• Mastercard Incorporated / Mastercard International Incorporated v. Ov Loop, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 7, 2025 · IPR2023-01289 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board maintained that claims 1–33 are unpatentable as obvious over Collinge, including claims 10–13 and 27–30.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandDecided for petitioner

    “Decision which components of Collinge “the Board relied on for claim 10’s limitation ‘receiving [at the remote computer system] an authorization request to authorize the transaction from the POS terminal.’” Remand Order 3. The Order instructs: “[o]n remand, the Board shall consider Patent Owner’s arguments as to claims 10 and 27, and their dependent claims. Regardless of the Board’s disposition on remand, the Board should address Patent Owner’s arguments and explain more fully its findings as to claims 10 and 27.” Id. The Remand Order further states that “this case is remanded to the Board for consideration of the arguments made in Patent Owner’s DR Request” and that we “should point more specifically to where in Collinge the argued limitation is taught, if anywhere, and which components of Collinge satisfy the limitation, if any.” Id. As instructed, in this Decision we consider Patent Owner’s arguments raised in the DR Request as to claims 10 and 27, and their dependent claims.3 As explained in detail below, and consistent with our determination in the Final Written Decision, we conclude Petitioner establishes by 3 We consider the arguments presented in Patent Owner’s DR Request in the context of arguments presented in Patent Owner’s Response, as arguments on the merits may be considered waived unless presented in that Response. See Paper 16, 9 (explaining that “Patent Owner is cautioned that any arguments not raised in the response may be deemed waived”). a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claims 10–13 and 27–30 of the ’171 patent would have been obvious over Collinge.4” slip op. at 3

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

    “Ex. 1011 ¶ 77. In short, although paragraph 77 of Collinge is cited in the Petition and addresses both issuer processing server 308 and acquirer processing server 312, Petitioner relies on and shows that issuer processing server 308 (not acquirer processing server 312) receives “an authorization request to authorize the transaction from the POS terminal,” as required by claim 10. Pet. 58–59; Pet. Reply 16–18; DR Req. Opp. 2–4. Furthermore, there is no dispute that in Collinge the “authorization process” is performed at issuer processing server 308 in response to a request it receives. Ex. 1011 ¶ 77 (“The issuer processing server 308 may then validate the application cryptogram”). Claim 10 requires “performing an authorization process” including “receiving an authorization request to authorize the transaction from the POS terminal” at the remote computer system. We recognize that acquirer processing server 312 facilitates receiving transaction information from the POS terminal and communicating an authorization request to the issuer processing server 308. See Ex. 1011 ¶ 77. It is merchant point-of-sale terminal 120, however, that transmits “the received payment information and any additional transaction information (e.g., transaction amount, merchant identifier, etc.) to the acquirer processing server 312,” so that “acquirer processing server 312 may then generate and submit an authorization request for the financial transaction” through payment network 124 to issuer processing server 308 for validation. Id. Thus, Petitioner shows that in Collinge the request received by the issuer processing server 308 is “from” the POS terminal, as required by claim 10. See Pet. 58–6-; Ex. 1011, ¶ 77, Fig. 7.” slip op. at 20

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “’095 Provisional, reproduced above). Reply 17–18 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 46, Fig. 7). We credit Dr. Fiske in this regard, who explains that “the functionality performed” in the components in the “Blue-Box Structures,” that is Collinge’s Cloud Systema and Issuer System, “share a ‘connection 178’ therebetween,” as shown in Figure 7 of the ’095 Provisional. Ex. 1050 ¶ 43. We also considered Dr. Easttom’s opinion that Collinge’s Cloud System 110 and Issuer System 108 (see Ex. 1011, Fig. 7) are not one computer system because, in his view, each item “is (one or more) separate systems that operated independently from the others.” Ex. 2009 ¶ 150; see also PO Resp. 36–37 (arguing that Petitioner presents “no evidence” to show that allegedly “distinct” components are part of one remote computer system). We find Dr. Easttom’s opinion untenable because it is contrary to the express disclosure of Collinge, which demonstrates that, rather than operating “independently,” Cloud System 110 and Issuer System 108, and specifically remote-SE system 110 and issuer processing server 308, are connected and operate together through that connection, remotely from the mobile device. The Final Written Decision expressly agrees with and adopts Petitioner’s contentions with regard to claim 10, and we maintain that position here. See FWD 56–59.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 10,032,171 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,032,171
• Abbott Laboratories / Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Altivera LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 15, 2025 · IPR2024-00425 · APJ Bach V Hoang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5, 9, and 10 are unpatentable as obvious over Beck, Heller, and Lovejoy; the Board did not reach the alternative Bandy grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not dispute this assessment. See generally PO Resp. Having considered the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that Petitioner’s proposal comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’307 Patent. Accord Inst. Dec. 8–9.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “both the unique sensor ID as well as the associated unique wireless device ID is contradicted, or at least unsupported, by the claim language and the Specification. We determine that this limitation does not require authentication of both the unique sensor ID and the unique wireless device ID, or otherwise require authentication using the unique wireless ID. Rather, the limitation only requires authentication of the unique sensor ID. The language and structure of the claim itself, “the remote server authenticates said unique sensor ID associated with said unique wireless device ID,” requires authentication of the unique sensor ID but not the unique wireless device ID. See Ex. 1001, 19:51–52 (emphasis added). The portion of the limitation reciting “associated with said unique wireless device ID” is linguistically an appositive modifying the “unique sensor ID.” Indeed, Patent Owner acknowledges the “plain meaning of the claim term is that the remote server authenticates the unique sensor ID and that such unique sensor ID is associated with a unique wireless device ID.” PO Resp. 18.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed constructions of any of these other claim terms or phrases. PO Resp. 24. We agree with the parties that the identified limitations—which each recite a “means” or “means for” performing a particular function—are means-plus-function limitations that should be interpreted under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (holding that “use of the word ‘means’ creates a presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 applies”). And we agree with Petitioner’s uncontested identification of the recited functions and corresponding structure for these limitations for the reasons explained by Petitioner. See Pet. 11–15 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:20–21, 2:24–28, 3:33–36, 17:18–30); id. at 13–15 (citing Ex. 1009, 9:4–6, 9:19–20, 9:57–65, 10:10– 11) (explaining that Lovejoy is incorporated by reference into the ’307 Patent). We adopt the uncontested constructions identified by Petitioner, as” slip op. at 15

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that the improvements offered by the incorporation of Heller’s teachings would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Beck and Heller in the manner proposed by Petitioner. Confirming Petitioner’s assertion that the combination yields improvements, Heller states that it improves the type of glucose monitor used in one of Beck’s embodiments. Beck states that its “medical device 130 includes a glucose meter” which “measure[s] blood glucose levels of blood applied to test strips.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 34. Specifically addressing such “conventional” test strip glucose monitoring, Heller states that its in vivo glucose sensor system addresses a need for continuous or automatic monitoring in a small, comfortable device. Ex. 1016, 2:1–7, 2:15–58, 3:19–25. As such, we agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Beck and Heller to improve Beck’s medical device. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 401. We further agree with Petitioner that a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate sensor implementation details described in Heller, e.g., an A/D converter and patient attachment systems, with Beck’s medical device. Pet. 44–45, 53, 55; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 228, 234, 236–238, 259, 267, 278, which do no more than yield predictable results, e.g., converting signals or attaching a sensor to a patient. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 401 (“[A] combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 7,969,307 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,969,307
• Interactive Communications International, Inc. v. Blackhawk Network Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 14, 2025 · IPR2024-00465 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 are unpatentable: claims 1–10 and 12–24 as obvious over Szrek and Llach, and claim 11 as obvious over Szrek, Llach, and Gilmore.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner proposes that the level of ordinary skill in the art is an artisan with a working knowledge of POS activation systems and lottery systems that was gained through a mixture of training and work experience in the relevant field such as (i) having a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer communications, electrical engineering, or equivalent degree, coupled with at least three years of work experience; (ii) having a Master’s degree in computer science, computer communications, or electrical engineering, but having less work experience; or (iii) having no formal degree, but having experience in the relevant field of at least six years of work experience. Pet. 2–3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 13–14).9 Patent Owner states that, “[f]or the purpose of this proceeding, Patent Owner adopts the Petition’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 19 (citing Pet. 2–3). We find that the parties’ agreed-upon level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’451 patent and the prior art of record. See Inst. Dec. 14; see Okajima v. 9 Petitioner proposes the same level of ordinary skill in the art that the Board adopted in PGR2020-00084 (Pet. 2–3 (citing Ex. 1008, 11)), and IPR2023- 01235 (see IPR2023-01235, Paper 34 at 12–13). Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Therefore, we adopt the parties’ agreed-upon level of ordinary skill in the art, as articulated above, in our consideration of the issues presently before us.” slip op. at 13

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

    “We need not construe “transaction processor” expressly because its meaning is not in dispute and its construction is not necessary to resolve the controversy before us.” slip op. at 16

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

    “On balance, we find that even with the alleged disadvantages identified by Patent Owner, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Szrek with Llach’s third-party transaction processor because the advantage of having a “centralized intermediary” allows Szrek’s system to support different game providers, such as different lottery companies, which would reduce some implementation costs and allow the system to be more easily and cheaply extended. Pet. 47 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 181); see Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine”) (citing Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000)); see also Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 795 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (stating the same). We acknowledge that the combination comes with some disadvantages, including “add[ed] delay, reduce[d] efficiency, and . . . implementation complexities by converting a simple, direct communication exchange into an exchange that traverses multiple systems.” PO Resp. 52 (citing Ex. 2052 ¶ 163). But, “[t]he fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.” Winner, 202 F.3d at 1349 n.8. Here, Szrek expressly teaches indirect communication as a possible implementation of its system and Petitioner’s combination—employing Llach’s third-party transaction processor as part of the indirect communication channel—offers the attractive benefit of allowing Szrek’s system to support different game providers, which would reduce some implementation costs even if it might increase other costs, e.g., by having to program certain components (e.g., the cash registers) differently. Specifically, we find that the ability to expand Szrek’s system to support different game providers provides advantages that outweigh the disadvantages discussed above in the circumstance where one desires a more robust and comprehensive system. See Pet. Reply 23 (noting three advantages of the combination— (1) “allow[ing] Szrek’s system to use ‘a centralized system for activating lottery tickets from different retailers and different locations,’” (2) “allow[ing] support for different game providers, such as different lottery companies,” “reduc[ing] implementation costs,” and (3) “allow[ing] Szrek’s system to ‘communicate with individual card” slip op. at 37

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

    “On balance, we find that even with the alleged disadvantages identified by Patent Owner, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Szrek with Llach’s third-party transaction processor because the advantage of having a “centralized intermediary” allows Szrek’s system to support different game providers, such as different lottery companies, which would reduce some implementation costs and allow the system to be more easily and cheaply extended. Pet. 47 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 181); see Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine”) (citing Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000)); see also Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 795 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (stating the same). We acknowledge that the combination comes with some disadvantages, including “add[ed] delay, reduce[d] efficiency, and . . . implementation complexities by converting a simple, direct communication exchange into an exchange that traverses multiple systems.” PO Resp. 52 (citing Ex. 2052 ¶ 163). But, “[t]he fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.” Winner, 202 F.3d at 1349 n.8. Here, Szrek expressly teaches indirect communication as a possible implementation of its system and Petitioner’s combination—employing Llach’s third-party transaction processor as part of the indirect communication channel—offers the attractive benefit of allowing Szrek’s system to support different game providers, which would reduce some implementation costs even if it might increase other costs, e.g., by having to program certain components (e.g., the cash registers) differently. Specifically, we find that the ability to expand Szrek’s system to support different game providers provides advantages that outweigh the disadvantages discussed above in the circumstance where one desires a more robust and comprehensive system. See Pet. Reply 23 (noting three advantages of the combination— (1) “allow[ing] Szrek’s system to use ‘a centralized system for activating lottery tickets from different retailers and different locations,’” (2) “allow[ing] support for different game providers, such as different lottery companies,” “reduc[ing] implementation costs,” and (3) “allow[ing] Szrek’s system to ‘communicate with individual card” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 11,488,451 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,488,451
• Geneoscopy, Inc. v. Exact Sciences CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 9, 2025 · IPR2024-00459 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over each of the six asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Here, as in our Institution Decision, we do not discern a significant difference between the parties’ respective proposed definitions beyond the number of years of experience after obtaining a doctoral degree. Compare Pet. 12, with Prelim. Resp. 47, and Resp. 19–20; see also DI 7–8. Under either proposed definition, the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been very highly skilled and educated. For purposes of this Final Decision, we maintain that Patent Owner’s definition appears to be reasonable (and it falls between Petitioner’s two definitions asserted in the reexamination request and in the Petition). Further, Patent Owner’s proposed definition appears to comport with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the ’781 patent itself, for example, Vilkin’s authors are a group of medical doctors and an editor of the journal is a PhD, Joost Louwagie, the named inventor of the ’781 patent, holds a PhD in Biochemistry, and the authors of Itzkowitz are medical doctors and PhDs. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he 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)); see Ex. 1005, 3 (list of authors); Ex. 1016 (Dr. Louwagie profile); Ex. 1055; see also generally Reply (Petitioner did not contest our similar determination at Institution). Therefore, we adopt and use Patent Owner’s definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan, set forth above. C.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Petitioner asserts that no claim construction is necessary in this proceeding. See generally Pet. Similarly, Patent Owner states that it “does not believe that claim construction is necessary to resolve patentability” in this proceeding. Resp. 21. “[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)). We agree with the parties that no construction of any claim term is necessary for purposes of our Final Decision. D.” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “Pet. 12. In support of these grounds for unpatentability, Petitioner relies on, inter alia, the 1st and 2nd Declarations of Duncan Whitney, PhD. Ex. 1002; Ex. 1080. In support of its positions, Patent Owner relies on, inter alia, the 1st and 2nd Declarations of Vadim Backman, PhD, and the Declaration of Peter Wood. Ex. 2001; Ex. 2022; Ex. 2023.” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “We have no reasonable doubt that aspects of the Cologuard product practice the invention of the ’781 patent’s claims 1 and 3, which are most generally directed to steps of collecting two portions of a fecal sample at home, and combining a respective buffer stabilizer/preservative with each of the two portions for claim 1, and then processing those fecal samples by testing for blood and nucleic acids (e.g., DNA) for claim 3. These appear to be nearly the most basic steps for using the Cologuard kit. See generally Ex. 2032. And, these steps do illustrate a certain ease of use and consumerfriendliness that may be a contributing factor in Cologuard’s success. See, e.g., Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 140–142, 155, 158–159, 170–171.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 11,634,781 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,634,781
• Provisur Technologies, Inc. v. Weber Food Technology GmbHAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 28, 2025 · IPR2024-00235 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 8, 10, and 14–16 are unpatentable as anticipated by Young and obvious over Young and Norrie; the Johnson and Belk ground was not reached.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Provisur proposes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had: (1) a bachelor’s degree (or equivalent) in mechanical engineering (or a similar field) and at least two years of experience working as an engineer (or similar role) on food processing and/or packaging systems (or in a similar field); or (2) at least seven years of experience working as an engineer (or similar role) on food processing and/or packaging systems (or in a similar field). Pet. 12. Weber does not contest Provisur’s framing of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. There being no dispute, we adopt Provisur’s definition of the level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 5

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

    “Provisur construes the claim terms “according to their plain and ordinary meanings as understood by a [person of ordinary skill in the art] in view of the specification and prosecution history” and posits that “[n]o terms require an explicit construction to resolve the unpatentability controversy between the parties here.” Pet. 13. Weber appears to agree, stating in the related district court action that “most of [its] patent claims are plain and ordinary . . . [t]hey’re not difficult or complex claims or claim terms.” Ex. 3 US 5,514,032, issued May 7, 1996 (Ex. 1004, “Young”). 4 US 4,979,269, issued Dec. 25, 1990 (Ex. 1005, “Norrie”). 5 US 6,929,540 B2, issued Aug. 16, 2005 (Ex. 1006, “Johnson”). 6 US 6,198,834 B1, issued Mar. 6, 2001 (Ex. 1007, “Belk”). 1028, 5. This being the case, we do not find the need to expressly construe any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (confirming that the Board need not construe claim terms where their construction is not material to the dispute).” slip op. at 5

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

    “without first determining how much fat existed to begin with, i.e., prior to the side of meat being trimmed. But, as Provisur correctly notes, Weber ignores what one skilled in the art reasonably would have understood from reading Young’s disclosure as a whole. See Pet. 30–36 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 104–106, 109–112); Pet. Reply 2–12. When that is done, one skilled in the art would have understood that a necessary premise of Young’s determination of the thickness of fat to remain on the loin is knowing the thickness of the fat to begin with, which Young’s imaging system 190 and imaging processing routine 240 determine by first analyzing a series of “fat/lean separation lines” and “edge lines” in the side of meat being trimmed. Pet. 30–32 (citing Ex. 1004, 17:34–62, 18:33–56, 22:53–24:38, Figs. 2, 13); Pet. Reply 3–7 (citing portions of same evidence). More specifically, as described in Young (and articulated by Provisur), the side of meat is placed fat side down on a product support, i.e., platen 20. See Ex. 1004, 7:16–21, Figs. 1, 2. Using several cameras—top plan camera 196, end view camera 197, and fat line camera 198—Young’s imaging system 190 acquires multiple images of the side of meat from various angles and under various lighting conditions to “provide image data regarding each side of [meat].” See id. at 17:34–18:56. That image data is then used by Young’s image processing routine 240 to generate a series of demarcation lines on the side of meat, including: (1) fat/lean separation lines (representing the interface between the loin meat and the fat layer along top, side, and end views of the meat product; and (2) edge lines (representing lines along the outer surface of the meat product). See id. at 22:53–23:67, Figs. 10, 13 (Blocks 242, 246, 250, 254). In addition, “a plurality of points (preferably 20) are generated for each of the fat/lean separation and edge lines using known pattern matching routines.” Id. at 23:28–30, Fig. 13 (Blocks 244, 248, 252, 256); see also id. at 23:61–63 (essentially same). The fat/lean separation and edge lines (and points therein) generated by Young’s image processing routine 240 are then used to calculate certain dimensions and characteristics of the side of meat, such as height, length, and width. Id. at 24:10–22, Fig. 13 (Block 258). As Provisur’s expert credibly testifies, one skilled in the art would have understood that the dimension from the fat/lean separation line to the edge line along the outer surface represents the thickness of fat cover on the side of meat, i.e., before the fat is trimmed. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 106. Insofar as how that dimension is used, Young states that controller 172 uses “dynamic (real time) image data” of the fat/lean separation and edge lines “to dynamically modify the cutting profile of the loin knife assembly 100 so that the assembly follows a fixed distance from the separation line to provide the optimum fat cover for the loin.” Ex. 1004, 18:32–45; see also id. at 17:48–52 (describing “real time processor” for “image processing routines”). Notably, according to Young, the “fixed distance” represents the “desired” thickness of fat that remains on the loin, after trimming, and “sufficiently keeps the loin from drying out, but doesn’t make the loin look too fat,” although “[o]ther fat thicknesses may be desired in the alternative.” Id. at 20:60–66; see also id. at 10:39–42 (“Through control of the knife blade along several axes, assembly 100 preferably produces an optimum separation between loin and belly, with a desired fat covering left on the loin.” (emphases added)). Because the desired thickness of fat cover is what remains on the loin” slip op. at 9

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for patent owner

    “argument that Weber considers vital to its dispute of Provisur’s showing for the claimed fat thickness determination. During oral hearing, Weber repeatedly argued that Provisur changed theories midstream, i.e., between the time of the petition and the hearing. See Hrg. Tr. 22:18–24:47; see also id. at 31:14–22, 33:8–18, 34:16–20, 49:17–50:15, 54:16–56:25 (repeating same argument). More specifically, according to Weber, Provisur originally relied only on image data from Young’s “top view” camera as processed in “block 246” of Young’s image processing routine 240 when showing how Young meets the claimed fat thickness determination, whereas now Provisur relies on image data from Young’s “end view” cameras as processed in “Block 254.” Compare PO Sur-Reply 3–6 (focusing on Young’s “top view camera” in “block 246”), with Hrg. Tr. 27:4–16 (“[Block] 246, which is what they relied on, is processing images from the top-view camera in Young’s system. It is generating lines from the top-view camera in Young’s system. What they are newly trying to rely on today, for the first time, is Block 254 that is discussed toward the bottom of column 23 in Young, and that analyzes different images from a different camera. It is the end camera. It generates different lines. It demonstrates an end fat/lean line and an end edge line. Prior to today’s hearing, neither Petitioner, nor its expert, had ever discussed Block 254. You will not find a single reference to 254 in their papers, nor have they discussed the end edge line. It is completely new today. It finds absolutely no support in the record.” (emphases added)). We disagree with Weber’s contention. As shown and described in the petition, Provisur relies on more than simply Young’s “top view” camera and “block 246.” See Pet. 29–31. Rather, in its petition, Provisur annotates Young’s Figure 2 to show that image data from all three cameras of “imaging system 190”—“top plan camera 196, end view camera 197, [and] fat line camera 198”—play a role in the determination of fat thickness.8 Id. at 30. Moreover, Provisur cites the entire process depicted in “Figure 13” and described in columns “22:53–24:38” of Young as critical to the determination. Id. at 31. Those cited portions of Young involve not only the analysis of fat/lean and edge lines from “top view” images (block 246), but also the analysis of fat/lean and edge lines from “end view” images (blocks 250 and 254). See Ex. 1004, 23:12–24:13. In other words, Provisur’s showing for the claimed fat thickness determination is based on Young’s collective analysis of all those images. Indeed, Provisur’s expert confirms as much when confronted by Weber on cross-examination— Q. How does [Young] use the other cameras to identify that fat/lean separation line? A. Again, this is a -- this is a three-dimensional product that’s not regular, and all the views basically are needed to be able to describe that complex three-dimensional shape, so that the knife will be able to cut at that -- at that line, offset by whatever desired thickness there is, on that three-dimensional shape. Ex. 2006, 25:15–27:19 (emphasis added). 8 Indeed, contrary to Weber’s assertion, Provisur highlights “fat lean separation camera 198,” not top view camera 196, as most critical to the determination of fat thickness. Pet. 31. In the end, we reject the notion that Provisur changed theories” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 8,529,321 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,529,321
• Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2023-01363 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 10–13 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of Holmberg, Battey, Blankenship, and Cowen.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least 1 year of experience related to communication networks or the equivalent.” Pet. 7. Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–31). Dr. Eldering agrees that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least one year of experience related to communication networks or the equivalent.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 24. According to Dr. Eldering, “[a] person with less relevant practical experience but with additional experience would also qualify.” Id. Patent Owner contends that” slip op. at 9

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

    “Although Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s construction, it contends “the Board need not resolve this claim construction dispute because Petitioner’s proposed grounds 1-5 are all insufficient under either construction.” PO Resp. 19. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and the prior art of record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). For example, we discuss below in Section III.G why we do not reach the claim construction issue presented by Petitioner.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We find that Holmberg expressly contemplates using its wall box within multi-dwelling units, notes that multi-dwelling wall boxes in the prior art were “typically provided” on every floor, and discloses that the multi-dwelling wall boxes would contain optical couplings for each resident on a given floor. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 7, 34; Pet. Reply 8–10. In view of these disclosures, we credit the testimony of Dr. Kiaei that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to use Holmberg’s wall box in multi-dwelling units and would have seen a need to access the area behind spice tray 230 to connect and disconnect subscribers. Ex. 1003 ¶ 92; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 7–8. Moreover, even if Holmberg were limited to mid-span locations and distributing drop cables, as opposed to distribution cables for individual subscribers, as asserted by Patent Owner, Patent Owner does not dispute that a technician would still need periodic access to the area behind splice tray 230 in these mid-span devices. Tr. 38:3–39:1 (counsel agreeing that one would need to access the area behind splice tray 230 in Holmberg, albeit in “rare occasions”); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 90–92; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 7–8. Thus, whether used in the manner contemplated by Petitioner or Patent Owner, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that access to the space behind splice tray 230 in Holmberg would be necessary. With access behind splice tray 230 required, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would have seen a benefit to replacing Holmberg’s fasteners or screws with a hinged connection, such as that disclosed in Battey, to allow easier access to the area behind the splice tray. Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 39 (disclosing that a rotatable splice tray or shelf would “provide[] full and convenient access to the splice tray”)). First, Petitioner and Dr. Kiaei persuasively demonstrate that once the fibers of Holmberg are routed from behind splice tray 230 and the distribution cables spooled on this tray, a technician could not reasonably access fiber optic cables stored behind splice tray 230 without releasing or opening splice tray 230. Pet. Reply 14–15 (citing Ex. 1023, 60:20–61:15); Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 31–32. Second, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that without a hinged connection, the technician would have to either hold the splice tray of Holmberg with one hand while performing the necessary routing and splicing steps, two screws would need to remain in place (essentially replicating a hinge), or the tray would have to be left to dangle, supported only by the routed and spliced fibers. Pet. Reply 19–20.” slip op. at 22

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “Allegedly New Arguments on Reply Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s arguments regarding the benefits of a hinged connection when performing the splicing and routing steps should be dismissed or ignored because they were improperly raised for the first time on reply. Sur-reply 19–20. We disagree. The Petition asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to add a hinged connection, such as that disclosed in Battey, in Holmberg and would have seen a benefit to so doing. Pet. 40–44. Petitioner did not change its proposed combination or its stated rationale in its Reply. Rather, in response to Patent Owner’s counter-arguments, Petitioner expands upon the benefits of its proposed combination, i.e., the substitution of a hinged connection in place of fasteners. Pet. Reply 15–21. This is permissible, as a reply may properly expand on or extend previously raised arguments relating to the motivation to make the proposed changes to the prior art. See Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., 76 F.4th 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (explaining that the reply arguments properly relied on the same legal ground, the same prior art references, and same legal argument—the motivation to make the proposed changes to the prior art reference).” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 9,008,483 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,008,483
• Howard Industries, Inc. v. Capsa Solutions LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01274 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 3 and 4 are unpatentable: claim 3 as obvious over Clark, Manner, and Santoro; claim 4 as obvious over Clark and Manner.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “have at least a four-year college degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, industrial design, or a closely related field and at least one year of experience in product development and design for commercial workstations and work platforms.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 17–18). Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience could substitute for formal education.” Id. Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in a pertinent discipline involving mechanical product design, such as mechanical engineering, with 2-3 years experience in in [sic] the design, manufacture, or analysis of mechanical devices.” PO Resp. 18. Patent Owner alternatively argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “with a 2-year mechanical engineering diploma and . . . 4-6 years of experience in in [sic] the design, manufacture, or analysis of mechanical components and devices.” Id. Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner submits a somewhat different, and broader, definition” of a person of ordinary skill in the art than Patent Owner’s definition because Petitioner’s definition includes industrial design which is a field that does not require the same level of hard sciences as Patent Owner’s definition. Id. Patent Owner further contends that “the Petition should be denied under either party’s definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art] as Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.” Id. at 18–19 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 45–47). We apply Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’668 patent and the prior art. Our Decision would not be affected if we were to apply Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We have considered the parties’ respective arguments concerning the construction of this claim term and, for the following reasons, we adopt Patent Owner’s construction of “compartment” as “an enclosed space for containing an item.” First, Petitioner does not dispute that it agreed to adopt Patent Owner’s construction in the district court proceeding between the parties. Pet. Reply 5; Tr. 8:14–21. Second, Petitioner cites to several Board Decisions in which the panels construed claim terms even though the parties agreed to constructions in parallel litigation and argues that the agreement between Petitioner and Patent Owner in the parallel district court proceeding has no bearing on this proceeding. Id. (citing Cook Grp. Inc. v. Cook Med. LLC, IPR2017-00135, Paper 7 at 7–8 (PTAB May 16, 2017); Arris Int’l PLC v. Sony Corp., IPR2016-00834, Paper 54 at 26–29 (PTAB Sept. 28, 2017); Apple Inc. v. VirnetX Inc., IPR2015-00810, Paper 44 at 18–19 (PTAB Aug. 30, 2016)). But, those cited decisions are not precedential and two of them were decided under the “broadest reasonable interpretation standard,” not the Phillips standard, thereby rendering a stipulation between the parties in district court less informative to the panels’ determinations. See Apple, IPR2015-00810, Paper 44 at 18; Cook Grp., IPR2017-00135, Paper 7 at 7. More importantly, given Petitioner’s agreement with Patent Owner’s construction in the district court, we see no reason to apply a different construction here simply because Petitioner proposed that construction prior to agreeing to the construction with Patent Owner in district court. Tr. 11:21–25.8” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner

    “There are two exceptions to the general rule that claims “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365. First, “when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer” or second, “when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Id. (citing Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1580). In order for the patentee to act as his or her own lexicographer, the patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning . . . [i]t is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must ‘clearly express an intent’ to define the term. Id. Further, in order to establish disavowal of claim scope, the specification must “make[] clear that the invention does not include a particular feature . . . even though the language of the claims, read without reference to the specification, might be considered broad enough to encompass the feature in question.” Id. As noted above, the underlying premise of Patent Owner’s proposed construction is that the language “disposed in” is broad enough to encompass compartments not “entirely in” or “contained in” the recited portion of the work platform.” slip op. at 17

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner

    “For the following reasons, we determine that the portions of the prosecution history of the ’650 patent relied on by Patent Owner do not “prov[e] the existence of a ‘clear and unmistakable’ disclaimer that would have been evident to one skilled in the art.” Trivascular, 812 F.3d at 1063– 64.14 Patent Owner argues that the prosecution history redefined the term forward “by disclaiming workstations that are mounted on top of or over the height adjustment mechanism.” PO Resp. 29. Claims 3 and 4 recite “a work platform including a work surface and compartments for containing items” not a “workstation.” It is unclear what Patent Owner is referring to as the “workstation,” i.e., the recited “work platform,” the recited “work surface,” or the combination of “work platform,” “work surface,” and the recited “compartments.” Patent Owner injects further ambiguity by rephrasing the disclaimer, as “Applicant explicitly disclaimed carts having work stations mounted entirely to the top of the height adjustment mechanism (e.g., carts like Clark and Reeder).” Id. at 30 (emphasis added). Regardless of these 14 Because of our determination that the requirements for a clear and unmistakable disclaimer are not met by the cited portions of the prosecution history of the ’650 patent, we need not and do not reach the question of relevance of the statements in the prosecution of the ’650 patent to the claims of the ’668 patent. ambiguities, Patent Owner misinterprets the statements in the prosecution history. The applicant’s primary argument was that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have incorporated moveable work surfaces above the “compartment” of Clark. Ex. 1033, 137–38. The applicant’s arguments, thus, do not support Patent Owner’s argument here that “workstations” should not be mounted “over or on top of the height adjustment mechanism.” See id.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 7,594,668 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,594,668
• Howard Industries, Inc. v. Capsa Solutions LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01275 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5, 6, and 8 are unpatentable as obvious over Clark and Manner (claims 1–3, 5, 8) and Clark, Manner, and Hartman (claim 6).

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have at least a four-year college degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, industrial design, or a closely related field and at least one year of experience in product development and design for commercial workstations and work platforms.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 17–18). Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience could substitute for formal education.” Id. Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in a pertinent discipline involving mechanical product design, such as mechanical engineering, with 2-3 years experience in in [sic] the design, manufacture, or analysis of mechanical devices.” PO Resp. 17–18. Patent Owner alternatively argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “with a 2-year mechanical engineering diploma and . . . 4-6 years of experience in in [sic] the design, manufacture, or analysis of mechanical components and devices.” Id. at 18. Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner submits a somewhat different, and broader, definition” of a person of ordinary skill in the art than Patent Owner’s definition because Petitioner’s definition includes industrial design which is a field that does not require the same level of hard sciences as Patent Owner’s definition. Id. Patent Owner further contends that “the Petition should be denied under either party’s definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art] as Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.” Id. at 18–19 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 45–47). We apply Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’668 patent and the prior art. Our Decision would not be affected if we were to apply Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 10

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

    “i. “actuator” Petitioner contends in district court that the term “an actuator for controlling the driver” is indefinite for invoking means-plus-function claim language without providing corresponding structure. Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1023, 36–40; Ex. 1024, 28–32). For the purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner adopts the construction Patent Owner presented in the district court, i.e., “a mechanism to activate or control equipment, e.g., by use of pneumatic, hydraulic, or electronic signals.” Id. at 10 (quoting Ex. 1012, 3–4). Patent Owner does not address this term in this proceeding. See generally PO Resp.; Sur-reply. Because it is uncontested in this proceeding, we apply Patent Owner’s construction from the district court proceeding as presented here by Petitioner.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningOther

    “Although not dispositive to our Decision, we apply the plain and ordinary meaning of this term, which does not require the work surface to be curved.” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner

    “There are two exceptions to the general rule that claims “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365. First, “when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer” or second, “when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Id. (citing Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1580). In order for the patentee to act of his or her own lexicographer, the patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning . . . [i]t is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must ‘clearly express an intent’ to define the term. Id. Further, in order to establish disavowal of claim scope, the specification must “make[] clear that the invention does not include a particular feature . . . even though the language of the claims, read without reference to the specification, might be considered broad enough to encompass the feature in question.” Id. As noted above, the underlying premise of Patent Owner’s proposed construction is that the language “disposed in” is broad enough to encompass compartments not “entirely in” or “contained in” the recited portion of the work platform. We start our analysis with the claim language. Claim 1 recites “wherein the work platform includes a portion projecting, relative to the height adjustment mechanism, in a forward direction . . . the compartment is disposed in the portion of the work platform projecting in the forward direction.” Ex. 1001, 14:39–43. By reciting “a portion projecting, relative to the height adjustment mechanism,” the claim language implies that the entire work platform is not required to project in the forward direction. We also note that nothing in claim 1 requires any particular size of the compartment. The only recitation in the claim regarding location of the compartment is that it “is disposed in the portion of the work platform projecting in the forward direction,” but that language on its face does not require or suggest that the compartments are “entirely in” or only “contained in” the recited portion of the work platform. In other words, nothing in the claims expressly restricts the compartments from being disposed in the “portion” recited as well as another portion of the work platform that does not project in the forward direction. Turning to the Specification, Patent Owner does not direct us to any” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 8,215,650 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,215,650
• Colgate-Palmolive Company v. Noble Innovations NC L.L.C.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 23, 2025 · IPR2023-01254 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 5–18 are unpatentable under § 103 over Grounds 1–4; each ground relies on the Board’s combinations of Wolcott or Young with Davidson, with or without Fitz-Gibbon.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenUnpatentable

    “Patent Owner’s arguments. Petitioner has sufficiently, and we find accurately, mapped the limitations of the challenged claims to the disclosures of Wolcott, Davidson, and Fitz-Gibbon, identified reasons with rational underpinnings why the ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined the teachings of the references, and shown that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in such a predictable endeavor. Regarding the reasons to combine Wolcott, Davidson, and Fitz- Gibbon, they are each analogous art as each is directed to solving the problem of retaining dentifrice, a pellet or any dentifrice, on a toothbrush, within a dedicated space between its bristles. Donner Technology, LLC v. Pro Stage Gear LLC, 979 F.3d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (the prior art is from the same field of endeavor as the invention and also addresses the particular problem with which the invention/inventor is involved); see generally Ex. 1009; 1010; 1011; see also Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 115–122, 199–207 (Mr. Fletcher testifying to the same). We agree that the prior art combination and asserted modifications would be predictable and well within the level of ordinary skill to accomplish, making success entirely expected. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 115–122, 199–207; Ex. 1009; 1010; 1011. Furthermore, we agree with Petitioner that the advantages disclosed by Davidson regarding its bristles 13 and well 12 retaining any type of dentifrice would similarly advantage Wolcott’s toothbrush, which is designed to similarly retain a dentifrice pellet in a recess using bristles. See Ex. 1009, 1:1–41, 2:39–3:1, 3:55–4:9, Figs. 4, 5; Ex. 1010, 2:11–14, 2:24– 27, 3:20–24, Figs. 1–3; see also Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 121–122. Similarly, Fitz-Gibbon discloses its toothbrush’s bristles or, more accurately, tufts of bristles 13, are disposed at an angle toward, and to hold, dentifrice in a chamber/pocket; we find this feature, which Fitz-Gibbon describes as “exceedingly valuable,” would also have been reasonably incorporated into the toothbrush achieved by the combination of Wolcott and Davidson, with an expectation of success. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 204–207; Ex. 1011, 2:58–87. Thus, we agree with Petitioner that a skilled artisan would have had ample reason to combine Wolcott and Davidson, or Wolcott, Davidson, and Fitz-Gibbon, and the result of doing so would have been obvious.” slip op. at 38

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “ordinary skill in the art or POSITA, but Patent Owner neither proposes a definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan nor opposes Petitioner’s proposed definition. See generally Resp. Patent Owner’s witness, Mr. Kodama, testifies that an ordinarily skilled artisan as of the invention date would be defined identically as proposed by Petitioner. Ex. 2001 ¶ 46. We accept and use Petitioner’s proposed and unopposed definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan. It appears that Petitioner’s proposed definition comports with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the ’332 patent, itself. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as 10 Petitioner uses the acronym POSITA to reference the person of ordinary skill in the art. 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)). C.” slip op. at 12

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that the bristles must be angled and disagree with Patent Owner. As explained above, it remains generally uncontested that the claim language “angled capsule retaining elements” includes within its scope angled bristles. This is well supported by the intrinsic record: only one type of angled structure is disclosed in the ’332 patent as functioning to retain an oral care capsule on a toothbrush, and that structure is “a plurality of angled bristles adapted to retain an oral care capsule in the capsule receiving zone.”12 Ex. 1001, 2:57–67, 4:62–5:13. The ’332 patent explains 11 Patent Owner actually cites “‘627 patent app” at paragraph 36,” without ever mentioning any exhibit of record in the proceeding. We understand Patent Owner to refer to Petitioner’s Exhibit 1003, as this is the only occurrence of the ’627 application of record. 12 The ’332 patent also describes “a movable retaining element,” which is a separate structure from the angled bristles that comprise the angled capsule retaining elements, that is described as some sort of openable access to the that bristles are angled toward the center of a capsule receiving zone such that an oral care capsule can be loaded there-into by spreading apart the angled bristles, inserting the oral care capsule past the angled bristles, and depositing the oral care capsule in the capsule receiving zone; thereafter the angled bristles relax to their angled state and retain the oral care capsule. Id.; see also id.at 7:19–42, 9:54–10:11 (describing how a dispensing device can accomplish this loading).” slip op. at 16

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

    “Patent Owner’s arguments. Petitioner has sufficiently, and we find accurately, mapped the limitations of the challenged claims to the disclosures of Wolcott, Davidson, and Fitz-Gibbon, identified reasons with rational underpinnings why the ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined the teachings of the references, and shown that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in such a predictable endeavor. Regarding the reasons to combine Wolcott, Davidson, and Fitz- Gibbon, they are each analogous art as each is directed to solving the problem of retaining dentifrice, a pellet or any dentifrice, on a toothbrush, within a dedicated space between its bristles. Donner Technology, LLC v. Pro Stage Gear LLC, 979 F.3d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (the prior art is from the same field of endeavor as the invention and also addresses the particular problem with which the invention/inventor is involved); see generally Ex. 1009; 1010; 1011; see also Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 115–122, 199–207 (Mr. Fletcher testifying to the same). We agree that the prior art combination and asserted modifications would be predictable and well within the level of ordinary skill to accomplish, making success entirely expected. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 115–122, 199–207; Ex. 1009; 1010; 1011. Furthermore, we agree with Petitioner that the advantages disclosed by Davidson regarding its bristles 13 and well 12 retaining any type of dentifrice would similarly advantage Wolcott’s toothbrush, which is designed to similarly retain a dentifrice pellet in a recess using bristles. See Ex. 1009, 1:1–41, 2:39–3:1, 3:55–4:9, Figs. 4, 5; Ex. 1010, 2:11–14, 2:24– 27, 3:20–24, Figs. 1–3; see also Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 121–122. Similarly, Fitz-Gibbon discloses its toothbrush’s bristles or, more accurately, tufts of bristles 13, are disposed at an angle toward, and to hold, dentifrice in a chamber/pocket; we find this feature, which Fitz-Gibbon describes as “exceedingly valuable,” would also have been reasonably incorporated into the toothbrush achieved by the combination of Wolcott and Davidson, with an expectation of success. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 204–207; Ex. 1011, 2:58–87. Thus, we agree with Petitioner that a skilled artisan would have had ample reason to combine Wolcott and Davidson, or Wolcott, Davidson, and Fitz-Gibbon, and the result of doing so would have been obvious.” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 8,881,332 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,881,332
• Peloton Interactive, Inc. v. Johnson Health Tech Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 20, 2024 · IPR2023-01164 · APJ James P Calve · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: claims 1–7 and 10–20 over Morris and Ray, and claims 8, 9, and 18 over Morris, Ray, and Cox.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Having considered the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that it comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’375 patent. Accord Inst. Dec. 8. Patent Owner’s proposal adds “analyzing” and removes “cardiovascular,” but these differences are immaterial to this proceeding. See Pet. Reply 27 n.8. Moreover, all of our analysis in this Decision would remain the same under Patent Owner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Patent Owner asserts that the claim term “exercise use data” needs to be construed to resolve the issues raised by Petitioner. PO Resp. 4. Patent Owner asserts that exercise use data is “data that would represent an amount of exercise of the user.” Id.; Ex. 2004 ¶ 32. Petitioner disagreed with this proposed construction in its briefing (Pet. Reply 1–5) but adopted it during the oral hearing (Tr. 14:12–15:17). The parties also agree that “exercise use data” includes time, distance, and calories of a user exercising on an exercise apparatus. PO Resp. 4–5, 14; Pet. Reply 3–4. For purposes of this proceeding, we apply Patent Owner’s proposed construction. For the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has shown that the challenged claims are unpatentable even under Patent Owner’s narrower construction. As a result, we do not need to construe this claim term further.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contentions. See PO Resp. We find that Petitioner has established that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve Morris’ treadmill by adding Ray’s camera, software instructions for validating user exercise data, its functionality of displaying a motivational image, and its ability to transmit exercise data to a remote location, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success. See Pet. 16–19, 27–28; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 137–147, 161–163; Ex. 1004, 5:27–29, 7:11–22, 9:55–57; Paper 8 (Scheduling Order), 9 (cautioning Patent Owner that any arguments not raised in the response may be deemed waived).” slip op. at 18

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We have considered the testimony of Mr. van der Weide, who agrees with Patent Owner (see Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 35, 45–52), but we give his testimony on these points little weight. Mr. van der Weide discusses Mr. Rawls’ testimony, but he does not meaningfully discuss Ray’s disclosures. See id. As a result, he does not reconcile his opinions with the apparently conflicting portions of Ray. In addition, Mr. van der Weide’s testimony is conclusory because he does not identify evidence or reasoning sufficient to support his opinion that Ray fails to teach or suggest these aspects of the claim as discussed above. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 10,796,375 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,796,375

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.