• Precision Planting, LLC / Agco Corp. v. Deere & CompanyNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 30, 2020 · IPR2019-01044 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Hedderwick, Koning, and Benac because Petitioner did not establish motivation to combine or a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “have had either (1) a bachelor’s degree plus four years of experience in mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or a related field or (2) a master’s degree plus two years of experience in mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or a related field.” Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 19– 20). In the testimony the Petition cites in support of that proposal, Mr. Prairie lists factors that are typically considered in assessing the level of ordinary skill in the art, and then states “[b]ased on these factors together with my experience and expertise,” his opinion of the level of ordinary skill in the art is the same as Petitioner proposes. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 19–20. This conclusory testimony is entitled to little weight. 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 12

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

    “construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” See Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,358 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) effective November 13, 2018) (now codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)).6 That standard “includ[es] construing 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.; see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). We determine that no terms require express construction to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim terms need only be construed “to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). V. OBVIOUSNESS OVER HEDDERWICK, KONING, AND BENAC” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Glancey, explains that [i]f a wheel is used to load and place seeds within a moving belt with brush hairs, the wheel must be able to disengage from seeds while the seeds remain in between brush hairs. If the wheel maintains contact with the seed after the seed has moved into the brush hairs, the wheel will continue to apply force to the seed and eject or remove the seed from the profile of the brush hairs . . . . Ex. 2200 ¶ 223. Dr. Glancey testifies, credibly, that in Petitioner’s combination, seeds would have been rejected from the belt because, as the paddle wheel rotates, seeds “would be scooped through the belt.” Id. ¶ 225.” slip op. at 31

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

    “way the references use endless members in the form of brush belts and paddle wheels, versus the way Petitioner uses those components in the proposed combination. Contrary to Petitioner’s and Mr. Prairie’s assertions, the proposed combination does not merely apply known techniques to a known device, because none of the cited references use brush belts and paddle wheels in the manner Petitioner proposes. As discussed in greater detail below, Benac teaches that a paddle wheel can be used to ensure that seeds jammed in vacuum holes are released reliably, and then dropped to the ground. Benac does not address brush belts as an endless member and, therefore, does not teach that paddle wheels can be used to guide seeds into the bristles of a brush belt, as Petitioner proposes. See Pet. 64. And Koning does not teach a brush belt that captures seeds released from above, as Petitioner and Mr. Prairie propose. See Pet. 61–62; Ex. 1002 ¶ 104; Ex. 2193, 190:10–191:3; Ex. 2263, 167:21–170:9. Rather, Koning’s brush belt maintains the relative position of potatoes lying on a conveying surface by holding them from above while the conveyor moves them to the furrow. Ex. 1004, 3:16–24, 5:3–14, Fig. 4. Petitioner’s arguments do not adequately account for these differences between the references’ use of a brush belt as an endless member and paddle wheels versus the proposed combination. Moreover, Patent Owner points out problems ordinarily skilled artisans would have encountered in attempting to combine the references as Petitioner proposes. Petitioner does not persuasively explain how those issues could have been overcome, and instead simply asserts, essentially, that ordinarily skilled artisans could have figured it out. See, e.g., Ex. 1135 ¶ 80. It is Petitioner’s burden to establish that ordinarily skilled artisans would have been motivated to combine the success in doing so. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Petitioner’s arguments and evidence do not carry that burden.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 8,813,663 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,813,663
• Precision Planting, LLC / Agco Corp. v. Deere & CompanyNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 30, 2020 · IPR2019-01046 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 3 were not shown unpatentable over Hedderwick, Koning, and Yamahata under § 103 because Petitioner did not establish motivation to combine or a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Based on the evidence and arguments of record, we determine that the evidence favors Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill. Our determination is primarily based on Dr. Glancey’s analysis and reasons summarized above, as well as the prior art of record and the sophistication of the technology of the ’199 patent. We have considered Mr. Prairie’s opinion, but we give that testimony minimal weight due to the lack of supporting explanation. Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Specifically, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in agricultural engineering, or a similar field, and two years of experience designing agricultural products or related machinery. Alternatively, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had five years of experience designing agricultural products or related machinery, without a four-year undergraduate engineering degree.” slip op. at 13

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

    “IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION “In an inter partes review proceeding, a claim of a patent . . . shall be construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” See Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,358 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) effective November 13, 2018) (now codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)).7 That standard “includ[es] construing 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.; see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). We determine that no terms require express construction to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim terms need only be construed “to the extent” slip op. at 14

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Ex. 1135 ¶ 51. Yet it is Petitioner’s burden to show motivation and reasonable expectation of success for the proposed combination, not Patent Owner’s burden to show that the prior art demonstrates the futility of the proposed combination. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, Petitioner’s affirmative showing on motivation and reasonable expectation of success for using Koning’s brush belt in the proposed combination is unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above. And Patent Owner’s evidence of difficulties an ordinarily skilled artisan would have expected to encounter in that proposal serves to highlight the issues that Petitioner’s showing ignores. Petitioner additionally contends that Patent Owner’s arguments are based on the erroneous premise that an ordinarily skilled artisan must be able to physically combine the references. See Pet. Reply 7 (citing In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332–33 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). We disagree. Patent Owner’s arguments, summarized above, simply point out that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have expected success in combining the references’ teachings in the way Petitioner proposes. Motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success are properly assessed with reference to the combination as Petitioner has framed it. The Federal Circuit has explained that doing so is not inconsistent with Mouttet. See Samsung, 925 F.3d at 1382–83 (“We will not fault the Board for analyzing Petitioners’ obviousness grounds in the way presented in the Petition.”).” slip op. at 34

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner’s and Mr. Prairie’s analysis does not acknowledge, much less bridge, the gap between Koning’s use of a brush belt to hold potatoes from above as they lie on a conveying surface, versus the brush belt’s use in above.10 During his deposition, Mr. Prairie resisted agreeing that the potatoes are lying on the conveyor in Koning, testifying that he takes from Koning’s description that “they are captured within the belt with brush hairs. And that there is some weight that’s along the conveying member 23.” Ex. 2193, 96:24–99:25. Mr. Prairie testified that he “do[es]n’t believe the brush hairs support the full weight of the potatoes,” but that Koning did not provide him sufficient information to answer whether the conveying member supports the majority of the weight of the potatoes. Id. at 106:22–107:21. In our view, it is clear from Koning’s description that the potatoes lie on the conveyor and the purpose of the brush belt is to maintain their position relative to each other while they are moved by the conveyor. Ex. 1004, 3:16–24, 5:3–14, Fig. 4; see also Ex. 2205 ¶¶ 140–141 (Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Glancey, testifying that a simple mechanical analysis shows that in Koning, about 87% of the potatoes’ weight is supported by the conveying member). Mr. Prairie’s refusal to acknowledge the differences between the brush belt’s function in Koning versus the proposed combination undermines the credibility of his testimony that the proposed combination would have been a simple application of a known technique to a known device. 10 See WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting expert testimony that supported the absence of a motivation to combine: “[I]f I can equate this one to kind of a simple analogy, if you’re trying to build a piece of furniture. What’s a typical thing? You put on a piece of wood. You take a nail, and you hit the nail with a hammer. In control terms, what Mr. Phipps is suggesting is that you put the hammer on the workbench, pick up the piece of furniture and bash the piece of furniture onto the hammer. It’s totally backwards from what I believe one of skill in the art would even attempt . . . .”). have been simple for an ordinarily skilled artisan to adapt Koning’s brush belt for use in the proposed combination, where seeds are deposited onto the brush belt from above—is further undermined by his testimony that he “can’t recall a time where I’ve seen a seed being dropped into a brush belt.” Ex. 2193, 113:5–9; see also Ex. 2263, 81:2–12 (“Q. And you never attempted to drop a seed onto a moving brush belt to see whether that would be inserted into the brush belt, correct? A. As I stated, for the purposes of this case, I did not do any physical experimentation with a moving brush belt as I didn’t feel it was necessary. The prior art discloses sufficient information.”) (objection omitted). Mr. Prairie has “had some industrial design projects where we’ve had to utilize brushes for various applications,” but he “ha[s] not used a brush belt to convey seed.” Ex. 2194, 297:6–16. Mr. Prairie testified that “prior to writing this declaration, brush belt technology was not a specific area that I study, that I was researching.” Ex. 2263, 79:6–9. Indeed, during his initial deposition in this case, the only specific example of a moving brush belt Mr. Prairie could recall seeing was Patent Owner’s ExactEmerge product. Ex. 2193, 108:6–110:10. The basis for Mr. Prairie’s opinion, that a seed would be expected to enter a moving brush belt in the proposed combination, appears to only be Koning itself. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 79–81; Ex. 2193, 116:12–19, 118:7–23; Ex. 2263, 159:5–160:2. When asked at his deposition, Mr. Prairie did not explain any other engineering analysis he performed to make that determination. Ex. 2193, 114:23–117:12. Mr. Prairie testified that he “did not operate a brush belt for this declaration because [he] didn’t feel it was necessary to make my assessments” and he “did not do study or experimentation on a brush belt as I did not feel it was necessary.” unpersuasive because, as discussed above, Koning does not teach using a brush belt to receive and convey seeds that have been dropped onto it from above. Mr. Prairie does not account for that difference by explaining why an ordinarily skilled artisan would expect Koning’s brush belt to effectively capture and carry seeds dropped from above, as in the proposed combination.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 9,480,199 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,480,199
• Alaska Fuel Distributors Inc. / Afd Petroleum (Texas) Inc. et al. v. Frac Shack Inc.Other
  PTAB · Oct 15, 2020 · IPR2019-00995 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board granted the non-contingent motion to amend, canceling claims 2, 8, 10, 18, 19, 28–30, 32–34, 37, 38, 40–42, 45, and 47 and substituting claims 48–62, which were not shown obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “minimal probative value because Patent Owner has not adequately demonstrated a nexus between the asserted objective indicia and the merits of the claimed invention. Mot. to Exclude 3–4; Reply Mot. to Exclude 1–2. This argument attacks the merits of Patent Owner’s substantive arguments on objective indicia and does not establish an evidentiary basis for excluding Mr. Van Vliet’s testimony. We agree with Patent Owner that Mr. Van Vliet’s testimony is relevant to the issue of objective indicia of nonobviousness. See Opp. Mot. to Exclude 1–2. Petitioner also argues that Mr. Van Vliet’s declaration should be excluded because it contains hearsay. Mot. to Exclude 4–6; Reply Mot. to Exclude 2. Petitioner states that it “is not moving to exclude based on the fact that the Declaration itself [is] hearsay, but rather that it contains a multitude of statements therein that are themselves hearsay, made by persons other than Van Vliet . . . .” Mot. to Exclude 5. However, as Patent Owner points out, Petitioner does not identify any specific statements in the declaration that constitute hearsay. Opp. Mot. to Exclude 4. Even after Patent Owner pointed out this lack of specificity, Petitioner’s Reply still does not clarify which specific statements in the declaration are alleged to be hearsay and instead simply repeats the assertion there are “a multitude of statements therein that are themselves hearsay.” Reply Mot. to Exclude 2.” slip op. at 11

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

    “however, we first consider whether Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend meets the statutory and regulatory requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.121. Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at 4. To satisfy those requirements, Patent Owner must demonstrate that: (1) the amendment proposes a reasonable number of substitute claims; (2) the amendment responds to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial; (3) the amendment does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent or introduce new subject matter; and (4) the proposed claims are supported in the original disclosure (and any earlier filed disclosure for which the benefit of filing date is sought). See 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.121 (2018).” slip op. at 16

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

    “We determine that the plain language of the claim, which requires that the fuel delivery connections “compris[e]” the fuel level sensor, shows that the fuel level sensor is structurally connected to the fuel level sensor. As Petitioner agrees, this claim language requires that the fuel delivery connection includes the fuel level sensor. Tr. 34:17–20. Both the fuel delivery connections and the fuel level sensor are structures, so for one to include the other, they must be physically connected. Petitioner’s argument give effect to the word “comprising.” Because a fuel delivery connection and a fuel level sensor would be operationally connected in any system that has both items, Petitioner’s interpretation essentially reads out the word “comprising” and treats the claim phrase as if it recited “fuel delivery connections and a fuel level sensor.” Our interpretation that the fuel delivery connections must be physically connected to the fuel level sensor is more faithful to the claim’s recitation that the fuel delivery connections “compris[e]” the fuel level sensor. See Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“A claim construction that gives meaning to all the terms of the claim is preferred over one that does not do so.”) (quoting Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).” slip op. at 22

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

    “a low and high fuel level in the tanks to which the fuel delivery connection is connected.” RMTA A1. Patent Owner proposes that “low” fuel level means “empty or nearly empty” and “high” means “full or nearly full.” Id. at 5 nn.16–17 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:1–4, 6:7–12; Ex. 2002, 10). Petitioner does not contest Patent Owner’s proposed constructions or offer competing constructions for these terms. See generally Opp. RMTA; Tr. 13:17–15:14. Although Patent Owner’s argument in support of these constructions is truncated, we determine that Patent Owner’s proposals are supported by the evidence of record. The ’906 patent describes that operators can be provided with “visual representations or displays showing the fuel level in each of the tanks 12. Any visual representation or display may be used that shows at least a high level condition (tank full) and a low level condition (tank empty or nearly empty) and preferably also shows actual fuel level.” Ex. 1001, 3:66–4:4; see also id. at 6:7–10 (explaining that “[t]he control station 56 may be provided with a full readout or display for each fuel tank 12 being filled that shows the level of fuel in the fuel tank 12 including when the fuel tank 12 is near empty and near full. An alternative is to provide only fuel empty (low sensor dry) or fuel full (high sensor wet) signals.”). These descriptions equate a high fuel level with the tank being full or nearly full and a low fuel level with the tank being empty or nearly empty. Patent” slip op. at 24

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,029,906
• Weber, Inc. v. Provisur Technologies, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Aug 5, 2020 · IPR2019-01463 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Weber’s rehearing request, finding no error or abuse of discretion in denying institution on claims 1–22.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “When rehearing a decision on petition, the Board will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The party challenging the decision has the burden of showing a decision should be modified, and the request for rehearing must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked and the place where each matter was previously addressed in its papers. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2

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

    “First, the plain language of claim 1 unambiguously recites a causal link between the roller and the movement of the end of the conveying surface of the belt. Specifically, claim 1 recites: “an endless circulating belt having an upper conveying surface.” Ex. 1001, 6:33–34. The claim requires that the belt is “circulated to move [articles] . . . to an end of said conveying surface.” Id. at 6:40–41. The claim recites a “roller” that controls “a belt accumulation region” of the belt. Id. at 6:35–36. The claimed roller must also cause the end of the conveying surface of the belt to move because the “position of said end is moveable . . . by longitudinal positioning of said roller.” Id. at 6:45–49 (emphasis added). The phrase that “end is moveable by longitudinal positioning of said roller” unambiguously requires longitudinally positioning the roller to cause the end of the conveying surface to move. The Specification bolsters our plain reading of claim 1 where it states: “Movement of the pulley 42 controls the extension or retraction of the top region 34, and the position of an end 50 of the top region 34.” Ex. 1001, 4:13–15. Figure 3 (reproduced below) illustrates the manner in which the movement of pulley 42 controls the longitudinal movement of the end 50 of the conveying surface (i.e., top region 34). In the embodiment illustrated below, roller 42 constitutes the claimed roller, top region 34 constitutes the claimed conveying surface, and end 50 constitutes the claimed end of the conveying surface.” slip op. at 4

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

    “an interpretation of “roller.” Patent Owner argued that the roller of claim 1 must both control the accumulation region of the belt and move longitudinally to cause movement of the end of the conveying portion of the belt. Prelim. Resp. 11. Patent Owner conceded that Rheon’s roller 11 met the first requirement of the claimed roller, namely, controlling the accumulation region of the belt. Id. at 23, n.6. However, Patent Owner also argued, id. at 24–26, and we agreed, that movement of Rheon’s roller 11 did not cause movement of the end of the conveying surface, Dec. 8–11. We need not repeat our analysis here because Petitioner identifies no error in our understanding of the manner in which Rheon operates. See Reh’g Req. 11–14 (arguing only errors in our claim interpretation). III. CONCLUSION For the reasons expressed above, we determine that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate error or an abuse of discretion in our Institution Decision. Accordingly, we deny Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing.” slip op. at 6

  Claim construction
  Patents in suitUS 6,669,005
• Wabco Holdings Inc. / Laydon Composites Ltd. v. Transtex Composites Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 10, 2020 · IPR2018-01319 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5–11, and 15–19 are unpatentable as obvious over Layfield and Rinard; claims 2–4, 12–14, and 20 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Micklow does not explain how or why he proposes a different level of ordinary skill in the art as compared to the level proposed by Petitioner and preliminarily adopted in our Decision on Institution. See generally id. ¶¶ 28–31. Additionally, neither Patent Owner nor Dr. Micklow argues that the difference in the proposed level of ordinary skill in the art affects the outcome of this proceeding; Dr. Micklow, in fact, states the contrary—that his opinions are the same under either level of skill. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 31.7 Nothing in the full record is sufficient to persuade us that our preliminary finding as to the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. Accordingly, because our preliminary finding is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, we maintain and reaffirm our preliminary finding that the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been “a bachelor’s degree in mechanics, aeronautics, materials, or a related field of study, or equivalent experience, and at least two years of experience in the development of components of vehicles, or an equivalent amount of relevant work or research experience.” Inst. Dec. 10–11; see Pet. 10.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Turning to Petitioner’s video (Ex. 1018), Petitioner asserts testing of commercial versions of the Layfield fairing illustrates what one skilled in the art would have understood from Layfield itself, namely that the Layfield strut is adapted to sustain an elastic deformation when a load is applied to the resilient strut when the skirt panel moves away from the configuration reducing air drag about the trailer and to self-recover the resilient strut original shape when the load is removed. Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 102–103).16 We afford this evidence little weight for several reasons. First, the video does not show the strut or the bending of a strut. See Ex. 1018. In fact, the only feature shown is a skirt panel attached to a trailer. that because thermoplastic material is more resilient than aluminum, we should adopt Petitioner’s argument. Pet. Reply 15–16 (citing Ex. 1058, 1– 12; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 77–82). We must base our decision in this case on the arguments and evidence presented. As explained above, the record before us has contradictory evidence in the form of Dr. Micklow’s testimony that was not before the examiner. 16 Petitioner does not cite Exhibit 1018 in the Petition, but instead cites to Mr. Tres’s testimony regarding the exhibit. Id. Thus, from the video, it is unknown whether the skirt panel is attached to the trailer by one strut, multiple struts, or additional features. Second, Petitioner does not identify clearly how the tested system precisely corresponds to the teachings of Layfield. For example, Patent Owner raises a number of issues with the struts and panels in the video to which Petitioner provides either no response or an unconvincing response. For example, Patent Owner argues that each embodiment of Layfield uses trusses 36 to “interconnect each skirt panel and reinforce the panel assembly,” while it is asserted that the skirt panels in the video do not have trusses and are not interconnected. PO Resp. 26. Petitioner argues that the skirt panels in the video were made according to the teachings of Layfield and did include “integral vertical lateral side edges as the connecting mechanism for adjacent panels.” Pet. Reply 19 (citing Exs. 1018, 2003, 2005; Ex. 1004, 18:36–39; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 63–64; Ex. 1055 ¶¶ 37–38). Other than stating that the skirt panels have connecting mechanisms, Petitioner does not address the fact that the panels are not interconnected according to the teachings of Layfield, as Patent Owner correctly pointed out. See generally id. at 19–21.” slip op. at 28

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

    “components (see, e.g., id. at 17:1–10), Layfield does not contain any express disclosure concerning the flexibility of the struts. Nor does Layfield include any discussion about the desirability of strut flexibility. The closest Layfield comes to discussing flexibility of the struts is by frequently referring to the struts as “support struts” (see, e.g., id. at 18:40) and discussing the use of a “bracket means,” which is on the struts, to “rigidly secure” the skirt panels to the trailer (id. at 6:48–49). Further, Layfield’s detailed discussion of the embodiment of support strut 58 shown in Figure 10, reproduced below, highlights the bracing and reinforcement features. Figure 10, above, shows the construction detail of a support strut 58. Ex. 1004, 15:45. Specifically, Layfield discloses that strut 58 includes “a pair of spaced-apart vertical members 160, which are braced by horizontal cross-members 162” and “reinforcing rectangular lattice 170.” Id. at 15:46– 54. Thus, we agree with Patent Owner’s argument that “Layfield does not expressly teach that the ‘support struts 58’ are ‘resilient.’” PO Resp. 42 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 148–149). We reiterate that Petitioner’s first challenge is based on anticipation. Thus, Petitioner must show that resilient struts are “either expressly or inherently described, in” Layfield. Verdegaal Bros. Inc., 814 F.2d at 631; see also PO Resp. 42. In its Reply Brief and at the oral hearing, Petitioner contends that its challenge is based on express disclosure, not inherency. See Pet. Reply 17–18; Tr. 9:21–11:4 (arguing that “this is not a case of inherency”). Petitioner contends one of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood, based upon Layfield’s express disclosures concerning the material, structure, and connection of the strut, that the Layfield strut is resilient and can sustain significant and substantial elastic deformation.” Pet. Reply 18 (citing REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC v. Neste Oil Oyj, 841 F.3d 954, 960–61 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Whether we analyze Petitioner’s argument based on express disclosure or inherency, we reach the same result. To begin, although we agree with Petitioner that a prior art reference “need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test” (Pet. Reply 17 (quoting In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009))), there is no express statement that Layfield’s strut is resilient or otherwise exhibits a characteristic synonymous with resiliency. Additionally, we do not agree that Petitioner’s reliance on the thermoplastic materials, disclosed by Layfield for construction of the strut, establishes whether the strut is resilient and capable of elastic deformation. The evidence submitted by the parties is contradictory as to whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Layfield’s struts to be resilient based on the material alone.15 Compare Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 74–82 15 Petitioner also points to a finding by the examiner, during prosecution of the ’017 patent application, that an aluminum strut was resilient, and argues (Mr. Tres opining as to the materials disclosed by Layfield), with Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 160–164 (Dr. Micklow contradicting Mr. Tres’s testimony regarding the materials disclosed by Layfield). Further, the evidence is contradictory as to whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the design of Layfield’s strut, specifically the taper design and mechanism by which the strut connects to the trailer I-beam, that the strut is resilient. Compare Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 83–90 (Mr. Tres’s testimony regarding the design and connection mechanism), with Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 165–175 (Dr. Micklow’s contradictory testimony). Turning to Petitioner’s video (Ex. 1018), Petitioner asserts testing of commercial versions of the Layfield fairing illustrates what one skilled in the art would have understood from Layfield itself, namely that the Layfield strut is adapted to sustain an elastic deformation when a load is applied to the resilient strut when the skirt panel moves away from the configuration reducing air drag about the trailer and to self-recover the resilient strut original shape when the load is removed. Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 102–103).16 We afford this evidence little weight for several reasons. First, the video does not show the strut or the bending of a strut. See Ex. 1018. In fact, the only feature shown is a skirt panel attached to a trailer.” slip op. at 26

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

    “Additionally, Patent Owner similarly contends that the modifications proposed are redundant of Layfield’s “flexible lower panel 20,” which already “allow[s] flexing when impacting a road object.” PO Resp. 59 (citing Ex. 1004, 14:13–18); see PO Sur-reply 26–27. We disagree. Again, the proposed modifications here are to Layfield’s struts. In the context of Petitioner’s anticipation challenge, we agreed with Patent Owner and found that Petitioner had not established sufficiently on the record that Layfield’s struts were resilient. See supra, § II.D.a.i., ii. Therefore, the proposed modification addressed here, to make Layfield’s struts resilient, does not duplicate the objective of Layfield’s flexible lower panel 20 at least because (a) Layfield’s struts are a different structure than lower panel 20 and (b) modification of Layfield’s struts would provide greater impact protection to other panels aside from just lower panel 20. See Pet. Reply 26–27 (One of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to do so because Rinard and Layfield both seek to provide fairing panels with ‘sufficient flexibility’ to bend when encountering objects.” (citing Ex. 1004, 12:67– 13:4; Ex. 1006, 10:43–50; Ex. 1055 ¶ 47)). We determine that Petitioner has shown that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason with rational underpinning to look to other similar types of trailer components that are flexible to make further improvements to Layfield’s design. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”). Third, Patent Owner contends one of ordinary skill in the art “would not have a reasonable expectation of success at achieving the claimed technology by looking to the vertical supports of Rinard’s air scoops to modify the Layfield skirt panels 10 and support struts 58.” PO Resp. 61 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 237–240). Patent Owner asserts that because Layfield’s upper skirt panels are rigid and non-moving one of ordinary skill in the art “would not reasonably expect the hypothetical modified panels (with their reinforcing trusses 36) to move.” Id. Patent Owner also argues that Rinard teaches “an upper skirt panel that is rigid and non-moving” and so it is not reasonable to expect modifying Layfield as proposed would somehow cause Layfield’s fixed skirt panels to be able to move as claimed. PO Sur-reply 27–28 (citations omitted). We disagree for the same reasons discussed above—namely, we find Layfield’s upper skirt panels to be resilient. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in achieving a resilient strut adapted as claimed by modifying Layfield’s strut in light of Rinard, for the reasons proposed by Petitioner. See Pet. Reply 27 (“Applying this solution to the Layfield skirt panel and struts would yield the predictable result of allowing the Layfield skirt panel 10 and struts 58 to absorb greater impacts without having to be repaired or replaced.” (citing Ex. 1021, 7–8, 11–12)).” slip op. at 42

  Patent outcomesUS 8,449,017 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,449,017
• SZ Dji Technology Co., Ltd. / Parrot Inc. v. Drone-Control, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 11, 2019 · IPR2018-00207 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

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

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

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

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

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

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

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

  Patent outcomesUS 9,079,116 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,079,116
• SZ Dji Technology Co., Ltd. v. Drone-Control, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 29, 2019 · IPR2018-00206 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–18 are unpatentable, principally because Thornberg ’983 anticipates them or renders them obvious; the contingent motion to amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “would have an equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree from an accredited institution in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, aeronautical or astronautical engineering, robotics, computer science, or any other discipline covering principles of design, operation, and/or control of unmanned aerial vehicles, including remote-controlled vehicles, and would have a working knowledge of the design, development, implementation, or deployment of such technologies. Additional education could substitute for experience, and significant experience could substitute for formal education. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 28). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. See Tr. 77:1–6; see also Ex. 2005 ¶ 48 (Patent Owner’s declarant adopting this definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of declaration testimony).” slip op. at 12

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

    “The only question, then, is whether orientation data can suffice by itself to qualify as “motion data,” as Petitioner contends, or whether data indicating a change in the vehicle’s position is essential, as Patent Owner argues. On that question, we agree with Petitioner that orientation data is sufficient. The Specification describes that motion sensing module 122 generates motion data 124 based on the motion of the aircraft and that motion sensing module 122 includes one or more axes of accelerometers or gyroscopes or other devices that alone, or with further processing by processing module 126, can generate data that represents θ, φ3, and/or other motion parameters such as R, Z, etc., that can be used in transforming the command data 104 to control data 128. Ex. 1001, 5:6–11 (emphases added). This disclosure supports a broad understanding of “motion data” as any data generated by the sensing module that represents a position, orientation, or motion parameter.” slip op. at 17

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Based on the complete record, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s contention. Although Thornberg ’983 does not state explicitly that the signals transmitted from the control panel to the vehicle are RF signals, we agree that a skilled artisan, considering the context of Thornberg ’983’s disclosure, would have recognized that the transmitted signals could comprise RF signals. “What a reference teaches or suggests must be examined in the context of the knowledge, skill, and reasoning ability of a skilled artisan,” and “is not . . . limited to what a reference specifically ‘talks about’ or what is specifically ‘mentioned’ or ‘written’ in the reference.” Syntex (U.S.A.) LLC v. Apotex, Inc., 407 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 2144.01 (“[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.”) (quoting In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968)). Furthermore, we credit Dr. Hansman’s testimony that an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand Thornberg ’983’s disclosure to mean that the transmitted control signals “are radio frequency (RF) signals, as antennas are most commonly used for.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 295.” slip op. at 25

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

    “We are persuaded by Petitioner’s assertion that Thornberg ’983’s flight control computer 38 corresponds to the claimed processing module. As discussed above (see supra § III.D.1), flight control computer 38 is provided with transformation function 400. Ex. 1006, 5:9–12. Transformation function 400 receives an input of command data (the pitch command and the roll command) from the control panel through antenna 42 and an input of the transformation angle, θ, which is based on the true heading of the vehicle provided by navigation system 36. Id. at 5:19–31, Fig. 6. Transformation function 400 (via pitch axis transformation function 410 and roll axis transformation function 412) transforms the pitch command and the roll command into a transformed pitch stick signal (TPSS) and a transformed roll stick signal (TRSS) using equations that are based on the transformation angle. Id. at 6:17–28. When the system is in the operator reference mode, the TPSS and TRSS (i.e., control data) are in accordance with a second coordinate system that is from a perspective of the vehicle. Id. at 6:8–11 (“In an operator reference mode, the orientation of the operator upon activation of the operator mode is used as the reference axis.”). Patent Owner argues that Thornberg ’983 does not disclose transforming command data into control data based on motion data. PO Resp. 8–13; Sur-Reply 6–8. Patent Owner agrees that, in Thornberg ’983, transformation uses transformation angle θ, which is determined based on the vehicle’s true heading. PO Resp. 8. But Patent Owner contends that transformation angle θ is not “motion data” because it is solely an indication of orientation. Id. (citing Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 74–75). The distinction Patent Owner urges between Thornberg ’983 and the claimed subject matter is based on Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “motion data” as requiring data indicative of a change in position. See id. at 8–9; see also Tr. 103:1–8. For the reasons discussed in Section III.C., we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Under the construction we have adopted, Thornberg ’983’s transformation angle θ is motion data because, as both parties agree, it indicates the vehicle’s orientation.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 8,649,918 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,649,918
• SZ Dji Technology Co., Ltd. v. Synergy Drone LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 23, 2019 · IPR2018-00205 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–18 are unpatentable, principally because Thornberg-983 anticipates or renders them obvious; the contingent motion to amend is denied for lack of written-description support.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “itself to qualify as “motion data,” as Petitioner contends, or whether data indicating a change in the vehicle’s position is essential, as Patent Owner argues. On that question, we agree with Petitioner that orientation data is sufficient. The Specification describes that motion sensing module 122 generates motion data 124 based on the motion of the aircraft and that motion sensing module 122 includes one or more axes of accelerometers or gyroscopes or other devices that alone, or with further processing by processing module 126, can generate data that represents θ, φ3, and/or other motion parameters such as R, Z, etc., that can be used in transforming the command data 104 to control data 128. Ex. 1001, 4:66–5:4 (emphasis added). This disclosure supports a broad understanding of “motion data” as any data generated by the sensing module that represents a position, orientation, or motion parameter.” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “For the purposes of our Decision on Institution, and based on the record at that preliminary stage, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal that an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of the invention of the ’368 patent would have had the following education and experience: [A] Bachelor’s degree from an accredited institution in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, aeronautical or astronautical engineering, robotics, computer science, or any other discipline covering principles of design, operation, and/or control of unmanned aerial vehicles, including remote-controlled vehicles, and would have a working knowledge of the design, development, implementation, or deployment of such technologies. Additional education could substitute for experience, and significant experience could substitute for formal education. Dec. on Inst. 9 (citing Pet. 12; Ex. 1003 ¶ 28). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. See Tr. 77:3– 6. Based on our review of the complete record, we find that the evidence supports the level of ordinary skill in the art set forth above. Thus, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art and apply it in our analysis below.” slip op. at 15

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “Looking at the first portion of the block quote, as Dr. Hansman observes, “[m]otion sensing module 122 is not limited to any specific technology and can therefore include gyroscopes that measure changes in orientation or accelerometers used to measure change in position.” Ex. 1023 ¶ 32. The Specification’s description that the “motion sensing module 122 includes one or more axes of accelerometers or gyroscopes or other devices” indicates that some embodiments include only gyroscopes, which are devices that provide information about orientation. Ex. 1001, 4:66–67 (emphasis added). Turning to the second portion of the passage block quoted above — i.e., that motion sensing module 122 includes devices that “can generate data that represents θ, φ3, and/or other motion parameters such as R, Z, etc., that can be used in transforming the command data 104 to control data 128” (Ex. 1001, 5:1–4) — we find persuasive Dr. Hansman’s testimony that an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand this passage to signify that “the motion data generated by motion sensing module 122 can be data reflecting any one, or several, or all of the mentioned parameters.” Ex. 1023 ¶ 32. Because φ3, which represents the aircraft’s orientation, is one of the mentioned parameters, this means that motion data can reflect orientation data alone. Ex. 1001, 3:46–47, 3:30–31, 5:2. We also note that Dr. Murphy’s testimony was in accord when he testified during cross-examination that “[m]otion data could be position data, it could be orientation data, or it could be a combination of position and orientation” and that he understands his own declaration to “say[] the same thing.” Ex. 1019, 96:12–15; see also id. at 61:18–19 (“Motion could be a change in only Phi 3. Yes. That’s correct.”).” slip op. at 12

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

    “d. Limitation [d]: “a processing module, coupled to the motion sensing module and the receiver, that transforms the command data into control data, based on the motion data, and in accordance with a second coordinate system, wherein the second coordinate system is from a perspective of the RC aircraft” We are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Thornberg-983’s flight control computer 38 discloses the claimed “processing module.” See Pet. 31–33. Thornberg-983’s flight control computer 38 is coupled to navigation system 36 and communications equipment 40. Ex. 1006, 4:12– 16, Figs. 5–6. Flight control computer 38 receives roll and pitch commands from communications equipment 40 and transforms those commands into transformed pitch stick signal (TPSS) and transformed roll stick signal (TRSS). Id. at 4:44–52, 5:9–12, 5:20–23, 6:17–28. These transformations are “based on the motion data” as claimed because they use the transformation angle θ determined from the true heading measured by navigation system 36. Id. at 5:30–35, 6:22, 6:27. Thornberg-983 also discloses that the control data can be in a coordinate system that is from the aircraft’s perspective, as claimed, because in one mode of operation, “the vehicle reference for purposes of vehicle control is the forward reference position on the aircraft.” Id. at 5:56–59; Ex. 1003 ¶ 201. Patent Owner argues that Thornberg-983 does not disclose transforming command data into control data based on motion data. PO Resp. 8–13; Sur-Reply 6–8. Patent Owner agrees that in Thornberg-983, transformation uses transformation angle θ, which is determined based on the vehicle’s true heading. PO Resp. 8. But Patent Owner contends that transformation angle θ is not “motion data” because it is solely an indication of orientation. Id. (citing Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 74–75). The distinction Patent Owner urges between Thornberg-983 and the claimed subject matter is based on Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “motion data” as requiring data indicative of a change in position. See id. at 8–9; see also Tr. 103:1–8. For the reasons discussed in Section II.A., we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Under the construction we have adopted, Thornberg- 983’s transformation angle θ is motion data because, as both parties agree, it indicates the vehicle’s orientation. e. Limitation [e]: “a plurality of control devices, coupled to the processing module, that control the motion of the RC aircraft based on the control data” We are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Thornberg-983’s pitch flight control system and roll flight control system disclose the claimed “control devices” because they are coupled to flight control computer 38 and they control the pitch and roll motion of the vehicle based on the transformed TPSS and TRSS data. See Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1006, 6:16–28; Ex. 1003 ¶ 203). f. Conclusion Regarding Claim 1 We determine that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 8,380,368 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,380,368
• Supercell OY v. Gree, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · May 10, 2019 · PGR2018-00008 · APJ Michael W Kim · PGR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Supercell's rehearing request, leaving claims 1, 8, and 10–12 unpatentable under § 101 and claims 2–7 and 9 not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “Even assuming that the Board did overlook or misapprehend that the Petition articulated that “in a multi-player environment” was subsumed within “creating and applying a template of positions of one or more game contents,” we note that the aforementioned portion of the Petition also identifies, as additional details, “wherein a second player can also create and apply templates within the game space.” Neither the Petition nor the Request explains why these additional details should be considered a part of the claimed concept. Furthermore, delving into the merits of those latter additional details, we were, and continue to be, unpersuaded that a second player, that can both “create” and “apply” a template, is accounted for adequately in the Petition. Specifically, even if we were to agree the Petition accounts for a second player “applying” a template “in a multi-player environment” (see Req. 5, citing Pet. 6), the Petition makes no mention of the second player being able to also create the template. As discussed in the Final Written Decision, Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence or analysis that a second player able to also create and apply templates is included in the claimed concept of “creating and applying a template of positions of one or more game contents.” Final Dec. 43. We could not have overlooked or misapprehended something not presented adequately in the Petition.” slip op. at 5

  None
  Patents in suitUS 9,597,594
• Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation v. Siemens Mobility, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 12, 2019 · IPR2017-02104 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 20, and 21 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Burns, Burns and Nickles, Judge, or Judge and Nickles.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “As Patent Owner contends, its construction is consistent with the context of the claims and the specification of the ’926 patent. See Pet. 12– 13 (reproducing Ex. 1001, 3:42–49, 4:7–14, 4:25–32, 9:26–65, 10:10–14). Further, the testimony of both Patent Owner’s and Petitioner’s declarants supports Patent Owner’s construction. Mr. Loud testifies: “As the context of the claims make clear, and as confirmed by the description in the specification, ‘stopping the train before the train moves outside the boundary …’ refers to slowing down of a moving train until it is not moving, whereas ‘preventing the train from moving’ refers to preventing a stationary train from moving.” Ex. 2009 ¶ 30; see also Ex. 2006, 55:3–56:12 (cross-examination testimony of Dr. Pullen). Given the above, we are persuaded that the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the ’926 patent of “stopping the train” is to slow down a moving train until it is not moving and “preventing the train from moving” is to prevent a stationary train from moving.” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “In determining the level of skill in the art, we consider the type of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. U.S., 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Both Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s definitions include an undergraduate engineering degree or the equivalent and both include experience related to transportation control and safety systems. The difference between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s definitions is whether the transportation control and safety systems relate specifically to train control and safety systems. Patent Owner’s argument that the level of ordinary skill in the art would include experience with train control and safety systems is persuasive. The ’926 patent is directed to “automatic control of trains” and solves safety problems with train operations and movements. Ex. 1001, 1:14–4:3.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive. Dr. Pullen holds several degrees in Aeronautics, a field of study that involves control systems: an undergraduate degree he received in 1989, a Master’s degree he received in 1990, and a Ph.D. he received in 1996. Ex. 1003, 1. Dr. Pullen’s declaration indicates that he has “twenty years of experience in the field of transportation safety and control systems, with [the] last three years specifically focused on train safety and control systems.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 7; see also id. ¶¶ 8–17 (describing education and experience related to control systems). Dr. Pullen’s lack of experience specific to trains before the last three years may detract from the weight to be given his testimony on certain matters, but we are not persuaded to give Dr. Pullen’s testimony little or no weight.” slip op. at 11

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

    “evidence how claims 1 and 20 are unpatentable over Burns. See 35 U.S.C. § 316 (e). Petitioner fails to meet its burden. Burns does not explicitly disclose the preventing step, and Dr. Pullen’s testimony does not sufficiently show that a POSITA would have understood Burns to teach the preventing step. Dr. Pullen testifies: [A] person of skill in the art would also understand that, because of the TCC’s enforcement of movement authorities, the application of brakes would be performed automatically, and that without proper authorization, a train would not be permitted to move at all. Ex. 1002 ¶ 62. As can be seen from the above, Dr. Pullen’s testimony is conclusory. In the Petitioner’s Reply, Petitioner argues that Burns’ disclosure of waiting for opposing traffic supports Dr. Pullen’s testimony. Pet. Reply 8–12 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 61). Burns states: “Movement authorities separate and protect trains in unsignaled portions of the railroad, by commanding movements between designated points over particular track segments, into and out of sidings, through speed restrictions and past work crews, after waiting for opposing traffic.” Ex. 1006, 37 (emphasis added). Burns’ statement, however, also does not disclose the preventing step. Burns’ statement does not teach that the waiting occurs if the current location is not within a boundary for an accepted authorization. Although Dr. Pullen cites to Burns’ statement in ¶ 61 of his Declaration, Dr. Pullen does not provide sufficient explanation as to how a POSITA would have understood Burns’ statement to teach the preventing step. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 61, 62. Further, Mr. Loud’s testimony contradicts Dr. Pullen’s testimony. Mr. Loud testifies: A POSITA would understand that Burns only addresses applying brakes to moving trains after a movement authority is approved and acknowledged so that the train does not subsequently leave the boundary for the accepted authorization absent additional authorization (i.e., for the adjacent section of track). Thus, Burns only refers to enforcing a movement authority while the train is within an accepted boundary: brakes are applied so that the train does not leave the authorized area, which resembles the “stopping” step recited in the challenged claims of the ’926 Patent.” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 7,079,926 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,079,926

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.