. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 77–84. In particular, Dr. Bovinet persuasively testifies that a POSA would have motivated to make this combination because it “enables a surgeon to visually align the guide protrusions on a shaft with the guidance slots of the working channel,” which is “a major improvement” over the flat portion depth stop taught in Vestgaarden-981. Id. ¶ 83; see also id. ¶ 84 (“As someone who has personally performed hundreds of SI joint fusion surgeries, I can attest that the guide protrusions and guidance slots taught in Lins would offer a surgeon a significantly better user experience” as compared to Vestgaarden- 981’s flat portions). Finally, Petitioner has demonstrated that the combination would have produced a “predictable result” and therefore that a (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 76, 85).” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 11,083,511 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 11,083,511 - Nextremity Solutions, Inc. / Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. et al. v. Extremity Medical, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 26, 2023 · IPR2022-00802 · APJ Jeffrey N Fredman · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 59 is unpatentable as anticipated by Brumfield, Marcus, and Chandran; the motion to amend proposing substitute claim 62 is denied because claim 62 is unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We find this argument unpersuasive. As Patent Owner notes, Petitioner’s expert provides a definition of POSITA that is very similar to that recited by Patent Owner in its Motion to Amend, substantively differing only in the number of years of experience of the engineer at issue. This congruity supports the conclusion that the level of ordinary skill in the art may be recognized in the prior art itself. Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355 (“the absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown’”).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“In our Institution Decision, we agreed with Petitioner that the “portion of the preamble reciting ‘for compressing bone’ is not limiting to the claim” and found that other terms did not require construction. Dec. 8–9. We agreed with Petitioner that “[t]he phrase ‘for compressing bone’ merely identifies an intended use.” Pet. 20; Dec. 9. Patent Owner does not dispute this interpretation. See generally PO Resp. We agree with Petitioner that “the patentability of apparatus or composition claims depends on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Therefore, having considered the entire record developed during trial, we adhere to the preliminary construction that the limitation “for compressing bone” does not impose a structural limitation on claim 59 and that the other terms do not require construction.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Patent Owner disputes the Petition generally but Patent Owner does not identify any error in Petitioner’s foregoing arguments. Accordingly, we adopt the factual statements regarding the specific teachings of the references as findings of fact. See generally In re NuVasive, 841 F.3d 966, 974 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that the Board need not make specific findings as to claim limitations that Patent Owner does not dispute are disclosed in the prior art). We have reviewed Petitioner’s analysis and the underlying evidence cited in support and conclude that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the limitations of claim 59 are disclosed by Brumfield.” slip op. at 26
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“For the reasons discussed below, Patent Owner has shown that proposed substitute claim 62 meets the statutory and regulatory requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.121. For the reasons discussed below, however, Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claim 62 is unpatentable over prior art. Therefore, we deny Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend.” slip op. at 38
Patent outcomesUS 8,303,589 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · NautilusPatents in suitUS 8,303,589 - Askeladden LLC v. Leigh M. RothschildAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 19, 2020 · IPR2019-00855 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Final written decision
The Board canceled original claims 1, 2, 11, 14–19, and 21 and denied the motion to amend because the proposed substitute claims were obvious over Karthik, Robinson, and Ortiz.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“The claim language itself implies that the financial services provider decides which biometric information is required during the enrollment stage because the Decision Limitation is added to element 17A, which is the first step in the enrollment stage recited in elements 17A–D. However, “in assessing definiteness, claims are to be read in light of the patent’s specification and prosecution history.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 908 (2014). Patent Owner identifies support for the Decision Limitation in the Specification that favors interpreting the Decision Limitation as occurring during the transaction stage (i.e., during elements 17E–G). Mot. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:9–14). The cited portion of the Specification states: “In another embodiment, the financial service provider may have the system set up such that the server 114 queries through the point-of-sale terminal 102 and informs the merchant which biometric identification data is/are required for the desired transaction.” Ex. 1001, 9:9–14 (emphasis added). The plain language of the claim is consistent with our interpretation because it specifies that the biometric data is the data “required for the transaction,” which refers to the “transaction” recited in element 17G (describing the operation of the claimed system during a transaction stage). Based on our review of the Specification and claim language, we conclude that the Decision Limitation is sufficiently definite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. Based on that review, we also interpret the Decision Limitation to require that the financial services provider informs, through the server, which type(s) of user biometric identification data must be received at the terminal (e.g., a point-of-sale terminal) to validate the transaction. E. WHETHER THE MOTION MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.121” slip op. at 14
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteDecided for patent owner
“The claim language itself implies that the financial services provider decides which biometric information is required during the enrollment stage because the Decision Limitation is added to element 17A, which is the first step in the enrollment stage recited in elements 17A–D. However, “in assessing definiteness, claims are to be read in light of the patent’s specification and prosecution history.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 908 (2014). Patent Owner identifies support for the Decision Limitation in the Specification that favors interpreting the Decision Limitation as occurring during the transaction stage (i.e., during elements 17E–G). Mot. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:9–14). The cited portion of the Specification states: “In another embodiment, the financial service provider may have the system set up such that the server 114 queries through the point-of-sale terminal 102 and informs the merchant which biometric identification data is/are required for the desired transaction.” Ex. 1001, 9:9–14 (emphasis added). The plain language of the claim is consistent with our interpretation because it specifies that the biometric data is the data “required for the transaction,” which refers to the “transaction” recited in element 17G (describing the operation of the claimed system during a transaction stage). Based on our review of the Specification and claim language, we conclude that the Decision Limitation is sufficiently definite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. Based on that review, we also interpret the Decision Limitation to require that the financial services provider informs, through the server, which type(s) of user biometric identification data must be received at the terminal (e.g., a point-of-sale terminal) to validate the transaction. E. WHETHER THE MOTION MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.121” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“Petitioner argues that if Patent Owner were to argue that the Decision Limitation can be met by the financial services provider deciding which biometric information is required for a transaction during the enrollment or transaction stages, then the claims would be unpatentable for lack of written description support in the Specification. Opp. 8. Petitioner concedes that the portion of the Specification relied upon by Patent Owner for support describes making the decision about what biometric information is needed during the transaction stage. Id. at 9. As explained in Part II.D above, we have narrowly interpreted the Decision Limitation to encompass only such decisions. Accordingly, Petitioner does not persuade us that the Specification fails to provide the required written description for the 7 Normally, a Patent Owner must identify material in the originally filed application leading to issuance of the patent at issue that supports the proposed amendment. Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at 7. Failing to cite the original disclosure is a basis for denying a motion to amend. Id. However, because Patent Owner appears pro se, we reviewed the original disclosure ourselves to verify that the portion of the Specification cited is identically found in that disclosure. Compare Ex. 1016 ¶ 42, with Ex. 1001, 9:9–14. Accordingly, in this case, we find that Patent Owner’s citation to the Specification functionally refers to material in the original disclosure. Decision Limitation as we have interpreted it. Additionally, we conclude that Patent Owner has established that the Specification meets the written description requirement for the Decision Limitation. F. PROPOSED SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS 1, 2, 11, 14–19, AND 21:” slip op. at 17
- ScopeDecided for patent owner
“3. Whether the Amendments Enlarge the Scope of the Claims An amendment may not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent. 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(ii). We determine that Patent Owner’s addition of the Decision Limitation narrows the scope of every challenged claim and thus satisfies the prohibition against enlarging the scope of any claim.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 8,799,088 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 8,799,088 - Edmit Industries, Inc. v. Smartdoor Holdings, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 29, 2016 · IPR2015-00013 · APJ James A Worth · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 16–17 are unpatentable over Shea and Burke; claim 18 over Shea, Burke, and O’Brien; and claim 27 over Shea, Burke, and Leivenzon. The motion to amend is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner disagrees for three reasons. First, Patent Owner implies that Burke is not analogous art because Burke does not disclose a door. See PO Resp. 6. Art is analogous when it is: (1) from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention; or (2) reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor, if the art is not from the same field of endeavor. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325–26 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In this case, as observed by Petitioner’s Declarant, Burke expressly describes an application “as in cases where an electrical braking action is required.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 25 (quoting Ex. 1003, 1:18–22). Thus, even under Patent Owner’s argument that Burke is not specific to the field of doors, we agree with Petitioner’s Declarant that Burke is relevant to the problem of braking in electrified devices. Burke discloses an approach to that problem by absorbing energy from a motor, operated as a generator, for the purpose of braking. Ex. 1003, 1:16–25, 3:11–12.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“brake shoes based on the application of centrifugal force. Ex. 1009, 5:59– 63. Petitioner’s assertion is that a person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use a different braking mechanism as a substitute for a governor to achieve the same function. In particular, Petitioner proposes substitution of the frictional braking mechanism of Shea (i.e., a braking mechanism that is purely mechanical), with the dissipative braking mechanism of Burke (i.e., a braking mechanism that also converts mechanical energy to electrical energy). In this case, the fire door of Shea, with the motor/generator of Burke substituted for the motor/governor of Shea, would operate to blunt or slow the movement of the door on descent while allowing the door to close. See Ex. 1004 (Haas Decl.) ¶ 26. We determine that the asserted combination of Shea and Burke would operate in the same manner as the fire door of Shea—to slow the movement of the door, while allowing the door to close under the force of gravity. Id. ¶ 24. We agree with Petitioner’s Declarant that this would have been an obvious substitution as the use of a known technique to improve functionality. See id. ¶ 26. Petitioner’s proposed combination is thus the substitution of an electrical component for an analog component, which does not destroy the principle of operation because it does not destroy the overall principle of operation of the device. See Mouttet, 686 F.3d at 1332. We conclude that this type of fitting together of teachings would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 420 (“a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle”). Viewing the evidence as a whole, we conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have applied the teachings of Burke regarding regenerative braking to the fire door of Shea in order to improve operation of the door and to make use of excess energy from rotation. We are further persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that Burke teaches that the braking can have the additional advantage of powering another device and that a person of ordinary skill would have sought a substitution of components in order to achieve the advantages of Burke’s motor/generator. See Pet. Reply 11–12 (quoting Randall Mfg., 733 F.3d at 1363 (“doing so would allow the designer to achieve the other advantages of the Aquino assembly while using a stowage strategy that was very familiar in the industry”)).” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“However, the additional limitations would not avoid unpatentability because Burke and O’Brien both use a motor/generator system, O’Brien’s motor/generator uses DC power (Ex. 1008, 5:15), Burke and O’Brien both use regenerative braking, and Burke recites the charging of a storage battery by the motor/generator which is capable of braking (Ex. 1003, 3:4–16). Therefore, the asserted combination of Shea, Burke, and O’Brien already contains the features recited as additional limitations in proposed substitute claim 40 (and the similar recitations in proposed substitute claims 41 and 42). We have already concluded supra, that the combination of Shea, Burke, and O’Brien would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Patent Owner does not explain why the additional recitations of its proposed substitute claims would have been nonobvious over this combination. Mot. Amend 4–14. Patent Owner argues that the combination of Shea and Burke would not make use of a DC battery by itself to open or close a door. Id. at 11–12. However, nothing in the additional limitations of proposed substitute claims 40–42 requires that a DC battery provide power to open or close a door without an additional power supply (as discussed above with respect to claim 16). More importantly, the combination of Shea, Burke, and O’Brien would make use of the DC-powered components—the DC motor/generator of O’Brien. Ex. 1008, 5:4–15. Burke discloses using the motor/generator to charge a battery with the regenerated energy. Ex. 1003, 3:12–13. Therefore, the combination of Shea, Burke, and O’Brien already contains the elements of the additional limitations. We conclude that Patent Owner has not met its burden of proving that the additional recitations of proposed substitute claims 40–42 would have been nonobvious over this combination. See Paper 15, 4–16.9” slip op. at 23
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteDecided for patent owner
“As to Petitioner’s argument that proposed substitute claim 43 is indefinite, we determine that the term “substantially uniform speed” is reasonably clear to a person of ordinary skill when read in context of the entire claim limitation and disclosure, which requires the application of “more and more braking” to compensate for the dynamics of the door during closing, e.g., to offset the potential for acceleration due to gravity. Ex. 1001, 12, 19–29; see In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2014).” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 6,484,784 unpatentable§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,484,784
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.