• 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
• Charles River Laboratories, Inc. v. Seikagaku CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 8, 2026 · IPR2025-00440 · APJ Tawen Chang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 21 is unpatentable as obvious over Mizumura with either the ’498 PCT or McClymont; the Revised Contingent Motion to Amend proposing claim 22 is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “overlap to a significant degree, i.e., a person with a Ph.D. in a discipline related to biological sciences and having had at least two years of work experience. However, the parties’ proposals differ slightly in the specific subjects in which a POSA would have had a doctoral degree, and whether the person’s work experience must have been directly related to horseshoe crab Factor C. As an initial matter, we find that a rigid requirement as to the subject of a POSA’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 “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 POSA 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 POSA, “[m]ore education could substitute for experience, and vice versa.” See, e.g., Pet. 19; Ex. 1065, 99:14–100:3. with respect to the claims of the ’318 patent would have had a Ph.D. in molecular biology, biochemistry, or a related discipline, and about 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 POSA 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 13

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

    “C. Claim Construction The parties agree that “the terms in claim 21 can be afforded their plain and ordinary meaning for purposes of this proceeding” without further construction. Pet. 19–20; PO Resp. 11. Because express claim construction is not needed to resolve the issues in this case, we need not, and do not, construe expressly any claim term for purposes of this Decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only 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 14

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

    “Carrying Out the Invention section, that “[t]he Factor C of the present invention is a Factor C derived from a horseshoe crab,” and states later in the same section that “[e]xamples of the horseshoe crab include . . . Limulus polyphemus.” Ex. 1006, 40. However, none of the remaining portions of ’767 application cited by Patent Owner relate directly to L. polyphemus; instead, the remaining portions of ’767 application cited by Patent Owner are directed to other species, in particular the Japanese horseshoe crab T. tridentatus. Further, Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Schaefer, conceded that the ’767 application does not contain Factor C sequence information for L. polyphemus. See, e.g., Ex. 1067, 44:25–45:23. Although “[n]o length requirement exists for a disclosure to adequately describe an invention,” Falko-Gunter, 448 F.3d at 1365–1366, we are persuaded that a POSA would not, based on the totality of the above disclosures, reasonably understand that the inventors were in possession of the claimed HEK-293 recombinant L. polyphemus Factor C protein, in view of the state of the art as of December 10, 2013. In this regard, we note that adequate written description of a biological molecule, such as a HEK293 recombinant L. polyphemus Factor C protein, requires “more than a mere statement that it is part of the invention and reference to a potential method for isolating it”; instead, what is required is “‘a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties,’ not a mere wish or plan for obtaining the claimed chemical invention.” The Regents of the” slip op. at 21

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

    “Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Neither do we see Petitioner’s arguments regarding the December 10, 2013 priority date to be “mutually opposed” as Dr. Schaefer testified. Ex. 1067, 216:4– 24. Instead, we credit evidence of record, including Dr. Jain’s testimony and the February 22, 2018 Mizumura Declaration, that existence of the full sequence would permit a more complete analysis and that such an analysis would provide a POSA with a reasonable expectation that the claimed L. polyphemus recombinant protein would have a residual activity within the claimed range. See, e.g., Ex. 1029, 2–5; Ex. 1010, 48; Ex. 1065, 117:14– 130:24 (explaining that comparison of partial sequences in the Tokunaga 1991 publication showed “difference around the cleavage site” between T. tridentatus and L. polyphemus but comparison of the full sequence revealed that “the catalytic triad of histidine, serine, aspartate . . . to be more similar between Tachypleus and Limulus”). Patent Owner asserts that “Petitioner’s reliance on a statement made by Dr. Mizumura in a declaration submitted during prosecution of the ’767 Application fails to fill the gap in the analysis” regarding reasonable expectation of success, because the declaration “offers no evidence of the percentage of conserved amino acid substitutions that exist to support the conclusion that a POSA would have expected residual activity to be maintained between Tachypleus tridentatus and Limulus polyphemus” PO Resp. 47. However, as noted above, Dr. Mizumura provides an alignment of Factor C proteins from the two different species of horseshoe crab, determines that the similarity between the amino acid sequence is 99.5%, states that the amino acid residues that can undergo N-type sugar chain that L. polyphemus, like T. tridentatus, would also be less susceptible to inhibition by ions. Ex. 1029, 4–5. For the reasons discussed above, we also disagree with Patent Owner’s assertion that Petitioner’s reasonable expectation of success argument is “nothing more than conclusory assertions with no support.” PO Resp. 46. Rather, we find Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a POSA would have had reason to combine the teachings of Mizumura and the ’498 PCT, with a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the Factor C protein recited in claim 21.” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 11,236,318 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,236,318
• Bayer Cropscience LP / Monsanto Company v. Corteva Agriscience LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Dec 19, 2023 · IPR2023-01037 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–29 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. Considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, for reasons explained below, we conclude that Petitioner shows a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail with respect to at least one of the ’283 patent’s challenged claims. We decline to deny the Petition on the basis of discretion under § 325(d). We institute an inter partes review on all challenged claims. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355 (2018).” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied

    “35 U.S.C. § 325(d). In evaluating whether to deny institution under 325(d), the Board has considered several non-exclusive factors: (a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination; (d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which a petitioner relies on the prior art or a patent owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether a petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Office erred in evaluating the asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. See Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to § III.C.5, first para.). Factors (a), (b), and (d) relate to whether the art or arguments in the Petition are the same or substantially the same as those previously presented to the Office. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 10 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (“Advanced Bionics”). Factors (c), (e), and (f) “relate to whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office” in the Office’s prior consideration of that art or arguments. Id. Under Advanced Bionics’s two-part framework, we first determine whether the same or substantially the same art or arguments previously were presented to the Office. Id. at 8, 10. If “either condition of [the] first part of Office has been shown. Id. at 8, 10.” slip op. at 68

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s contentions are, at this stage, unavailing. Petitioner’s proposal could have been more specific, but it is not so lacking that the institution burden is unmet. It is reasonably clear that, in indicating that a POSA would have an advanced degree (like a Ph.D.) and years of experience in a “relevant discipline,” Petitioner is referring to the technical areas it cited previously, such as protein/enzyme biochemistry. Pet. 18. Petitioner’s definition does not ignore subject matter like “transgenic plants” because it states that the POSA would be able to apply key scientific concepts here (e.g., protein biochemistry, enzyme activity, and substrate selectivity) to such plants. Moreover, although Patent Owner complains about Petitioner’s POSA definition, it does not offer its own or explain why Petitioner’s challenge fails under any alternative definition. At this stage, Patent Owner’s suggestion that Dr. Hausinger lacks relevant expertise or qualifications of at least a POSA is unpersuasive. The ’283 patent relies on Dr. Hausinger’s own prior work. See, e.g., 1002, 18:44–50 (citing Hogan (Ex. 1027)), 50:51–55 (citing Fukumori (Ex. 2001)) (both references co-authored by Dr. Hausinger). Patent Owner also cites Dr. Hausinger’s work as evidencing what “skilled artisans” understood about the claimed and prior art technology, including αKGD dioxygenases, which is a focus of the parties’ arguments. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 8 (“Thus, as reflected in Hogan and Hotopp [(co-authored by Dr. Hausinger)], skilled artisans understood the structure-function relationships of Group II αKG-dependent dioxygenases . . . .”); Ex. 1029 (Hotopp 2002)). During prosecution, Dr. Wright’s declaration relied on Dr. Hausinger’s research. See, e.g., Ex. 1008, 462 (Wright I ¶ 13 (citing Hotopp)), 658 (Wright II artisans”)). And, Applicant’s other declarant, Dr. Nair, who testified about the POSA’s perspective at the time of the invention, appears to have academic and prior work history focused on chemistry, biochemistry, and enzymology without significant background in subjects like “controlling weeds” about which Patent Owner questions Dr. Hausinger’s qualifications. See, e.g., Ex. 1008, 590–591.17 Patent Owner will have the chance to cross-examine Dr. Hausinger in this proceeding. If Patent Owner feels we should discount Dr. Hausinger’s testimony due to lack of qualifications, it may raise such argument in trial. For now, we apply Petitioner’s proposed POSA level, with the” slip op. at 23

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

    “C. Claim Construction In inter partes review, we construe claims using the same claim construction standard used to construe claims in a civil action before the courts under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing claims in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning as understood by the POSA and the patent’s prosecution history. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). We need only construe terms that are in controversy and only as needed to resolve the matters in dispute. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019). 17 The closest work we see from Dr. Nair related to herbicide resistant transgenic plants is his 2019 paper co-written with the applicant’s employees (e.g., Dr. Wright), which paper appears to be a follow-on investigation into the AAD-1 proteins of the patent. Ex. 1008, 594–595; Ex. 1019, Abstr. proceeding. Pet. 17; Prelim. Resp. 20. It is not apparent at this stage that any terms need further interpretation to resolve the matters in dispute.18” slip op. at 24

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,149,283
• Yantai Jereh Petroleum Equipment & Technologies Co., Ltd v. BJ Energy Solutions, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 6, 2023 · PGR2021-00103 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–28 were not shown unpatentable on any asserted ground; the Board found the prior art failed to establish key limitations and rejected the enablement and indefiniteness challenges.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In reply, Petitioner argues that the ’764 patent’s control system is not complex as there are no detailed algorithms, logic, or software. Pet. Reply 4. Instead, the control system merely raises or lowers power of the pumps in accordance with the demand HHP of the job design. Id. (citing Ex. 1036, 97:15–98:18, 98:21–99:25, 100:1–101:25, 102:2–7, 115:4–9, 115:24–116:4, 116:17–22; Ex. 1001, 5:2–6, 6:36–7:7, 10:4–64). According to Petitioner, this “rudimentary control concept” does not necessitate the higher skill level proposed by Patent Owner. Id. Petitioner further notes that Dr. Adnan testifies that “a mechanical engineer who has worked in the industry developing programming and control systems could fall within this definition,” and the person of ordinary skill in the art “is ‘just a specifier.’” Id. (quoting Ex. 2003 ¶ 22; Ex. 1036, 161:21–164:18). Based on our review of the record before us, particularly the ’764 patent’s description and Dr. Adnan’s testimony, we agree with Petitioner that the ordinary level of skill in the art does not require the high level of specialized knowledge of control systems suggested by Patent Owner. Moreover, we find that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition, although our conclusions with respect to obviousness would be the same if we were to apply Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Based on the full record, we are not persuaded that Mr. Marscher is unqualified to serve as an expert in this proceeding. As noted above, a person of ordinary skill in the art is not required to have been a fracturing operator. Patent Owner’s proposed definition does not even require experience as a fracturing operator. See PO Resp. 20–21. Furthermore, Mr. Marscher testifies that he has extensive experience developing pumps for fracturing applications. Ex. 2027, 6:24–8:7. Mr. Marscher also testifies that he has experience with control systems relating to pumps and pumps units. Id. at 212:19–23. This testimony, as well as his declaration and curriculum vitae, show that Mr. Marscher has extensive education and experience in relevant fields. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 8–17; Ex. 1004. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Mr. Marscher’s qualifications or experience provide reason to discount the weight associated with Mr. Marscher’s testimony.” slip op. at 10

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

    “In its Reply, Petitioner argues that the maximum power output value is the pump unit’s highest HHP output and one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood this value is the pump unit’s output power in intermittent duty. Pet. Reply 2–3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 71–72, 123–124; Pet. 9–10; Ex. 1036, 64:17–67:13, 119:17–120:11, 124:7–24, 198:9–200:9, 221:8–222:15). However, even if Petitioner is correct that the “maximum power output value” is near or equivalent to a pump unit’s output power in intermittent duty, we are still not persuaded that the term “maximum intermittent power” should be tied to the “maximum power output value,” in conflict with the definition provided in the Specification. Petitioner also argues that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is indefinite. Pet. Reply 3. For the reasons discussed below (see supra § II.I.1), we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the term “maximum intermittent power,” as defined in the Specification, is indefinite. Thus, based on the complete record before us, we maintain our prior construction of “maximum intermittent power” for this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “3. Additional Terms We determine that we need not expressly construe any other claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes because doing so would have no effect on the analysis below. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only 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 13

  Patent outcomesUS 10,815,764 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,815,764
• Yantai Jereh Petroleum Equipment & Technologies Co., Ltd v. BJ Energy Solutions, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Feb 8, 2022 · PGR2021-00103 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · PGR · Institution

  The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–28 and all petition grounds, finding the Luharuka, API 674, and Karassik challenge more likely than not to prevail on claim 1.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” After considering the Petition and Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, as well as all supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner has satisfied the burden under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) to show that it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied

    “These arguments are not persuasive, however, because Patent Owner does not explain adequately how the disclosures of Oehring and Shampine are cumulative of the disclosure of Mu. In this case, the mere fact that 8 We note that Exhibit 2007 does not have ¶ 95 cited by Patent Owner. not mean necessarily that the references are cumulative of Mu. For instance, Petitioner relies on Mu for allegedly disclosing several claim limitations including “receiving a demand hydraulic horse power (HHP) signal,” “the first output power being in the range of approximately 70% to 100% of a maximum continuous power (MCP) level,” and “the second output power . . . being in the range of approximately 70% of the MCP level to approximately a maximum intermittent power (MIP) level.” Pet. 19–41. Patent Owner does not direct us to any disclosure in Oehring or Shampine that are cumulative of these alleged teachings in Mu. Accordingly, we do not agree with Patent Owner that either of Oehring or Shampine is cumulative of Mu. As such, we determine that Petitioner’s reliance on Mu does not involve the same or substantially the same art or arguments previously presented to the Office, and the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework is not satisfied with respect to Mu. And although Crowe is cited in the ’764 patent (see Ex. 1001, code (56)), Petitioner’s reliance on Crowe is minimal. The ground based on Mu and Crowe, thus, does not implicate § 325(d).” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelOther

    “This dispute presents a factual issue best decided on a complete record. Accordingly, for purposes of the Decision, we determine that no express finding is necessary, and that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We note, however, that our obviousness analysis in this Decision would not differ if we adopted either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Lastly, on the current record, we disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that Mr. Marscher is not qualified to serve as an expert in this proceeding. See Prelim. Resp. 8. Mr. Marscher’s declaration and curriculum vitae show that he has extensive education and experience in relevant fields. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 8–17; Ex. 1004.” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,815,764
• Yantai Jereh Petroleum Equipment & Technologies Co., Ltd v. BJ Energy Solutions, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Feb 8, 2022 · PGR2021-00102 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · PGR · Institution

  The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–28 on all asserted grounds, finding a sufficient likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” After considering the Petition and Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, as well as all supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner has satisfied the burden under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) to show that it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied

    “These arguments are not persuasive, however, because Patent Owner does not explain adequately how the disclosures of Oehring and Shampine are cumulative of the disclosure of Mu. In this case, the mere fact that 8 We note that Exhibit 2007 does not have ¶ 95 cited by Patent Owner. not mean necessarily that the references are cumulative of Mu. For instance, Petitioner relies on Mu for allegedly disclosing several claim limitations including “receiving a demand hydraulic horse power (HHP) signal,” “the first output power being in a selected range of a maximum continuous power (MCP) level,” and “the second output power . . . being in a selected range of the MCP level to a maximum intermittent power (MIP) level.” Pet. 19–41. Patent Owner does not direct us to any disclosure in Oehring or Shampine that are cumulative of these alleged teachings in Mu. Accordingly, we do not agree with Patent Owner that either of Oehring or Shampine is cumulative of Mu. As such, we determine that Petitioner’s reliance on Mu does not involve the same or substantially the same art or arguments previously presented to the Office, and the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework is not satisfied with respect to Mu. And although Crowe is cited in the ’459 patent (see Ex. 1001, code (56)), Petitioner’s reliance on Crowe is minimal. The ground based on Mu and Crowe, thus, does not implicate § 325(d).” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelOther

    “This dispute presents a factual issue best decided on a complete record. Accordingly, for purposes of the Decision, we determine that no express finding is necessary, and that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We note, however, that our obviousness analysis in this Decision would not differ if we adopted either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not explained sufficiently what a “maximum power output value” means in the context of the ’459 patent. Nor has Petitioner explained sufficiently why “maximum intermittent power” should be tied to the “maximum power output value.” In contrast, Patent Owner’s proposed construction is supported by the Specification, although we do not agree with the last clause of the construction because the references to “typical” values do not assist in understanding the claim language. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we preliminarily construe “maximum intermittent power” to mean “an elevated operating output level that the pump unit may operate intermittently throughout its operating life without excessive damage to the pump unit.”” slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,907,459
• SZ Dji Technology Co., Ltd. / Parrot Inc. v. Drone-Control, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 11, 2019 · IPR2018-00207 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable: claims 1, 3–6, 8–11, and 13–15 are anticipated by Thornberg ’983; claims 2, 7, and 12 are obvious over Thornberg ’983 and Karem. The motion to amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner did not file a Patent Owner Response and has not otherwise disputed Petitioner’s proposed level of skill. See Tr. 77:1–6. We find, based on our review of the complete record, that the evidence of record supports a level of ordinary skill in the art consistent with Petitioner’s definition. Our findings are supported by the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record and the ’116 patent. See Ex. 1001, 1:36–37 (“This invention relates generally to radio controlled toys such as airplanes and helicopters.”); Ex. 1006, 1:8–10 (“The present invention relates to the control of remotely operated vehicles, and more particularly to a variable reference for the control of a remotely operated vehicle.”), see id. at 3:41–44 (“The system provides for the referencing of vehicle commands based on an operator frame of reference so that control commands provided by the operator remain intuitive and independent of the orientation of the vehicle with respect to the operator.”). Thus, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art and apply it to our discussion below.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Ex. 1006, 5:22–29. We further observe that once the disclosed pitch/roll commands (i.e., command data) are provided to the pitch axis and roll axis transformation functions, the pitch axis transformation 410 and roll axis transformation 412 use transformation equations to determine a transformed pitch stick signal (TPSS) and a transformed roll stick signal (TRSS). See Ex. 1006, 6:17–28. In other words, the flight control computer transforms received command pitch/roll data into TPSS and TRSS commands. In performing this transformation, the pitch axis transformation function 410 and the roll axis transformation function 412 also receive a transformation angle (θ) input. Id. at 5:30–32. Thornberg ’983 teaches that the transformation angle θ is determined based on the true heading of the vehicle as determined by the navigation system 36 and the desired vehicle reference and vehicle reference mode. Id. at 5:31–35. As discussed above, we find that the true heading of the vehicle as determined by navigation system 36 provides motion data generated by a sensor. Thornberg ’983 teaches that the transformations into TPSS and TRSS take into account transformation angle (θ), which Thornberg ’983 teaches is determined based on the true heading (i.e., motion data) of the vehicle and the control data (pitch/roll commands) received from control panel 200 of the remote operator control. See Ex. 1006, 4:29–33, 5:23–25, 5:36–38. Further, in the operator reference mode, the orientation of the operator/remote control upon activation of the operator mode is used as the reference axis (i.e., operator’s coordinate system). Additionally, as noted in the Petition (see Pet. 30–31), Thornberg ’983 teaches a variable operator reference mode in which the operator reference changes based on changes in the orientation of the operator control panel. Ex. 1006, 7:32–35. Based on the disclosure discussed above, we find that the pitch and roll commands received at lines 405, 415 in the operator mode teach command data in “a first coordinate system from a perspective of the remote control device” as recited in claim 1. Moreover, we find that Thornberg ’983 teaches that the received pitch/roll command data is transformed into control data in “a second coordinate system that is from a perspective of the RC aircraft.” Specifically, Thornberg ’983 teaches that the transformation equations 1 and 2 transform the pitch command and roll command based on the difference between the aircraft heading and the reference heading. See Ex. 1066, 7:9–11, 7:19–24. Further, Dr. Hansman testifies that TPSS and TRSS control data control the vehicle in the vehicle’s coordinate system, which is from the perspective of the vehicle. Ex. 1003 ¶ 411. We credit Dr. Hansman’s undisputed testimony in this regard because this testimony is consistent with the disclosure of Thornberg ’983, which teaches, among other things, that “[t]he system provides for the referencing of vehicle commands based on an operator frame of reference so that control commands provided by the operator remain intuitive and independent of the orientation of the vehicle with respect to the operator.” Ex. 1006, 3:41–44.” slip op. at 19

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

    “[a] POSITA would have been motivated to modify Thornberg’s control panel 200 to “control” the UAV 100 in a hovering state, i.e., by sending appropriate lift command data to the vehicle when the operator releases the input controls as Karem teaches, in order to facilitate aerial tasks that may involve a hovering state, such as airborne surveillance, inspection, maintenance, and repair, that Thornberg teaches were “well known” uses of UAVs. Ex. 1006, 1:15-24; Ex. 1003, ¶443. Pet. 45. We are persuaded that Petitioner’s rationale and evidence demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 2, 7, and 12 would have been obvious in view of Thornberg ’983 and Karem. For example, Petitioner’s arguments are supported by the disclosure of Karem, which teaches a remotely-operated vehicle in a hovering state (Ex. 1008, 7:13–23, 32–39, and Thornberg ’983 teaches remotely operated vehicles include helicopters (Ex. 1006, 1:14–17). Further, Petitioner’s arguments are supported by Dr. Hansman’s undisputed testimony that a POSITA would have been motivated to modify Thornberg ’983’s control panel 200 to control UAV 100 in a hovering state, i.e., by sending appropriate lift command data to the vehicle when the operator releases the input controls as Karem teaches, in order to facilitate aerial tasks that may involve a hovering state, such as airborne surveillance, inspection, maintenance, and repair. Ex. 1003 ¶ 443. This testimony is supported by Thornberg ’983’s teaching that (1) airborne surveillance, inspection, maintenance, and repair were well known uses of UAVs; and (2) remote operation of UAVs apply to remotely operated helicopters. See Ex. 1006, 1:15–24.” slip op. at 29

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “In the same manner described in the ’116 patent, we find that the orientation of the control panel in Thornberg ’983 indicates the angular displacement (i.e., position data) of the vehicle relative to the operator mode reference axis because the control panel is directed toward the vehicle. Thornberg ’983’s Figure 2 discloses that the control panel is directly facing the remotely operated vehicle, which is nearly identical to placement of the remote control device and RC aircraft in Figure 5 of the ’116 patent. Ex. 1001, 3:67–4:2, Fig. 5; Ex. 1006, Fig. 2.” slip op. at 50

  Patent outcomesUS 9,079,116 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,079,116
• 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
• 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

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.