- Red Diamond, Inc. v. Southern Visions, LLPAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 31, 2021 · IPR2019-01671 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Final written decision
The Board canceled claims 1, 6, and 10–12 and denied entry of substitute claims 18–22, finding claims 18–21 indefinite and claim 22 obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“C. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART In the Institution Decision, we determined that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had sufficient experience and/or education in the food industry to possess an understanding of (1) sugar particle size as it pertains to brewed beverages, (2) sugar particle size screening, and (3) the storage and use of sugar in commercial settings.” Inst. Dec. 6–7. We observed that this level of ordinary skill is consistent with the level of ordinary skill that we adopted in a related case that involves similar subject matter. See Red Diamond, Inc. v. Southern Visions, LLP, PGR2019-00045, Paper 9 at 6–8 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2019). We also asked the parties to expressly discuss the level of ordinary skill in the art in the remaining briefing if either party disagreed with our determination. For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we maintain our determination from the Institution Decision because neither party disputes the level of ordinary skill identified in the Institution Decision (see Revised MTA 11–12), and because we continue to find that the stated level of ordinary skill is consistent with the record.” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“II. MOTION TO AMEND A. ORIGINAL CHALLENGED CLAIMS As noted above, Patent Owner requests that we “unconditionally consider” the Revised Motion to Amend and cancel original claims 1, 6, and 10–12. Revised MTA 1. Because Patent Owner has not indicated that our consideration of the Revised Motion to Amend is contingent on a determination that original challenged claims 1, 6, and 10–12 are unpatentable, we grant Patent Owner’s request to cancel original challenged claims 1, 6, and 10–12. See Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018- 01129, Paper 15 at 3 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2019) (precedential) (“Lectrosonics”) (“A request to cancel claims will not be regarded as contingent.”). The remaining issue before us is whether to grant the Revised Motion to Amend as to proposed substitute claims 18–22.” slip op. at 6
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteUnpatentable
“Particle size is a critical factor for proposed substitute claims 18 and 20, which require a comparison of the particle size of the sugar used in the recited mesh pouch against the particle size of Sugar in the Raw. For all of the reasons discussed above, we find a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the trademark Sugar in the Raw identifies sugar having particles of a particular size with sufficient specificity to allow the comparison of particle sizes that proposed substitute claims 18 and 20 require. Accordingly, proposed substitute claims 18 and 20 are indefinite because they “fail[ ] to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014); see USPTO Memorandum on the Approach to Indefiniteness Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings (Jan. 6, 2021)6; MPEP 2173.05(e) (9th ed., Rev. 08.2017, June 2020).” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“analogous art. Reply 7. “A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination under § 103 only when it is analogous to the claimed invention.” In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Even if we were to agree with Patent Owner that Thijssen is not from the same field of endeavor because, inter alia, it involves the use of a packed bed, we still find Thijssen to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventors were involved. The ’330 patent teaches that “[t]he larger sugar granules allow the water to flow around it at the same time you are extracting tea from the tea blend.” Ex. 1001, 7:15–17. This indicates that among the problems “with which the inventor[s were] involved” were extraction of flavor from tea and the flow of water around the particles involved in the tea brewing process. Thijssen likewise addresses the flow of solvent through solid particles during extraction of a beverage product. See, e.g., Ex. 1022, 2:46–48. In view of this, we find Thijssen is “reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor[s were] involved.” Bigio, 381 F. 3d at 1325.” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 9,468,330 unpatentable§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites NautilusPatents in suitUS 9,468,330 - PTAB · Mar 31, 2021 · IPR2019-01662 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Final written decision
The Board canceled claims 1, 8, 13, and 17; it denied entry of substitute claims 23–26 because claims 23 and 25 lacked written-description support and claims 24 and 26 were indefinite.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“C. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART In the Institution Decision, we determined that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had sufficient experience and/or education in the food industry to possess an understanding of (1) sugar particle size as it 1 “One degree Brix is one gram of sucrose in 100 grams of solution . . . . Brewed sweetened tea has a typical Brix level of 10½ to 11.” Ex. 1001, 1:35–43. pertains to brewed beverages, (2) sugar particle size screening, and (3) the storage and use of sugar in commercial settings.” Inst. Dec. 7. We observed that this level of ordinary skill is consistent with the level of ordinary skill that we adopted in a related case that involves similar subject matter. See Red Diamond, Inc. v. Southern Visions, LLP, PGR2019-00045, Paper 9 at 6– 8 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2019). We also asked the parties to expressly discuss the level of ordinary skill in the art in the remaining briefing if either party disagreed with our determination. Inst. Dec. 8. For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we maintain our determination from the Institution Decision because neither party disputes the level of ordinary skill identified in the Institution Decision (see Revised MTA 12–13), and because we continue to find that the stated level of ordinary skill is consistent with the record.” slip op. at 4
- 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“Structurally, Patent Owner has claimed a broad genus of brewing products – any product that includes sugar having particles in the range of U.S. mesh size nos. 3–35. Patent Owner attempts to further distinguish the genus by including the functional limitation of requiring the product to be capable of producing a tea with a Brix level of at least 10.5 degrees. Patent Owner does not dispute that there are products falling within the structural limitations that do not satisfy the functional limitations. Indeed, there is undisputed testing evidence on the record demonstrating that the entire range of recited structures does not perform the recited function. See Ex. 2076 at Exhibit C, 20–29 (Table 3); Revised MTA 8 (Patent Owner arguing the claims only cover products that include particles within the claimed range that perform the recited function). Here, we discern no evidence on this record of “a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can ‘visualize or recognize’ the members of the genus.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1350. Nor do we discern “a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, physical properties, or other properties, of species falling within the genus sufficient to distinguish the genus from other materials” in the disclosures, or evidence that “the art has established a correlation between structure and function.” Id. Instead, we view Patent Owner’s proposed substitute claims to involve “merely drawing a fence around the outer limits of a purported genus,” which “is not an adequate substitute for describing a variety of materials constituting the genus and showing that one has invented a genus and not just a species.” Id. We recognize that the subject matter here is different from, and less complex than, the chemical and biochemical subject matter in Ariad. Nevertheless, the written description requirement still requires sufficient description to convey to one of skill in the relevant art that the inventors “had possession of the claimed invention” and “showing that the applicant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus.” Id. at 1351, 1356. Thus we consider the difference in technology in determining “the level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement,” but do not consider the difference in technology to eliminate entirely the need for some disclosure in the specification indicating possession of the claimed invention. Id. at 1351. Patent Owner has not directed us to any portion of the ’526 or ’881” slip op. at 20
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot shown unpatentable
“Structurally, Patent Owner has claimed a broad genus of brewing products – any product that includes sugar having particles in the range of U.S. mesh size nos. 3–35. Patent Owner attempts to further distinguish the genus by including the functional limitation of requiring the product to be capable of producing a tea with a Brix level of at least 10.5 degrees. Patent Owner does not dispute that there are products falling within the structural limitations that do not satisfy the functional limitations. Indeed, there is undisputed testing evidence on the record demonstrating that the entire range of recited structures does not perform the recited function. See Ex. 2076 at Exhibit C, 20–29 (Table 3); Revised MTA 8 (Patent Owner arguing the claims only cover products that include particles within the claimed range that perform the recited function). Here, we discern no evidence on this record of “a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can ‘visualize or recognize’ the members of the genus.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1350. Nor do we discern “a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, physical properties, or other properties, of species falling within the genus sufficient to distinguish the genus from other materials” in the disclosures, or evidence that “the art has established a correlation between structure and function.” Id. Instead, we view Patent Owner’s proposed substitute claims to involve “merely drawing a fence around the outer limits of a purported genus,” which “is not an adequate substitute for describing a variety of materials constituting the genus and showing that one has invented a genus and not just a species.” Id. We recognize that the subject matter here is different from, and less complex than, the chemical and biochemical subject matter in Ariad. Nevertheless, the written description requirement still requires sufficient description to convey to one of skill in the relevant art that the inventors “had possession of the claimed invention” and “showing that the applicant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus.” Id. at 1351, 1356. Thus we consider the difference in technology in determining “the level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement,” but do not consider the difference in technology to eliminate entirely the need for some disclosure in the specification indicating possession of the claimed invention. Id. at 1351. Patent Owner has not directed us to any portion of the ’526 or ’881” slip op. at 20
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteUnpatentable
“which indicates that between 2–25% of the particles in EFG sugar can have a size in the range of U.S mesh sieve nos. 20–30. Ex. 2003, 42 (showing the “Typical Analysis” for “X-fine” granulated sugar). Even if we were to agree with Patent Owner that this shows a typical analysis for EFG sugar, it still presents a variance of up to 20% for particles having a size in the range of U.S. mesh sieve nos. 20 and 30. Ex. 2003, 42. Thus, the evidence of record suggests that the particle size distribution for EFG sugar, including the number of particles falling in the range of U.S. mesh sieve nos. 3–35, can vary among different EFG sugars. Thus, the term “typical grocery store sugar,” “might mean several different things” in terms of the number of its particles having a size in the range of U.S. mesh sieve nos. 3–35, and “no informed and confident choice is available among the contending definitions.” HZNP Meds. LLC v. Actavis Labs UT, 940 F.3d 680, 698 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Media Rights Techs., Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 800 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015)); Opp. 7–10; Reply 4. Proposed substitute claims 24 and 26 compare the dissolution of the claimed beverage brewing product against the dissolution of a product using typical grocery store sugar (i.e., EFG). Patent Owner explains that the size of the particles affects dissolution – namely that larger sugar is more advantageous – in the claimed invention. See, e.g., Revised MTA 5; Ex. 1001, 9:23–27, 10:19–22. This suggests that an EFG sugar product having a greater percentage of large particles will be capable of dissolving “more of granulated sugar” as compared to an EFG sugar product having a lower percentage of large particles. As a result, using the dissolution properties of “typical grocery store sugar” as a comparator in the claims is problematic as there is a potential for inconsistent results based on which particular EFG sugar product is used. The potential for inconsistent results undermines Patent Owner’s argument that these claims satisfy the definiteness requirement because a person of ordinary skill in the art “can buy EFG . . . and perform brew tests with it in order to determine the scope of the claims.” Reply 4. Particle size is a critical factor for proposed substitute claims 24 and 26, which require a comparison of dissolution properties of the sugar used in the recited brewing product and typical grocery store sugar. Patent Owner contends “[t]here is an ‘informed and confident’ choice for ‘typical grocery store sugar’ - EFG sugar.” Reply 4. The evidence of record, however, shows the number of large particles (3–35 mesh) varies among EFG sugars. Ex. 2003, 42; Ex. 1004, at pages 51–53. In view of this, we find a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood “typical grocery store sugar” identifies sugar having particles of a particular size with sufficient specificity to allow the comparisons that proposed substitute claims 24 and 26 require. Accordingly, proposed substitute claims 24 and 26 are indefinite because they “fail[ ] to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014); see USPTO Memorandum on the Approach to Indefiniteness Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings (Jan. 6, 2021); MPEP 2173.05(e) (9th ed., Rev. 08.2017, June 2020).” slip op. at 25
§ 112 disclosurecites NautilusPatents in suitUS 9,725,232 - Apple Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 15, 2021 · IPR2019-01337 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–10, 13–15, and 17 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 3, 6, 11, 12, and 16 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“this case, we interpret claims in the same manner used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b) “including 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.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019). Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then 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).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITADecided for petitioner
“We do not agree with Patent Owner that the quoted language of the ’999 patent requires a construction of the term “second link” that excludes any Bluetooth connection that reuses authentication information. Other than the one vaguely worded sentence in the ’999 patent, Patent Owner does not point to any supporting evidence for this interpretation. PO Resp. 25–26; Ex. 1001, 1:47–53). To the contrary, the evidence supports a finding that when two devices reestablish communication after being disconnected, the subsequent Bluetooth link is considered a different link. See Reply 18 (citing Ex. 1004, 151 (“Consequently, once a semi-permanent link key is defined, it may be used in the authentication of several subsequent connections between the Bluetooth units sharing it.”). This understanding is consistent with the ’999 patent, which refers to “initial Bluetooth link[s]” and “subsequent Bluetooth link[s]” (Ex. 1001, 1:49–50, 1:58, 4:40), and discloses that multiple links can be made between two Bluetooth compatible devices (id. at 1:17–20), without any clarification that such links are considered the same if authentication information is reused. Accordingly, we find that claim 13 requires two different links, one of which occurs later in time than the other, but that those links are not required to be of different types. And we do not agree with Patent Owner’s narrow reading, based on one sentence in the ’999 patent, that Bluetooth links that reuse authentication codes are considered the same link.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We find, based on the record, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood using Bluetooth’s authentication mechanism in place of Varadharajan’s described “challenge/response routine,” to be a feasible option. This is based on both the intrinsic evidence and extrinsic evidence, which support such a finding, and a lack of evidence in the record to the contrary.7 See Ex. 1003, 4:62–67 (“Each time the portable computer 50 is in local or direct communication with the desk top computer 48 . . . the identity of the portable computer 50 is authenticated by the desk top computer 48 by a suitable test such as a challenge/response routine as outlined below.”); Ex. 1004, 99, 108, 149–154, 169–178, 1043, 1045–1047, 1053; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 96–123; Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 14–22. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that BT Core teaches away from a very long, frequently changed, security key. See PO Resp. 19–20. Nothing in Varadharajan or BT Core may be said to discourage a person of ordinary skill from using the Bluetooth authentication mechanism for the authentication over Varadharajan’s direct link. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). To the contrary, the facts suggest that a person of ordinary skill would have understood Varadharajan to encourage the use of any known, robust, authentication scheme (see Ex. 1003, 4:62–67), and the record shows that a person of ordinary skill would have understood Bluetooth’s authentication mechanism to be such a scheme (see Ex. 1001, 1:11–59, 5:38–41; Ex. 1004, 151–152, 157; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 100–109; Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 17– 21). Finally, we find Petitioner has sufficiently shown that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to attempt to use Bluetooth’s authentication mechanism over Varadharajan’s direct link because it was a well-known method of implementing robust short-range communication and doing so would have required only the simple substitution of Bluetooth for infrared, in a similar manner, to achieve predictable results. Pet. 32–36; Reply 8–14; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 96–123; see KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“would have understood using Bluetooth’s authentication mechanism in place of Varadharajan’s described “challenge/response routine,” to be a feasible option. This is based on both the intrinsic evidence and extrinsic evidence, which support such a finding, and a lack of evidence in the record to the contrary.7 See Ex. 1003, 4:62–67 (“Each time the portable computer 50 is in local or direct communication with the desk top computer 48 . . . the identity of the portable computer 50 is authenticated by the desk top computer 48 by a suitable test such as a challenge/response routine as outlined below.”); Ex. 1004, 99, 108, 149–154, 169–178, 1043, 1045–1047, 1053; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 96–123; Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 14–22. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that BT Core teaches away from a very long, frequently changed, security key. See PO Resp. 19–20. Nothing in Varadharajan or BT Core may be said to discourage a person of ordinary skill from using the Bluetooth authentication mechanism for the authentication over Varadharajan’s direct link. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). To the contrary, the facts suggest that a person of ordinary skill would have understood Varadharajan to encourage the use of any known, robust, authentication scheme (see Ex. 1003, 4:62–67), and the record shows that a person of ordinary skill would have understood Bluetooth’s authentication mechanism to be such a scheme (see Ex. 1001, 1:11–59, 5:38–41; Ex. 1004, 151–152, 157; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 100–109; Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 17– 21).” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 7,136,999 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,136,999 - Precision Planting LLC / Agco Corporation v. Deere & CompanyNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 2, 2020 · IPR2019-01048 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 were not proven unpatentable over Hedderwick and Koning because Petitioner did not establish a persuasive motivation to combine the references as proposed.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Based on the prior art, Dr. Glancey’s opinion testimony and analysis, and providing some, but minimal, weight to Dr. Taylor’s opinion testimony, we determine that the evidence favors Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill, primarily based on Dr. Glancey’s analysis and reasons summarized above. Accordingly, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in a technology pertinent to the challenged claims would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or similar field, and two years of experience designing agricultural products or related machinery, or five years of experience designing agricultural products or related machinery, without a four-year undergraduate engineering degree. A recipient of other academic degrees may qualify as a person of ordinary skill if they have taken coursework or have experience in the pertinent technology. Additional education could offset less work experience; additional work experience could offset less education or coursework.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“[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. Ltd., 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 determine that an explicit construction of the claims is not necessary for the purposes of determining whether the challenged claims are not patentable. slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“sufficiently persuasive evidence, even in combination, to establish why a person of ordinary skill would have modified Hedderwick by (1) selectively gleaning only a portion of Koning’s conveying system, i.e., belt 44 with bristles 45, (2) selectively excluding Koning’s belt 23, and then (3) modifying Koning’s brush belt by reversing its orientation so that it carries seeds deposited into the bristles, as in the ’906 patent, rather than covering and guiding seeds carried by a separate and distinct conveyor belt, as in Koning. See WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding an absence of a motivation to reverse parts to an orientation that was “totally backwards” from what one of skill in the art would even attempt). Petitioner’s arguments do not acknowledge the different function of Koning’s brush belt, or explain why a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to adapt Koning’s brush belt to such a use and reasonably expect success in doing so. We determine Petitioner fails to meet its burden of providing a sufficiently persuasive explanation or reason for concluding that one of skill in the art would have combined these particular references to produce the claimed invention. “Without any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to arrive at the claimed invention, we are left with only hindsight bias.” Metalcraft v. Toro, 848 F.3d at 1367. “[W]e cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention.” Id.” slip op. at 30
- ExcludeOther
“II. MOTION TO EXCLUDE Petitioner and Patent Owner each move to exclude a substantial number of exhibits on a number of different evidentiary grounds. See Pet. Mot. Excl.; PO Mot. Exclude. As our analysis does not refer to any of those exhibits, we dismiss each motion as moot.” slip op. at 12
Patent outcomesUS 9,686,906 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,686,906 - Precision Planting, LLC / Agco Corp. v. Deere & CompanyNo claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,813,663 - Precision Planting, LLC / Agco Corp. v. Deere & CompanyNo claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,480,199 - Supercell OY v. Gree, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 18, 2020 · PGR2020-00041 · APJ Lynne H Browne · PGR · Rehearing
The Board denied Supercell’s rehearing request, upholding denial of institution based on the Fintiv factors and the risk of duplicated efforts and inconsistent results.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for patent owner
“this factor or that we misapprehended the trial date. At the time of our Decision, trial was scheduled in the parallel proceeding for December 7, 2020, approximately nine months before our final written decision would have been due, if we were to institute trial. Dec. 10–11. As such, this gap in timing created a cognizable risk of inconsistent results and duplication of efforts, which weighed toward denying institution. Id. at 7, 11. Additionally, the Decision notes that some uncertainty exists regarding trial dates, as Petitioner again argues in its Request. Id. at 11; Req. Reh’g 4. However, the Decision goes on to determine that even if trial in the parallel proceeding was delayed by two months, consistent with Petitioner’s prior requested delay, the proximity of the trial date to our final written decision would still favor denying institution. Dec. 12 (citing Ex. 2002, 2). As such, Petitioner has not shown that the Board misapprehended the trial date.” slip op. at 5
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“contentions. In our Decision, we relied in part upon Dr. Claypool’s testimony from related litigation between the parties in determining that Petitioner failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that Mastermind was” slip op. at 8
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner was provided an opportunity to respond to this evidence to address any “time-based distinctions in Dr. Claypool’s testimony,” however, Petitioner declined to address this testimony in its Preliminary Reply, despite having the opportunity to do so. Prelim. Reply 5–7. We decline to consider now, on rehearing, arguments that Petitioner failed to make in its pre-institution papers. It is Petitioner’s burden to demonstrate that Mastermind was publicly accessible. As we stated in our Decision, this prior testimony casts serious doubt on Petitioner’s ability to satisfy that burden. Dec. 25. We also decline to consider new testimonial evidence submitted on rehearing on this issue, as Petitioner does not show good cause for admitting this new evidence. See Huawei Device Co. v. Optics Cellular Tech., LLC, IPR2018-00816, Paper 19 (PTAB Jan. 8, 2019) (precedential) (showing of “good cause” required prior to filing a rehearing request or in the request itself for new exhibits to be admitted). We could not have misapprehended or overlooked evidence and arguments that were not made before our Decision.” slip op. at 9
§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,307,677 - PTAB · Oct 13, 2020 · PGR2019-00045 · APJ Christopher C Kennedy · PGR · Final written decision
The Board cancelled claims 13, 18, and 19, but denied substitute claims 23–25 because their percentage-and-range limitations introduced new matter.
RulingsFinal written decision- ScopeMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“3. Scope of Proposed Substitute Claims A motion to amend “may not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(2)(ii). Although Patent Owner does not appear to separately address this requirement in the Revised Motion to Amend, see generally Revised MTA, we have reviewed the proposed substitute claims and determine that they do not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent because they add limitations that render each proposed substitute claim narrower than original challenged claim 13.2 Petitioner does not contend otherwise. See generally Opp. On this record, we determine that the Revised Motion to Amend satisfies this requirement.” slip op. at 9
- 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“description support for numerical ranges identified by the parties is General Hospital Corp. v. Sienna Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., 888 F.3d 1368, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2018).4 In that case, the Federal Circuit explained: The disclosure of a broad range of values does not by itself provide written description support for a particular value within that range. Instead, where a specification discloses a broad range of values and a value within that range is claimed, the disclosure must allow one skilled in the art to immediately discern the limitation at issue in the claims. Id. (emphasis added); cf. Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp., 441 F.3d 991, 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]he disclosure of a range is no more a disclosure of the end points of the range than it is of each of the intermediate points.”). The Federal Circuit has also stated that, “[i]n the absence of blazemarks” that point to a particular species or sub-genus, “simply describing a large genus of compounds is not sufficient to satisfy the written description requirement.” Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1996). We find those cases to be instructive because we discern no guidance in the original disclosure that points to the percentage+range limitation of proposed substitute claim 23. Nor do we find anything in the original disclosure that would “allow one skilled in the art to immediately discern” 4 Despite the fact that Sienna was cited in (1) Petitioner’s opposition to Patent Owner’s original Motion to Amend, Paper 24 at 11; (2) the Preliminary Guidance issued by the Board, PG at 8; and (3) Petitioner’s opposition to Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend, Opp. at 12, Patent Owner fails to cite or discuss Sienna, see generally Revised MTA; Reply. the percentage+range limitation. See Sienna, 888 F.3d at 1372. Patent Owner has not persuasively identified any portion of the original disclosure that attributes any significance to any mesh sieve number range other than 3–35, and Patent Owner has not persuasively identified any portion of the original disclosure that attributes any significance to having a particular proportion of particles (e.g., 61 wt%) falling within some narrower mesh sieve number range. See Ex. 1021 (Coffield Decl.) ¶¶ 23–24.” slip op. at 14
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateDecided for petitioner
“description support for numerical ranges identified by the parties is General Hospital Corp. v. Sienna Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., 888 F.3d 1368, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2018).4 In that case, the Federal Circuit explained: The disclosure of a broad range of values does not by itself provide written description support for a particular value within that range. Instead, where a specification discloses a broad range of values and a value within that range is claimed, the disclosure must allow one skilled in the art to immediately discern the limitation at issue in the claims. Id. (emphasis added); cf. Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp., 441 F.3d 991, 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]he disclosure of a range is no more a disclosure of the end points of the range than it is of each of the intermediate points.”). The Federal Circuit has also stated that, “[i]n the absence of blazemarks” that point to a particular species or sub-genus, “simply describing a large genus of compounds is not sufficient to satisfy the written description requirement.” Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1996). We find those cases to be instructive because we discern no guidance in the original disclosure that points to the percentage+range limitation of proposed substitute claim 23. Nor do we find anything in the original disclosure that would “allow one skilled in the art to immediately discern” 4 Despite the fact that Sienna was cited in (1) Petitioner’s opposition to Patent Owner’s original Motion to Amend, Paper 24 at 11; (2) the Preliminary Guidance issued by the Board, PG at 8; and (3) Petitioner’s opposition to Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend, Opp. at 12, Patent Owner fails to cite or discuss Sienna, see generally Revised MTA; Reply. the percentage+range limitation. See Sienna, 888 F.3d at 1372. Patent Owner has not persuasively identified any portion of the original disclosure that attributes any significance to any mesh sieve number range other than 3–35, and Patent Owner has not persuasively identified any portion of the original disclosure that attributes any significance to having a particular proportion of particles (e.g., 61 wt%) falling within some narrower mesh sieve number range. See Ex. 1021 (Coffield Decl.) ¶¶ 23–24.” slip op. at 14
§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 10,071,852 - Motorola Mobility LLC v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Jul 22, 2020 · IPR2014-00504 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Motorola’s rehearing request, leaving intact the remand decision that claims 1–4, 7, and 18 were not shown unpatentable on the instituted grounds.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Thus, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity merely to disagree with the Board’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence, or to present new arguments or evidence.” slip op. at 3
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“that Dr. Tewfik’s testimony is not credible because he has “no personal knowledge” and “merely parrots the inventor’s claim chart.” Req. 6. We disagree, because we considered and analyzed expressly Petitioner’s argument and the basis for Dr. Tewfik’s testimony. Remand Dec. 27, 30. We determined that Dr. Tewfik’s testimony was credible, in that it was testimony concerning his opinion with respect to the claim chart, and also that his testimony was based, at least in part, on his personal experience with Windows 98 and its functionalities. Id. at 30. Indeed, the Federal Circuit noted that the rule of reason requires us to consider all pertinent evidence, and then noted explicitly that Dr. Tewfik’s testimony was one example of such pertinent evidence that needed to be considered. See Intellectual Ventures II, 692 F. App’x at 627–628. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that we misapprehended or overlooked the credibility of Dr. Tewfik’s testimony.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“not have changed the outcome of our Decision. In Figure 4, Kellerer shows a block with a central control unit, address management, routing, an application server, and network managers. Exhibit 1007, 45. This block diagram, however, does not specifically address whether or not Internet access requires an external service controller. Moreover, Petitioner provides no citations to any passages that describe the functions of the central control unit, address management, routing, the application server, and the network managers. See generally Req. 9–13. We are not persuaded that Kellerer teaches all of the components that are necessary to enable Internet access based on Figure 4 alone. That these components are located inside the car, as shown in Figure 3, also does not specifically address whether or not Internet access requires an external service controller. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Figures 3 and 4 render the stand-alone system limitation obvious.” slip op. at 12
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,382,771 - Supercell OY v. Gree, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 14, 2019 · PGR2018-00029 · APJ Michael W Kim · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–15 are unpatentable: the Board found them ineligible under § 101 and also found claims 1–15 unpatentable under § 112(a).
RulingsFinal written decision- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“division” to “way of managing a game and playing a game” does not alter our analysis, because “displaying a panel selection in a division” is no more than identifying high level details of a game that are substantively analogous to how “wagering game,” “dice game,” and “bingo game” are identified in the aforementioned cases. Accordingly, we find that independent claim 1 recites “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions),” which, under the Guidance, is one of certain methods of organizing human activity and, thus, an abstract idea.” slip op. at 26
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“way of managing a game and playing a game involving displaying a panel selection in a division.” Accordingly, Petitioner is not required to account for any limitations within this characterization, at least for the purposes of determining whether a claim limitation is “well-understood, routine, conventional.” And when this framework is applied properly, we see how most of Patent Owner’s assertions fall away. First, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has provided no evidence that the claimed use of panels is well-understood, routine, or conventional. PO Resp. 32–39 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:36–38, 6:42–46, 7:27, 7:36, 7:44–53. 7:55–56; Ex. 2002, ¶¶ 22–30). More specifically, Patent Owner asserts that the panels disclosed in the ’583 patent may “display a still image,” “display a movie when the panels are emphasized and displayed,” “zoom in,” and may have portions of frames, in which the panels are disposed, that “display the texts showing the sound effect and/or an effect display portion.” PO Resp. 32–33 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:27, 7:36, 7:44–53, 7:55–56). Patent Owner asserts that these elements provide an interactive and dynamic format using panels that was unique and unconventional. PO Resp. 34. However, Petitioner is not required to show that those properties of the panels described in the ’583 patent, whether in an interactive and dynamic format or otherwise, are well-understood, routine, and conventional, because these elements are not recited in any of the independent claims.11 Relatedly, Petitioner is not slip op. at 45
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable
“2. Analysis Petitioner asserts that the Specification of the ’583 patent fails to provide adequate written description support for the following limitations of representative claim 1:” slip op. at 58
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteNot shown unpatentable
“Pet. Reply 25; see also Tr. 37:3–11 (continuing line of argument). Here, once again, Petitioner mistakes breadth, which is permitted, for indefiniteness. See In re Miller, 441 F.2d at 693. As admitted by Patent Owner, the limitation and, in particular the term “allowed,” is certainly broad. See Tr. 73:15–74:2. But as stated by Mr. Crane, a person of ordinary skill would have understood that “one character would not be allowed to dispose a panel . . . into a division that is occupied by a panel belonging to another character,” or if “an attempt is being made to dispose a panel into a space where the panel will not fit, it will also not be allowed to be disposed.” PO Sur-Reply 22–23 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 44; Ex. 1009, 107:24–108:4). Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence or analysis to show that such an example from the ’583 patent is insufficient guidance to one of ordinary skill and compels a determination of indefiniteness.17 For these reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of showing that claims 1–15 are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).” slip op. at 69
Patent outcomesUS 9,636,583 unpatentable§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Enfish · Electric Power · NautilusPatents in suitUS 9,636,583
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.