• Ajinomoto Co., Inc. v. Abtis Co., Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 3, 2026 · IPR2025-00283 · APJ Lilan Ren · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board cancelled claim 11 and granted substitute claims 14–16, finding Petitioner had not shown those claims unpatentable on any asserted ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted

    “must determine whether the motion to amend meets the statutory and regulatory requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.121. Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at 4. In that regard, Patent Owner bears the burden of persuasion to show that: (1) the amendment proposes a reasonable number of substitute claims; (2) the amendment responds to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial; (3) the amendment does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent or introduce new subject matter;” slip op. at 9

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “In this case, Patent Owner’s expert “Dr. Zhou signed the second declaration, stood behind its contents, and was available for cross-examination.” Paper 35, 4. Petitioner does not dispute this statement. Paper 39, 1. Petitioner does not identify any specific undue prejudice caused by Exhibit 2008. For example, Petitioner argues that “the failure to impress upon a witness that a statement is under oath goes to the heart of its reliability as evidence” and that “as the Board has recognized, hearsay is inherently unreliable” without specifying what statement in Exhibit 2008 lacks reliability. Paper 39, 4. Because Petitioner does not provide specific evidence of undue prejudice, we find Petitioner has suffered no such undue prejudice in this case. See Liquidia, 2021 WL 4860773 at *25. We therefore deny Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude on the basis of lack of authenticity. With regard to the assertion that Exhibit 2008 is hearsay, Petitioner objects to the exhibit because the testimony is based “on other informal and unpublished documents that are hearsay under FRE 802.” Paper 29, 1. Petitioner does not specify what such “informal and unpublished documents” are. See id. Federal Rule of Evidence 703 expressly states, “[a]n expert may base an opinion on fact or data in the case that the expert has been made aware of or personally observed.” The facts or data “need not be deny Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude on the basis of hearsay.” slip op. at 50

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

    “Petitioner’s argument is unpersuasive. Paragraph 59 of the ’503 application describes formula 8-1 but does not support Petitioner’s argument that other unknown formulas may be included in the recited modified heavy chains. Ex. 2003 ¶ 59. Petitioner’s hypothesis that the recited heavy chains may (or may not) encompass unknown formulas is also inapposite to the written description inquiry before us — that is, whether the inventor was in possession of the subject matter recited in claims 14–16 based on the disclosure including formulas 8-1, 8-2, and 8-3. See PowerOasis, 522 F.3d at 1306.” slip op. at 14

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)EnabledNot shown unpatentable

    “These arguments in the Sur-Reply are unpersuasive to show a lack of enablement first and foremost because the arguments do not specifically provide evidence showing that any purported experimentation is undue. See Sur-Reply 2–8 (asserting, but without providing evidence under any specific Wands factors, that the examples and guidance in the specification do not extend to the broad scope of all antibodies); see Wands, 858 F.2d at 737. We again emphasize that the analysis of undue experimentation does not necessarily require every Wands factor to be explicitly addressed but the analysis must be based on “weighing many factual considerations” depending on the nature of the invention and underlying art. Cephalon, Inc. v. Watson Pharms., Inc., 707 F.3d 1330, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The assertion that the claim scope is broad alone does not suffice to show a lack of enablement based on the record before us. Moreover, as we note supra, Petitioner’s claim scope argument is based on the false premise that the scope of claims 14–16 is as broad as the claim term “antibody” without taking into account all other claim elements. For example, Petitioner does not disagree with Patent Owner’s statement that “[t]he ’675 Patent’s specification discloses the structural modification site, the chemistry used to modify that residue, and working examples demonstrating the modification” (Reply 2), but asserts only that “[t]he disclosure of SSFI that only binds to IgG1 Fc domains (SEQ ID NO:1) is . . . . inconsistent with the expansive scope of the claims.” Sur-Reply 5. Petitioner’s argument that the claims encompass proteins that lack a lysine reside at a 248 position improperly excludes from the claim language the “lysine residue at 248 position . . . [as] determined by the EU numbering system” that claims 14–16 require. As Dr. Zhou testifies, “each proposed lysine residue at position 248 (EU numbering) is covalently modified with a specific attachment with a terminal bio-orthogonal click-chemistry functional group. The specification describes targeted transfer of a chemical functional group to lysine 248” and when claims 14–16 are considered in their entirety, which includes all claim elements, “[a] POSA would understand the claim itself to limit the modified antibodies to those with lysine at position 248.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 48; Ex. 2008 ¶ 47. We also note that Patent Owner states “a POSA would understand that the phrase ‘one or more modified heavy chain’ encompasses antibodies within typical DAR distributions (i.e., fractional numbers) rather than requiring a distinct process for producing antibodies bearing modified heavy chains in exact integers.” Reply 2–3. Moreover, Patent Owner states that PepTalk Presentation demonstrates that “a POSA would understand antibody conjugation products to exist as mixtures rather than discrete whole number species” because PepTalk Presentation “presents DAR values as non-integer measurements, i.e. DARs of 1.8 and 1.9 reflecting such distributions.” Id. at 3 (citing Ex. 1007, 28). According to Patent Owner, “preparations having an average DAR of approximately 1.8 (commonly referred to in practice as ‘DAR2’) may reflect typical reaction distributions in which some antibodies contain two modified heavy chains while others contain fewer.” Id. at 3 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 46). Petitioner does not rebut these statements. See Sur-Reply 2–8. Based on the foregoing, the evidence before us does not show any” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 11,896,675 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 11,896,675
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Maxell LtdNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 31, 2025 · IPR2024-00777 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 16–27 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to account for limitations 16[b] and 16[i] and their counterparts across the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, Human Computer Interaction, or a related technical field, with at least one year of experience working in the field of user interfaces and/or content management.” PO Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 2040 ¶ 53). The Decision on Institution adopted Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 10. We find Patent Owner’s stated level to be less precise than that proposed by Petitioner in that the modifier “at least” used by Patent owner imposes no upper bound on the amount of experience possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art. Also, Patent Owner states: “The difference between the Board’s definition and Patent Owner’s (EX2040. ¶53) does not change the arguments set forth herein.” PO Resp. 11. Thus, we continue to adopt Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art.4 4 All of our findings and conclusions would still be the same, however, had we applied Patent Owner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “In its Reply, Petitioner does not assert that the district court’s construction is incorrect. We agree with Patent Owner that the district court’s construction is better than Petitioner’s proposed construction, because for reasons indicated by Patent Owner, which are not disputed by Petitioner, settings in the computer, e.g., dedicated folders for each user are the user profiles, rather than simply data alone of any kind. Further, when asked about the appropriateness of the district court’s construction, counsel for Petitioner expressed that Petitioner has no objection to the Board’s adopting the district court’s construction for “user profile”: JUDGE LEE: So, you’d be fine with just going with the District Court’s construction? MR. HEINTZ: Yes, Your Honor. Tr. 15:22–24. For the foregoing reasons, we adopt the district court’s construction for “user profile,” i.e., “a collection of settings and information associated with a user.”” slip op. at 13

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “PO Resp. 30–31 (Figure 26 omitted). In its Reply, Petitioner still does not provide an articulated reason for placing user profile selection buttons, labeled with user names, within Horn’s panes 2601 or 2602. Reply 12–14. Although Horn does describe personalized profile, Petitioner points to no disclosure of Horn as to how a user would have selected his or her own profile from among a plurality of user profiles. Petitioner presents no reason for placing these user profile selection buttons, labeled with user names, gleaned from or suggested by Baumgartner, within either pane 2601 or pane 2602 in Horn’s workspace view. Further, pane 2602 contains “a list of all collections defined by MFS and the user,” and pane 2601 lists the source examined by the user to create his or her collections. Ex. 1005, 19:41–46. That disclosure suggests the contents of panes 2601 and 2602 are tied to one particular user. No rational basis is articulated by Petitioner to place user profile selection buttons within these panes which appear to be in the profile space of one user. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not adequately accounted for limitation 16[b].” slip op. at 22

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

    “The test for sufficiency of a written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112 is whether the earlier application’s disclosure “reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The specification must “clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed.” Id. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has explained: 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. Id. (“[T]he applicant must also convey to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention. The invention is, for purposes of the ‘written description’ inquiry, whatever is now claimed.”) (emphasis in original). One does that by such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention. Although the exact terms need not be used in haec verba, see Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 1038, 34 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 (Fed.Cir.1995) (“[T]he prior application need not describe the claimed subject matter in exactly the same terms as used in the claims. . . .”), the specification must contain an equivalent description of the claimed subject matter. A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997).” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 11,017,815 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,017,815
• AT&T Mobility LLC / AT&T Services Inc. et al. v. Daingean Technologies Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 14, 2025 · IPR2024-00402 · APJ Mary C Hoffman · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board granted Patent Owner’s revised non-contingent motion to amend, canceling claims 1–4 and substituting claims 7 and 8, which Petitioner did not prove unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted

    “whether the motion to amend meets the statutory and regulatory requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.121.” See Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-01129, Paper 15 at 4 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2019) (precedential). A “patent owner bears the burden of persuasion to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the motion to amend complies” with the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(d)(1). Specifically, a patent owner must demonstrate the following: (1) the amendment proposes a reasonable number of substitute claims; (2) the amendment responds to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial; (3) the amendment does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent; and (4) the amendment does not introduce new matter. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(d); 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)–(b). For the reasons explained below, Patent Owner satisfies its burden of persuasion to show that the amendments comply with the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Both parties rely on expert testimony for their respective positions relating to the number of years of experience needed to attain ordinary skill, but neither expert cites supporting evidence for their testimony. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 33; Ex. 2002 ¶ 15. Our decision is the same regardless of whether the length of experience is two years or three. We find Patent Owner’s proposed “wireless communications” is more consistent with the ’958 patent than Petitioner’s proposed “telecommunication,” which encompasses a variety of technologies including, e.g., landline and wireless telephones, cable, and satellite. See Ex. 1001, 1:11–62 (describing the invention in terms of wireless communications). Accordingly, we adopt a modified version of Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art, substituting “wireless communications” for “telecommunication.” Neither party, moreover, indicates the overall result would change based on a different definition.” slip op. at 18

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the recited second type SIBs exclude first type SIBs. The plain meaning of “first type” and “second type” indicates that the first type and second type are different in kind. RMTA 22 (App. A). Our interpretation is consistent with the Specification, which explains that second type SIBs exclude first type SIBs. As Patent Owner points out, the ’958 patent discloses “first type of system information (1TYP SIB) is . . . essential . . . for initial system access” and “second type of system information (2TYP SIB) is nonessential system information . . . defined as all other types of information, and thus excludes the [] information required for initial access.” Id. at 11–12 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:34– 46); see also Ex. 1001, Abstract (interchangeably using the terms second type and non-essential). Despite Petitioner’s argument that this disclosure is non-limiting and directed to a disclaimed example embodiment (Opp. 8–9), Petitioner could not identify any embodiment, among the approximately forty disclosed embodiments, describing something other than the first type SIB being essential information and the second type SIB being non-essential information. Tr. 22:18–26. Even the Petition acknowledges that “the ’958 Patent further classifies a second type of system information, the ‘non-essential’ SI, which is defined as all other types of information excluding that first type of information required for initial access.” Pet. 5. Furthermore, the prior art of record suggests that a person of ordinary skill would have understood second type SIBs exclude first type SIBs. See Ex. 1008 ¶ 48 (describing two categories of system information, “essential SI” and “Other SI”). Patent Owner’s expert also understood the recited first and second type SIBs as being mutually exclusive. See Ex. 1011, 49:10–13. For the above reasons, we do not agree with Petitioner that the recited second type SIB lacks any requirements, nor do we interpret claims 7 and 8 such that the first type SIB could be a second type SIB.” slip op. at 19

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “(d) Limitation 7h: Analysis We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s arguments with respect to limitation 7h are insufficient because they fail to address the limitation as written and improperly incorporate previous arguments by reference. For example, Petitioner did not map the recited “group identifier” when opposing Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend. See Opp. 16–17. In its Sur-reply, Petitioner contends that limitation 7h’s requirement of transmitting the group identifier was previously “set out in Patent Owner’s prior papers,” but does not refer to any specific papers or exhibits. Pet. Surreply 11–12. We decline to search for and piece together Petitioner’s arguments and evidence to develop a persuasive theory of unpatentability. See 37 C.F.R. section 42.6(a)(3). Petitioner similarly failed to address adequately where Lee discloses or suggests the recited “compressed format” and “plural parameters.” See Opp. 16–17. Aside from the above concerns, we also do not see sufficient explanation with respect to limitation 7h’s requirement that the transmitting by broadcast be based on a comparison of the value tag. Petitioner argues that, because Patent Owner does not dispute limitation 7g, “it would have been obvious to a POSITA to use the same value tag[] to determine the system information broadcast in Lee’s compressed format embodiment.” Pet. Sur-reply 12. This conclusory statement is not supported by any citations to evidence and was improperly introduced in the Sur-reply. Moreover, whether it was obvious to determine what system information is broadcast is not commensurate with the claim scope because limitation 7h requires that the broadcasting (not the broadcast content) be based on a comparison of the value tag. See supra III.B.4 and IV.B. Further, we are not persuaded that Lee’s transmitting by broadcast is” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 10,841,958 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,841,958
• Microsoft Corporation v. Interdigital Patent Holdings, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 23, 2025 · IPR2024-00538 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held all challenged claims of the ’933 and ’054 patents not unpatentable because the claims were entitled to the December 22, 2009 priority date, making the asserted prior art unavailable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “the time of the invention as someone that would have had “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a closely related field, and one to three years of experience working with wirelessly connected mobile devices that used common wireless communications protocols such as Bluetooth and 802.11.” 537 Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1203 ¶¶ 29–32). Petitioner also contends that this description “would not differ materially between December 2008 and June 2013,” the earliest possible priority date for the patents-at-issue and the priority date alleged by Petitioner, respectively. Petitioner further contends that more education “would compensate for less work experience and vice versa.” Id. Petitioner. 537 PO Resp. 6−7; 538 PO Resp. 6−7. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s description as our own. We adopt Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art particularly because it specifies having one to three years of experience working with wireless devices that use Bluetooth and 802.11.” slip op. at 16

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

    “Petitioner construes the claims to have their “plain and ordinary meaning” and contends “that no terms invoke means-plus-function analysis.” 537 Pet. 17–18; 538 Pet. 18−19. Patent Owner does not contend that any terms require construction. 537 PO Resp. 6; 538 PO Resp. 6. We have not identified any terms that require construction for us to decide the threshold issue of priority. And given that the parties have no disputed terms, no claim terms are hereby construed.” slip op. at 17

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

    “The written description requirement is satisfied when “the missing descriptive matter” is necessarily present in the original “application’s specification such that one skilled in the art would recognize such a disclosure.” Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 1159 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Thus, it is sufficient to show that the written description actually or inherently discloses the claim element. TurboCare Div. of Demag Delaval Turbomachinery Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 264 F.3d 1111, 1118−20 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We also note that Patent Owner argues that the field of the 948 application is a predictable application of wireless communications, which, compared to other complex and unpredictable technologies, would require a lower level of detail to satisfy the requirement. See Hologic, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 884 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see also Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“the level of detail required . . . varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.”); 537 PO Resp. 26−27; 537 Edwards Decl. ¶¶ 82, 87; 537 Surreply 8.” slip op. at 20

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner

    “1277 (Fed. Cir. 2011); PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008). At issue in the instant proceedings is the first requirement, whether the written description of the 948 application is sufficient, because Petitioner contends that the claims of the ’933 and ’054 patent are not entitled to claim priority to ancestry applications under 35 U.S.C. § 120. 537 Pet. 18.43 We disagree with Petitioner because we find that the claims are supported by the written description of the 948 application disclosure.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 9,173,054 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,173,054
• 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
• Illumina, Inc. v. Natera, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 11, 2020 · IPR2019-01201 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–27 were not shown unpatentable: the single-cell Dhallan theories lacked a reasonable expectation of success, and Rabinowitz was not established as prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In sum, Petitioner’s evidence in the Petition establishes that single cells were used for genetic analysis, amplification techniques were known, and SNP arrays could be used to analyze chromosome imbalances. Petitioner’s evidence, however, does not persuasively address the interplay between the amount of DNA in a single cell and the amount of DNA or amplified DNA needed to carry out the claimed method using a SNP 22 genotyping array and Dhallan’s aneuploidy analysis. This is important because Patent Owner cites evidence demonstrating that at the relevant time, “various researchers had determined that very low amounts of DNA could not be reliably used for SNP genotyping arrays (even with intervening amplification).” PO Resp. 47.” slip op. at 22

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

    “On this record, we agree with Patent Owner and Dr. Quackenbush that the ’406 application and ’741 provisional together demonstrate to persons of 23 The ’741 provisional is incorporated by reference into the ’406 application. Ex. 1026, 1:5–13. 48 ordinary skill that the inventors understood pyrosequencing could be used for high-throughput sequencing, if expensive machines were purchased. In other words, the ’741 provisional gives context to the statement in the ’406 application, and we agree with Dr. Quackenbush that “‘[s]uitability’, as the provisional makes clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art, is a cost issue, rather than a technical one.” Ex. 2012 (Quackenbush Decl.) ¶ 277; see also id. ¶¶ 276–80 (opining on disclosures in the ’741 provisional).” slip op. at 48

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “As to Dr. Quackenbush’s qualifications, although Petitioner characterizes his expertise as relating to statistics, the record reflects that he also has adequate experience in the fields of genetics and biotechnology. For example, he is Professor of Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, the Chair of the Department of Biostatistics, and the Director of the Health Data Science Center at the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health. Ex. 2013, 1. He has almost three decades of experience in research and teaching in the fields of genetics and biotechnology (id. at 1–8, 12), has published hundreds of articles in these fields (id. at 13–52), was the Editor-in-Chief of the journal Genomics for over a decade (id. at 8), and has served as a peer reviewer, or on the editorial board, of a dozen other publications relating to genetics and biotechnology (id. at 7–8). Paper 49, 2. Given that experience in genetics and biotechnology, we find that Dr. Quackenbush has sufficient 54 specialized knowledge, experience, and education in the techniques of the ’592 Patent and prior art, such as DNA amplification, genotyping, and analysis of genetic data, for his testimony to be helpful to us. Moreover, even if Dr. Quackenbush did not personally work in fetal diagnostics at the relevant time, there is no requirement that a declarant must actually be a person of ordinary skill in the art to present testimony as to what such a person would have understood at the time of the invention. See, e.g., SEB S.A., 594 F.3d at 1373 (stating there is no requirement of a perfect match between an expert’s experience and the field of the art in question, provided the expert has “sufficient relevant technical experience” to testify). The remaining arguments raised in Petitioner’s motion relate to the sufficiency, rather than admissibility, of evidence. Such arguments are improperly advanced in a motion to exclude. See TPG 79 (stating that a motion to exclude may not be used to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to prove a particular fact); see also Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V., IPR2013-00053, Paper 66 at 19 (PTAB May 1, 2014) (“[T]he Board, sitting as a non-jury tribunal, is well-positioned to determine and assign appropriate weight to the evidence presented in this trial.”). Moreover, “there is a strong public policy for making all information filed in an administrative proceeding available to the public.” Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., CBM2012-00010, Paper 59 at 40 (PTAB February 24, 2014). Rather than excluding evidence that is allegedly 55 confusing, misleading, or incorrect, we simply give it the appropriate weight in our analysis.” slip op. at 54

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “success arguments focus solely on Dhallan’s single cell disclosure, while “ignor[ing] Dhallan’s disclosure that its methodology can be performed using 2–32 cells, which also falls within the claims.” Reply 18 (citing, e.g., Pet. 13–14). Patent Owner responds that this is an improper attempt to change the thrust of the obviousness theory presented in the Petition. Sur-reply 16–17. We agree with Patent Owner. Although the Petition references portions of Dhallan that address using sources of DNA other than a single cell (see, e.g., Pet. 13–14, citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 44, 74), this is by way of background only, falling within a section titled “Introduction to Dhallan.” See Pet. 11. Petitioner’s detailed obviousness arguments for claim 1 are limited to use of DNA from a single cell, and do not extend to DNA from multiple cells.15 See, e.g., id. at 19–20 (arguing that, because Dhallan’s preferred embodiment is one embryo cell, Dhallan teaches the claimed limitation reciting “wherein the small amount of genetic material from the individual is from fifty or fewer of the individual’s 15 As noted above, claim 1 recites several possible sources for the claimed “small amount of genetic data.” See supra n.9. Here we focus on Petitioner’s unpatentability arguments based on option [i], but note that Petitioner’s unpatentability arguments under options [ii] and [iii] also did not extend to use of DNA from multiple cells. See, e.g., Pet. 20 (cross-referencing arguments for claims 4, 5, and 17); id. at 34 (for claim 4, arguing option [ii] based on “a single human cell”); id. at 35 (for claim 5, arguing option [iii] based on “extracellular fetal DNA from maternal blood”); id. at 42 (for claim 17, arguing option [iii] based on a “single fetal cell”). 30 cells”); id. at 29 (“A POSA would have been motivated to use a single cell as the source of genetic material . . . .”); id. at 31 (“A POSA would have reasonably expected success in using Dhallan’s methodology, for example as described in Example 14, on one embryonic cell.”). Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner is impermissibly attempting to change the thrust of its obviousness theory on reply. Sur-reply 16–17. We will not consider Petitioner’s belated attempt to argue a reasonable expectation of success in using more than a single cell in the claimed method. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the . . . patent owner response.”).” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 8,682,592 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,682,592
• Yamaha Golf Car Company v. Club Car, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 2, 2019 · IPR2017-02144 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board found claims 11 and 17–19 not shown unpatentable: claim 11 was entitled to priority over the ’918 Publication, and the obviousness challenge to claims 17–19 was unsupported.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “slows the speed of the golf car until it returns to the course—“[Y]our cart has been slowed down because you are outside the boundaries of the course. Your car will continue to slow down until you return to the course.” Ex. 1004, 30 (emphases added) (also showing that “Reduce Maximum Speed” may be adjusted to a select speed as similarly set forth in Figure 3 of the ’569 patent). The ’894 Provisional specifies that the Curtis 1510 controller includes a configuration setting for “REVERSE SPEED,” and we find persuasive Mr. Andrews’ testimony that this control setting is separate from the maximum forward speed settings, “M1 MAX SPEED,” “M2 MAX SPEED,” “M3 MAX SPEED,” and “M4 (HIGH) MAX SPEED.” Ex. 1004, 12; Ex. 2009 ¶ 58 (“‘REVERSE SPEED’ is a separate configuration setting that the controller can configure based on GPS location.”). We find that these disclosures in the ’894 Provisional—slowing or stopping the car until it reverses course and separate configurable settings for reverse speed in the motor controller—establish affirmative support for a configuration as claimed where the car’s forward movement is disabled, but the car may still move in a reverse direction, as required by claim 11. Because the maximum forward speed can be set to zero to stop the vehicle from further movement towards the restricted area, but setting the maximum speed to zero leaves the separate “REVERSE SPEED” configuration setting in the motor controller unchanged, Patent Owner has shown how the vehicle is capable of operation only in a reverse direction. See Ex. 1004, 10, 12, 16, 30. From a functional capability, there is simply no difference between the descriptions found in the ’894 Provisional and the claimed limitations. See Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 49–60. Thus, Patent Owner has met its burden of showing adequate written description support for claim 11 in the earlier ’894 Provisional. Accordingly, the ’918 Publication does not qualify as prior art against claim 11. Based on the final trial record before us, Petitioner does not present sufficient arguments and credible evidence to support a finding that claim 11 is anticipated by the ’918 Publication.” slip op. at 17

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

    “slows the speed of the golf car until it returns to the course—“[Y]our cart has been slowed down because you are outside the boundaries of the course. Your car will continue to slow down until you return to the course.” Ex. 1004, 30 (emphases added) (also showing that “Reduce Maximum Speed” may be adjusted to a select speed as similarly set forth in Figure 3 of the ’569 patent). The ’894 Provisional specifies that the Curtis 1510 controller includes a configuration setting for “REVERSE SPEED,” and we find persuasive Mr. Andrews’ testimony that this control setting is separate from the maximum forward speed settings, “M1 MAX SPEED,” “M2 MAX SPEED,” “M3 MAX SPEED,” and “M4 (HIGH) MAX SPEED.” Ex. 1004, 12; Ex. 2009 ¶ 58 (“‘REVERSE SPEED’ is a separate configuration setting that the controller can configure based on GPS location.”). We find that these disclosures in the ’894 Provisional—slowing or stopping the car until it reverses course and separate configurable settings for reverse speed in the motor controller—establish affirmative support for a configuration as claimed where the car’s forward movement is disabled, but the car may still move in a reverse direction, as required by claim 11. Because the maximum forward speed can be set to zero to stop the vehicle from further movement towards the restricted area, but setting the maximum speed to zero leaves the separate “REVERSE SPEED” configuration setting in the motor controller unchanged, Patent Owner has shown how the vehicle is capable of operation only in a reverse direction. See Ex. 1004, 10, 12, 16, 30. From a functional capability, there is simply no difference between the descriptions found in the ’894 Provisional and the claimed limitations. See Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 49–60. Thus, Patent Owner has met its burden of showing adequate written description support for claim 11 in the earlier ’894 Provisional. Accordingly, the ’918 Publication does not qualify as prior art against claim 11. Based on the final trial record before us, Petitioner does not present sufficient arguments and credible evidence to support a finding that claim 11 is anticipated by the ’918 Publication.” slip op. at 17

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “slows the speed of the golf car until it returns to the course—“[Y]our cart has been slowed down because you are outside the boundaries of the course. Your car will continue to slow down until you return to the course.” Ex. 1004, 30 (emphases added) (also showing that “Reduce Maximum Speed” may be adjusted to a select speed as similarly set forth in Figure 3 of the ’569 patent). The ’894 Provisional specifies that the Curtis 1510 controller includes a configuration setting for “REVERSE SPEED,” and we find persuasive Mr. Andrews’ testimony that this control setting is separate from the maximum forward speed settings, “M1 MAX SPEED,” “M2 MAX SPEED,” “M3 MAX SPEED,” and “M4 (HIGH) MAX SPEED.” Ex. 1004, 12; Ex. 2009 ¶ 58 (“‘REVERSE SPEED’ is a separate configuration setting that the controller can configure based on GPS location.”). We find that these disclosures in the ’894 Provisional—slowing or stopping the car until it reverses course and separate configurable settings for reverse speed in the motor controller—establish affirmative support for a configuration as claimed where the car’s forward movement is disabled, but the car may still move in a reverse direction, as required by claim 11. Because the maximum forward speed can be set to zero to stop the vehicle from further movement towards the restricted area, but setting the maximum speed to zero leaves the separate “REVERSE SPEED” configuration setting in the motor controller unchanged, Patent Owner has shown how the vehicle is capable of operation only in a reverse direction. See Ex. 1004, 10, 12, 16, 30. From a functional capability, there is simply no difference between the descriptions found in the ’894 Provisional and the claimed limitations. See Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 49–60. Thus, Patent Owner has met its burden of showing adequate written description support for claim 11 in the earlier ’894 Provisional. Accordingly, the ’918 Publication does not qualify as prior art against claim 11. Based on the final trial record before us, Petitioner does not present sufficient arguments and credible evidence to support a finding that claim 11 is anticipated by the ’918 Publication.” slip op. at 17

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

    “sufficiently how the ’918 Publication’s disclosure of a “signal . . . of the violation” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 68) also teaches or suggests the additional claim requirements of “the driver interface unit . . . operable to communicate an alarm to the base station of a controller limiting the performance of a driver command” as required by claim 17. Petitioner recognizes the distinction by arguing “that the system could also provide a message to the course personnel . . . of any remedial corrective measures taken in response.” Pet. 25 (emphasis added). Based on the evidence cited, the ’918 Publication does not provide any such notification. Petitioner cannot suggest that a reference could have a feature that it does not have without some rational basis as to why such a feature would have been suggested by the reference. Mr. Breen’s explanation mirrors Petitioner’s contention (Ex. 1001 ¶ 277) and likewise states “that the system could also provide a message to the course personnel” (emphasis added) but no further explanation is provided as to how this unsupported conclusion was reached. Petitioner has also failed to lay the necessary foundation to establish that “common sense” could fill the gap for the missing limitation, or provide a basis for modifying the ’918 Publication to teach the claim 17 limitation. We recognize that in certain instances “common sense” can be used to supply the missing claim limitation, but only if the art is “unusually simple and the [patented] technology particularly straightforward.” Arendi Sarl v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In this proceeding, we have no testimony or evidence to establish either condition is met. Neither Petitioner nor Mr. Breen explain adequately why the limitations of claim 17” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 7,480,569 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,480,569
• Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 10, 2018 · PGR2017-00015 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · PGR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–4 not unpatentable: the obviousness grounds failed to establish the claimed elastic fastener limitation, and claim 3 was not shown indefinite or lacking written-description support.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner and 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. This level of skill is consistent with the types of problems and solutions described in the ’612 patent and cited prior art. For example, the ’612 patent describes a fluid inflatable system that uses elastic valve 20A (e.g., mechanical gasket, O-ring, etc.) for sealing fluid inside multiple containers (e.g., water balloons). See Ex. 1001, 1:22–24, 3:10–16. In any event, none of the issues in this case turn on the definition of a POSA, and the prior art of record provides ample evidence of the level of skill in the art. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (finding that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not err in concluding that the level of ordinary skill was best determined by the references of record); see also Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”’) (internal citation omitted).” slip op. at 13

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

    “1. Terms Construed in the Institution Decision We construed the term “elastic fastener” in our Decision on Institution, which is set forth in the following table. Inst. Dec. 14. Claim Term Construction in Institution Decision elastic fastener “an elastic element for attaching things together” Neither party disputes the language of this construction. See generally Prelim Resp. 17; Reply. We adopt them for this Final Written Decision. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting Rodale Press, Inc. v. FTC, 407 F.2d 1252, 1256–57 (D.C. Cir. 1968)) (“‘an agency may not change theories in midstream without giving respondents reasonable notice of the change’ and ‘the opportunity to present argument under the new theory.’”)” slip op. at 14

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

    “While the terms “unfilled state” and “filled state” describe the fullness for a container, we do not agree with Petitioner that the claim language requires determining the precise amount of fluid for each state. Section 112(b) requires that we read claim terms in the context of the surrounding claim language, not in isolation. Telebrands, 733 F. App’x at 1020. When we look at the entire claim phrase—“regardless whether the first and second ones of the plurality of containers are in a filled state or an unfilled state”— the plain language is clear that regardless of whether the balloons are in either state, the “at least first and second ones of the plurality of containers are disposed sufficiently close to each other such that they press against each other.” In other words, the exact volume of fluid or water needed to reach a “filled state” does not need to be determined in order to understand the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement. We are further persuaded because this is consistent with the district court’s construction of this term. See Ex. 1023, 19–20.” slip op. at 17

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

    “Based upon our review of the specification, and consideration of the arguments and evidence presented, Petitioner’s position is not persuasive. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to show that the ’612 patent does not provide such adequate guidance to a person of ordinary skill in the art. On its face, Figure 1 of the ’612 patent (reproduced below) shows containers 18 in contact or pressing against one another with the reasonable clarity required by Vas–Cath Inc. Figure 1 of the ’612 patent is reproduced above. Although the ’612 patent describes, as Petitioner notes, that tubes 16 can be different lengths, we are not persuaded that the ’612 patent’s disclosure of an embodiment with different tube lengths detracts from the concurrent disclosure in Figure 1 of an embodiment, where it is difficult to describe containers 18 as being not in contact with each other. Additionally, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to show adequately that a person of ordinary skill would not have understood the ’612 patent as describing the containers in Figure 1 as pressing against one another in an unfilled state. The ’612 patent indicates Figure 1 shows elastic valve 20A in an open configuration when container 18A is attached to tube 16A to allow container 18A to fill with fluid. Ex. 1001, 3:14–18. In this open configuration, container 18A is to be filled with fluid, after which, “it may be removed from tube 16A, whereupon elastic valve 20A closes, thereby closing the neck of container 18A and sealing the fluid inside.” Id. at 3:18–21 (emphasis omitted). The ’612 patent refers to Figure 1 to describe an embodiment where elastic valve 20A is in an open configuration to fill a container that has not been filled (i.e., unfilled) and removed from tube 16A. Thus, we are persuaded that, at least, Figure 1 and this accompanying description of Figure 1 in the ’612 patent provides sufficient written description for the recited limitation that “at least first and second ones of the plurality of containers are disposed sufficiently close to each other such that they press against each other . . . in a filled state or an unfilled state.”” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 9,527,612 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,527,612
• Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. William Beaumont HospitalNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 4, 2017 · IPR2016-00160 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14, 16–29, 33, and 35–38 were not held unpatentable because Petitioner failed to show the Jaffray references were prior art or that the asserted combination rendered the claims obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Having considered the arguments and evidence, we agree with Patent Owner that the ’590 Application provides sufficient written description support for “said computer receives said image of said object and based on said image sends a signal to said radiation source that controls said path of said radiation source.” In particular, we credit the testimony of Dr. Hashemi that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the ’590 Application that components of the disclosed system were computer-controlled based upon, e.g., the depiction of an Elekta SL-20 in 9 Both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion. Figure 3 of the ’590 Application and from the depiction of an electronic portal imaging device. (Ex. 2080 ¶¶ 109–116, 125–132). Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive because they are based upon a construction of the disputed limitation that excludes human intervention. We have construed that limitation, however, to encompass a person or user operating the computer to perform the recited control functions. In post-hearing briefing, both parties agree that this is the proper construction. Papers 80, 81. As a result, even if we assume, as Petitioner contends in Reply, that a person of ordinary skill in the art reading the ’590 Application would have understood that “the step of controlling the path of the beam based on image data was performed by a human operator, not a computer acting autonomously” (Pet. Reply 9) and that “[t]he computer elements connected to table control . . . are all operated in response to commands received from a human operator, and none are tied to table movements specifically based on image data” (id.), it would not show a lack of support for the disputed limitation, because the disputed limitation does not exclude human intervention. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently,” slip op. at 18

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedNot shown unpatentable

    “Having considered the arguments and evidence, we agree with Patent Owner that the ’590 Application provides sufficient written description support for “said computer receives said image of said object and based on said image sends a signal to said radiation source that controls said path of said radiation source.” In particular, we credit the testimony of Dr. Hashemi that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the ’590 Application that components of the disclosed system were computer-controlled based upon, e.g., the depiction of an Elekta SL-20 in 9 Both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion. Figure 3 of the ’590 Application and from the depiction of an electronic portal imaging device. (Ex. 2080 ¶¶ 109–116, 125–132). Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive because they are based upon a construction of the disputed limitation that excludes human intervention. We have construed that limitation, however, to encompass a person or user operating the computer to perform the recited control functions. In post-hearing briefing, both parties agree that this is the proper construction. Papers 80, 81. As a result, even if we assume, as Petitioner contends in Reply, that a person of ordinary skill in the art reading the ’590 Application would have understood that “the step of controlling the path of the beam based on image data was performed by a human operator, not a computer acting autonomously” (Pet. Reply 9) and that “[t]he computer elements connected to table control . . . are all operated in response to commands received from a human operator, and none are tied to table movements specifically based on image data” (id.), it would not show a lack of support for the disputed limitation, because the disputed limitation does not exclude human intervention. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently, on this record, that both Jaffray 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO are prior art to independent claim 1, and the challenged claims that depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” slip op. at 18

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “Having considered the parties arguments and evidence regarding “[t]he content and nature of the printed publication, as well as the circumstances surrounding its publication” (Katz, 687 F.2d at 455), we are not persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of persuasion by showing sufficiently that the portions of Jaffray 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO on which it relies are the work “others.” Unlike in Katz, where the question was “the sufficiency of applicant’s showing to establish that the subject disclosure was his original work, and his alone” (687 F.2d at 455), the question before us is the sufficiency of Petitioner’s showing to establish that the subject disclosure was the work of the non-inventor coauthors of Jaffray 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378 (“In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the 10 Both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion. 11 At oral argument, counsel for Petitioner indicated that, in his view, it does not matter who has the burden of production. Tr. 20:9, 20:16–17. petitioner to prove ‘unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence,’ 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), and that burden never shifts to the patentee.”); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In the context of the present case, however, the notion of burden-shifting is inapposite because the patentee’s position is that the patent challenger failed to meet its burden of proving obviousness.”); see also Duncan Parking Techs., Inc. v. IPS Group Inc., Case IPR2016-00067, slip op. at 8–13 (PTAB Mar. 27, 2017) (Paper 29). Patent Owner presents testimony of Dr. Jaffray and Mr. Drake that the subject matter relied upon by Petitioner was not the work of the non-inventor coauthors, and after considering all relevant arguments and evidence, we are unpersuaded by Petitioner’s assertions that this testimony is unreliable. Dr. Jaffray testifies, for example, that “[t]he JRO article and the SPIE article disclose work done at the direction of me and Dr. Wong in support of the joint research conducted by the two of us.” Ex. 2077 ¶ 2. Dr. Jaffray further testifies that “with the exception of Dr. Siewerdsen coming up with the pre-reconstruction image processing for the SPIE article, the [non-inventor] co-authors did not come up with the ideas for the systems described in those articles.” Id. ¶ 6. Dr. Jaffray describes the contributions of the co-authors as follows:” slip op. at 22

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

    “D. The Challenged Claims – Obviousness over Jaffray 1999 SPIE, Jaffray 1999 JRO, Adler, and Depp Petitioner asserts that a combination of Jaffray 1999 SPIE, Jaffray 1999 JRO, Adler, and Depp renders obvious claims 1–14, 16–29, 33, and 35–38. Pet. 18–58. Petitioner relies solely upon Jaffray 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO for several limitations of claim 1, including, for example, “a cone-beam computed tomography system comprising: an x-ray source that emits an x-ray beam in a cone-beam form towards said object,” and “a flat-panel imager receiving x-rays after they pass through the object, said imager providing an image of said object.” Pet. 29–31. As discussed above, however, we not persuaded that Jaffray 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO are prior art to claims 1–14, 16–29, 33, and 35–38. Moreover, Petitioner does not contend that Adler or Depp teach these limitations. As a result, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–14, 16–29, 33, and 35–38 are obvious over a combination of Jaffray 1999 SPIE, Jaffray 1999 JRO, Adler, and Depp.” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 6,842,502 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,842,502
• Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. William Beaumont HospitalNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 4, 2017 · IPR2016-00163 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 43–46, 48–55, 57, 59–66, and 68 were not held unpatentable because Petitioner did not establish that the Jaffray references were prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “ordinary skill in the art, with respect to and at the time of the’502 patent, would have the following qualifications: “a medical physicist with a Ph.D. (or similar advanced degree) in physics, medical physics, or a related field, and two or more years of experience in radiation oncology physics and image processing/computer programming related to radiation oncology applications.” Ex. 1202 ¶ 13. Dr. Hashemi, Patent Owner’s expert, essentially agrees, with the only major differences to the above being that an M.S. is acceptable in lieu of a Ph.D., and that three years of experience is preferred. Ex. 2080 ¶ 17. Nominally, we accept Petitioner’s proffered level because it is based on Dr. Balter’s more complete explanation. We note, however, that neither party has explained substantively any significance that the difference in the proffered levels of ordinary skill in the art would play in the obviousness analysis. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966); Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he level of skill in the art is a prism or lens through which a judge, jury, or the Board views the prior art and the claimed invention.”); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu- Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.”). To that end, we note that the prior art itself often reflects an appropriate skill level. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Owner that the ’590 Application provides sufficient written description support for “controlling [said path of / a radiation therapy treatment plan involving] said radiation source based on said image.” In particular, we credit the testimony of Dr. Hashemi that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the ’590 Application that components of the disclosed system were computer-controlled based upon, e.g., the depiction of an Elekta SL-20 in Figure 3 of the ’590 Application and from the depiction of an electronic portal imaging device. (Ex. 2080 ¶¶ 109–116, 125–132). Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive because, even assuming that controlling the source path and controlling a radiation therapy treatment plan are “an entirely different class of control step” from controlling patient position (Pet. Reply 8–9), Petitioner has not explained why the portions of the ’590 Application relied upon by Patent Owner do not disclose controlling the source path or controlling a radiation therapy treatment plan.” slip op. at 19

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedNot shown unpatentable

    “Owner that the ’590 Application provides sufficient written description support for “controlling [said path of / a radiation therapy treatment plan involving] said radiation source based on said image.” In particular, we credit the testimony of Dr. Hashemi that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the ’590 Application that components of the disclosed system were computer-controlled based upon, e.g., the depiction of an Elekta SL-20 in Figure 3 of the ’590 Application and from the depiction of an electronic portal imaging device. (Ex. 2080 ¶¶ 109–116, 125–132). Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive because, even assuming that controlling the source path and controlling a radiation therapy treatment plan are “an entirely different class of control step” from controlling patient position (Pet. Reply 8–9), Petitioner has not explained why the portions of the ’590 Application relied upon by Patent Owner do not disclose controlling the source path or controlling a radiation therapy treatment plan.” slip op. at 19

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Applicant-admitted prior artReference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “[t]he content and nature of the printed publication, as well as the circumstances surrounding its publication” (Katz, 687 F.2d at 455), we are not persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of persuasion by showing sufficiently that the portions of Jaffray 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO on which it relies are the work “others.” Unlike in Katz, where the question was “the sufficiency of applicant’s showing to establish that the subject disclosure was his original work, and his alone” (687 F.2d at 455), the question before us is the sufficiency of Petitioner’s showing to establish that the subject disclosure was the work of the non-inventor coauthors of Jaffray 13 Both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion. 14 At oral argument, counsel for Petitioner indicated that, in his view, it does not matter who has the burden. Tr. 20:9, 20:16–17. 1999 SPIE and Jaffray 1999 JRO. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378 (“In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the petitioner to prove ‘unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence,’ 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), and that burden never shifts to the patentee.”); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In the context of the present case, however, the notion of burden-shifting is inapposite because the patentee’s position is that the patent challenger failed to meet its burden of proving obviousness.”); see also Duncan Parking Techs., Inc. v. IPS Group Inc., Case IPR2016-00067, slip op. at 8–13 (PTAB Mar. 27, 2017) (Paper 29). slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 6,842,502 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,842,502

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.