• Alcon Inc. / Alcon Vision, LLC et al. v. Amo Development, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 7, 2022 · IPR2021-00839 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not determined unpatentable because the cited combinations did not establish the claimed image guided, computer planned cataract surgery.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “The parties present compelling argument and evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would include those with experience in ophthalmology, as well as in the research, manufacture, and design of medical optics or medical lasers. Pet. 24; PO Resp. 10–11. The evidence of record also demonstrates that few individuals actually had such comprehensive experience. Rather, teams of individuals with different expertise and various academic degrees (Ph.D.s, B.S.s, and M.D.s) would work together to design laser surgery systems intended to make incisions in the lens of the eye. See, e.g., Ex. 1041 (several authors are M.D.s); Ex. 1042 (the authors’ degrees include Ph.D.s, an M.D., and a B.S.); see also Ex. 1053; Ex. 1054; Ex. 1055; Ex. 2010; Ex. 2019. Thus, we find that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been either an ophthalmic surgeon or someone with a Ph.D., M.S., or B.S. degree in physics, biomedical engineering, or a related science such as nuclear engineering, having experience in researching, manufacturing, or designing medical optics or medical lasers (e.g., five years of experience for a Ph.D. or more to compensate for lesser degrees), and that such persons would have worked in collaboration with one another to fill any necessary gaps in knowledge (e.g., the engineer would consult the medical doctor on clinical issues or physiology and the medical doctor would consult the engineer on technical issues). This definition marries the two proposed by the parties.” slip op. at 11

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

    “would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019). Under this standard, we construe the claim “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id. Furthermore, we need only construe the claims to the extent necessary resolve the dispute between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe 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))). Petitioner does not assert that any claim term requires express construction. See Pet. 7 (stating that it “reserves the right to respond to any constructions that [Patent Owner] submits”). Patent Owner does not present any remarks regarding claim construction. See generally PO Resp. On this record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction. See Nidec Motor., 868 F.3d at 1017 (quoting Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803 (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)). To the extent further discussion of the meaning of any claim term is necessary to our” slip op. at 12

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “We have considered Petitioner’s assertions and evidence, summarized above, and agree with Patent Owner that the combination of Swinger, Baikoff, and Li fails to disclose or render obvious a control system configured to generate an anterior capsulotomy scanning pattern based on image data. PO Resp. 18–23. Petitioner relies on Li for this limitation, however, while Li discloses the use of OCT imaging to measure certain dimensions of the anterior chamber of the eye, Li suggests that a person of ordinary skill in the art manually use the measurement data collected by the system. (Ex. 1044, 1; Ex. 2087 ¶¶ 44–46). More specifically, as summarized by Patent Owner: Li does not suggest configuring the control system to do anything at all with the measurements that it makes, much less determine an anterior capsulotomy scanning pattern. Kang [Ex. 2087] ¶¶ 80, 128. To the contrary, Li’s suggestion of using measurements to “improve the fitting of AC-IOL” teaches a [skilled artisan] to manually use the measurement data. Id. Dr. Izatt testified that “in Li, the controller, so to speak, is a human.” Ex. 2057, 207:17–208:7; see also id., 207:20–21 (in Li, “the one who identifies the treatment region is the surgeon”). PO Resp. 19–20 (emphasis removed, alteration in original). That is, Li discloses a system capable of identifying boundaries of certain eye tissue structures, but fails to disclose a controller configured to determine an anterior capsulotomy scanning pattern. Id. at 17 (“Li teaches using its OCT images as a diagnostic tool.”). Thus, while Li discloses the use of OCT to identifying certain boundaries of tissue structures, Li does not disclose any controller configured to process image data for the purposes of determining a scanning pattern for scanning a focal zone of the laser beam for performing anterior capsulotomy as required by the claims.” slip op. at 26

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

    “The problem with Petitioner’s argument based on Leapfrog and the like is that Petitioner’s obviousness challenge does not simply require automating a manual step using commonplace modern electronics, but requires the conversion of one cataract surgery treatment region identification system into another. That conversion involves the incorporation of OCT imaging technology as the basis for a computer-controlled system to plan and implement eye surgery, two technological leaps that the record fails to show was known or suggested. In particular, the evidence of record does not support a conclusion that OCT was a well-known system used routinely, if at all, in the identification of treatment regions in the lens or lens capsule for cataract surgery, and further does not support a conclusion that a computer-controlled system to plan and implement cataract surgery in the lens was commonplace. We recognize that Petitioner directs us to the testimony of Dr. Izatt who opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to, for example, use a controller to determine the claimed scanning pattern. Pet. 32–33; Reply 3–5; see also Ex. 1123 ¶ 31 (“Once the anterior capsule is identified, it is a relatively simple process to determine the location to place the capsulotomy.”). Here, however, we agree with Patent Owner that the Petition and supporting testimony fails to provide the requisite reasoned analysis with sufficient evidence to support Petitioner’s position on obviousness. In particular, absent some evidentiary support beyond Dr. Izatt’s and Dr. Tipperman’s opinions that it would have been obvious to program a controller to bridge the gap between the functionality disclosed in Swinger and the required functionality of the challenged claims, we are unwilling to accept this line of reasoning. PO Resp. 27; Sur-Reply 4–7; see also DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc. v. Apple Inc., 885 F.3d 1367, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (A skilled artisan’s “common sense” or “common knowledge” can potentially “fill in a missing limitation only when ‘the limitation in question was unusually simple and the technology particularly straightforward.’” (emphasis omitted)).” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 9,101,448 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,101,448
• Alcon Inc. / Alcon Vision, LLC et al. v. Amo Development, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 27, 2022 · IPR2021-00840 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1, 2, 8–16, and 22–35 not unpatentable because the proposed combinations failed to establish the claimed control system and reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “art appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’732 patent; however, we also agree with Patent Owner that such a definition should be flexible enough to include a person with a lesser academic degree and having experience working in the field, such as an engineer with clinical experience in ophthalmic surgery, as well as also including a medical doctor, such as an ophthalmic surgeon with experience working with medical optics and lasers, and that these people may collaborate. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Such an expanded definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art, including aspects of both parties’ definitions, is appropriate here, based on our review of the record. Thus, we find that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been someone with a PhD, MS, or BS degree in physics, biomedical engineering, or a related science such as nuclear engineering, having more or less experience in research, manufacturing, or designing medical optics or medical lasers (e.g., 5 years for a PhD or more to compensate for lesser degrees), or an ophthalmic surgeon, but that such persons would have worked in collaboration with one another to fill any necessary gaps in knowledge (e.g., the engineer would consult the medical doctor on clinical issues or physiology and the medical doctor would consult the engineer on technical issues). This definition marries the two proposed by the parties and is appropriate in view of the record.” slip op. at 18

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

    “[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Neither party seeks an express interpretation of any claim language. Pet. 7–8; see generally Resp. Therefore, we need not and do not expressly construe any claim language here. However, in our analysis below, as required for the sake of clarity, to resolve ambiguity, and for consistency with our decisions in the related proceedings addressing similar claim language and similar prior art, we address the claim language and its meaning as argued by the parties. We do so in accordance with the above-noted standards of law. C. slip op. at 20

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

    “The presence or absence of a reasonable expectation of success is . . . a question of fact.” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “The reasonable expectation of success requirement refers to the likelihood of success in combining references to meet the limitations of the claimed invention.” Id. at 1367. The evidence of record suggests that the ordinarily skilled artisan would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed invention based solely on Swinger’s, Baikoff’s, and Li’s teachings. Further, as our reviewing court has explained, “references to ‘common sense’—” or an ordinarily skilled artisan’s ordinary creativity, “whether to supply a motivation to combine or a missing limitation—cannot be used as a wholesale substitute for reasoned analysis and evidentiary support, especially when dealing with a limitation missing from the prior art references specified.” DSS Tech. Mgm’t, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 855 F.3d 1367, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Perfect Web Techs. Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). Although here Petitioner has not wholly omitted any reasoned analysis or evidence regarding the claimed computer control system programmed to automatically plan a cutting region based on image data and then perform that planned laser-cutting of the lens capsule (and, for some claims, also the lens), this subject matter is not disclosed in any cited art and we find Petitioner’s evidence and reasoning as to why it would have been obvious without such disclosure to be largely conclusory and unpersuasive. slip op. at 44

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Inter partes review must proceed in accordance with the Petition and the arguments set forth therein. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (2018). “It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the ground for the challenge to each claim.’” Intelligent Bio-Sys., 821 F.3d at 1369. Arguments made in a different document, such as an expert’s declaration, may not be merely incorporated-by-reference in the Petition (Petitioner does not even do so much). 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3); see also General Access Solutions, Ltd. v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 811 F. App’x 654, 658 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (noting that the Board did not abuse its discretion in enforcing its rules under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3)) (non-precedential).” slip op. at 58

  Patent outcomesUS 9,107,732 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,107,732
• Alcon Inc. / Alcon Vision, LLC et al. v. Amo Development, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 26, 2022 · IPR2021-00835 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted obviousness combinations did not establish the claimed image-processing control system or a sufficient basis to adapt the cited systems for lens surgery.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “The parties present compelling evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would include those with experience in ophthalmology, as well as in the research, manufacture, and design of medical optics or medical lasers. Pet. 24; PO Resp. 10–11. The evidence of record also demonstrates that few individuals actually had such comprehensive experience. Rather, teams of individuals with different expertise and various academic degrees (Ph.D.s, B.S.s, and M.D.s) would work together to design laser surgery systems intended to make incisions in the lens of the eye. See, e.g., Ex. 1041 (several authors are MDs); Ex. 1042 (the authors’ degrees include Ph.D.s, an M.D., and a B.S.); see also Ex. 1053; Ex. 1054; Ex. 1055; Ex. 2010; Ex. 2019. Thus, we find that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been either an ophthalmic surgeon or someone with a Ph.D., M.S., or B.S. degree in physics, biomedical engineering, or a related science such as nuclear engineering, having experience in researching, manufacturing, or designing medical optics or medical lasers (e.g., 5 years of experience for a Ph.D. or more to compensate for lesser degrees), and that such persons would have worked in collaboration with one another to fill any necessary gaps in knowledge (e.g., the engineer would consult the medical doctor on clinical issues or physiology and the medical doctor would consult the engineer on technical issues). This definition marries the two proposed by the parties.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner does not assert that any claim term requires express construction. See Pet. 7 (stating that it “reserves the right to respond to any constructions that [Patent Owner] submits”). Patent Owner does not present any remarks regarding claim construction. See, generally, PO Resp. On this record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)). To the extent further discussion of the meaning of any claim term is necessary to our decision, we provide that discussion below in our analysis of the asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 13

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

    “We recognize Petitioner’s argument that the use of a controller for determining an anterior capsulotomy scanning pattern would have been “nothing more than automating a manual activity using well-known components (e.g., controllers and algorithms) in predictable ways, which would have been obvious to a [person of ordinary skill in the art]” because a controller would be programmed to determine automatically scanning patterns once the boundaries of the ocular tissue are identified. Pet 32 (citing Ex.1001 ¶ 181; MPEP 2144.04; In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95 (CCPA 1958)); Reply 5–6. We also recognize Petitioner’s argument that “[t]he prior art teaches that integrating diagnostic imaging and treatment functionalities in a single automated system is not only desirable, but also straightforward.” Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 150); see also Reply 7–8 (quoting Venner, 262 F.2d at 95 (“[I]t is well settled that it is not ‘invention’ to broadly provide a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result”); citing Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (updating mechanical invention with modern electronics is understood in the art)). Having considered the parties positions and evidence of record, however, we find that the evidence of record does not support a conclusion that it would have been simple, straightforward, or otherwise routine to convert Swinger’s manual HeNe aiming system and Swinger’s surgeon-identification-of-target-tissue step to an automated, OCT-guided laser system. We provide further analysis below.” slip op. at 28

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Inter partes review must proceed in accordance with the Petition and the arguments set forth therein. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (2018). “It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the ground for the challenge to each claim.’” Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Arguments made in a different document, such as an expert’s declaration, may not be incorporated-by-reference in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3); see also General Access Solutions, Ltd. v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 811 F. App’x 654, 658 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (noting that the Board did not abuse its discretion in enforcing its rules under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3)) (non-precedential).” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 9,095,415 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,095,415
• Alcon Inc. / Alcon Lensx, Inc. et al. v. Amo Development, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Nov 12, 2021 · IPR2021-00843 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on all grounds for claims 1–17, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would be shown unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). 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.” After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, and for the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one challenged claim of the ’023 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–17 of the ’023 patent. See SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “For purposes of this Decision, we generally accept Petitioner’s proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art (or ordinarily skilled artisan), which appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosures of the ’023 patent; however, we also agree with Patent Owner that such a definition should be flexible enough to include a person with a lesser academic degree and having experience working in the field, such as an engineer with clinical experience in ophthalmic surgery, as well as a medical doctor, such as an ophthalmic surgeon with experience working with medical optics and lasers. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected in “the prior art itself”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Such an expanded definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art, including aspects of both parties’ definitions, is appropriate based on our review of the record, which demonstrates individuals having a broad array of scientific degrees that collaborate as a team. We note, however, that our decision to institute trial in this proceeding would not change were we to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “On this record, we agree with Patent Owner that the disputed preamble phrase is limiting. “[C]lear reliance on the preamble during prosecution to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art transforms the preamble into a claim limitation because such reliance indicates use of the preamble to define, in part, the claimed invention.” Catalina Mkt’g Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808–09 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Here, the Examiner expressly allowed the claims in view of the Examiner’s Amendment changing “scanning system” to “cataract surgery scanning system,” thereby transforming this portion of the preamble into a limitation. Ex. 1006, 13, 15, 18; see Catalina Mkt’g, 289 F.3d. at 808. Furthermore, contrary to Petitioner’s arguments, the record appears to suggest that there are structural differences between the optical systems of cataract surgery systems on the one hand and corneal surgery systems on the other. See Ex. 2006, 5:30–36; Ex. 2009, 1209–10. Thus, on this record, we are not persuaded that the language added by the Examiner represents merely an intended use for the disclosed system. In view of the foregoing, for purposes of this Decision, we construe the preamble phrase “cataract surgery scanning system” recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 12 to be limiting.” slip op. at 10

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

    “The ’023 patent explains that a “cataract incision” is an incision created “to allow access for the lens removal instrumentation.” Ex. 1004, 10:17–19. The potential ambiguity in the claim comes, as Petitioner notes, from the fact that the cataract incision of claim 1 “only partially extend[s] through the target tissue,” which would not appear to provide immediate “access to an eye chamber of the patient’s eye.” Pet. 10; Ex. 1004, 10:19– 23, 14:15–21. Although somewhat ambiguous on its face, the prosecution history provides guidance as to how this claim phrase is to be interpreted. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (“Like the specification, the prosecution history provides evidence of how the PTO and the inventor understood the patent.”). During prosecution, the Applicants explained that the invention allows “straight cataract incisions [to be] made at the correct location,” and that partially penetrating cataract incisions are advantageous because they allow the laser delivery system to be located in an “unsterile field,” with the final penetrating incision to be made “by a physician after a patient has been moved to a sterile field.” Ex. 1006, 52–53. The Applicants then explained that despite the fact that partially penetrating cataract incisions do not fully for the lens removal instruments,” as that term is used in the ’023 patent. Id. at 52 (noting the purpose of “partially penetrating cataract incisions” is “to allow access for lens removal instruments”), 55 (“In short, none of the cited art teaches . . . to deliver the first treatment pattern to the target tissue to form partially penetrating cataract incisions – i.e. incisions that allow access for the lens removal instruments.”). The Examiner agreed with this reasoning. Id. at 15 (agreeing that the prior art did not teach or suggest partially penetrating cataract incisions that provide “access to the eye chamber of the patient’s eye”). Given these disclosures, we agree with Patent Owner that “provides access to an eye chamber of the patient’s eye” in claim 1 means that the partial incision is a starting incision, made in the appropriate shape and location, that allows complete access for lens removal instrumentation when completed, for example, by the surgeon. In view of the foregoing, we construe the claim phrase “cataract incision therein that provides access to an eye chamber of the patient’s eye, the incision . . . only partially extending through the target tissue” to require “a partially penetrating cataract incision that, when completed by the” slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,233,023
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Cellect, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 17, 2021 · IPR2020-00512 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 2 is unpatentable as obvious over Swift, Ricquier, and Suzuki; the Board did not reach the alternative ground involving Larson.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Neither party identifies any material differences between a skill level corresponding to approximately two years of professional experience in the field of imaging devices and approximately three years of professional experience in the field of visible optical imaging devices, or any difference in the field of imaging devices and the field of visible optical imaging devices. On this record, there is none. We determine that the level of ordinary skill in the art is at the level of one who would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Physics, or a related field, and approximately two to three years of professional experience in the field of visible optical imaging devices.6 This definition is consistent with the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 6 We do not adopt Petitioner’s inclusion of the qualifier “minimum,” to keep the specified level of skill more definite.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We also are guided by the principle that we only construe claim terms if, and to the extent that, it is necessary for this proceeding. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe 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)). Neither party requests the construction of any claim term. Pet. 13; PO Resp. 12. Further, we do not find that any claim term requires express construction. III.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed

    “Dr. Neikirk’s testimony is rational, and we credit his testimony over the testimony of Patent Owner’s inventor, who provides no explanation as to why it was purportedly unexpected that, as compared to CCD devices, a CMOS imager with remotely located processing circuitry requires no RFI shielding. For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner has not established that the alleged unexpected result would have been unexpected to an ordinarily skilled artisan. Further, even assuming the alleged unexpected result truly would have been unexpected to an ordinarily skilled artisan, Patent Owner has not shown sufficient nexus between the unexpected result and the claimed invention.” slip op. at 20

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusNot shown unpatentable

    “Accordingly, there is no presumption of nexus, and Patent Owner has not separately proved the required nexus for the alleged licensing and commercial success. Thus, there is not a legally and factually sufficient connection between the evidence of licensing and the patented invention.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 9,186,052 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,186,052
• Runway Safe Group AB v. Earthstone International LLC And W. Gene RamseySome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 17, 2021 · IPR2019-01490 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11 and 13–16 are unpatentable as obvious; claim 12 was not shown unpatentable because the asserted grounds did not establish its interconnected open porosity limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd mixedMixed

    “proving unpatentability of the challenged claims, and the burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To prevail, Petitioner must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d) (2019). This Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. After considering the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–11 and 13–16 of the ’671 patent are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). Petitioner has not met that burden with respect to claim 12.” slip op. at 2

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

    “any of Narmo, Hojaji, and Ramsey. Resp. 8, 16–17. On this record, we conclude it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of ACRP and Narmo, Hojaji, or Ramsey, as asserted by Petitioner. Moreover, we also conclude such combinations merely use specific foamed glass compositions in structures already using foamed glass compositions and that the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected to successfully do so. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 78, 81, 84. The simplicity of the technology and the reasonably high level of skill in the art support such a conclusion.” slip op. at 57

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “disclosed foamed glass aggregate bodies to have an “interconnected open porosity” is based on an allegation of inherency, where the open porosity forms because of weathering. See Pet. 38–39 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 75). Similar to our conclusion regarding Ground 6, we also find that Petitioner has not demonstrated that the subject matter of claim 12 would have been obvious over ACRP. We are directed to no evidence of record that the interconnected open porosity limitation would necessarily be present or would be the natural result of weathering, as asserted by Petitioner. See Endo Pharm., 894 F.3d at 1381. To the extent that Petitioner’s argument is premised on a KSR “obvious to try” rationale, as with Ground 6, we find Petitioner presents no evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had any reason to pursue the claimed interconnected open porosity, no evidence of a design need for such a structure, and no evidence of market pressure to solve any problem relating to foamed glass porosity. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. Indeed, Petitioner failed to clearly articulate any obvious to try rationale in the Petition.” slip op. at 74

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied

    “III. PARTIES’ MOTIONS TO STRIKE OR EXCLUDE Petitioner filed a Motion to Strike Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply for” slip op. at 77

  Patent outcomesUS 9,382,671 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,382,671
• Shopify, Inc. / Priceline.Com LLC et al. v. DDR Holdings, LLCRehearing granted
  PTAB · Oct 26, 2020 · IPR2018-01014 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Rehearing

  Granted petitioner’s rehearing request and held claims 1–3, 5, 7, 8, 11–13, 15, 17, and 18 unpatentable over the listed prior-art grounds.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted

    “Petitioner’s argument on rehearing is persuasive, particularly under the broadest-reasonable-interpretation standard of claim construction applied in this proceeding. See Dec. 12–13 (Final Written Decision noting that, for an inter partes review proceeding based on a petition filed prior to November 13, 2018, “the Board interprets claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear”). Petitioner clarifies that the Petition identifies Exhibit 1009’s buy page as corresponding to the “composite web page contain[ing] one or more selectable URLs” recited in the claim and identifies the “view cart,” “modify cart,” and “check out” pages linked to the “buy” page as corresponding to the recited “hierarchical set of additional pages.” See Req. Reh’g 11 (asserting “the Petition demonstrated that the ‘view cart,’ ‘modify cart,’ and ‘checkout’ links satisfy the second ‘wherein’ clause”). In doing so, Petitioner points us to specific portions of its Petition that we find provide sufficient support for this position. Specifically, the Petition cites to paragraph 102 of Dr. Shamos’s Declaration, and both the Petition and that Declaration cite multiple times to page 1 of Exhibit 1009. See Pet. 21; Ex. 1002 ¶ 102. In describing the correspondence to the “hierarchical set of additional pages,” Dr. Shamos testifies that “[t]he buy pages also provide a link (i.e., selectable URL) to a shopping cart, which, as described by the 21 Software Drive website, allows a user to add products to a shopping cart, view a shopping cart, modify a shopping cart, and check out.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 102 (citing Ex. 1009, 1). We credit this testimony, which is unrebutted on the record before us. Indeed, Dr. Shamos’s testimony that a skilled artisan would have understood Exhibit 1009’s sequence of URLs as satisfying the claimed “hierarchical set of additional webpages” is consistent with the manner in which the ’825 patent itself describes its shopping cart functionality—namely, as nothing more than the ability to “ADD TO CART,” “VIEW SHOPPING CART,” “UPDATE QUANTITIES,” and “CHECK OUT.” Ex. 1001, Fig. 22. Petitioner thus demonstrates that the buy page shown in Exhibit 1009, i.e., the recited “composite web page,” contains one or more selectable URLs connecting the “view cart,” “modify cart,” and “check out” pages to the buy page, i.e., the recited “hierarchical set of additional web pages,” as required by the claim. Because each of those pages “pertain[s] to a subset of the product offerings in the electronic catalog,” such as those selected for purchase, Petitioner demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, that each limitation of the second “wherein” clause of claim 3 is met by the Digital River Publications.” slip op. at 5

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “the broadest-reasonable-interpretation standard of claim construction applied in this proceeding. See Dec. 12–13 (Final Written Decision noting that, for an inter partes review proceeding based on a petition filed prior to November 13, 2018, “the Board interprets claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear”). Petitioner clarifies that the Petition identifies Exhibit 1009’s buy page as corresponding to the “composite web page contain[ing] one or more selectable URLs” recited in the claim and identifies the “view cart,” “modify cart,” and “check out” pages linked to the “buy” page as corresponding to the recited “hierarchical set of additional pages.” See Req. Reh’g 11 (asserting “the Petition demonstrated that the ‘view cart,’ ‘modify cart,’ and ‘checkout’ links satisfy the second ‘wherein’ clause”). In doing so, Petitioner points us to specific portions of its Petition that we find provide sufficient support for this position. Specifically, the Petition cites to paragraph 102 of Dr. Shamos’s Declaration, and both the Petition and that Declaration cite multiple times to page 1 of Exhibit 1009. See Pet. 21; Ex. 1002 ¶ 102. In describing the correspondence to the “hierarchical set of additional pages,” Dr. Shamos testifies that “[t]he buy pages also provide a link (i.e., selectable URL) to a shopping cart, which, as described by the 21 Software Drive website, allows a user to add products to a shopping cart, view a shopping cart, modify a shopping cart, and check out.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 102 (citing Ex. 1009, 1). We credit this testimony, which is unrebutted on the record before us. Indeed, Dr. Shamos’s testimony that a skilled artisan would have understood Exhibit 1009’s sequence of URLs as satisfying the claimed “hierarchical set of additional webpages” is consistent with the manner in which the ’825 patent itself describes its shopping cart functionality—namely, as nothing more than the ability to “ADD TO CART,” “VIEW SHOPPING CART,” “UPDATE QUANTITIES,” and “CHECK OUT.” Ex. 1001, Fig. 22. Petitioner thus demonstrates that the buy page shown in Exhibit 1009, i.e., the recited “composite web page,” contains one or more selectable URLs connecting the “view cart,” “modify cart,” and “check out” pages to the buy page, i.e., the recited “hierarchical set of additional web pages,” as required by the claim. Because each of those pages “pertain[s] to a subset of the product offerings in the electronic catalog,” such as those selected for purchase, Petitioner demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, that each limitation of the second “wherein” clause of claim 3 is met by the Digital River Publications.” slip op. at 5

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “we find provide sufficient support for this position. Specifically, the Petition cites to paragraph 102 of Dr. Shamos’s Declaration, and both the Petition and that Declaration cite multiple times to page 1 of Exhibit 1009. See Pet. 21; Ex. 1002 ¶ 102. In describing the correspondence to the “hierarchical set of additional pages,” Dr. Shamos testifies that “[t]he buy pages also provide a link (i.e., selectable URL) to a shopping cart, which, as described by the 21 Software Drive website, allows a user to add products to a shopping cart, view a shopping cart, modify a shopping cart, and check out.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 102 (citing Ex. 1009, 1). We credit this testimony, which is unrebutted on the record before us. Indeed, Dr. Shamos’s testimony that a skilled artisan would have understood Exhibit 1009’s sequence of URLs as satisfying the claimed “hierarchical set of additional webpages” is consistent with the manner in which the ’825 patent itself describes its shopping cart functionality—namely, as nothing more than the ability to “ADD TO CART,” “VIEW SHOPPING CART,” “UPDATE QUANTITIES,” and “CHECK OUT.” Ex. 1001, Fig. 22.” slip op. at 6

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,515,825
• Daimler AG / Daimler North America Corporation et al. v. Stragent, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 13, 2018 · IPR2017-00458 · APJ Carl L Silverman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 and 20 are unpatentable under § 103 over Miesterfeld, Stewart, and Wense; claims 1, 3–7, and 20 are also unpatentable over Posadas, Stewart, and Wense.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Patent Owner proposes that the term, “sharing the information,” should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning, which Patent Owner argues is “completing delivery to a destination” as information is not “shared” until the information has completed delivery to a destination. PO Resp. 15–16. Patent Owner contends the claim language and the specification describe the actual delivery of information to the local bulletin board. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 6:27–31, 12:33–35). Petitioner contends Patent Owner’s proposed meaning is unreasonably narrow and proposes, instead, that the term “should be construed as ‘making the information available to another process,’ consistent with its plain meaning.” Reply 7 (citing Ex. 1036 ¶ 29). Petitioner observes the challenged claims do not recite delivery into a second process, and 7 Petitioner refers to the ’843 patent; in context, it is clear the reference is intended to be to the ’705 patent. additionally notes claim 1 of the related ’843 patent merely requires “sharing the information” and it is not until dependent claim 16 of the ’843 patent that “sharing” further includes “providing the information.” Id. Petitioner contends the doctrine of claim differentiation further supports its proposed claim construction. Id. Petitioner contends this claim construction is consistent with the Specification in which information is shared by placing the information on a bulletin board. Id. at 8 (citing Ex. 1036 ¶ 32). We agree with Petitioner’s claim construction analysis and agree that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “sharing the information” is “making the information available to another process.”” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “ordinary skill in the art “would have at least an undergraduate degree in Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or equivalent degree, and at least two years relevant experience in industry.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 48. Patent Owner’s Declarant, Jeffrey A. Miller, Ph.D, asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have at least the qualifications of or equivalent to either a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or computer engineering with course work or research in embedded networking technologies or an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or computer engineering with at least two years of relevant work experience in industry. Ex. 2004 ¶ 12. Based upon our review of the ’705 patent and the prior art of record, we find Dr. Miller’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art reasonable, and adopt it for this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “We agree that Stewart’s memory management techniques are fundamental techniques applicable to shared memory environments and Petitioner’s reasoning is thus supported by sufficient rational underpinning. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. In particular, we credit Dr. Koopman’s testimony as being more persuasive than Dr. Miller’s testimony. See Ex. 1036 ¶¶ 59– 62; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 97, 98; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 30–39.” slip op. at 29

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

    “Patent Owner contends there is no basis for combining Posadas and Stewart to arrive at the invention of claim 1. PO Resp. 27–30 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 30, 33). According to Patent Owner, Petitioner provides no explanation why a skilled artisan would have combined Posadas’s blackboard system with Stewart’s non-blackboard system. Id. (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 34– 39). Petitioner contends a blackboard is simply a specific type of shared memory and the operations described by Stewart are fundamental features that could apply to any shared memory environment, e.g., determining whether memory is available before writing is a basic process that is not specific to any memory architecture. Reply 19 (citing Ex. 1037 ¶¶ 57–60). According to Petitioner, Stewart’s spin locks were well–known, simple tools to access shared memory and application to Posadas would have been straightforward. Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1036 ¶¶ 57–59; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 97–99). We agree that Stewart’s memory management techniques are fundamental techniques applicable to shared memory environments and Petitioner’s reasoning is thus supported by sufficient rational underpinning. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. In particular, we credit Dr. Koopman’s testimony as being more persuasive than Dr. Miller’s testimony. See Ex. 1036 ¶¶ 59– 62; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 97, 98; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 30–39.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 8,209,705 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,209,705
• Bose Corporation v. Freebit AsAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 18, 2018 · IPR2017-00130 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 and 7–13 are unpatentable as obvious over Berg, Varming, and Aber; claim 6 is unpatentable as obvious over those references and Marshall.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner and argues that a skilled artisan would have had “a bachelor’s degree or master’s degree in audiology or hearing science and at least three years of experience with developing earphone and hearing instrument products.” PO Resp. 26. We do not discern a meaningful difference between the parties’ proposals, and the parties do not contend that any such difference has an impact on this proceeding. In any case, our findings and conclusions are the same under either party’s proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner’s theory of obviousness, however, is that the prior art renders the challenged claims obvious even under Patent Owner’s narrower constructions. Pet. 37–39; Reply 4. For example, Petitioner argues: What they are saying is that the curvature, this new curvature that they have put into that C-shaped pad has to itself engage and fit closely, in other words touch the concha of the ear. We think that this is a narrow interpretation. When you look at the claim language, we are not really seeing support, Your Honor, for that particular narrow construction. And yet, what we are saying is that nonetheless, if we were to adopt that narrow construction, the prior art renders it obvious. Tr. 7:8–15. Petitioner does not have a theory of obviousness under broader constructions, should we find that the challenged claims are not rendered obvious under Patent Owner’s proposed constructions. Reply 4; Tr. 7:16– 9:2. Accordingly, we evaluate Petitioner’s allegations under Patent Owner’s proposed constructions, and need not determine whether the proper constructions should be broader to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed

    “one problem with each of Mauney, Feldman, and Berg, “Varming does not identify the protrusion intended to penetrate into the ‘void or cavity’ of a user’s ear as a drawback of any one of these three devices.” Reply 6–7. We agree with Petitioner. As to Mauney and Feldman, Varming identifies protrusions that enter the ear canal as problematic because they block ambient sound and perspiration. Ex. 1005, 1:23–27, 2:1–6. As to Berg, Varming states that Berg’s large C-shaped pad interferes with the crus of helix, at least for those users with “a distinct and emphasized Crus of Helix,” causing discomfort or preventing the device from staying fixed in the ear. Id. at 2:20–23. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, Varming does not identify interference with the crus of helix at the front of the ear as a problem in any of the three references it discusses in its background. Petitioner also points out that “Varming teaches quite the opposite, because its own device ‘penetrates’ into the void or cavity at the front of a user’s ear.” Reply 9–10 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:8–12 (“a first one of the pads being shaped and positioned to fit into the area of the Cymba Concha by penetration from the area below the Inferior Crux of the Antihelix and above the Crus of Helix”), 8:23–25 (“The pads are formed as one penetrating the area in the Cymba Concha from the area below the inferior Crux of the Antihelix and above the Crus of Helix.”)). After considering Varming’s background discussion and the description of its own invention, we are not persuaded that Varming’s discussion of Berg’s interference with the crus of helix refers to interference at the front of the ear. Rather, Varming clearly describes a device that protrudes into the void or cavity at the front of the ear, a fact that undermines Patent Owner’s argument and the testimony of Dr. Staab.” slip op. at 30

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

    “As noted in the Institution Decision, however, Petitioner does not propose simply incorporating groove 18 from Aber into Berg’s C-shaped earpiece. Dec. 22. Cf. In re Mouttet, 686 F. 3d 1322, 1332 (“It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.”). Rather, Petitioner argues that a skilled artisan would have modified Berg’s C-shaped earpiece by adding a groove at the location of the gap specified in Varming. Pet. 31–32. As Dr. Casali observes, “Aber teaches a known alternative feature for accommodating ridges of the outer ear, which include the extension of the crus of helix.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 70. According to Dr. Casali, “as a result of this modification, the concha-facing contact surface of earpiece 10 would substantially conform to the concha and enable the ear unit to fit closely against the concha when the ear unit is positioned into the ear.” Id. ¶ 71. We find Dr. Casali’s testimony credible and persuasive. As Dr. Casali notes (Ex. 1003 ¶ 71), Berg states that groove 18 partially embracing the crus of helix “assist[s] in firmly retaining the audiophone in place in the ear” and provides “a much greater area of contact between the cap 14 and the ear than is commonly found in devices of this kind, which results in less strain on the ear.” Ex. 1006, 1:75–83. We find that Aber provides a teaching that a groove embracing a ridge of the ear helps hold a device in place in the ear and find that this teaching would have been applicable to Berg’s earpiece. Because the extension of the crus of helix at the location of Varming’s gap is less pronounced than the crus of helix at the front of the ear, a groove at Varming’s gap providing the benefits expressly specified by Aber would be correspondingly less pronounced. Ex. 1003 ¶ 71; Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 22–23.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 8,976,995 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,976,995
• Emerson Electric Co. v. Sipco, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 16, 2018 · IPR2017-00001 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 5 and 6 are unpatentable as obvious over Mason, Shuey, and Cunningham; Petitioner did not show claim 8 unpatentable on that ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “construction against the prior art than it does to construction of the term itself. Patent Owner’s proposed construction, like Petitioner’s, does not, on its face, exclude RF protocol conversion. In this respect, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner is improperly attempting to read in additional limitations that go beyond claim 5’s broad recitation of a “transmitter . . . configured to encode the electrical signal.” See Paper 45, 3. As Petitioner further observes, the Specification of the ’661 patent refers interchangeably to data controller 324 (shown in Figures 3A–3E, not reproduced here) as “data formatter 324” (emphasis added), which “operates to form concise data packets.” Id.; Ex. 1001, col. 8, ll. 49–51. Petitioner’s proposed construction is thus consistent with the Specification. Patent Owner agrees that data controller 324 “encodes a physical condition into a function code,” but emphasizes that it does so “before getting converted by the RF transmitter.” Paper 44, 3. The distinction Patent Owner relies on to exclude RF protocol conversion from its proposed construction would improperly narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly adding a limitation that has no express basis in the claim. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404–05 (CCPA 1969) (“Nevertheless, ‘reading a claim in the light of the specification,’ to thereby interpret limitations explicitly recited in the claim, is a quite different thing from ‘reading limitations of the specification into a claim,’ to thereby narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly adding disclosed limitations which have no express basis in the claim.”). Having thus considered the parties’ positions, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of “encoded electrical signal” as “coded information representing the electrical signal generated by the sensor.” We address application of this construction to the prior art in the analysis below.” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner does not advocate for a specific level of skill in its Response, but its expert, Kevin C. Almeroth, Ph.D., articulates a level of skill similar to Petitioner’s proposal. Ex. 2009 ¶ 75. Specifically, Dr. Almeroth opines that a person of ordinary skill “would have the equivalent of a four-year degree from an accredited institution (usually denoted as a B.S. degree) in computer science, computer engineering or the equivalent and experience with, or exposure to, computer networks and routing.” Id. In addition, according to Dr. Almeroth, a person of ordinary skill “would also have approximately two years of professional experience with computer networking, routing, and wireless networks. Id. And “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, while significant experience in the field might substitute for formal education.” Id. Given the similarity of articulations by the respective experts, and because our Decision does not depend on nuanced distinctions of the level of skill in the art, we adopt Dr. Almeroth’s more detailed articulation, but include electrical engineering as an additional alternative educational background, as indicated by Mr. Kinney.” slip op. at 15

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “We thus agree with Patent Owner that the rationale articulated by Petitioner is conclusory, and insufficiently supported. PO Resp. 30–31. On the record before us, it is more reasonable to construe “the transceiver identification information” as referring to something other than the identification information for the at least one wireless transmitter. For example, Patent Owner contends that “[o]ne skilled in the art, reading the plain text of claims 5 and 8, would easily recognize that the ‘transceiver’ referred to in claim 8 is the transmitter in claim 5 that is configured to both send and receive signals.” Id. at 33. Patent Owner provides support for this reading both by identifying disclosure in the Specification of the ’661 patent consistent with its position, and through testimony by its expert, Dr. Almeroth. Id. at 33–36 (citing Ex. 1001, Figs. 2, 3C, 3D, col. 6, ll. 3–8, col. 9, ll. 53–56, col. 10, ll. 32–34; Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 125–132). For example, Dr. Almeroth testifies that Mason’s AMR server “at most would need only some meter identification number and a meter reading.” Ex. 2009 ¶ 134. We credit this testimony, as well as Dr. Almeroth’s assertion that “[t]ransceiver identification information is extraneous for the needs of the AMR server in Cunningham and Mason.” Id. Ultimately, we need not resolve the construction issues, and the issue of whether claim 8 is indefinite is not before us. 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (limiting inter partes review to “a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103”). It is sufficient for us to determine whether Petitioner has put forth sufficient evidence to meet its burden of establishing that claim 8 would have been obvious over the combination of Mason, Shuey, and Cunningham. In light of the foregoing considerations, we conclude that Petitioner has not.” slip op. at 34

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

    “c. “one or more additional wireless transmitters” Third, Petitioner combines the teachings of Shuey with those of Mason in addressing claim 5’s recitation of “one or more additional wireless transmitters.” Id. at 62–63. The claim requires that each such additional wireless transmitter is “electrically interfaced with a sensor and configured to receive the RF signal and retransmit the RF signal,” i.e., to act as a repeater. Ex. 1001, col. 19, ll. 22–24. As discussed above, Mason discloses that meter 12D is considered “inaccessible” with respect to node 18, and that another meter within the network may act as a repeater so that the inaccessible meter may still be contacted. Id. at col. 6, ll. 27–35. Petitioner cites Shuey for details regarding the information included in retransmission by meters acting as repeaters, and provides sufficient reason to effect the combination in light of Mason’s explicit reference to Shuey: “A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate into Mason’s system Shuey’s teaching of a repeater that retransmits all of the claimed information, because Mason explicitly notes that Shuey’s system is a system for which Mason’s invention is particularly suited.” Pet. 58–59 (citing Ex. 1007, col. 6, ll. 35–38; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 110–112). Petitioner’s reasoning is thus supported by sufficient rational underpinning. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 7,468,661 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,468,661

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.