- Wolfspeed, Inc. / Ideal Industries Lighting, LLC D/B/A Cree Lighting et al. v. Cao Lighting, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 28, 2023 · IPR2022-00847 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 21, 22, 25, 26, 28–30, 32–36, 40, 42–44, 47–49, 52, 53, 56–59, 62, 63, 65–68, 71–73, 77, 78, 81, 82, 85, 86, and 88–91 are unpatentable over Begemann, Krames, and Allen; claim 41 is …
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Patent Owner’s argument is unpersuasive because the Krames declaration addresses the Patent Owner Response and is relevant to the issues at hand. We start with an important observation: claim 21 (the only independent claim at issue) is an apparatus claim; the claim is directed to a “semiconductor light source.” Ex. 1001, 9:52. One requirement of this apparatus is that it comprise “at least one semiconductor chip” (id. at 10:1) where the “at least one semiconductor chip is a light emitting diode (LED) chip configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts.” Id. at EPRC, 1:34–36. As we explain when addressing claim construction, infra, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “a light emitting diode (LED) chip configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts” as meaning “at least one LED chip is capable of emitting light greater than about 40 milliwatts.” See Section III.D, infra (emphasis added). Because of these recitations, Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that the prior art teaches or suggests a semiconductor chip “capable of emitting light greater than about 40 milliwatts.” As explained herein, we determine that in the Petition, Petitioner met this burden by establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the Krames reference teaches an LED chip that has this capability. Pet. 54 (quoting Ex. 1008, 10). Notably, claim 21 does not require actual operation of anything at greater than 40 milliwatts because claim 21 is not a method claim. Petitioner never had a burden of establishing a method of running the Krames reference’s LED at this power output within a semiconductor light source.” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that the challenged claims relate to light fixtures, LED packaging, and LED chip layer structure and that the ’961 patent claims reflect “a hybrid of the light bulb art and semiconductor art.” Resp. 19. The prior art of record, for example, Begemann, likewise reflects “a hybrid of the light bulb art and semiconductor art.” Id. (quoting Pet. 28). Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Lebby, agreed that a person having ordinary skill in the art would need to be “familiar with thermal issues.” Ex. 2015, 26:15– 28:16. While Petitioner’s proposed description of a person having ordinary skill in the art could, in some instances, be sufficient to qualify a person as having ordinary skill, Patent Owner’s proposal is a more complete and accurate description of the level of skill commensurate with the scope of the challenged ’961 patent claims. Patent Owner’s description appears consistent with the prior art and patent specification before us and is supported by witness testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). For the purpose of this Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s description. We further note that the outcome of our decision would be the same under either party’s asserted skill level.” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“particularly relevant.” Resp. 14–15. First, Patent Owner argues that “a light emitting diode (LED) chip configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts” means “at least one LED chip is capable of emitting light greater 9 Petitioner states that “Patent Owner thus contends the recited ‘reflective layers’ can include transparent or semi-transparent layers that exhibit some reflectivity (e.g., SiO2) or an interface between two layers (e.g., the buffer and substrate layers) that exhibit differing indices of refraction.” Pet. 20. Patent Owner frames this as being Petitioner’s “novel construction” (Resp. 16), but Petitioner does not expressly endorse this Patent Owner contention. than about 40 milliwatts.” Resp. 14–15. Patent Owner notes that a district court already adopted this construction and notes that the “LED chip” includes LEDs, LED modules, and LED arrays but excludes laser chips, laser modules, and VCSEL chips. Id. (citing Ex. 2003, 15–18). Petitioner argues that the phrase “needs no construction” and that Petitioner’s grounds meet this construction. Reply 1–2. We adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction because it is well supported by the record including the District Court’s reasoning. Ex. 2003, 15–18. slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“It is unnecessary to construe any other claim terms in this Decision because none of the parties’ disputes turn on the meaning of other claim terms. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 6,465,961 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,465,961 - Nanofiber Solutions, LLC v. Acera Surgical, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 13, 2022 · IPR2021-01016 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4–7, and 13 are unpatentable: claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 13 as anticipated by Johnson, and claims 6 and 7 as obvious over Johnson and Johnson–Liu, respectively.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
“Petitioner contends that: A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of filing the ‘228 Patent would have been a person having a bachelor's degree in science or engineering, for example in the fields of chemistry, chemical engineering, or biomedical engineering, with undergraduate research experience, coupled with at least three years of industry experience, that linked the fabrication of fibrous polymeric materials to performance requirements for scaffolds for the promotion of proliferation of biological cells and the growth and/or reconstruction of biological tissues. Pet. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 112–116). In response, Patent Owner notes that all challenged claims recite electrospun fibers but that Petitioner’s proposed level of skill “requires (1) no coursework, training or experience with electrospinning and (2) improperly focuses on scaffolds for the promotion of proliferation of biological cells and the growth and/or reconstruction of biological tissues.” PO Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 2001, ¶¶ 38–39). But Patent Owner then concedes that this “difference is immaterial to deciding the issues raised by the Petition.” Id. at 8.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“construe claims “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), 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); see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Furthermore, we expressly construe the claims only to the extent necessary to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). The parties agree that the terms of the challenged claims should be given their “plain and ordinary meaning” and that no express claim construction is necessary to address Petitioner’s challenges. Pet. 12; PO Resp. 6. We agree that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of resolving the dispute between the parties.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“Upon review, we are unpersuaded that Petitioner has improperly mixed and matched disclosures from Johnson to arrive at an anticipatory reference. Patent Owner is correct that Petitioner primarily relies on Example 1 as evidence for the method by which its scaffold is made. But the disclosure found in paragraph 98 is not a “distinct” teaching of the type described in Net MoneyIN; rather, it is a general description of the structures that may be created by Johnson’s method: “A scaffold may comprise any number of layers, including about 1 layer, about 2 layers, about 3 layers, about 4 layers, about 5 layers, and so on.” Ex. 1009 ¶ 98. Patent Owner has not directed us to anything in the disclosure of Johnson that indicates that this is a “distinct” teaching or embodiment, instead of a general description of the types of scaffolds that Johnson encompasses. We see no reason why the general disclosures regarding Johnson’s scaffolds should be limited to specific embodiments, or precluded from applying to the method of Example 1.” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We are unconvinced by Petitioner’s arguments and evidence. While we recognize that the range of claim 3 is very broad, and it is possible that scaffolds having fiber diameters as set forth in Johnson could have a mean pore size falling within the range, inherency “may not be established by probabilities or possibilities.” Par Pharm., Inc. v. Twi Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor does Petitioner sufficiently explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the process of Example 1 to necessarily result in the claimed mean pore size. We are also persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Boland 2005’s disclosure of a fiber diameter similar to Johnson’s that nevertheless falls outside the claimed mean pore size range. We note that Petitioner never addresses Boland 2005 in its Reply. 4. Conclusion as to Anticipation For these reasons, we find that Petitioner has met its burden of showing that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 13 are anticipated by Johnson, but has failed to meet its burden as to claim 3.” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 10,632,228 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,632,228 - Apple Inc. v. Omni Medsci, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 3, 2022 · IPR2021-00453 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 7, and 15–23 are unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds; claims 3–6 and 8–14 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenMixed
“evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that challenged claims 1, 2, 7, and 15–23 are unpatentable and that Petitioner has not demonstrated challenged claims 3–6 and 8–14 to be unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelOther
“7 The level of ordinary skill in this case is discussed in the Decision to Institute and is uncontested. Dec. to Inst. 7–8.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededTerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Specification concerning the terms “identify” and “detect” involve actions not recited in the claims does not change the fact that these different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings. The dictionary definitions of “detect” and “identify” are different. The use of the term “identify” in claims 3 and 8 and the use of a different term, i.e., “detect,” in claim 16 indicates that the claims 3 and 8 mean something different from claim 16. Petitioner has not rebutted the presumption that different claim terms have matter. See SimpleAir, Inc. v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Commc’ns AB, 820 F.3d 419, 431 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Therefore, we decline to adopt Petitioner’s proposal to construe the terms “identify an object” and “detect an object” to have the same meaning. Instead, we construe these terms consistent with the dictionary definitions of “identify” and “detect,” i.e., we construe “to identify an object” to mean “to recognize or establish an object as being a particular thing,” and we construe “to detect an object” to mean “to discover or notice the existence or presence of something.” We address the specific implications of these constructions in our discussion of claims 3, 8, and 16.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Specification concerning the terms “identify” and “detect” involve actions not recited in the claims does not change the fact that these different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings. The dictionary definitions of “detect” and “identify” are different. The use of the term “identify” in claims 3 and 8 and the use of a different term, i.e., “detect,” in claim 16 indicates that the claims 3 and 8 mean something different from claim 16. Petitioner has not rebutted the presumption that different claim terms have matter. See SimpleAir, Inc. v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Commc’ns AB, 820 F.3d 419, 431 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Therefore, we decline to adopt Petitioner’s proposal to construe the terms “identify an object” and “detect an object” to have the same meaning. Instead, we construe these terms consistent with the dictionary definitions of “identify” and “detect,” i.e., we construe “to identify an object” to mean “to recognize or establish an object as being a particular thing,” and we construe “to detect an object” to mean “to discover or notice the existence or presence of something.” We address the specific implications of these constructions in our discussion of claims 3, 8, and 16.” slip op. at 9
Patent outcomesUS 10,517,484 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,517,484 - Scentair Technologies, LLC v. Prolitec, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 22, 2022 · IPR2021-00014 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6, 8–14, 21, 24, and 25 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 7, 15–20, 22, and 23 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We determine that “toward” in the context of these claims means “in the direction of.” This definition is consistent with the ordinary dictionary definition that Patent Owner advances. Resp. 10; Ex. 2003, 3 (ordinary dictionary defining toward as “in the direction of” or, alternatively, as “along a course leading to”). Patent Owner argues that the ’976 patent describes embodiments supporting Patent Owner’s construction of “toward,” but directs us to no disclosure that requires “aiming.” To the contrary, the ’976 patent suggests that liquid moves “toward” something such as an end point so long as it advances along a path leading to the end point. Reply 1–4 (Petitioner collecting examples). For example, ’976 patent Figures 5 and 6 illustrate fluid taking a spiral flow pattern to outlet zone 174. The specification explains that the liquid takes a “curvilinear path . . . as it moves from the inlet 172 toward the outlet zone 174.” Ex. 1001, 10:50–55; see also Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 8–16 (Dr. Morse providing testimony regarding this and other ’976 patent embodiments). Thus, contrary to Patent Owner’s position, the specification uses the word “toward” to describe liquid that moves in the direction of the outlet––without reference to aiming––and even where the liquid’s movement encounters obstacles or otherwise fails to travel in a straight line to the outlet. We agree with Petitioner that “‘aimed’ is found nowhere in the intrinsic evidence and is contrary to the specification” of the ’976 patent. Reply 1. Further, Patent Owner’s own extrinsic evidence does not include the word “aimed” in the definition of “toward.” Ex. 2003, 3. Against that backdrop, for reasons stated above, we determine that “toward” in the context of the challenged claims means “in the direction of.”” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“least three years of experience working with, designing, or studying liquid diffusion devices or similar devices.” Pet. 14; Ex. 1003 ¶ 13. Patent Owner does not dispute that definition or advance an alternative definition. The prior art asserted in the Petition appears, on this record, as representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). To the extent a more specific definition is required, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition (Pet. 16) because it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’976 patent and the prior art references that form the basis for Petitioner’s challenges. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:7–43 (abstract and overview of technical field of invention of the ’976 patent); Ex. 1004, code (57), ¶ 3 (abstract and background of Rosener’s invention); Ex. 1005, code (57), 1:1–13:12 (abstract and background of Rubin’s invention).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Based on the record before us, the preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s position. King is concerned with delivering small particles to a patient: King states, for example, that an object of its invention is to “deliver to the patient essentially the same particle size distribution of the aerosol mist that originates from the nebulizer itself.” Ex. 1006 2:19–22; see also id. at [57] (stating that its apparatus delivers medication “in essentially the same particle size distribution of the aerosol mist”); 1:7–10 (stating that invention “delivers a mist of properly sized aerosol particles”); 1:60–65 (stating that invention “functions in a manner to assure that the medicament particles delivered to the patient will be of optimum size”). King states that in “this latest form of the invention this important baffle means comprises a generally spiral-shaped wall 100 (Fig. 20).” Id. at 6:20– 22. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that design of the passage, through which aerosolized particles pass, will affect the size of output particles. Ex. 1003 ¶ 60; Ex. 1004 ¶ 27 (teaching that, for example, “tight bends” may be use to separate small airborne particles from big particles). We find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the spiral structure of King’s passage is an example of a “tight bend” (as referenced by Rosener) that can help control what size of particle progresses through the entire passage. Ex. 1006 6:16–22 (explaining that “this important baffle means comprises a generally spiral-shaped wall 100” and serves to “provid[e] a circuitous fluid flow path through the first chamber”)8; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 56–61. A person of ordinary skill in the art’s use of a spiral structure, as taught by King, to further control particle size via tight bends, as taught by Rosener, would have been obvious because it would have been a “predictable use of a prior art elements according to their established function.” KSR Int’l, Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Rather than a spiral disrupting Rosener’s separation as Patent Owner argues, the combined teachings of Rosener and King suggest that King’s spiral would assist in achieving separation and particle size control (as Rosener and King teach). Dr. Morse’s testimony is credible in this regard and supports our findings and conclusion along with the references themselves. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 54–56. Thus, for the reasons explained above, Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claims 2 and 11 of the ’976 patent would have been obvious over Rosener in view of King.” slip op. at 24
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Ultimately, to determine whether Rosener’s suggested tortuous passage is a structure capable performing the functionality of claims 7 and 16, we would need to determine that, because of Rosener’s tortuous passage, liquid would take more time to leak when the device is upended than if the tortuous passage was not present. The record before us, however, does not adequately support such a finding. Here again, the paucity of information provided by Petitioner, who bears the burden of showing unpatentability, tips against a conclusion that these claims are proven unpatentable. Although tight bends and corners might make the flow take longer to leak from the cartridge (as Petitioner urges at Reply 4–6), Petitioner does not establish that this is the case and, moreover, does not establish that it is not the case that the tight bends and corners might make the liquid take less time to leak from the cartridge. As Patent Owner argues, where a channel narrows in a direction of flow, a fluid’s speed may increase in accordance with Bernoulli’s principle. Sur-Reply 7–8.10 This principle is evidenced by the Svoboda reference, which explains that gas will travel faster through the “necked down portion 29” of its venturi tube. Ex. 1008, 4:4–8, Fig. 1, 2 (illustrating necked down portion 29). Accordingly, the record is unclear as to whether the tight bends and corners would speed up or slow down the flow of liquid from the cartridge. Additionally, Rosener does not refer to its tortuous passage as preventing leaking, and if the tortuous passage were capable of doing so, it is unclear why the valve would be necessary. See 10 The record also lacks evidence regarding to what extent other factors such as fluid viscosity, pressure differentials, and friction losses could potentially also affect flow speed. This lack of evidence, again, underscores Petitioner’s failure to meet its burden to show unpatentability of these claims. generally Ex. 1004; see also Ex. 2005 ¶ 68 (Dr. Mello’s written testimony on point). In any event, for reasons explained by Patent Owner, Petitioner’s analysis regarding the path and speed of liquid flow when Rosener’s device is upended is insufficient to support the unpatentability of claims 7 and 16 (Sur-Reply 1–18), at least because Petitioner fails to take account of leakage through orifice 401 or because of Rosener’s express need for a valve to provide for a device that “may be inverted without causing the fragrance oil to pour out” (id. at 12). See Ex. 1004 Fig. 2D (illustrating position of orifice 401), ¶ 33 (describing Rosener’s valve); see also Resp. 11–17 (Patent Owner’s arguments); Pet. 29–30, 33; Reply 4–6 (Petitioner’s analysis).” slip op. at 37
Patent outcomesUS 9,745,976 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,745,976 - Scentair Technologies, LLC v. Prolitec, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 22, 2022 · IPR2021-00012 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 5, 6, 8–10, 13–16, 18, and 22 are unpatentable as obvious; the Board did not find claims 1–4, 7, 11, 12, 17, 19–21, 23, and 24 unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“factual determination that provides a primary guarantee of objectivity in an obviousness analysis. Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’l Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would typically have a bachelor’s degree in mechanical or chemical engineering as well as at least three years of experience working with, designing, or studying liquid diffusion devices or similar devices.” Pet. 16; Ex. 1003 ¶ 13. Patent Owner does not dispute that definition or advance an alternative definition. See Resp. 79 (repeating Petitioner’s definition). The prior art asserted in the Petition, on this record, is representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). To the extent a more specific definition is required, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition (Pet. 16) because it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’004 patent and the prior art references that form the basis for Petitioner’s challenges. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:7–43 (abstract and overview of technical field of invention of the ’004 patent); Ex. 1004, code (57), ¶ 3 (abstract and background of Rosener’s invention); Ex. 1005, code (57), 1:1–13:12 (abstract and background of Rubin’s invention).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We determine that “toward” in the context of these claims means “in the direction of.” Ex. 2003, 3. That definition is consistent with the dictionary definition advanced by Patent Owner. Resp. 7–11; Ex. 2003, 3 (ordinary dictionary defining toward as “in the direction of” or, alternatively, as “along a course leading to”). Patent Owner argues that the ’004 patent describes embodiments supporting Patent Owner’s construction of “toward,” but directs us to no disclosure that requires “aiming.” Id. To the contrary, the ’004 patent suggests that liquid moves “toward” something, such as an end point, so long as it advances along a path leading to the end point. Reply 1–4 (Petitioner collecting examples). For example, in the ’004 patent, Figures 5 and 6 illustrate fluid taking a spiral flow pattern to outlet zone 174. The specification explains that the liquid takes a “curvilinear path . . . as it moves from the inlet 172 toward the outlet zone 174.” Ex. 1001, 10:34–36; see Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 8–16 (Dr. Morse providing testimony regarding this and other ’004 patent embodiments). Thus, contrary to Patent Owner’s position, the specification uses the word “toward” to describe liquid that moves in the direction of the outlet––without reference to aiming––and even where the liquid’s movement encounters obstacles or otherwise fails to travel in a straight line to the outlet. We agree with Petitioner that “‘aimed’ is found nowhere in the intrinsic evidence and is contrary to the specification” of the ’004 patent. Reply 1. Further, Patent Owner’s own extrinsic evidence does not include the word “aimed” in the definition of “toward.” Ex. 2003, 3. Against that backdrop, for reasons stated above, we determine that “toward” in the context of the challenged claims means “in the direction of.”” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We recognize, in that regard, that a witness “must at minimum possess ordinary skill in the art” in order to opine about the level of skill in the art. Kyocera Secco Indus. Tools Inc. v. ITC, 22 F.4th 1369, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Dr. Morse has at least the qualifications of an ordinarily skilled artisan and is qualified to provide opinions as to what an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood as of April 22, 2014. Based on Dr. Morse’s statement of qualifications and curriculum vitae, as well as his stated familiarity with the state of the prior art at the time of the invention, we find Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Dr. Morse is qualified to provide opinions keyed to the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 2–5, 9, 11, App’x pp. 69–73. In any event, to the extent we agree that Petitioner establishes unpatentability as explained above, the prior art references themselves are adequate for Petitioner’s showing of unpatentability even if we were to provide little or no weight to Dr. Morse’s testimony.” slip op. at 61
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“It is not clear, on this record, that guiding surfaces 10 are formed as spirals, as opposed to flat surfaces arranged to “project” and “extend[]” into the atomizing space in a helical pattern. Id.; see Resp. 37–38. Nor is it clear, on this record, how guiding surfaces 10 relate, if at all, to the formation of the transient airflow path defined by the “spiral vortex” described in Knoch, which forms only during normal operation of the device. Id. Knoch indicates that the spiral vortex is formed as a result of the placement and orientation of openings 2 and 3, and that “homogenization” of the aerosolized particles occurs, not via impaction with guiding surfaces 10, but rather, as a result of particles traveling a transient airflow path defined by the spiral vortex. Ex. 1006, Figs. 1, 2, 2:48–61, 3:10–4:25, 5:14–38, 5:56–63; see Pet. 31–32 (relying on “homogenization” that occurs when “vaporized liquid” traverses a transient airflow path defined by the “spiral vortex” in Knoch’s device) (quoting Ex. 1006, 3:26–29 5:28–32); see supra 44 n.13. To be clear, Knoch’s spiral vortex is a transient path of airflow that forms only during normal operation of the device, and Petitioner directs us to no persuasive information that Rosener employs any comparable approach “to perform the same functions within the same general structure.” Pet. 24. The lack of analysis provided in the Petition on that key point undermines this challenge. Id. at 23–25, 31–32; Reply 9–10 (totality of Petitioner’s information on that point); see supra 44 n.13. Even if we set aside that problem, however, we find, in the alternative, that Petitioner fails to explain adequately how or why Knoch would have suggested a tortuous passage (as opposed to a transient airflow path) that spirals between the inlet and outlet zone of Rosener’s insert. Without adequate analysis, Petitioner merely refers us to Figure 2E of Rosener, which shows a tortuous passage extending from inlet 401 to outlet zone 240, then directs us to guiding surfaces 10 illustrated in Knoch’s Figure 1. Pet. 31–32. The paucity of analysis provided in the Petition, particularly on the question of where, how, and why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have included a spiraling impaction surface extending from Rosener’s inlet 401 to outlet zone 240 in view of Knoch, persuades us that the proposed modification is driven, not by any suggestion in the prior art, but rather, by an impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the claimed invention. Id.; see Resp. 27–39 (Patent Owner’s arguments on that point). Petitioner does not establish that Knoch teaches a spiraling” slip op. at 45
Patent outcomesUS 9,162,004 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,162,004 - Metall Zug AG / Haag-Streit AG et al. v. Carl Zeiss Meditec AGSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 17, 2021 · IPR2020-00300 · APJ Amber L Hagy · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 21–26 were held unpatentable as obvious over Huber, Everett, and Lexer; claims 2, 27, 40, and 42 were not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 44 and 45 were entered.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“(7) Claim 1 Conclusion After having analyzed the entirety of the trial record and assigning” slip op. at 31
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“For the above reasons, Petitioner has not met its burden to” slip op. at 72
Patent outcomesUS 8,690,330 mixed§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 8,690,330 - Runway Safe Group AB v. Earthstone International LLC And W. Gene RamseySome claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 17, 2021 · IPR2019-01490 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–11 and 13–16 are unpatentable as obvious; claim 12 was not shown unpatentable because the asserted grounds did not establish its interconnected open porosity limitation.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd mixedMixed
“proving unpatentability of the challenged claims, and the burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To prevail, Petitioner must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d) (2019). This Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. After considering the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–11 and 13–16 of the ’671 patent are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). Petitioner has not met that burden with respect to claim 12.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“any of Narmo, Hojaji, and Ramsey. Resp. 8, 16–17. On this record, we conclude it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of ACRP and Narmo, Hojaji, or Ramsey, as asserted by Petitioner. Moreover, we also conclude such combinations merely use specific foamed glass compositions in structures already using foamed glass compositions and that the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected to successfully do so. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 78, 81, 84. The simplicity of the technology and the reasonably high level of skill in the art support such a conclusion.” slip op. at 57
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable
“disclosed foamed glass aggregate bodies to have an “interconnected open porosity” is based on an allegation of inherency, where the open porosity forms because of weathering. See Pet. 38–39 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 75). Similar to our conclusion regarding Ground 6, we also find that Petitioner has not demonstrated that the subject matter of claim 12 would have been obvious over ACRP. We are directed to no evidence of record that the interconnected open porosity limitation would necessarily be present or would be the natural result of weathering, as asserted by Petitioner. See Endo Pharm., 894 F.3d at 1381. To the extent that Petitioner’s argument is premised on a KSR “obvious to try” rationale, as with Ground 6, we find Petitioner presents no evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had any reason to pursue the claimed interconnected open porosity, no evidence of a design need for such a structure, and no evidence of market pressure to solve any problem relating to foamed glass porosity. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. Indeed, Petitioner failed to clearly articulate any obvious to try rationale in the Petition.” slip op. at 74
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied
“III. PARTIES’ MOTIONS TO STRIKE OR EXCLUDE Petitioner filed a Motion to Strike Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply for” slip op. at 77
Patent outcomesUS 9,382,671 mixed§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 9,382,671 - Ceramtec GmbH v. Ceramedic, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 1, 2016 · IPR2015-00398 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 7, 11–13, 15–17, 19–21, 23, 30–38, 52, and 53 are unpatentable; claims 8–10 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“In our Decision on Institution, we construed “dispersing α-Al2O3 powder . . . in an aqueous solution to create a mixture” to mean “causing α- Al2O3 powder to become or continue being distributed throughout an aqueous solution.” Dec. 5–6. We construed “dispersing methods” to mean “methods that cause α-Al2O3 powder to become or continue being distributed throughout an aqueous solution.” Id. at 6–7. We determined that the phrases “treating said mixture so as to create a shaped unsintered body” and “treating said mixture with a pressure process so as to create an unsintered precursor having a relative density of ρ ≥ 55%” needed no express construction. Id. at 7–8. The parties discuss and apply these claim constructions, but neither party presents arguments or evidence persuasive to modify them in light of the record developed at trial. See infra Section II.B.i.c. Accordingly, we maintain our construction of the term “dispersing α-Al2O3 powder . . . in an aqueous solution to create a mixture” to mean “causing α-Al2O3 powder to become or continue being distributed throughout an aqueous solution” and “dispersing methods” to mean “methods that cause α-Al2O3 powder to become or continue being distributed throughout an aqueous solution.”” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Al2O3 powder to become or continue being distributed throughout an aqueous solution.” Dec. 5–6. We construed “dispersing methods” to mean “methods that cause α-Al2O3 powder to become or continue being distributed throughout an aqueous solution.” Id. at 6–7. We determined that the phrases “treating said mixture so as to create a shaped unsintered body” and “treating said mixture with a pressure process so as to create an unsintered precursor having a relative density of ρ ≥ 55%” needed no express construction. Id. at 7–8. The parties discuss and apply these claim constructions, but neither party presents arguments or evidence persuasive to modify them in light of the record developed at trial. See infra Section II.B.i.c. Accordingly, we maintain our construction of the term “dispersing α-Al2O3 powder . . . in an aqueous solution to create a mixture” to mean “causing α-Al2O3 powder to become or continue being distributed throughout an aqueous solution” and “dispersing methods” to mean “methods that cause α-Al2O3 powder to become or continue being distributed throughout an aqueous solution.” All other terms are accorded their ordinary and customary meaning as would have been understood by one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention. To the extent that any term requires express construction for the purposes of this decision, we discuss that construction in our analysis of the grounds of unpatentability. B.” slip op. at 6
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“We note the statutory requirement that the initial Petition should identify “with particularity” the “evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). A petition must include “[a] full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing law, rules, and precedent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2). Moreover, “[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response.” Id. § 42.23(b). “While replies can help crystalize issues for decision, a reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence will not be considered and may be returned.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012). We weigh our application of these statutes and rules with the principle that the “development of evidence in the course of the trial is in keeping with the oppositional nature of an inter partes review proceeding.” Genzyme Therapeutic Prods. v. Biomarin Pharm., Nos. 2016-1720, 2015-1721, 2016 WL 3254734, at *4 (Fed. Cir. June 14, 2016). The critical question for compliance with the APA and due process is whether a party received “adequate notice of the issues that would be considered, and ultimately resolved, at that hearing.” Id. at *5. We are persuaded that the Petition’s claim 32 arguments, in which Yeh was combined with Lin for an obviousness argument, adequately put Patent Owner on notice of Petitioner’s arguments that Lin’s third dispersing method—stirring—could be another dispersing method in Petitioner’s anticipation argument for claim 1 based on Lin. Here, Lin is the only prior art upon which Petitioner bases its anticipation argument, and Lin identifies a third dispersing method in close textual proximity to the identification of the first two dispersing methods. Ex. 1002, 37 (listing stirring on the same page, in the same paragraph, and only four lines after discussing ultrasonication). Patent Owner was made aware of this third dispersing method in Petitioner’s case-in-chief, albeit regarding a different claim. Under the particular circumstances presented here, we are persuaded that the disclosure in Lin, relating to the stirring step, was fairly raised in the Petition and that Patent Owner was given a fair opportunity to address its import in this proceeding.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“It is not disputed that the cited portion of Lin discloses two dispersing steps that occur at discrete points in time. It is disputed whether these two discrete dispersing steps are different dispersing steps. The second dispersing method involves application of an ultrasonic probe to the Al2O3 suspension. Ex. 1002, 36–37. At that point, an Al2O3 suspension is already created. Although Lin’s first dispersing method is not named, it requires that “Al2O3 powder was dispersed in deionizied water” such that a “dilute dispersed aqueous suspension of 2 vol% solid concentration was prepared.” Id. at 37. Thus, in Lin’s first dispersing method, Al2O3 powder is introduced to liquid to create a dilute dispersed aqueous solution. Our construction of dispersing method encompasses “methods that cause α-Al2O3 powder to become or continue being distributed throughout an aqueous solution.” Certain Examples of the ’584 patent provide that the powders “were introduced” as part of the first dispersing step. Ex. 1001, 11:39–40, 12:63, 14:3. Introducing dry powder to liquid is a method that causes the powder to become distributed throughout an aqueous solution. This is a dispersing method that is different than ultrasonication. Even if powder were introduced to liquid, and ultrasonicated at the same time, this still is a “different” dispersing method than ultrasonication alone by virtue of the introduction to liquid step. Thus, Lin discloses two different dispersing methods.” slip op. at 9
Patent outcomesUS 6,066,584 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,066,584 - Corning Incorporated v. DSM IP Assets B.V.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · May 9, 2014 · IPR2013-00048 · APJ Scott E Kamholz · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 5, 13, 17, 29, 33, 37, 45, and 49 are unpatentable; the remaining challenged claims are not shown unpatentable, principally because key material-property limitations were not proved.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“The evidence supports a conclusion that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “moisture” is liquid water—that is, a condition of 100% relative humidity. The written description uses the term “moisture” in a context that suggests liquid water. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 28:65-67 (applying a “wax/water slurry” to surface of sample film in order “to retain moisture”); 35:17-18 (applying heat to remove “moisture” from samples, suggesting removal of liquid water). Moreover, where the written description discusses water in vapor form, the inventors use the word “humidity” or “atmospheric moisture,” but not “moisture” alone. See, e.g., id. at 21:47 (referring to “atmospheric moisture”); 28:48, 60, 65 (referring to “humidity”). The ’189 patent further discloses that a “ribbon assembly can be buried under ground or water for long distance connections, such as between cities,” which is consistent with the proposition that an optical fiber coating must endure long periods of immersion in liquid water without delaminating. Ex. 1001, 67:43-45. In light of the context in which the term “moisture” appears in the specification, we conclude that the inventors used that term in its ordinary sense to refer to liquid water. The ’189 patent, thus, is directed to a coating composition that, after radiation cure, has sufficient adhesion to glass to prevent delamination in the presence of liquid water. We decline to resolve what temperature, or length of time of exposure to liquid water the coating must endure, without delaminating, in order to satisfy the claimed adhesion property. Resolving those conditions is not necessary to our analysis, which focuses on whether Corning’s wet adhesion test, conducted under conditions of 95% relative humidity, is probative of the extent to which a cured coating delaminates from glass when exposed to liquid water.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We do not agree with Corning that the ’189 patent defines the term “stripping temperature” as “about 90°C to about 120°C.” Rather, the patent indicates that stripping temperature is “typically” within this range. Ex. 1001, 13:32-34; accord id. at 14:21-25 (“[F]or most coating compositions the design ribbon stripping temperatures are usually about 90° C. to about 120° C., but may be different depending on the specific design parameters for the particular coating composition.”). This disclosure is too imprecise to serve as a definition. See Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480. The ’189 patent does refer repeatedly, however, to 90°C as an exemplary stripping temperature. E.g., Ex. 1001, 31:14-15, 31:41-42, 50:55. The ’189 patent also identifies 100°C as an exemplary stripping temperature, particularly in the context of measuring change in length. Id. at 14:46-47, 18:44-45. Whatever other temperatures this term encompasses, it certainly encompasses at least the ones specifically identified. See Oatey Co. v. IPS Corp., 514 F.3d 1271, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“We normally do not interpret claim terms in a way that excludes embodiments disclosed in the specification.”). The limitation requires no further construction.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“plots is whether they exhibit a linear region of negative slope. Corning argues that they do, and the description in Exhibit 2015 that a region of the Shustack Example I plot showing a “linear relationship” was used to calculate slope bears out this argument. See Ex. 2015, 1. DSM, in contrast, argues that Corning’s plots lack “a substantially smooth linear region” but offers little evidence to support this assertion beyond Dr. Taylor’s statements that the plots “have no linear region from which to measure a slope” and that they lack any “substantial linear region.” See Resp. 31; Ex. 2032 ¶ 86. Dr. Taylor gives no credible explanation for the basis on which he reaches these conclusions. Even if Dr. Taylor provided some underlying facts or data for this conclusion, Dr. Taylor’s statements do not support DSM’s argument that there is no substantially smooth linear region. As between the conflicting evidence on this point, we credit Corning’s evidence, particularly from Exhibit 2015, in which Corning’s Mr. Gleason identifies the region of linear relationship as extending between displacements of 2.76 mm and 7 mm. DSM does not explain why this determination is invalid. We agree with Corning that the plots for Shustack Example I show a linear region of negative slope from 2.76 mm to 7 mm. To be sure, the signal is noisy, and the plots are jagged, but that does not mean that a linear relationship is not discernible in that region.” slip op. at 23
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureInherency foundNot shown unpatentable
“For these reasons, we credit Corning’s testing evidence over DSM’s. We are persuaded that Corning has shown that Shustack Example I and Szum ’928 Example 5B each inherently possess a fiber pull-out friction within the scope of every challenged claim. 2. “Sufficient Adhesion” As discussed above in section II.A.1, each of claims 1-4 and 9-12” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 6,298,189 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,298,189 - Corning Incorporated v. DSM IP Assets B.V.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · May 1, 2014 · IPR2013-00053 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 35, 39, 44, and 53-57 are unpatentable as anticipated by Murphy; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Corning’s proposed claim construction of “absorption maximum” as unreasonably broad in light of the Specification. Dec. 6. Based on the language in the Specification, the Board explained that [A]n absorption maximum does not include a “wavelength with the highest absorbance on either side of [the identified valley within the range of 240 and 360 nm]” unless that wavelength is also “a point on the curve wherein the tangent to the curve is parallel with the horizontal axis.” Id. After the institution of the trial, the parties did not further brief this issue. The Board hereby adopts its previous construction.” slip op. at 4
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedNot shown unpatentableDecided for petitioner
“factual findings. Brown v. Barbacid, 276 F.3d 1327, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2002). To establish an actual reduction to practice, the inventor must prove that: (1) an embodiment of the invention was constructed that meets all the limitations of the claim-at-issue; and (2) the inventor appreciated that the invention would work for its intended purpose. Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1998).” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Pet. 9. According to Corning, examples 8- 13 and a-d of Murphy meet all the limitations recited in claims 35, 39, 44, and 53-57, and thus, anticipate these claims. Id. at 40-46. DSM did not dispute that Murphy meets all the limitations recited in the challenged claims. Nor did it dispute that the effective filing date of Murphy is December 23, 1999. PO Resp. 41. Instead, it contended that Murphy could not qualify as § 102(e) prior art, because the inventors of the ’543 patent made the claimed invention through an actual reduction to practice before December 23, 1999. Id. at 41-55. As evidence, DSM submitted a “Rule 37 C.F.R. § 1.131 Declaration of Timothy E. Bishop,” one of the co-inventors of the ’543 patent. Ex. 2041. DSM also attached Exhibits A, B, and C to the Bishop Declaration as proof to antedate Murphy.4” slip op. at 5
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“We find Corning’s arguments unconvincing. Nevertheless, we deny DSM’s Motion to Exclude. Similar to a district court in a bench trial, the Board, sitting as a non-jury tribunal with administrative expertise, is well-positioned to determine and assign appropriate weight to evidence presented. See, e.g., Donnelly Garment Co. v. NLRB, 123 F.2d 215, 224 (8th Cir. 1941) (“One who is capable of ruling accurately upon the admissibility of evidence is equally capable of sifting it accurately after it has been received . . . .”). Thus, in this inter partes review, the better course is to have a complete record of the evidence to facilitate public access as well as appellate review. See id. (“If the record on review contains not only all evidence which was clearly admissible, but also all evidence of doubtful admissibility, the court which is called upon to review the case can usually make an end of it, whereas if evidence was excluded which that court regards as having been admissible, a new trial or rehearing cannot be avoided.”).” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 7,276,543 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipationcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,276,543
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.