- PTAB · Aug 30, 2023 · IPR2023-00521 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 19–61 and 63–81 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Doud anticipates claims 19–61 and 63–75.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim of the ’740 patent. Accordingly, we grant institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateOther
“the application describe the claim limitations exactly,” the application must demonstrate to persons of ordinary skill in the art that the applicants invented a composition including those limitations. Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262. On its face, the range of “at least 0.01 wt. %” encompasses a range that is broader than 0.01–35 wt. %, and Patent Owner does not sufficiently explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand from merely a disclosure of 35 wt.% that the inventors were in possession of the entire claimed range for copper, cobalt, or nickel in the magnesium composition.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedOther
“On this record, the term “at least 0.01 wt. %” in the ’740 patent encompasses values for nickel, copper, and cobalt that are higher than the 35 wt. % (nickel and copper) and 20 wt. % (cobalt) limits outlined in the parent and grandparent applications. Accordingly, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that claim 19 of the ’740 patent is not entitled to the benefit of the filing dates of its priority applications. Challenged claims 20–61 and 63–75 depend from claim 19 and there is no argument presented that these claims have independent written description support in Doud. For example, there is no evidence presented that any of these dependent claims narrow the ranges for each of copper, nickel, and cobalt recited in in the ’295 application for these claims.7 Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we apply Doud as prior art to challenged claims 19–61 and 63–75.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“as the ’740 patent. For example, Doud and the ’740 patent both disclose a method of forming a novel magnesium composite that includes melting an AZ91D magnesium alloy containing 90 wt. % magnesium, 9 wt. % aluminum, and 1 wt. % zinc. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 45, 47; Ex. 1001, 21:43–51, 22:48–53, 33:32–43, 34:9–12. To this alloy is added either 7 wt. % nickel or 10 wt. % copper. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 45, 47, 53, 57; Ex. 1001, 21:48–51, 22:53–56, 33:35–36, 34:12–13. These additives are mixed in the magnesium alloy at a temperature that is less than the melting point of copper or nickel, and the casting is then cooled. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 45, 47, 53, 57; Ex. 1001, 21:51–54, 22:56–58, 33:35, 34:12-13. Doud reports that nickel and copper, when added to molten magnesium, will form Mg2Ni and CuMg2 intermetallic, galvanically-active, in situ precipitates. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 12–13. Doud discloses that the dissolution rate of the resulting casting material is either 325 mg/cm2-hr (nickel) or 50 mg/cm2-hr (copper) in a 3% KCl solution at 90° C. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 45, 47, 53, 57; Ex. 1001, 21:60–62, 22:61–63, 33:41–43, 34:15–17. Doud also discloses that the average particle diameter of the additives used in the invention is generally “at least about 0.1 microns” and “typically no more than about 500 microns.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 6. Petitioner explains how the identified disclosures of Doud anticipate independent claim 19. Pet. 39–40. Petitioner also identifies where the limitations of dependent claims 20–61 and 63–75 are disclosed in Doud. Id. at 41–45. Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s anticipation arguments with respect to claims 19–61 and 63–75, apart from arguing that Doud is not prior art to these claims. Prelim. Resp. 27–39. demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that claims 19–61 and 63–75 are anticipated by Doud.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,689,740 - Wombat Security Technologies v. Phishme, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jul 20, 2017 · PGR2017-00009 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · PGR · Rehearing
The Board denied Wombat’s rehearing request, leaving institution of PGR denied because the petition did not show the patent was eligible for PGR.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“DISCUSSION The applicable standard for granting a request for rehearing is abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The requirements of a request for rehearing are set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides in relevant part: A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“sufficiently shown that the ’038 patent was eligible for post-grant review. Inst. Dec. 8–13. Specifically, we found deficient Petitioner’s contention that the challenged claims were not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of Application No. 13/785,252 (“the ’252 application”) to which the ’038 patent claims priority as a continuation-in-part. Inst. Dec. 8–13. This finding was based on the following deficiencies of the Petition: (1) the Petition did not discuss the relevant disclosure of the application to which the ’038 patent claims priority—Application No. 13/785,282 (“the ’252 application”)—as originally filed, citing instead to the ’940 patent, which issued from the ’252 application; (2) the Petition did not address the Examiner’s statements in the Notice of Allowability that “[t]he present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions”; and (3) Petitioner did not satisfy its burden to show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood the inventor to have possession of “providing feedback to the individual confirming that the identified email was a simulated phishing attack” (“the feedback limitation”). Id. For the third deficiency, we found the feedback limitation supported by at least paragraphs 5 and 18 of the ’252 application, which discuss training individuals who receive simulated phishing attacks such that users are better able to recognize and thwart a real phishing attack. Id. at 11–12.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“being recited expressly in the ’252 application it “satisf[ied] its burden to establish that it was more likely than not that the ’038 patent was not entitled to the filing date of the [’252 application].” Reh’g Req. 3. In Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., however, the Federal Circuit explicitly found that identifying a limitation as not being recited expressly in the specification at issue was not enough to support a finding of lack of written description. 815 F.3d 1331, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit explained that it was “troubled by the fact that the Board did not cite any evidence other than the fact that the terms were not present in the specification to support its finding,” concluding this placed “undue weight on the absence of the [exact] terms appearing in the specification.” Id. at 1345–46. Petitioner’s burden, therefore, is not established simply by pointing out that the ’252 application does not explicitly state the feedback limitation.” slip op. at 4
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not reached
“being recited expressly in the ’252 application it “satisf[ied] its burden to establish that it was more likely than not that the ’038 patent was not entitled to the filing date of the [’252 application].” Reh’g Req. 3. In Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., however, the Federal Circuit explicitly found that identifying a limitation as not being recited expressly in the specification at issue was not enough to support a finding of lack of written description. 815 F.3d 1331, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit explained that it was “troubled by the fact that the Board did not cite any evidence other than the fact that the terms were not present in the specification to support its finding,” concluding this placed “undue weight on the absence of the [exact] terms appearing in the specification.” Id. at 1345–46. Petitioner’s burden, therefore, is not established simply by pointing out that the ’252 application does not explicitly state the feedback limitation.” slip op. at 4
§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 9,398,038 - L’Oréal USA, Inc. v. Liqwd, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jul 19, 2017 · PGR2017-00011 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution of PGR on claims 1–10 because Petitioner did not show that any claim was more likely than not unpatentable under § 112.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 324(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting a post-grant review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), which provides that a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.”” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Moreover, “[a]pplicants can define . . . claim scope during prosecution,” just as they can in a patent specification. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 789 F.3d 1335, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Here, during prosecution of the ’419 patent, the applicant stated that “[t]he term ‘hair coloring agent’ refers to a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.” Ex. 1005, 7. To define specific terms used to describe an invention, the applicant need only set out the definition “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision,” “so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change” in meaning. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). On the present record, the definition of the term “hair coloring agent” set out in the prosecution history of the ’419 patent is sufficiently clear, deliberate, and precise to give a person of ordinary skill in the art notice that the term is used in the ’419 patent in a manner that does not include substances other than “colorant[s] or pigment[s] that [are] customarily used in hair care products,” even if those other substances might be described as “hair coloring agents” outside the context of the ’419 patent. Ex. 1005, 7. Accordingly, we should give effect to that definition. Because Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” gives effect to the prosecution history’s definition of “hair coloring agent,” we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction for purposes of the present decision. Thus, on the present record, and for purposes of the present decision, we construe “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” as “wherein the mixture applied to the hair does not have a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.”” slip op. at 6
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)Not shown unpatentable
“to determine the scope of the claims. As discussed above, however, we interpret “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” as “wherein the mixture applied to the hair does not have a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.” We have not been directed to evidence of record that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered a bleaching agent to be “a colorant or pigment.” Pet. 7 (describing bleaching as a “process[] that destroy[s] pigment to change hair color,” as opposed to a “process[] that deposit[s] dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair to change hair color”); Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 14–15 (contrasting “dyeing,” meaning “processes that alter or change hair color by depositing dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair,” with “bleaching,” meaning “the application of an oxidizing agent to hair to destroy the natural or artificial pigment”). Accordingly, on the present record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown that it is more likely than not that claims 1–10 of the ’419 patent are indefinite.” slip op. at 10
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not shown unpatentable
“wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent.” Pet. 36–39; Prelim. Resp. 39–40. If “a hair coloring agent” encompasses bleaching agents, then the claims all require a bleaching formulation and simultaneously exclude a bleaching agent, a scope that Petitioner argues is not described in the specification of the ’419 patent. As discussed above, however, we interpret “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” as “wherein the mixture applied to the hair does not have a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.” We have not been directed to evidence of record that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered a bleaching agent to be “a colorant or pigment.” Pet. 7 (describing bleaching as a “process[] that destroy[s] pigment to change hair color,” as opposed to a “process[] that deposit[s] dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair to change hair color”); Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 14–15 (contrasting “dyeing,” meaning “processes that alter or change hair color by depositing dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair,” with “bleaching,” meaning “the application of an oxidizing agent to hair to destroy the natural or artificial pigment”). Accordingly, on the present record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown it is more likely than not that claims 1–10 of the ’419 patent lack written description support. slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 9,498,419 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Affinity Labs Of Texas, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 28, 2016 · IPR2014-01182 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3 and 5–14 are unpatentable under § 103 over the prior-art combinations addressed in the decision.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Patent Owner that the term “streaming” is often used in the context of the immediate processing and playback of audio information. -01181 Dec. on Inst. 7. The ordinary meaning of the term, however, does not require the immediate playback of streaming audio information, and the portions of the ’641 patent identified by Patent Owner do not demonstrate with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision that a narrower claim definition should apply. For example, although the discussion in the ’641 patent of using high-speed communications for streaming an Internet radio station supports Patent Owner’s argument that “streaming audio” may be played immediately as it arrives, Ex. 1001, 7:3–7, the ’641 patent also discloses “downloading” “streaming audio” and “streaming Internet Broadcasts.” Id. at 3:67–4:1, 8:31–35, 17:1–2, 18:1–5. Thus, the disclosures of the ’641 patent are consistent with the dictionary definition of the term “streaming,” which contemplates the transfer of “streaming audio” as a constant stream of data for either immediate or delayed playback. Accordingly, we construe the term “streaming audio signal” as “an audio signal that is transferred in a continuous stream.”” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelOther
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner that the addition of well-known rechargeable battery technology (as disclosed in Herrod) in the device of Abecassis would have been obvious, at a minimum, to eliminate the need to periodically replace the batteries in the Abecassis device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”). Moreover, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Abecassis and Herrod are in different fields of endeavor, as both references relate to the communication of data using a cellular phone.8” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Decided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s identification of corresponding structure and its argument that § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply to the term “means for recharging the internal battery” should have been in Petition, and not presented for the first time in reply. PO Resp. 69; Tr. 84:12–85:14; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Moreover, Petitioner does not provide adequate support for its broad identification of corresponding structure in the ’641 patent. For example, we are directed to no disclosure in the ’641 patent indicating that any “battery recharger” may recharge the battery of the device. Thus, we do not adopt Petitioner’s proposed constructions. Patent Owner does not propose a construction for the term “means for recharging the internal battery.” See PO Resp. 5–11, 69–70. The ’641 patent discloses, however, that interface 904 and mount 511 allow for recharging the electronic device using an interface that provides both recharging power and data communications. Ex. 1101, 13:15–32, 18:27–39, 20:52–57. As Petitioner provides persuasive evidence to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to add both rechargeable batteries and a USB interface—which provides both recharging power and data connectivity—to the device of Abecassis, under either Petitioner’s proposed construction or the structure for recharging the internal battery set forth in the ’641 patent, the prior art discloses the limitations of claim 14. Thus, we are persuaded that claim 14 would have been obvious over Abecassis, Herrod, and Chennakeshu.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 8,532,641 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,532,641
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.