• Dynaenergetics Europe GmbH / Dynaenergetics US, Inc. v. Qinetiq LimitedNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 11, 2024 · PGR2023-00003 · APJ William A Capp · PGR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–5 not unpatentable; Petitioner failed to prove its asserted §101, §102, §103, and §112 grounds, including indefiniteness and written-description challenges.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “prevail, Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate that the challenged claims are unpatentable. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat'l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). The standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 326(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A. Level of Ordinary Skill Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Serra testifies that he is familiar with the” slip op. at 45

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

    “process of claim 1. The first principal decision is the selection of a known liner design from a library that is made at the beginning of the design process. The second principal decision is made at the conclusion of the design process where a “final liner design” emerges after hole shapes produced by modified liners converge toward the desired hole shape. A person of ordinary skill in the art, having read claim 1 in context, would understand that the term “optimized” in the claim refers to the hole shape of the known liner design that is selected from among the known liner designs in the library during the selection step of the claim. A person of ordinary skill in the art would similarly understand that the design that is chosen in the initial selection process is “optimized” with respect to the population of known liner designs in the library as opposed to being “optimized” relative to liner designs produced during the later varying and modelling steps of the design process.” slip op. at 26

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteNot shown unpatentable

    “Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that claims 1–5 of the ’039” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 11,215,039 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Bilski · Phillips · Markman · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 11,215,039
• Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 8, 2018 · PGR2017-00002 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 are unpatentable under § 112(a) for lack of written description; Petitioner did not prove lack of enablement.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenUnpatentable

    “Written Description and the ’506 Application The test for written description is an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a POSA. Using this test, the invention must be described in a manner sufficient to demonstrate that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “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.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Written description is a question of fact judged as of the relevant filing date. Falko–Gunter Falkner v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2006). An ipsis verbis disclosure, however, is not necessary to satisfy the written description requirement. Vas–Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The disclosure need only reasonably convey to a POSA that the inventor had possession of the subject matter in question, even if every nuance of the claims is not explicitly described in the specification. Id.; see Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351.” slip op. at 23

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable

    “Written Description and the ’506 Application The test for written description is an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a POSA. Using this test, the invention must be described in a manner sufficient to demonstrate that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “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.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Written description is a question of fact judged as of the relevant filing date. Falko–Gunter Falkner v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2006). An ipsis verbis disclosure, however, is not necessary to satisfy the written description requirement. Vas–Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The disclosure need only reasonably convey to a POSA that the inventor had possession of the subject matter in question, even if every nuance of the claims is not explicitly described in the specification. Id.; see Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351.” slip op. at 23

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not enabledNot shown unpatentable

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), enablement is separate and distinct from the written-description requirement. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1344. “The test of enablement is whether one reasonably skilled in the art could make or use the invention from the disclosures in the patent coupled with information known in the art without undue experimentation.” United States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 785 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “[A] patent specification complies with the statute even if a ‘reasonable’ amount of routine experimentation is required in order to practice a claimed invention.” Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Calgene, Inc., 188 F.3d 1362, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Whether undue experimentation is needed is not a single, simple factual determination, but rather is a conclusion reached by weighing many factual considerations. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988). These factors, referred to as the Wands factors, include: (1) the quantity of experimentation necessary, (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or absence of working examples, (4) the nature of the invention, (5) the state of the prior art, (6) the relative skill of those in the art, (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and (8) the breath of the claims. Wands, 858 F.2d at 737. It is Petitioner’s burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims of the ’989 patent lack enablement. 35 U.S.C. § 326(e). Petitioner’s evidence and argument does not sufficiently establish that the ’989 patent fails to teach those in the art to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation. See PO Resp. 58–66. The Petition does not address the Wands factors sufficiently so as to show that undue experimentation is required to make or use the claimed invention. For example, neither the Petition nor Dr. Pearce sufficiently addresses the state of the prior art or the relative skill of those in the art. See Pet. 64–65; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 145–152; PO Resp. 62. As Patent Owner argues, this is an “omission[] that [is] particularly fatal” to Petitioner’s enablement argument, because Petitioner argues that mechanical expansion and inflation expansion are incompatible and cannot be combined. PO Resp. 62; see Pet. 30–38, 64. Dr. Grundfest, however, testifies that it was well known to combine mechanical and balloon-based expansion in surgical devices. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 132–136; PO Resp. 56. During cross-examination, Dr. Pearce testified that he “thought about the state-of-the-art in minimally invasive surgery during the 1990s.” Ex. 2003 18:1–14. Dr. Pearce’s testimony is conclusory and does not sufficiently address whether he considered whether it was well known to combine mechanical expansion and inflation expansion in surgical devices. For another example, relying upon the testimony of Dr. Pearce, the Petition asserts that a redesign of the expansion design disclosed in the ’989 patent “would take a substantial amount of time and cost to achieve.” Pet. 65 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 149). Likewise, Dr. Pearce testifies, “[s]uch a redesign would take a substantial amount of time and cost to achieve.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 149. Dr. Pearce, however, does not explain sufficiently why combining mechanical expansion and inflation expansion would require a substantial amount of time and cost. See id. For these reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden of showing by a preponderance of evidence that claims 1–19 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for lack of enablement.” slip op. at 33

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Factors that may be considered in determining level of ordinary skill in the art include: (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field. Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). We are not persuaded that Dr. Pearce’s testimony concerning the level of skill in the art is erroneous to the extent it does not explicitly require experience related to devices used for uterine surgical procedures or surgical devices that employ expandable inflation-based and mechanical-based components. Patent Owner’s argument and Dr. Grundfest’s testimony is inconsistent with the ’989 patent, which does not disclose an ablation device or method of using an ablation device that solves problems unique to endometrial ablation or unique to surgical devices that employ expandable inflation-based and mechanical-based components. The ’989 patent does not limit the art to be “the field of minimally invasive surgical and uterine devices” (Ex. 2005 ¶ 60). The ’989 patent states: “The present invention relates generally to the field of apparatuses and methods for ablating or coagulating the interior surfaces of body organs. Specifically, it relates to an apparatus and method for ablating the interior linings of body organs such as the uterus and gallbladder.” Ex. 1001, 1:20–24; see also id. at 2:36–38 (“The present invention is an apparatus and method of ablation and/or coagulating tissue, such as that of the uterus or other organ”).” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 9,247,989 unpatentable
  § 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 9,247,989
• Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 30, 2016 · PGR2015-00018 · APJ Richard E Rice · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 8, and 10–14 are unpatentable as indefinite under § 112(b); the Board did not reach the § 103(a) grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) “would have been a person having a general knowledge about and experience with expandable containers, including without limitation balloons, and at least an associate’s degree in science or engineering.” Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 10–13; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 10–13). Patent Owner responds that “the Board should limit Petitioner’s overly broad definition of a POSA from having an associate’s degree in any science or engineering to having an associate’s degree in mechanical engineering.” See, e.g., PO Resp. 12. According to Patent Owner, “Petitioner’s proposed definition should be limited because the inclusion of persons with an associate’s degree in any science or engineering fails to take into account the scope of the relevant art, which indisputably utilizes mechanical engineering principles.” Id. Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions, we determine that a POSA would have been a person having a general knowledge about and experience with expandable containers, including without limitation balloons, and at least an associate’s degree in mechanical engineering, or the equivalent.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “1. “elastic fastener” In our Institution Decision, we preliminarily determined that the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification of the claim term “elastic fastener” is an elastic element for attaching things together. Inst. Dec. 7–8. As neither party proposes any change to our interpretation, and our review of the evidence does not indicate that any change is necessary, we maintain that interpretation.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We determine that the test for indefiniteness that is applied in patent examination and reexamination matters, approved in Packard, should be applied in this post-grant review AIA proceeding, rather than the Nautilus requirement. The different approaches to indefiniteness before the PTO and the courts stem from the distinct roles that the PTO and the courts play in the patent system.12 In AIA proceedings, as in patent examination and reexamination matters, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, coupled with an opportunity to amend the claims, is an approach that is fair to the patent holder and protects the public. See Cuozzo, 136 S. Ct. at 2145–46; Packard, 751 F.3d at 1312–14. This approach serves to ensure precision in patent claims, thereby helping the public to understand the limits of the claims and keeping the rights afforded by patents within their legitimate scope. See Cuozzo, 136 S. Ct. at 2144–45; Packard, 751 F.3d at 1313. Accordingly, among the reasons supporting application of the Packard-approved indefiniteness test in this AIA proceeding are those recognized by the Supreme Court in Cuozzo as supporting use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in inter partes review AIA proceedings. See Cuozzo, 136 S. Ct. at 2143–2146. Of these, the most important is the opportunity to amend the claims to correct any ambiguity. See id. at 2145 (“The patent holder may, at least once in the process, make a motion to do just what he would do in the examination process, namely, necessary) that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the claim language unclear.” 12 See Packard, 751 F.3d at 1325 (Plager, J., concurring) (stating that “unlike courts which have a full prosecution record to consider, the prosecution record before the USPTO is in development and not fixed during examination”). amend or narrow the claim.”) (citation omitted); 35 U.S.C. § 326(d); 37 C.F.R. § 42.221. An applicant’s ability to clarify claim language through amendment was a significant reason why the Federal Circuit in Packard approved of the indefiniteness test recited in the MPEP (i.e., a “claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear”). Packard, 751 F.3d at 1313–14.” slip op. at 18

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “III. MOTIONS TO EXCUDE In its Motion to Exclude (Paper 57), Patent Owner seeks to exclude Petitioner’s Exhibits 1031 and 1032. Paper 57, 1–3. We deny Patent Owner’s motion, as moot, because we did not consider the referenced exhibits in reaching our decision in this case. In its Motion to Exclude (Paper 59), Petitioner seeks to exclude Patent Owner’s Exhibits 2016–2018, 2020 (¶ 84), 2024, 2025 (¶ 39), 2026 (¶ 39), 2027–2070, 2073, 2074, 2078, and 2085. Paper 59, 1–8. We deny Petitioner’s motion, as moot, because we did not consider the referenced exhibits and paragraphs in reaching our decision in this case.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 9,051,066 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 9,051,066
• Captioncall, L.L.C. / Sorenson Communications, Inc. v. Ultratec, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 7, 2016 · IPR2015-00637 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–30 are unpatentable as obvious; Patent Owner’s contingent motion to amend is denied for lack of written-description support and indefiniteness.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedGranted in part

    “admitted that the patented features of voice and revoiced text are responsible for ‘giv[ing] the phone back to folks with hearing loss.’” PO Resp. 48 (emphasis added). Thus, Patent Owner is offering the statement for the truth that voice and re-voiced text gives the phone back to folks with hearing loss. Patent Owner’s argument that Mr. Puzey was discussing the existence of features in his company’s product rather than features in Patent Owner’s product does not change that his statement is offered as proof regarding an alleged long-felt need for the features. Accordingly, his testimony is hearsay. slip op. at 15

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “art is telecommunication systems. Thus, a [POSA] is a person familiar with at least that technology by way of background and/or experience.” CaptionCall, LLC v. Ultratec, Inc., Case IPR2013-00549, Paper 71, 13 (Final Written Decision) (PTAB 2015); see also CaptionCall, LLC v. Ultratec, Inc., Case IPR2013-00780, Paper 35, 9 (Final Written Decision) (PTAB 2015) (reaffirming our finding in IPR2013- 00549). Patent Owner states that it “does not agree” with that definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, and that, “without waiving the foregoing objection and reserving all rights,” states that it will “appl[y]” our prior definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art “for purposes of this Response.” PO Resp. 3. By not setting forth arguments advocating a particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, and by applying our prior definition, Patent Owner has waived arguments for any other definition. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, as expressed by its declarant, Mr. Occhiogrosso. Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 26–27. This person typically has “a bachelor’s degree” slip op. at 35

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

    “understand a “communication link,” as claimed, to refer to the “communication line” described in the specification. In particular, the link is “intended not only to apply to a traditional land-line . . . but also to all equivalents that offer similar functionality.” Id. at 8:60–63. A link could be “a portion of the bandwidth” of a particular connection, such that a single mode of connection (e.g., IP) could carry out two types of communication (voice and text), with each type corresponding to a different “communication link.” See id. at 8:44–47, 8:63–65. For example, as explained in the ’838 patent, “[e]ach of the telephone lines could be . . . a portion of the bandwidth of an ISDN or DSL service.” Id. at 8:53–65. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s construction of “communication link” as “any communication session, protocol, link, connection, or path distinguishable from [another] communication link[].”” slip op. at 22

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

    “3. Combination of References As we discussed above, Petitioner’s combination takes the two-line” slip op. at 43

  Patent outcomesUS 8,908,838 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,908,838
• Shinn Fu Company Of America, Inc. / Shinn Fu Corporation v. The Tire Hanger CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 22, 2016 · IPR2015-00208 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 are unpatentable under the stated §102 and §103 grounds; the motion to amend is granted, and substitute claims 6–10 are patentable over the prior art of record.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “that requires construction beyond what was done at the time of institution. Specifically, substitute claim 6 replaces the term “placing” with the new term “hanging.” We see no reason to interpret “hanging” apart from its plain and ordinary meaning. Thus, consistent with its dictionary definition, we construe “hanging” as “to fasten to some elevated point without support from below.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed. (2000) (emphasis added). The substitute claims also use the transitional phrase “consisting essentially of,” which Shinn Fu argues should be construed presumptively as equivalent to “comprising.” Opp. 3–4 (citing Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2111.03). Tire Hanger argues for a narrower construction because, in its view, any additional steps would “materially change the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed method,” pointing to column 1, lines 26–59, of the ’897 patent. Reply 3 (citing Ex. 1002). We are not persuaded that a skilled artisan would view adding a simple extra step, such as raising the wheel to trip a safety latch while removing the wheel from the support arm (see, e.g., Ex. 1012, Fig. 2, 2:61–70), as materially changing the basic objective of the claimed invention in terms of being “easily accessible within the work space,” “remain[ing] out of the way,” and “not requir[ing] workers to bend over,” as made clear in the specification. Ex. 1002, 1:54–59. Thus, we determine that the phrase “consisting essentially of” should be construed as equivalent to “comprising,” so long as any additional unlisted steps “do not have a material effect on the basic and novel characteristics” of the claimed method. PPG Indus., Inc. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 1998).” slip op. at 6

  • ScopeMotion to amend, grantedDecided for patent owner

    “enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent or introduce new matter.” Shinn Fu argues that claim 9, which Tire Hanger proposes as a substitute for original claim 4, impermissibly enlarges claim scope by deleting the requirement that the individual “does not have to bend significantly at the waist to guide the wheel over the hanger.” That omission, in Shinn Fu’s view, makes claim 9 broader, not narrower, because it infers that an individual may indeed be bending over while handling the wheel on the support arm. Id. at 21–22. We disagree. Claim 9 depends from substitute claim 6, which recites that, when the vehicle is elevated, “the human can remove the wheel without bending over,” and when the wheel is on the support arm, the wheel can be removed “without the human bending over.” Thus, as a matter of dependency, claim 9 incorporates the limitations from claim 6 that entail handling the wheel on the support arm “without the human bending over.” That an amendment simply removes a limitation from a dependent claim and adds it 11 Shinn Fu also argues that the Motion to Amend should be denied because Tire Hanger failed to comply with its obligation of first “conferring with the Board” before filing the Motion, as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a). Opp. 2. We are not inclined to deny the Motion to Amend on this procedural ground. Before filing the Motion, Tire Hanger’s legal representative contacted the Board to seek clarification on whether a conference call was necessary and was advised it was not. Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 1–4. As such, we are satisfied that Tire Hanger fulfilled its obligation of conferring with the Board. to the claim from which it depends does not mean that the amendment has broadened the scope of the dependent claim from which the limitation has been removed. As such, we are not persuaded by Shinn Fu’s argument. Rather, we find that Tire Hanger’s amendment does not violate the prohibition on enlarging claim scope.” slip op. at 17

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner

    “support for its use of the term “human” in the proposed substitute claims. Opp. 23. According to Shinn Fu, the specification only refers to a “worker” performing the steps of removing and replacing the vehicle’s wheel, not a “human.” Id. In Shinn Fu’s view, by using the term “human,” rather than “worker,” in the substitute claims, Tire Hanger has broadened the claims to include “such embodiments or species as newborns, toddlers, children, disabled people, and decrepit people,” for which the specification purportedly lacks written description support. Id. We construe claims based on a reasonable interpretation in light of the specification and prosecution history. Shinn Fu’s proposed construction is unreasonable. The specification of the ’897 patent speaks expressly in terms of “individuals in handling tire/wheel assemblies when mounting and removing them from vehicles.” Ex. 1002, 1:41–43 (emphasis added). Likewise, the original claims refer to “a person” and “an individual” in describing removal of the wheel from the vehicle. Id. at 8:24–30. Those disclosures provide clear support for use of the term “human” in the substitute claims. Thus, we are not persuaded that Tire Hanger’s proposed amendment of the claims lacks written description support.” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Komorita, on the other hand, presents a different picture because it clearly discloses what is called a “tire hanger” on an automotive lift. Ex. 1004, Abstract, Fig. 29. Even so, Tire Hanger asserts that the claimed method is patentable over Komorita because Komorita “merely teaches placing a wheel in a cradle” for holding the wheel from below, not “hanging the wheel on the support arm” or “guiding a hole in the wheel over the support arm,” as required by substitute claim 6. Mot. 13–14; Reply 9; Tr. 30–31. Thus, the question arises as to whether “hanging” a wheel on “a support arm,” per claim 6, is patentably distinct from supporting the wheel from below in a cradle, per Komorita. We conclude it is. To begin, we previously construed the term “hanging” to mean “to attach or place something so that it is held up without support from below.” See section III.A.2 above. Notwithstanding that Komorita is labeled as a “tire hanger,” it is clear from Komorita that the structure actually disclosed is not a hanger but a cradle that supports the wheel from below. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 113, 114, Fig. 29. Thus, given our claim construction, Komorita does not appear to meet the “hanging” limitation of substitute claim 6. Moreover, the ’897 patent expressly distinguishes the claimed invention from cradle-like structures, such as that of Komorita. Notably, the ’897 patent describes various embodiments of hangers, each of which is “adapted to fit inside the rim of the tire/wheel assembly.” Ex. 1002, 6:17–21 (emphasis added). Figure 6 of the ’897 patent depicts one such embodiment with the hanger inside of the tire/wheel assembly. The ’897 patent goes on to state that “other structures may be used” to support a tire/wheel assembly, such as “an arcuate cradle” configured “to receive a tire therein . . . to rest the tire in the cradle.” Id. at 6:22–24 (emphases added). Further, another embodiment of a cradle is described that includes “a plurality of arms . . . adapted to receive and hold a tire therein,” and where the tire “rests in the cradle.” Id. at 6:35–37 (emphases added). A plain reading of the ’897 patent reveals that the hanger structures (id. at 6:15–21) are a separate embodiment from the cradle structures (id. at 6:22–42) because they are disclosed as “other structures” and because their modes of retaining the tire/wheel assembly are different. The hanger structure allows the tire/wheel assembly to hang thereon, and includes a specific structure adapted to fit inside a hole in the tire rim. Id. at 6:15–21. In contrast, the cradle structure receives a tire therein, and comprises a structure adapted to fit around and below the outside of the tire. Id. at 6:22–42. As such, we find that there is a structural distinction between hangers and cradles. Although the ’897 patent discloses both hangers and cradles, proposed” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 6,681,897 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 6,681,897
• Sega Of America, Inc. / Ubisoft, Inc. et al. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. And Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 10, 2016 · IPR2014-01453 · APJ Donna M Praiss · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: claims 1–11 and 17–20 as anticipated by Schull; claims 10–11 also as obvious over Schull; claims 12–14 as anticipated by Logan or obvious over Haines and Manduley; claims 15–16 as obvious …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). An invention “composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Moreover, a determination of unpatentability on the ground of obviousness must include “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The obviousness analysis “should be made explicit” and it “can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.” slip op. at 24

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “In addition, we do not find credible Dr. DiEuliis’s testimony that the text in Figure 2B, which states “registration no. generated from user details added to serial no. is encrypted and re-arranged,” describes the addition of two numbers (registration no. and serial no.). There is no previous step in the flowchart depicted in Figure 2B that describes the step of generating the registration number to indicate that the registration number is an input, rather than an output. Ex. 1025, Fig. 2B; see Ex. 1026, Fig. 2. Further, as explained next, the “user details” encompass text, which further explains why the flowchart is not discussing the addition of numbers.” slip op. at 17

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not reached

    “Regarding Petitioner’s assertion that certain claim terms lack definiteness or written description support, because those issues are neither appropriate for an inter partes review proceeding nor briefed by the parties, we do not address them in this decision. See 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). For purposes of this decision and for the reasons expressed by the District Court, we adopt and apply the constructions provided in the table above. See Ex. 1008, 53–54, 58–61.” slip op. at 12

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

    “We are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Schull discloses a summation algorithm for generating its Passwordable ID. As explained by Petitioner, Schull’s algorithm combines three ID numbers: Program ID, Feature ID, and Target ID, which Petitioner refers to as X, Y, and Z in its explanation. Pet. 21. The X number has “N” digits, the Y number has “M” digits, and the Z number has “T” digits. Id. The algorithm combines the numbers X, Y, and Z “(e.g., by concatenating them to produce a number” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 5,490,216 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 5,490,216
• Sega Of America, Inc. / Ubisoft, Inc. et al. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. And Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 10, 2016 · IPR2015-01026 · APJ Donna M Praiss · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: claims 1–11 and 17–20 over Schull, claims 12–14 over Logan and Haines with Manduley, and claims 15–16 over Logan and Grundy.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s evidence that the Australian provisional applications conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art a summation algorithm or a summer and equivalents thereof. The preponderance of the evidence is that the cited disclosures from the Australian provisional applications are insufficient for this purpose.” slip op. at 15

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “In addition, we do not find credible Dr. DiEuliis’s testimony that the text in Figure 2B, which states “registration no. generated from user details added to serial no. is encrypted and re-arranged,” describes the addition of two numbers (registration no. and serial no.). There is no previous step in the flowchart depicted in Figure 2B that describes the step of generating the registration number to indicate that the registration number is an input, rather than an output. Ex. 1025, Fig. 2B; see Ex. 1026, Fig. 2. Further, as explained next, the “user details” encompass text, which further explains why the flowchart is not discussing the addition of numbers.” slip op. at 17

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

    “We are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Schull discloses a summation algorithm for generating its Passwordable ID. As explained by Petitioner, Schull’s algorithm combines three ID numbers: Program ID, Feature ID, and Target ID, which Petitioner refers to as X, Y, and Z in its explanation. Pet. 21. The X number has “N” digits, the Y number has “M” digits, and the Z number has “T” digits. Id. The algorithm combines the numbers X, Y, and Z “(e.g., by concatenating them to produce a number 3 Patent Owner does not dispute Dr. Madisetti’s observation that Schull contains a typographical error (referring first to P, F, and T-digits and then to N, M, and T-digits) and his determination that N and M are equivalent to P and F. Ex. 1007 ¶ 41. with N+M+T digits)”. Ex. 1002, 7:24–25; Pet. 21; Ex. 1007 ¶ 41. In 1992, concatenating three integers to produce the desired result “boils down to two basic approaches: (1) multiplying the first integer and second integer by a power of ten (dependent on the number of digits of the subsequent numbers) and adding the three integers together, or (2) converting the integers to ‘strings,’ concatenating the strings, and converting the result back to an integer.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 42. Using the former approach to produce a number with the combined number of digits as the numbers being combined, which Petitioner argues is the one disclosed in Schull, Dr. Madisetti describes the mathematical operations that can be performed programmatically. The mathematical operation provided by Dr. Madisetti is X*10(M+T) + Y*10T + Z, which uses multiplication and addition. Id. ¶¶ 44; Pet. 21. According to Dr. Madisetti, this approach is a summation algorithm and is “computationally quicker” for the reason that “it is a matter of performing basic calculations and processing smaller numbers, as opposed to converting, combining and reconverting large strings . . . .” Ex. 1007 ¶ 43.” slip op. at 28

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

    “supports Petitioner’s assertion that claim 12 would have been obvious over the combination of Haines and Manduley. As an initial matter, we find Haines and Manduley to be analogous art. The PTO and its reviewing courts have developed and applied a two-step “test” to determine whether a prior art reference is “analogous” art and therefore may be used as evidence with respect to a question of obviousness under § 103. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032 (CCPA 1979). Step 1 requires an answer to the following question: “Is the reference within the field of the inventor’s endeavor?” If the answer is “yes,” then the reference is “analogous” and therefore may be used as evidence. If the answer is “no,” then Step 2 requires an answer to the following question: “Is the reference reasonably pertinent to the particular problem the inventor was trying to solve?” If the answer is “yes,” then the reference is analogous and therefore may be used as evidence. Haines and Manduley are analogous art because, like the ’216 patent, they relate to systems for remotely permitted use of software on a device. Ex. 1007 ¶ 59. The scope of the ’216 patent is not limited to personal computers, but, rather, any “platform” on which software runs. Ex. 1001, 2:52–55 (“In broad terms, the system according to the invention is designed and adapted to allow digital data or software to run in a use mode on a platform . . . .”), 2:24–30 (“[T]he term ‘platform’ denotes an environment to be associated with a computer device such as a microprocessor or other data processing device which permits execution of the digital data . . . .”). Even if the Haines and Manduley references could be considered in a different field of endeavor than the ’216 patent because their intended use is postage and parcel systems rather than a personal computer, they are analogous art for the additional reason that they relate to the problem of restricting access to software to those who have a right to use it. Ex. 1001, 2:40–44 (“In this specification, ‘use mode’ refers to use of the digital data or software by its execution on a platform so as to fulfill the seller’s/licensor’s obligations in relation to the sale or license of the right to execute the digital data or software in the use mode.”); Ex. 1005, Abstr., 1:41–49 (“only authorized meter reconfigurations can occur”), 11:13–17; Ex. 1006, Abstr, 1:29–32 (“the marketer may wish to charge the customer a separate amount for each software function or each variety of data and the customer may wish to pick and choose among the functions and/or varieties”), 2:31–63.” slip op. at 43

  Patent outcomesUS 5,490,216 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 5,490,216
• TRW Automotive U.S. LLC v. Magna Electronics Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 21, 2015 · IPR2015-01450 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 5, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 34–36 were unpatentable under § 103.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “Pet.”) requesting inter partes review of claims 1–3, 5, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 34–36 of U.S. Patent No. 8,692,659 B2 (Ex. 1002, “the ’659 patent”). Magna Electronics Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”) to the Petition. An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of claims 1–3, 5, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 34–36 of the ’659 patent. Accordingly, the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted. slip op. at 2

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

    “reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015). On this record and for purposes of this decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 5

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner

    “As best understood from FIG. 16B, extension 8513 of header console 8512 extends downwardly behind the upper portion of windshield W (such portion of windshield W which typically includes a shadeband element as known in the art) and includes a forked portion 8513a, such as an inverted V-shaped or U-shaped portion, which straddles a mirror mounting button 8536 that is mounted to windshield W. Optionally, the downwardly extending portion of header/header console 8512 may be mounted to the inner surface of windshield W, such as by an adhesive or may be releasably, mechanically attached such as by being received by and/or supported by one or more attaching members adhered to the inner surface of the windshield, such as by attachment members, including rails, channels, or the like. Ex. 1012, col. 28, ll. 15–28 (emphasis added). The above disclosure in the ’287 patent describes a console that straddles (and thus is local to) a mirror mounting button and is mounted to a vehicle windshield using attachment members, such as rails or channels. Id. As such, the above disclosure in the ’287 patent is sufficient to show that the inventors had possession of the claimed attachment members. See Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010).” slip op. at 6

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not found

    “obvious to combine the cited teachings of Schofield and Klappenbach. Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to use the vehicle headlight dimming control in Schofield rather than the rain sensor in Klappenbach because the vehicle headlight dimming control in Schofield provides more functionality. Id. at 46–48 (citing Ex. 1113 ¶¶ 56, 59). Petitioner’s argument explains why one of ordinary skill in the art would select the vehicle headlight dimming control in Schofield rather than the rain sensor in Klappenbach, but does not explain why it would have been obvious to mount the vehicle headlight dimming control in Schofield using the fastening device and housing in Klappenbach. Petitioner argues that the housing in Klappenbach would advantageously seal the components of the camera in Schofield to prevent intrusion of elements from the environment. Pet. 47–48 (citing Ex. 1113 ¶ 58). Petitioner’s argument is not persuasive because Schofield teaches that the imaging sensor module disclosed therein already is protected from such intrusions. Ex. 1007, col. 3, l. 67–col. 4, l. 4. Further, the housing in Klappenbach is not just a protective housing for sensor components, but, rather, a structure designed specifically to accommodate transmitter 10 and receiver 11, as shown in Figure 1. Ex. 1010, col. 3, ll. 46–67, Fig. 1. Petitioner also argues that the fastening device in Klappenbach can be preinstalled. Pet. 48 (citing Ex. 1113 ¶ 58). Petitioner does not explain, though, why that would have made it obvious to use the fastening device and housing in Klappenbach with the vehicle headlight dimming control in Schofield. Moreover, Petitioner does not provide a specific explanation or identify specific evidence showing that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the housing in Figures 1 and 2 of Klappenbach is, or can be, configured to accommodate a forward facing camera generally or the vehicle headlight dimming control in Figure 1 of Schofield particularly. Pet. 45–48. Therefore, on this record, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the cited teachings of Blank, Schofield, and Klappenbach in the manner proposed by Petitioner.” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 8,692,659
• TRW Automotive U.S. LLC v. Magna Electronics Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 21, 2015 · IPR2015-01431 · APJ Phillip J Kauffman · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 62–66 and 69 were unpatentable under § 103.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of claims 62–66 and 69 of the ’659 patent. Accordingly, the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted. B.” slip op. at 2

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner

    “§ 112, first paragraph, does not require the description to be literally the same as the claim language at issue. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 265 (CCPA 1976); In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 969 (CCPA 1971). Rather, by whatever language, the specification only must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date of the application, the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing with approval the standard in Vas Cath, and stating “the test for sufficiency is 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.”). Petitioner contends that pursuant to the holding in Lockwood, the specific combination found in each of the challenged claims of the ’659 patent must be disclosed in the ’287 patent in order to meet the written description standard. See Pet. 10–17 (citing Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). To the extent that Petitioner suggests that the combination must be disclosed in a single embodiment, we disagree. Rather, in Lockwood, the court relied upon the written description standard found in Vas-Cath, and held that because one of the continuations in the chain of five applications did not describe the claim features, the later patent could not claim priority to the earlier patent. Lockwood, 107 F3d at 1571–72 (citing Vas-Cath Inc., 935 F.2d at 1563–64). Consequently, we agree with Patent Owner that the written description requirement does not compel that a single embodiment fully describe the invention. See Prelim. Resp. 9–12. With this standard in mind we analyze Petitioner’s contentions.” slip op. at 7

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “We have reviewed the parties’ assertions and supporting evidence, and, for the reasons discussed below, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that the ’287 patent is prior art.” slip op. at 6

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “b) Rationale Petitioner’s rationale for the proposed modification is not persuasive. First, Petitioner contends that it would have been obvious to utilize Klappenbach’s housing 2 in Blank’s device to provide rain sensor functionality. Pet. 37. Then Petitioner reasons it would have been obvious to replace Klappenbach’s rain sensor with the improved functionality of Schofield’s camera that includes rain sensing capability. See id. at 43. Petitioner’s argument explains why one of ordinary skill in the art would select Schofield’s camera, rather than the Klappenbach’s rain sensor, but does not explain why it would have been obvious to mount Schofield’s camera in Klappenbach’s housing. See Prelim. Resp. 32–33. Second, Petitioner reasons that Klappenbach’s housing would advantageously seal the components of Schofield’s camera to prevent intrusion of elements from the environment. Pet. 38, 43–44 (citing Ex. 1713 ¶ 59). However, Schofield’s camera already is protected from such intrusions. See Ex. 1007, 3:67–4:4; Prelim. Resp. 32, 34. Third, Petitioner reasons that Klappenbach’s technique of attaching the fastening device during windshield manufacture is a manufacturing advantage because the sensor is not mounted until after the motor vehicle is built. Pet. 37–38 (citing Ex. 1010, 2:11–16; Ex. 1713 ¶ 58). As discussed above, Klappenbach’s device is mounted pressed against and at the angle of the windshield, while Schofield’s is mounted spaced from the windshield and horizontal. Petitioner does not explain persuasively how Klappenbach’s technique provides a manufacturing advantage for a device such as Schofield’s camera that is mounted in a different manner. See Prelim. Resp. 32 (noting this advantage is particular to a refractive rain sensor). Further, Petitioner’s reasoning is contradictory in that it touts that Schofield’s camera “advantageously eliminates the requirement for optical coupling,” yet relies upon Klappenbach’s mounting technique for optical coupling. See Ex. 1713 ¶ 59. 5. Conclusion For at least the foregoing reasons, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 62, 63, 65, 66, and 69 would have been obvious over Blank, Schofield, Klappenbach, and Batavia. C. OBVIOUSNESS OVER BLANK, SCHOFIELD, KLAPPENBACH, BATAVIA, CARTER, AND ADMITTED PRIOR ART” slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,692,659
• TRW Automotive U.S. LLC v. Magna Electronics Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 21, 2015 · IPR2015-01430 · APJ Phillip J Kauffman · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 14–21 and 24 were unpatentable under § 103.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of claims 14–21 and 24 of the ’659 patent. Accordingly, the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted. B.” slip op. at 2

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

    “specific combination found in each of the challenged claims of the ’659 patent must be disclosed in the ’287 patent in order to meet the written description standard. See Pet. 10–16 (citing Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). To the extent that Petitioner suggests that the combination must be disclosed in a single embodiment, we disagree.. Lockwood contains no such explicit holding. Rather, in Lockwood, the court relied upon the written description standard found in Vas-Cath, and held that because one of the continuations in the chain of five applications did not describe the claim features, the later patent could not claim priority to the earlier patent. Lockwood, 107 F3d at 1571–72 (citing Vas-Cath Inc., 935 F.2d at 1563–64). Consequently, we agree with Patent Owner that the written description requirement does not compel that a single embodiment fully describe the invention. See Prelim. Resp. 9–12. With this standard in mind we analyze Petitioner’s contentions.” slip op. at 7

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “a) Structure Configured to Accommodate a Camera Independent claim 1 requires a structure configured to accommodate a forward facing camera. Petitioner relies on Klappenbach’s housing 2 as the claimed structure to accommodate Schofield’s forward facing camera (dimming control 12 having image sensor module 14 that may be a video camera). Pet. 40–44. As Petitioner acknowledges, Klappenbach’s rain sensor does not include a camera; rather, Klappenbach’s outer housing part 2 is designed specifically to accommodate transmitter 10 and receiver 11. See id. at 43; Ex. 1010, 3:46–67, Figs. 1, 2. Rather, Klappenbach’s outer housing part 2 is designed specifically to accommodate transmitter 10 and receiver 11, as shown in Figure 1. Ex. 1010, 3:46–67, Fig. 1. Klappenbach’s sensor is pressed against, and at the angle of the windshield. Id. at 1:45–59; Figs. 1, 2. In contrast, Schofield’s camera is spaced from the windshield, and oriented horizontally. See Ex. 1007, Fig. 1; Prelim. Resp. 27–28. Petitioner does not provide a specific explanation or identify specific evidence showing that the housing in Figures 1 and 2 of Klappenbach also is configured to accommodate a forward facing camera. See Pet. 36–38, 41– 44. Consequently, Petitioner has not addressed persuasively this difference between the prior art and the claimed subject matter, nor explained sufficiently how claim 56 is unpatentable. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966) (factor 2); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4).” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “b) Rationale Petitioner’s rationale for the proposed modification is not persuasive. First, Petitioner contends that it would have been obvious to utilize Klappenbach’s housing 2 in Blank’s device to provide rain sensor functionality. Pet. 37. Then Petitioner reasons it would have been obvious to replace Klappenbach’s rain sensor with the improved functionality of Schofield’s camera that includes rain sensing capability. See id. at 43. Petitioner’s argument explains why one of ordinary skill in the art would select Schofield’s camera rather than the Klappenbach’s rain sensor, but does not explain why it would have been obvious to mount Schofield’s camera in Klappenbach’s housing. See Prelim. Resp. 32–33. Second, Petitioner reasons that Klappenbach’s housing would advantageously seal the components of Schofield’s camera to prevent intrusion of elements from the environment. Pet. 38, 43–43 (citing Ex. 1613 ¶ 58). However, Schofield’s camera already is protected from such intrusions. See Ex. 1007, 3:67–4:4; Prelim. Resp. 32, 34. Third, Petitioner reasons that Klappenbach’s technique of attaching the fastening device during windshield manufacture is an advantage because the sensor is not mounted until after the motor vehicle is built. Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1010, 2:11–16; Ex. 1613 ¶ 58). As discussed above, Klappenbach’s device is mounted pressed against and at the angle of the windshield, while Schofield’s is mounted spaced from the windshield and horizontal. Petitioner does not explain persuasively how Klappenbach’s technique provides a manufacturing advantage for a device such as Schofield’s camera that is mounted in a different manner. See Prelim. Resp. 32 (noting this advantage is particular to a refractive rain sensor). Further, Petitioner’s reasoning is contradictory in that it touts that Schofield’s camera “advantageously eliminates the requirement for optical coupling,” yet relies upon Klappenbach’s mounting technique for optical coupling. See Ex. 1613 ¶ 59.” slip op. at 14

  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,692,659

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.