• Valve Corporation v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 26, 2023 · IPR2017-00858 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Remand

  Claims 18, 19, 21, 26, and 29 were not shown unpatentable as obvious because Valve did not provide a reasoned basis to combine Burns with the design references.

  RulingsRemand decision

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

    “testimony relating to the combinations of Burns with LaCelle or Knight, it falls short of providing a reasoned basis for modifying Burns. Dr. Rempel merely opines that incorporating the curved shapes of back controls from LaCelle or Knight into Burns would result in a back control that “could have better coupling with the user’s finger than the flat paddles that are otherwise disclosed by Burns.” Ex. 1019 ¶¶ 39–40 (emphasis added). In other words, modifying Burns in view of LaCelle or Knight might improve Burns. Dr. Rempel testified that the modification “could” improve Burns, not that it “would” improve Burns. The possibility of improvement, which also allows that Burns would not be improved, fails to rise to the level of “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Accordingly, we find such testimony to be insufficient to demonstrate that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have modified Burns in view of LaCelle or Knight. After considering the parties’ briefing, we conclude that Valve’s arguments and supporting evidence for combining teachings of Burns with each one of the Design References, excluding the untimely evidence submitted with Valve’s Supplemental Reply, are unpersuasive. Neither the Petition nor the evidence cited in the Petition cogently explains what advantage would be provided by the alternative control geometries of Burns and each of the Design References. A petitioner cannot demonstrate obviousness “by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “To facilitate review, this analysis should be made explicit.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988). Here, we find that Valve proffers conclusions without sufficient reasoning or objective evidence to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of establishing that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to combine the elements from the prior art to arrive at the claimed controllers.” slip op. at 17

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “this simple and predictable art, and the results would not have been unexpected.” Id. (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 21, 27, 32). Dr. Rempel cites no objective evidence to support this cited testimony, which largely parrots Valve’s brief. Compare id., with Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 21, 27, 32. Dr. Rempel’s testimony is entitled to less weight because it is not supported by underlying facts or data. See 37 CFR § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 15

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted in part

    “It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify “with particularity” the “evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). “All arguments for the relief requested in a motion must be made in the motion. A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition or patent owner response.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We find that: (1) Valve proffered new testimony to fill the gaps that we identified in the Institution Decision and (2) presenting such testimony in the reply constitutes untimely new argument and evidence that must have been presented in the Petition.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 9,289,688 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,289,688
• Hanwha Solutions Corporation / Hanwha Q Cells USA, Inc. v. Rec Solar Pte. Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2022 · IPR2021-00989 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 11, and 13 were not shown unpatentable under either obviousness ground because Petitioner did not establish a motivation to combine Yagiura and Shimasaki.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Petitioner’s position is persuasive. We agree that documents from the Japanese Patent Office are self-authenticating official government documents. The technical issues regarding missing pages in the originally filed version of the document do not cause us to question authenticity. We also agree that Petitioner uses the documents to establish what the documents teach rather than establishing the truth of what the documents teach. In Reply, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner relies on the date printed on the document to prove up the truth of when the document was published. Mot. Excl. Reply 1–2. To the extent this is the case, an exception to hearsay applies because the document is a record of a public office. Fed. R. Evid. 803(8)(B) (a record of public office is an exception to the hearsay rule if the opponent does not show that the source of information or other circumstances “indicate a lack of trustworthiness”). Here, Patent Owner does not persuasively demonstrate a lack of trustworthiness; Patent Owner does not identify any substantively meaningful distinction in the missing pages of the originally filed document and does not identify any evidence to suggest that the missing pages were anything more than a harmless clerical error. For the reasons above, Patent Owner’s motion to exclude is denied with respect to these documents. B.” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Petitioner’s proposal is too broad. PO Resp. 8. For example, a person who merely installs solar panels for three years (satisfying “professional experience in solar energy”) while having some familiarity with module manufacturing would not be of ordinary skill in the design aspects of the ’060 patent as, for example, reflected by the claims at issue and the ’060 patent’s text and figures. See, e.g., Ex. 1101, Figs. 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b, 3:22–7:44. On the other hand, we also determine that Patent Owner’s proposal is too narrow. A person could, for example, have ordinary skill in the art of the ’060 patent by virtue of non-professional experience (for example, academic experience). When assessing relevant experience, research work done for a university (beyond mere classroom study) would have been just as valuable as research work done for a corporation. Also, ordinary skill in the art could be demonstrated by work that requires understanding of the ’060 patent’s field even if not “designing, developing, and/or researching” in the field itself We, thus, determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’060 patent would have been someone with a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, applied physics, or the like, and at least two years of (a) experience designing, developing, and/or researching in the field or (b) experience in solar energy that required an understanding of the ’060 patent’s field. Alternatively, that person would have had an advanced degree in electrical engineering, applied physics, or the like and at least one year of” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “qualifies as evidence in this matter. The Federal Circuit has held that expert testimony about the perspective of person of ordinary skill in the art (as Dr. Kimball provides here) must come from a person having at least ordinary skill in the art. Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools, Inc. v. ITC, 22 F.4th 1369, 1376–78 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quoting Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1362, 1364–65 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (holding that ITC Administrative Law Judge abused discretion by admitting expert testimony of witness who lacked the experience of a person having ordinary skill in the art); see Mot. Excl. 6–7 (arguing this point). Patent Owner, however, cites no authority that expert testimony on such matters come from a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Cf. Scentair Tech., LLC v. Prolitiec Inc., IPR2021-00012, Paper 22 at 61 (PTAB Apr. 22, 2022) (similarly noting a party’s lack of authority on this point). Beyond needing to come from a person of ordinary skill in the art, expert testimony is admissible if the expert has the “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge [that] will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. Furthermore, “[t]here is … no requirement of a perfect match between the expert’s experience and the relevant field.” USPTO, Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 34 (Nov. 2019). Here, Petitioner adequately establishes that Dr. Kimball qualifies as a” slip op. at 12

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

    “The Petition argues that all claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 18. Patent Owner does not dispute this. PO Resp. 13. We determine that no claim term requires express construction for purposes of this Final Written Decision. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms that are in controversy, and only to the” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 10,749,060 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,749,060
• SHDS, Inc. / Galderma Laboratories, L.P. v. Truinject Corp.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 15, 2021 · IPR2020-00937 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 4, 6–16, and 20–26 were not shown unpatentable because the petition did not account for required simulated therapeutic-agent delivery and real-time digital-plunger limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “In light of the parties’ mutually acknowledged agreement of the meaning of the noted-term, and given that we do not see reason on the record before us to deviate from that meaning, we apply the same meaning of “a simulated flow of therapeutic agent delivered from the digital model of the syringe to the digital model of the training apparatus” to the noted claim phrase and consider no further construction to be necessary. 3. Remaining Claim Terms We discern that no other term needs an express construction to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Thus, Patent Owner proposes a construction of the above-noted phrase as “a simulated flow of therapeutic agent delivered from the digital model of the syringe to the digital model of the training apparatus.” Petitioner acknowledges that “the parties agreed to the construction of this term in the Delaware Action. No further construction of the term is required.” Pet. Reply 5. In light of the parties’ mutually acknowledged agreement of the meaning of the noted-term, and given that we do not see reason on the record before us to deviate from that meaning, we apply the same meaning of “a simulated flow of therapeutic agent delivered from the digital model of the syringe to the digital model of the training apparatus” to the noted claim phrase and consider no further construction to be necessary.” slip op. at 9

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “on Lampotang’s paragraph 89, Petitioner attempts to expand its proposed ground, and uses the Petitioner Reply to do so. To that end, Petitioner turns to specific disclosure of Samosky at paragraph 67 as providing an evidentiary basis to conclude that depiction of a simulated delivery of a therapeutic agent “would have been obvious.” Pet. Reply 14. A reply provides an opportunity for a party to respond to arguments made, for instance, in a patent owner response. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). A reply, however, is not an appropriate vehicle to reconfigure a proposed ground based on new or additional evidence that is not reasonably tied to a ground advanced in the Petition, which is what Petitioner seeks to do here. The Petition does not set forth an adequate basis to conclude that Petitioner relied on Samosky’s teachings to account for features of claim 1 of the ’232 patent. As Patent Owner points out (PO Sur-reply 13–14), it is impermissible and untimely for Petitioner to now attempt to do so as a part of the Reply. See, e.g., Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1330–31 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[A]n [inter partes review] petitioner may not raise in reply ‘an entirely new rationale’ for why a claim would have been obvious.”) (citing Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).” slip op. at 21

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Lampotang’s disclosure with reference to Figure 2 focuses on the CVL technique, which involves withdrawing blood from a blood vessel rather than injecting medication into the patient’s body. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 89-90. The CVL technique is not concerned with visualizing a simulated flow of therapeutic agent delivered from a digital model of the syringe to the digital model of the training apparatus. Ex. 2005 ¶ 102; see PO Resp. 41. We credit Dr. Pugh’s testimony on this matter, as we find it consistent with Lampotang’s disclosure as to the content of its Figure 2 and Lampotang’s description of the CVL technique. See, e.g., Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 78, 89–90.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 10,290,232 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,290,232
• Garmin International, Inc. / Garmin USA, Inc. v. Logantree, LPNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 28, 2019 · IPR2018-00565 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–14, 56–58, 140, 144, and 146 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over the instituted combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The parties’ respective proposals are substantially similar such that there is no apparent dispute between the parties. Also, based on our review of the record before us, we find that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Thus, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition. We note, however, that our findings in this proceeding would not differ under Patent Owner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 9

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

    “The ’576 patent does not include an explicit definition for “interpreting.” See generally Ex. 1001. We note, however, that claims 1 and 13 recite “a “microprocessor capable of . . . interpreting . . . said movement data.” With this language in mind, the ’576 patent discloses that the device “employs a user-programmable microprocessor which receives, interprets, stores and responds to the movement data.” Id. at 2:13–15; see also id. at Abstract (making substantially similar statement). These disclosures indicate that “interpreting” is distinct from receiving, storing, and responding to the data, and are consistent with claims 1 and 13, which recite “interpreting” distinctly from receiving, storing, and responding. Furthermore, the ’576 patent discloses that microprocessor 32 “receives the signals generated by the movement sensor 30 for analysis and subsequent processing” and “analyzes and responds to the movement data signals from the sensor 30.” Id. at 4:52–57 (emphases added). Therefore, in the context of the claims and the Specification of the ’576 patent, we determine that the ordinary and customary meaning of the phrase “interpreting . . . said movement data” is “analyzing the movement data.”” slip op. at 11

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Decided for petitioner

    “We note, however, that Federal Circuit has recently held that “the retroactive application of IPR proceedings to pre-AIA patents is not an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment.” Celgene Corp. v. Peter, No. 2018-1167, 2019 WL 3418549, at *16 (Fed. Cir. July 30, 2019). The Federal Circuit addressed arguments made under both the due process and takings clauses of the Fifth Amendment in so holding. Id. at *11–16. We discern no other argument from Patent Owner in this case other than those expressly rejected by the Federal Circuit. Thus, in view of Celgene, we find Patent Owner’s argument unpersuasive.” slip op. at 13

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “On balance, we are not persuaded on the full record that Stewart discloses that processor 52 controls the comparing function. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden of establishing that Stewart’s processor 52 interprets movement data. Regarding the limitation of the microprocessor being capable of “detecting a first user-defined event based on the movement data and at least one of the user-defined operational parameters regarding the movement data,” Petitioner asserts that Stewart discloses a processor detecting an event, such as a spearing movement in football, based on acceleration data and a defined/predetermined threshold. Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1004, 5:4–7, 14:6–11). Petitioner also asserts that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Stewart’s system to enable user adjustment of the predetermined threshold to accommodate different users as taught by Rush. Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 59). As an initial point, we note that Petitioner relies on the same disclosures from Stewart (i.e., Ex. 1004, 5:4–7, 14:6–11) for disclosing both interpreting data and detecting an event, but does not provide a sufficient explanation of how these same disclosures teach two different claim limitations. Moreover, we disagree that Stewart expressly discloses that processor 52 detects an event such as spearing. Stewart merely discloses that it may be “possible to determine if a football player is improperly using his helmet (e.g., illegal spearing)” without specifying that such determination is performed by processor 52. See Ex. 1004, 14:4–14). As discussed above, Stewart’s disclosure with respect to the accelerometer responses exceeding a predetermined threshold indicates that this processing is accomplished by a receiver remote from the self-contained helmet system and, thus, is not performed by the processor. See id. at 14:6–9 (disclosing that when correlating accelerometer responses “with desirable punches exceeding a predetermined threshold,” the responses are “processed and scored at a ringside receiver”). For these reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not shown that the combination of Stewart and Rush teaches or suggests the detecting limitation of claim 1.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 6,059,576 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,059,576
• Garmin International, Inc. / Garmin USA, Inc. v. Logantree, LPNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 28, 2019 · IPR2018-00564 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 20–26, 29, 104–107, 110, 113–122, 126–128, 134–138, and 175 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations failed to teach claim 20’s interpreting and detecting limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Factual indicators of the level of ordinary skill in the art include “the various prior art approaches employed, the types of problems encountered in the art, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology involved, and the educational background of those actively working in the field.” Jacobson Bros., Inc. v. U.S., 512 F.2d 1065, 1071 (Ct. Cl. 1975); see also Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. U.S., 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting with approval Jacobson Bros.). The parties’ respective proposals are substantially similar such that there is no apparent dispute between the parties. Also, based on our review of the record before us, we find that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Thus, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition. We note, however, that our findings in this proceeding would not differ under Patent Owner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 9

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

    “The ’576 patent does not include an explicit definition for “interpreting.” See generally Ex. 1001. We note, however, that claim 20 recites “interpreting, using a microprocessor.” With this language in mind, the ’576 patent discloses that the device “employs a user-programmable microprocessor which receives, interprets, stores and responds to the movement data.” Id. at 2:13–15; see also id. at Abstract (making substantially similar statement). These disclosures indicate that “interpreting” is distinct from receiving, storing, and responding to the data. Furthermore, the ’576 patent discloses that microprocessor 32 “receives the signals generated by the movement sensor 30 for analysis and subsequent processing” and “analyzes and responds to the movement data signals from the sensor 30.” Id. at 4:52–57 (emphases added). Therefore, in the context of the Specification of the ’576 patent, we determine that the ordinary and customary meaning of the phrase “interpreting . . . said physical movement data” is “analyzing the physical movement data.”” slip op. at 11

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Decided for petitioner

    “In general, “administrative agencies do not have jurisdiction to decide the constitutionality of congressional enactments,” and “[a] finding that the agency lacks jurisdiction to decide constitutional questions is especially likely when the constitutional claim asks the agency to act contrary to its statutory charter.” Riggin v. Office of Senate Fair Emp’t Practices, 61 F.3d 1563, 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1995); see also Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1705, 1710 (TTAB 1999) (“[T]he Board has no authority . . . to declare provisions of the Trademark Act unconstitutional.”), rev’d on other grounds, 284 F. Supp. 2d 96 (D.D.C. 2003). But see Am. Express Co. v. Lunenfeld, Case CBM2014-00050, slip op. at 9–10 (PTAB May 22, 2015) (Paper 51) (“[F]or the reasons articulated in Patlex [Corp. v. Mossinghoff, 758 F.2d 594 (Fed. Cir. 1985)], we conclude that covered business method patent reviews, like reexamination proceedings, comply with the Seventh Amendment.”). We note, however, that Federal Circuit has recently held that “the retroactive application of IPR proceedings to pre-AIA patents is not an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment.” Celgene Corp. v. Peter, No. 2018-1167, 2019 WL 3418549, at *16 (Fed. Cir. July 30, 2019). The Federal Circuit addressed arguments made under both the due process and takings clauses of the Fifth Amendment in so holding. Id. at *11–16. We discern no other argument from Patent Owner in this case other than those expressly rejected by the Federal Circuit. Thus, in view of Celgene, we find Patent Owner’s argument unpersuasive.” slip op. at 12

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

    “detecting limitation”), Petitioner asserts that Stewart discloses a processor detecting an event, such as a spearing movement in football, based on acceleration data and a predetermined threshold. Pet. 22–23 (citing Ex. 1004, 5:4–7, 14:6–11). Noting that Stewart does not disclose expressly that the predetermined threshold is set by user commands, Petitioner argues that Rush discloses a monitoring device that detects axial loads, such as a spearing movement, in which the threshold value for detecting the spearing movement can be adjustable to accommodate users of different ages and sizes. Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1006, 3:13–18, 9:48–50, 9:54–58). Thus, according to Petitioner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Stewart’s system to enable user adjustment of the predetermined threshold to accommodate different users as taught by Rush. Id. at 23–24 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 61, 62). In this analysis, Petitioner maps Stewart’s predetermined threshold to the recited user-defined operational parameters. This claim limitation, however, recites at least one of the user-defined operational parameters. In other words, the detection of a first user-defined event must be based on at least one of the same user-defined operational parameters upon which the interpretation of the movement data was based. But, as discussed above, Petitioner maps the user-defined operational parameters of the interpreting limitation to Stewart’s user-defined time commands that cause the processor to start and stop the recording of movement data. Pet. 20. By inconsistently relying on different parameters in Stewart to satisfy the claimed user-defined operational parameters, Petitioner has not met its burden of establishing that the combination of Stewart and Rush meets the subject matter of claim 20. In addition, we disagree that Stewart expressly discloses that processor 52 detects an event such as spearing. Stewart merely discloses that it may be “possible to determine if a football player is improperly using his helmet (e.g., illegal spearing)” without specifying that such determination is performed by processor 52. See Ex. 1004, 14:4–14. Furthermore, as discussed above, Stewart’s disclosure with respect to the accelerometer responses exceeding a predetermined threshold indicates that this processing is accomplished by a receiver remote from the self-contained helmet system and, thus, is not performed by the processor. See id. at 14:6– 9 (disclosing that when correlating accelerometer responses “with desirable punches exceeding a predetermined threshold,” the responses are “processed and scored at a ringside receiver”). For these reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not shown that Stewart teaches or suggests the detecting limitation of claim 20.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 6,059,576 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,059,576
• St. Jude Medical, LLC v. Snyders Heart Valve LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 2, 2019 · IPR2018-00109 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 18 and 20 were not shown unpatentable because Leonhardt did not disclose the claimed central frame structure and the proposed Leonhardt-Johnson combination lacked adequate motivation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Factual indicators of the level of ordinary skill in the art include “the various prior art approaches employed, the types of problems encountered in the art, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology involved, and the educational background of those actively working in the field.” Jacobson Bros., Inc. v. U.S., 512 F.2d 1065, 1071 (Ct. Cl. 1975); see also Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. U.S., 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting with approval Jacobson Bros.). We find, based on our review of the record before us, that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it is consistent with the record, including the asserted prior art and, for the purposes of this Final Written Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 9

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

    “written decision is issued shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2018); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S.Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (affirming that USPTO has statutory authority to construe claims according to Rule 42.100(b)). When applying that standard, we interpret the claim language as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the specification, and absent any special definition, we give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning. See In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The ordinary and customary meaning is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Claim 1 recites that the flexible valve element is attached to the “central portion of the frame.” Patent Owner argues that “central portion of the frame” means “central structural frame portion,” which cannot refer solely to an “empty space.” PO Resp. 3–7. Patent Owner explains that, during the related litigation, Petitioner agreed that the central portion of the frame must “actually be part of the structure of the frame.” Id. at 6 (quoting Ex. 2001, 119–20). Accordingly, we discern no dispute on the issue of whether “central portion of the frame” refers to a structural portion of the frame; it does.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Petitioner’s argument that Leonhardt’s valve is attached to the central part of the frame of claim 1 fails. Leonhardt’s valve is undeniably attached to its frame because the valve is sutured or glued to stent 26. Claim 1 requires the valve element to be attached to a portion of the frame located along the radial centerline. Ex. 1001, 19:19–20. However, Leonhardt’s frame (stent 26 coupled via connecting bar 29) is a hollow cylinder devoid of structure located along its centerline. Ex. 1017, Figure 1C. Thus, regardless of how Leonhardt’s valve is attached to stent 26 and connecting bar 29, it is not attached to a structure “located along a centerline” as recited in claim 1 and thus claims 18 and 20. Therefore, we determine that Petitioner fails to establish by a preponderance of evidence that Leonhardt anticipates claims 18 and 20. 4. Summary For the reasons expressed above, we determine that Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that Leonhardt anticipates claims 18 and 20.” slip op. at 14

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

    “F. CLAIMS 18 AND 20: OBVIOUSNESS BY LEONHARDT Petitioner argues that even if Leonhardt fails to describe elements as claimed, an ordinarily skilled artisan would consider that “variations” of Leonhardt to meet the claimed limitations would have been obvious “in view of the general knowledge in the art and the limited number of ways of using known elements to achieve expected results.” Pet. 42. Petitioner also argues that “[a]s these are method claims, and not device claims, even if the valve device were somehow unobviously different, which it is not, that difference should be given minimal weight in evaluating the obviousness of the method.” Id. at 44. Petitioner cites no authority for this proposition, and we are aware of none. Claims 18 and 20 are directed to a “transluminal method of inserting an artificial valve as set forth in claim 1.” Id. at 21:1–25 (claim 18), 21:31– 50 (claim 20). Each time claims 18 and 20 refer to an “artificial valve” steps of the recited methods, they refer to the valve set forth in claim 1. None of Petitioner’s arguments persuasively addresses Leonhardt’s failure to describe a flexible valve element attached to a central portion of the frame located along a centerline. See Part II.E. Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that Leonhardt alone renders claims 18 and 20 unpatentable as obvious.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 6,821,297 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,821,297
• Donghee America, Inc. / Donghee Alabama, LLC v. Plastic Omnium Advanced Innovation And ResearchNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 2, 2019 · IPR2017-01647 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 8, and 9 were not shown unpatentable over either asserted combination because neither reference combination teaches the claimed punch.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “punch.” The punch must be separated from one portion of the mold, with the plastic sheet that is being formed located between the punch and that mold portion, and the punch must be associated with the other portion of the mold, making it possible to distinguish a “punch side” and a “die side” of the mold. Thus, the proper construction of “punch” cannot be as broad as Petitioner suggests, encompassing any “device that compresses material against a portion of the mold to shape the material.” The written description of the ’921 patent makes clear that the punch may be “fastened to [a] mold portion.” Ex. 1001, 2:48–51. Thus, the term “punch” must encompass at least some bodies that are separate from the mold itself, and it cannot be limited to covering only portions of the mold itself, as Patent Owner suggests. Of course, the punch may be part of the punch side of the mold. Id. at 5:31–33, Fig. 1 (depicting punch 5a as part of one portion of mold 5). The written description also makes clear that the sheet of material being formed is compression molded “in a region located between the punch . . . and the die.” Id. Based on the foregoing, we determine that the construction that is consistent with both the language of the claims and the written description and sole figure of the ’921 patent is that a “punch” is “a device that is part of, fastened to, or otherwise associated with one portion of the mold—the punch side of the mold—and, upon mold closure, acts to compress material against another portion of the mold—the die side of the mold—to shape the material.” slip op. at 7

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

    “As discussed above, we construe “punch” as “a device that is part of, fastened to, or otherwise associated with one portion of the mold—the punch side of the mold—and, upon mold closure, acts to compress material against another portion of the mold—the die side of the mold—to shape the material.” Under this construction, it must be possible to identify one side of the mold as the “punch side” of the mold, because that side of the mold has a punch as part of its structure, or fastened to its structure, or in some other way associated with its structure. It is not possible to make such an identification in Kasugai. Kasugai’s mold has two mold halves, identified in Kasugai’s figures as items 22 and 23. Ex. 1003, 4:23–30, Fig. 1, Fig. 2. Kasugai does not refer to its insert member 7, or to any other item it discloses, as a “punch.” Id. at 1:1–12:36. And the insert member is not part of or fastened to either half of Kasugai’s mold. Id. at Fig. 1, Fig. 2. Both halves of Kasugai’s mold contain recessed portions into which the plastic material being formed is pressed by insert member 7. Id. Because Kasugai’s insert member 7 is not part of, attached to, or otherwise associated with either mold half to a greater extent than to the other half, it is not possible to identify either mold half 22 or mold half 23 as the “punch side” of the mold in Kasugai. Accordingly, we find that Kasugai does not teach or suggest the “punch” recited in claim 1 of the ’921 patent. Because Petitioner relies on Kasugai to teach or suggest the recited “punch,” Pet. 19, and because Kasugai does not teach or suggest a “punch,” we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Kasugai and Kagitani teaches or suggests all the limitations of claim 1.” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 6,814,921 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,814,921
• Grit Energy Solutions, LLC v. Oren Technologies, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 13, 2018 · IPR2017-00768 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 and 5 were not shown unpatentable over Eng Soon and Constantin; claims 4, 6, and 7 were not shown unpatentable over Eng Soon, Constantin, and Olson because the asserted combinations were not adequately …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Mr. Smith, on the other hand, testifies that Constantin does not disclose an actuator having a receptacle and “Petitioner and Dr. Wooley’s argument that Constantin teaches that one could switch the location of stud 15 and orifice 16 is not supported.” Ex. 2040 ¶¶ 65–66. Mr. Smith further testifies that “Constantin does not describe the location of stud 15 and orifice 16 as a ‘preferred embodiment.’ . . . Constantin’s disclosure does not disclose or suggest that stud 15 could be switched for orifice 16 on the other shutter blade.” Id. ¶ 68. Having considered Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s competing evidence and argument, we agree with Patent Owner and credit Mr. Smith’s testimony. Specifically, we find that Petitioner has not shown that Constantin teaches, discloses, or suggests its orifice as being attached to its actuator, as Petitioner asserts. See Pet. 49. Petitioner’s assertion is premised on a misapprehension of Constantin’s claim 5.” slip op. at 21

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

    “Having established that Constantin does not teach, disclose, or suggest an orifice attached to its actuator, we also find unpersuasive Petitioner’s argument that a POSITA would have modified Eng Soon’s structure so as “to fix the pin on the bottom of the gate as taught by Constantin.” Pet. 54 (emphasis added). Because Petitioner has not shown Constantin teaches or suggests such structure and has failed to provide adequate explanation for why one would have modified Constantin, Petitioner’s reasoning is insufficient.” slip op. at 22

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted

    “The Board may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from disclosing confidential information.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.54(a). Upon considering the content of the Exhibits, including those redacted versions, and Petitioner’s representations as to the confidentiality of the information, we determine that Petitioner has shown good cause for sealing Exhibit 1016 in its entirety and the redacted portions of the Exhibits 2010, 2012, 2013, 2020–2024, 2029, 2032, 2033, 2039, and 2044, which redacted versions have been submitted as Exhibits 1025–1037. Id. at ii. slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 8,585,341 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,585,341
• Colas Solutions Inc. v. Blacklidge Emulsions, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 2, 2017 · IPR2016-01031 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12, 15–20, 23–28, and 31–33 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 because the cited combination did not establish the claimed softening point.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The Parties’ definitions differ in that under Patent Owner’s proposal, additional work experience can substitute for a science or engineering degree. Patent Owner supports that position by pointing to the backgrounds of Mr. O’Leary and the inventor, Mr. Blacklidge, neither of whom has a bachelor’s degree in engineering or science. PO Resp. 15–16; Ex. 1034, 12:15–13:3; Ex. 2027, App’x A; see also Ex. 2026 ¶¶ 22–23 (discussing the educational background of active workers in the field). Patent Owner also cites Dr. King’s deposition testimony agreeing that Mr. O’Leary was an example of someone who had attained the level of ordinary skill in the art through sufficient work experience without academic credentials beyond high school. Ex. 2025, 376:4–377:14. This evidence supports Patent Owner’s position that relevant work experience can substitute for a bachelor’s degree in science or engineering in this case. Accordingly, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’724 patent would have had a bachelor’s degree in chemistry, civil engineering, chemical engineering, material science, or a related field of science or engineering, plus five years of experience in the field of asphalt paving and/or asphalt emulsion technology. Alternatively, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had ten years of experience in the field of asphalt paving and/or asphalt emulsion technology.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Applying that standard for inherency, the evidence does not sufficiently support a finding that a cured tack coat formed from a base asphalt as described in Bardesi would necessarily have “a softening point greater than about 140 ° F. (60 ° C.),” as recited in claim 1. The parties agree that Dr. King’s calculations using the Pfeiffer equation were erroneous and that Dr. Little’s calculations correctly apply the Pfeiffer equation. See PO Resp. 29; Reply 17; Tr. 27:7–28:10, 80:9–10. Even assuming the correctness of the assumptions undergirding Dr. King’s analysis of the softening point limitation — which include the reliability of the Pfeiffer equation to calculate softening point, the range of PI values between -1 and +1 for the asphalts described in Bardesi, and the use of a base asphalt’s softening point as a measure of the softening point for a cured tack coat made from that asphalt — the now agreed-upon data that result from the Pfeiffer equation show that not all 10-pen and 20-pen asphalts have a softening point greater than 60°C. Ex. 2026 ¶¶ 91–93. Indeed, Petitioner and Dr. King seem to concede this point. Reply 18; Tr. 80:8–14; see also Ex. 1030 ¶ 29 (rebuttal declaration of Dr. King stating that “most 10-20 pen paving grade asphalts” would have a softening point in the claimed range).” slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot reached

    “To the extent Petitioner’s arguments in the Reply and at the hearing that the claimed range of softening points is typical or expected are offered as an alternative theory of obviousness in lieu of inherency, those arguments were not adequately developed and presented in the Petition. “It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” Intelligent Bio- Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)). “Unlike district court litigation— where parties have greater freedom to revise and develop their arguments over time and in response to newly discovered material—the expedited nature of IPRs bring with it an obligation for petitioners to make their case in their petition to institute.” Id. The Federal Circuit has applied this rule to bar a petitioner from shifting its theory of obviousness after the patent owner pointed out the flaws of the obviousness case presented in the petition. See Wasica Finance GmbH v. Continental Automotive Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Rather than explaining how its original petition was correct, Continental’s subsequent arguments amount to an entirely new theory of prima facie obviousness absent from the petition. Shifting arguments in this fashion is foreclosed by statute, our precedent, and Board guidelines.”). Likewise, the Petition in this case relied on inherency for the softening point limitation, and Patent Owner successfully rebutted that theory in its Patent Owner Response. Following that rebuttal, Petitioner is not permitted to abandon inherency to pursue a different theory that it did not present in its Petition. Accordingly, we do not reach the issue of whether the claim is obvious under a different theory than Petitioner advanced in its Petition.” slip op. at 26

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

    “Applying that standard for inherency, the evidence does not sufficiently support a finding that a cured tack coat formed from a base asphalt as described in Bardesi would necessarily have “a softening point greater than about 140 ° F. (60 ° C.),” as recited in claim 1. The parties agree that Dr. King’s calculations using the Pfeiffer equation were erroneous and that Dr. Little’s calculations correctly apply the Pfeiffer equation. See PO Resp. 29; Reply 17; Tr. 27:7–28:10, 80:9–10. Even assuming the correctness of the assumptions undergirding Dr. King’s analysis of the softening point limitation — which include the reliability of the Pfeiffer equation to calculate softening point, the range of PI values between -1 and +1 for the asphalts described in Bardesi, and the use of a base asphalt’s softening point as a measure of the softening point for a cured tack coat made from that asphalt — the now agreed-upon data that result from the Pfeiffer equation show that not all 10-pen and 20-pen asphalts have a softening point greater than 60°C. Ex. 2026 ¶¶ 91–93. Indeed, Petitioner and Dr. King seem to concede this point. Reply 18; Tr. 80:8–14; see also Ex. 1030 ¶ 29 (rebuttal declaration of Dr. King stating that “most 10-20 pen paving grade asphalts” would have a softening point in the claimed range).” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,503,724 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,503,724
• Colas Solutions, Inc. v. Blacklidge Emulsions, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 2, 2017 · IPR2016-01032 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12, 14–23, and 25 were not shown unpatentable because the cited combination did not establish the claimed softening point limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The parties’ definitions differ in that under Patent Owner’s proposal, additional work experience can substitute for a science or engineering degree. Patent Owner supports that position by pointing to the backgrounds of Mr. O’Leary and the inventor, Mr. Blacklidge, neither of whom has a bachelor’s degree in engineering or science. PO Resp. 15–16; Ex. 1034, 12:15–13:3; Ex. 2027, App’x A; see also Ex. 2026 ¶¶ 22–23 (discussing the educational background of active workers in the field). Patent Owner also cites Dr. King’s deposition testimony agreeing that Mr. O’Leary was an example of someone who had attained the level of ordinary skill in the art through sufficient work experience without academic credentials beyond high school. Ex. 2025, 376:4–377:14. This evidence supports Patent Owner’s position that relevant work experience can substitute for a bachelor’s degree in science or engineering in this case. Accordingly, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’624 patent would have had a bachelor’s degree in chemistry, civil engineering, chemical engineering, material science, or a related field of science or engineering, plus five years of experience in the field of asphalt paving and/or asphalt emulsion technology. Alternatively, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had ten years of experience in the field of asphalt paving and/or asphalt emulsion technology.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedMixed

    “Applying that standard for inherency, the evidence does not sufficiently support a finding that a cured tack coat formed from a base asphalt as described in Bardesi would necessarily have “a softening point greater than about 140 ° F. (60 ° C.),” as recited in claim 1. The parties are in agreement that Dr. King’s calculations using the Pfeiffer equation were in error and that Dr. Little’s calculations correctly apply the Pfeiffer equation. See PO Resp. 29; Reply 17; Tr. 27:7–28:10, 80:9–10. Even assuming the correctness of the assumptions undergirding Dr. King’s analysis of the softening point limitation — which include the reliability of the Pfeiffer equation to calculate softening point, the range of PI values between -1 and +1 for the asphalts described in Bardesi, and the use of a base asphalt’s softening point as a measure of the softening point for a cured tack coat made from that asphalt — the now agreed-upon data that result from the Pfeiffer equation show that not all 10-pen and 20-pen asphalts have a softening point greater than 60°C. Ex. 2026 ¶¶ 91–93. Indeed, Petitioner and Dr. King seem to concede this point. Reply 18; Tr. 80:8–14; see also Ex. 1030 ¶ 29 (rebuttal declaration of Dr. King stating that “most 10-20 pen paving grade asphalts” would have a softening point in the claimed range).” slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “At the hearing, Petitioner suggested that it was abandoning the inherency theory for the softening point limitation, stating that “we are not relying upon inherency with respect to all asphalts will necessarily have that claimed softening point.” See Tr. 80:8–14. The problem for Petitioner, however, is that inherency was the only theory presented in the Petition for why the cited combination teaches or renders obvious the softening point limitation. We have already reviewed above the numerous portions of the Petition in which Petitioner relied on inherency for the softening point limitation. See Pet. 22, 24, 27, 38, 40, 50.6 Petitioner argued at the hearing that inherency “wasn’t an all-or-nothing proposition”—i.e., that its Petition did not rely only on inherency for the softening point limitation. See Tr. 79:4–80:14. Petitioner pointed to its reliance on Dr. King’s experience, Dr. King’s use of the Pfeiffer equation, and the assumptions Dr. King used in applying the Pfeiffer equation. Id. Yet those are all facts that Petitioner relied on to show why the softening point limitation was inherently and necessarily present in Bardesi, not reasons why the softening point limitation would have been obvious separate or independent from inherency. To the extent Petitioner’s arguments in the Reply and at the hearing that the claimed range of softening points is typical or expected are offered as an alternative theory of obviousness in lieu of inherency, those arguments 6 Even in the Reply, Petitioner continued to refer to the softening point limitation as being inherently and necessarily present. See Reply 1 (“The [’]624 patent is invalid because Petitioner shows that this claimed softening point above 60ºC is inherent and ‘typical’ for many 10/20 pen asphalts disclosed in Bardesi.”) (emphasis added); id. at 3 (“any 10-20 pen specification paving grade bitumen purchased in Britain at the time of Bardesi’s publication would have necessarily had a softening point well above 60ºC”) (emphasis added). were not adequately developed and presented in the Petition. “It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” Intelligent Bio- Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)). “Unlike district court litigation— where parties have greater freedom to revise and develop their arguments over time and in response to newly discovered material—the expedited nature of IPRs bring with it an obligation for petitioners to make their case in their petition to institute.” Id. The Federal Circuit has applied this rule to bar a petitioner from shifting its theory of obviousness after the patent owner pointed out the flaws of the obviousness case presented in the petition. See Wasica Finance GmbH v. Continental Automotive Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Rather than explaining how its original petition was correct, Continental’s subsequent arguments amount to an entirely new theory of prima facie obviousness absent from the petition. Shifting arguments in this fashion is foreclosed by statute, our precedent, and Board guidelines.”). Likewise, the Petition in this case relied on inherency for the softening point limitation, and Patent Owner successfully rebutted that theory in its Patent Owner Response. Following that rebuttal, Petitioner is not permitted to abandon inherency to pursue a different theory that it did not present in its Petition. Accordingly, we do not reach the issue of whether the claim is obvious under a different theory than Petitioner advanced in its Petition.” slip op. at 25

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

    “For these reasons, we determine that Petitioner did not carry its burden to demonstrate that claim 1 would have been obvious in view of the cited references. 2. Claims 2–12, 14–23, and 25 Independent claims 14 and 25 include substantially the same softening point limitation as in claim 1. See Ex. 1001, 15:8–10; 16:35–37. Petitioner’s evidence and arguments, and Patent Owner’s rebuttal, regarding the softening point limitation in those claims are the same as for claim 1. See Pet. 38, 40, 50; PO Resp. 24–47; Reply 4–6, 17–20. Thus, for the reasons discussed in Section III.D.1, Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 14 and 25 would have been obvious in view of the cited combination. By virtue of their dependency, claims 2–12 and 15–23 incorporate the softening point limitation recited in claims 1 and 14. Thus, Petitioner also has not demonstrated the unpatentability of any of those claims. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[D]ependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious.”).” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 7,918,624 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,918,624

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.