- PTAB · Oct 31, 2023 · PGR2022-00040 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · PGR · Final written decision
The Board cancelled claims 1–17 and denied substitute claims 18–30 for lack of written-description support; it did not reach the remaining grounds against the substitute claims.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“For the reasons discussed below, on the full trial record, we find that Patent Owner has not carried its burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed substitute claims introduce no new matter relative to the original disclosure. 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(d)(1); see also Paper 58, 2 (Patent Owner acknowledging that it “bears the burden to meet the regulatory and statutory requirements” for a motion to amend, including demonstrating that the substitute claims do not “introduce new matter”). Importantly, we note that Patent Owner fails to explain how the material cited in the claim chart supports the claims. See Mot. 15–16. Instead, Patent Owner provides only a claim chart with bare citations, leaving it to the panel to discern how the cited material supports the claim limitations. See id. Patent Owner’s failure to explain the citations constitutes a fatal error, as we have reviewed the passages cited by Patent Owner and are unable to discern where support is found for several of the substitute claim limitations. Where, as here, “the Board is unable to determine how the specification and drawings support the proposed substitute claims, the motion to amend may be denied.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) (“TPG”),6 71.” slip op. at 15
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable
“Petitioner persuades us that the ’418 Application lacks adequate written description support for the formulation limitations of proposed substitute claim 18 [limitations 18a–8c]. As outlined by Petitioner and its declarants, the ’418 Application, including the Abstract, Field of the Invention, Summary of the Invention, and Detailed Description of the Invention sections, uniformly focuses on phosphate prodrugs of levodopa and carbidopa. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 (Sloan Decl.) ¶¶ 38–55, 64–69; Ex. 1003 (LeWitt Decl.) ¶¶ 89–97; Ex. 1047 (Forrest Decl.) ¶¶ 40–74, 80–92; Opp. 6– 10; Pet. 23–26, 49–55. We agree with Petitioner that “nothing in the specification suggests that the invention includes methods of subcutaneous infusion with anything other than the carbidopa prodrugs and L-dopa prodrugs of Formulas (I) and (II), respectively, or teaches how to get sufficient amounts of either L-dopa or carbidopa into solution, or achieve particular L-dopa plasma levels, without those particular prodrugs.” Pet. 27. Petitioner persuades us that the ’418 Application fails to contain “[so] much as a single generic sentence, anywhere in the application, suggesting the inventors possessed the claimed formulations.” Sur-reply 3. Additionally, the ’418 Application contains no example teaching administration of an aqueous formulation comprising carbidopa itself with levodopa itself or one of the three claimed levodopa prodrugs, let alone one that is suitable for continuous subcutaneous administration. See Ex. 1047 (Forrest Decl.) ¶¶ 61–72, 82–92. Patent Owner is correct that to establish written description support, neither “an actual reduction to practice,” nor a verbatim recitation of the claims is required. Sur-reply 4. Nevertheless, “[a]lthough examples are not always required to satisfy the written description requirement, the lack of any disclosure of examples may be considered when determining whether the claimed invention is adequately described.” Bos. Sci. Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 647 F.3d 1353, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Here, the lack of an actual reduction to practice or verbatim description of a formulation that falls within the scope of the claims is relevant, because we also see no other description or material in the ’418 Application that suggests the claimed methods extend to continuous subcutaneous administration of a composition comprising levodopa or one of the three claimed levodopa prodrugs, together with carbidopa, in an aqueous carrier.” slip op. at 28
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“All of the exhibits that are the subject of Patent Owner’s motion to exclude relate to the prior-art status and/or authenticity of Yacoby-Zeevi and ancillary related documents underlying Petitioner’s prior art-based challenges to the proposed substitute claims. See generally MTE. Because we deny Patent Owner’s request to enter proposed substitute claims 18–30 based on lack of written description support and do not reach Petitioner’s prior-art based challenges to the patentability of these claims, we do not rely on Exhibits 1005, 1007, 1040–1044, 1046, or 1048–1050 in this Decision. Accordingly we dismiss Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude as moot.” slip op. at 49
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied
“On the other hand, Petitioner shows that Patent Owner took positions in its Motion to Amend that it only later sought to support with technical declarations. For example, in the Motion to Amend, Patent Owner elected to assert “that levodopa and carbidopa could be ‘interchanged’ in a formulation with their prodrugs, and that a skilled artisan could ‘perform a pharmacokinetic analysis to predict steady state levodopa plasma levels’ using the ‘parent compounds’ based on Example 24.” MTS 2 (citing Mot. 12–13). Patent Owner, however, “chose to forgo any expert support” on these issues at the time it filed its Motion to Amend, and instead waited until the Reply to submit technical declarations in support of these arguments. Id. We agree with Petitioner that although Patent Owner “was not required to anticipate the arguments that [Petitioner] would make in its Opposition” to the Motion to Amend, if Patent Owner “wanted to provide expert testimony to support the positions it actually took” in that Motion, “the TPG required [Patent Owner] to do so at that time, instead of waiting until [Petitioner] had limited ability to respond.” Id. at 5. Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that in this respect at least some portions of Patent Owner’s Declarations are untimely, because it is “improper for a reply to present new evidence (including new expert testimony) that could have been presented in a prior filing.” TPG 74. Nevertheless, an order striking arguments and evidence in their entirety is an “exceptional remedy,” particularly under the circumstances here, where some portions of the Declarations are proper, while other portions are untimely. TPG 80. Moreover, “there is a strong public policy for making all information filed in an administrative proceeding available to the public.” Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., CBM2012- 00010, Paper 59 at 40 (PTAB Feb. 24, 2014). Under the facts of this case, Patent Owner was permitted to file evidence to respond to Petitioner’s unpatentability claims, but also belatedly supported positions it made in earlier attorney argument. Petitioner’s Motion to Strike, however, challenges all of Patent Owner’s evidence, without acknowledging that some portions constitute proper reply. Although “[t]he Board is not required to attempt to sort proper from improper portions of the reply” (TPG 74, emphasis added), under the circumstances here, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s lack of specificity as to what it seeks to strike is fatal to Petitioner’s motion. Accordingly, we decline to strike the Declarations in their entirety as untimely.” slip op. at 46
§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 11,091,507 - PTAB · Jul 28, 2023 · IPR2022-00483 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Final written decision
The Board cancelled original claims 1–18 and 20–22, but denied substitute claims 23–43 for lack of written-description support.
RulingsFinal written decision- 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“37 C.F.R. §§ 42.121(b)(1) and (2). The patent owner bears the burden to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a motion to amend complies with these requirements. 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(d)(1). “[T]he motion [to amend] must set forth written description support for each proposed substitute claim as a whole, and not just the features added by the amendment.” Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-01129, Paper 15, 8 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2019) (precedential). B. Lack of Written Description Support” slip op. at 9
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot shown unpatentable
“the ’556 application does not provide written description support for the proposed substitute claims. For limitations 23e, 30e, and 37e of respective independent proposed claims 23, 30, and 37, Patent Owner points to paragraphs 11, 37, 60, 78, 83–85, 90, 109–113, 119–130, 150, and Figure 11 of the ’556 application as providing written description support. MTA 6–7, 10, 14–15; Reply 2–3. Reviewing these paragraphs, however, we find no description of the subject matter recited in limitation 23e, which recites “responsive to determining that the [first] variation of the soft information change how the hard information is displayed at the client device, determine a second variation of the soft information.” Nor do we find in those passages written description of the subject matter recited in the similar language of limitations 30e and 37e. Specifically, paragraphs 11 and 37 of the ’556 application address prediction of the response message expected from the client device (similar to limitations 23h–23j, 30h–30j, and 37h–37j, which were added in the MTA to the original claims of the ’759 patent). Paragraphs 60, 78, 83, and 84 describe specific ways to vary soft messaging to establish secondary communications between a server and a client device to detect the presence of a malicious application. Paragraph 85 describes a priori recording of soft information variations to create large sets of composite (hard and soft) messages to be transmitted together. Paragraph 85 also states that, alternatively, the hard and soft messages may be transmitted separately. Paragraph 90 mentions use of “spaghetti” code and soft formatting to make it difficult for malicious applications to alter, replace, or counterfeit in real time. Paragraphs 109 to 113 mention various ways to vary soft information and soft messaging, such as varying or selecting different characters sets, font type, color, or weight, and point sizes from session to session, and predicting the response from the client device to compare with the actual response. Paragraphs 119 to 125 and Figure 11 address soft messaging using un-rendered page elements, and paragraphs 126 to 130 describe soft messaging using graphical elements. Paragraph 150 discusses identifying compatible soft information and selecting a variation of soft information to prevent malicious applications from reverse engineering the soft messaging used to validate communications. None of these disclosures describe the “trial and error” or “testing” approach of limitations 23e, 30e, and 37e in which, responsive to determining that a first variation of the soft information changes how the hard information is displayed at the client device, the security processor creates a second variation of soft information (which is included in the message to the client device if it does not vary how the hard information is displayed—see limitations 23f–23g, 30f–30g, and 37f–37g) to prevent a malicious application from interacting with the hard information. Accordingly, Patent Owner fails to meet its burden to show that limitations 23e, 30e, and 37e of independent proposed substitute claims 23, 30, and 37, as presented in the Motion to Amend, have written description support in the ’556 application, as required under 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(b)(2).” slip op. at 11
§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 10,230,759 - PTAB · Apr 18, 2023 · IPR2022-00123 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Final written decision
The Board cancelled original claim 1 and denied substitute claim 2 for lack of written-description support; it did not reach the obviousness or enablement grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ordinary skill is inappropriate because it “requires qualifications that exclude even the sole inventor of the ’190 Patent, Dr. Edward Neuwelt.” MTA Opp. 1. According to Petitioner, Dr. Neuwelt is “a neurosurgeon,” not a pediatric oncologist, and lacks the requisite “at least 2 years” experience in platinum-based therapies. Id. (citing Ex. 1003, 18; Ex. 1038, 98:9–17, 100:15–101, 4). We agree with Petitioner. It is well settled that inventors are typically persons skilled in the field of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Petitioner presents persuasive evidence to show that under Patent Owner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill, Dr. Neuwelt, the sole inventor, would not qualify as an ordinarily skilled artisan, because he is not a pediatric oncologist, even though he is considered “one of the world leading experts on this compound [STS] and otoprotection” and “an expert in the area of [STS] as a . . . drug to use in children with medulloblastoma.” Ex. 1038, 98:9–17, 99:17–18, 101:18–102:13.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Paragraph 102 of Dr. Rassekh’s Declaration, however, does not support Patent Owner’s assertion. Instead, Dr. Rassekh testifies that [t]he stratum of previous craniospinal radiation therapy contained 8 participants: 2 of the 4 (50%) participants receiving STS had hearing loss compared to 4 of the 4 (100%) participants not receiving STS, and none of the hearing loss assessments were changed at the 1 year follow up period. (Ex. 1001 at 20: 28-32, 47-50.) Ex. 2024 ¶ 102. Dr. Rassekh offers no opinion on how many osteosarcoma patients with prior cranial irradiation and how many medulloblastoma patients with prior cranial irradiation had hearing loss.” slip op. at 20
- 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“In sum, we find the disclosures of the ’243 application that Patent Owner relies on do not provide sufficient written-description support for the ototoxicity efficacy limitation.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached
“F. Petitioner’s Asserted Unpatentability Grounds In light of our determination above that Patent Owner has not shown sufficient written-description support for proposed substitute claim 2 in the ’243 application, we do not reach the grounds of unpatentability set forth in Petitioner’s Opposition. See Revised MTA Opp. 17–25 (alleging non-enablement and obviousness).” slip op. at 26
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,596,190 - PTAB · Mar 2, 2023 · IPR2021-01483 · APJ Michael T Cygan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable; the revised motion to amend and both parties’ motions to exclude are denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
“B. Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner offers an assessment as to the level of skill in the art as of” slip op. at 10
- 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“to . . . introduce new subject matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 41.121(a)(2)(ii); Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at 6–7. Accordingly, “the Board requires that a motion to amend set forth written description support in the originally filed disclosure of the subject patent for each proposed substitute claim, and also set forth support in an earlier filed disclosure for each claim for which benefit of the filing date of the earlier filed disclosure is sought.” Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at 7 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(b)(1)–(2)). For this requirement, Patent Owner must cite “to the original disclosure of the application, as filed, rather than to the patent as issued.” Id. at 8.” slip op. at 56
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“insufficiency in its showing that these documents are prior art is a legal determination to be made by the Board, and is not proper for a motion to exclude. Pet. Opp. PO Mot. Excl. 4 (citing Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. v. 5th Market, Inc., CBM2014-00114, Paper 35, at 52 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2015) (“a motion to exclude is not the proper vehicle to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence used to demonstrate that [an item] qualifies as a prior art printed publication . . .. Whether a reference qualifies as a printed publication . . . is a legal conclusion based on underlying factual determinations” and thus “the issue of whether there is sufficient evidence in the record . . . should be presented in the patent owner response—not a motion to exclude”).” slip op. at 64
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“claims 11, 17, and 18. Resp. 10 n. 2. We determine that Petitioner has shown the limitations of claims 11, 17, and 18 to be taught by the abovementioned portions of Chang and Geeks, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reason to combine the references with a reasonable expectation of success. For these reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 11, 17, and 18 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 18
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 9,848,295 - PTAB · Feb 1, 2023 · IPR2021-01315 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Final written decision
The Board cancelled claims 1–19 and denied substitute claims 20–38 because their 5,000–15,000 psi limitation added new matter without written-description support.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“2. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person having ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the ’500 patent would have either: (1) a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Petroleum Engineering or an equivalent field as well as at least 2 years of academic or industry experience in the oil and gas industry, including well drilling, completion, or production; or (2) at least four years of industry experience in the oil and gas industry, including well drilling, completion, or production. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 19). Patent Owner utilizes Petitioner’s formulation of ordinary skill. See Mot. 11–12. Petitioner’s formulation of ordinary skill is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’500 patent and the prior art of record. We therefore apply it in the present Decision.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“for several reasons. First, as seen from the deposition testimony quoted above, Patent Owner’s own witnesses cannot agree on a numerical definition of “high pressure.” Mr. Marscher says high pressure is between 5,000 psi and 15,000 psi (see Ex. 1033, 111:1–112:3), whereas Mr. Schaaf says high pressure is between 8,000 psi and 12,000 psi and specifically disagrees with Mr. Marscher’s testimony that high pressure can be below 8,000 psi (see Ex. 1030, 43:6–44:13). Thus, the testimony of Patent Owner’s own witnesses is contrary to Patent Owner’s position that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the ’694 Application’s disclosure of “high pressure” pumping demonstrates possession of a specific numerical range of pumping pressures. Second, neither Mr. Marscher nor Mr. Schaaf cites any objective evidence to support their respective notions of what “high pressure” might be, in the context of hydraulic fracturing. For example, neither cites to any published industry standards to support their respective opinions. This lack of objective evidentiary support weakens the persuasiveness of both witness’s testimony on this issue, especially because their opinions conflict with each other.” slip op. at 19
- 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“specification that did not expressly claim that range, did not state either of the two end values (40% and 60%), and did not disclose the range (40– 60%). Indivior, 18 F.4th at 1325 (claim 1), 1327–30 (discussing claim 1). In particular: “In the case of a claimed range, a skilled artisan must be able to reasonably discern a disclosure of that range” in the specification at issue. Id. at 1328. We conclude Patent Owner’s reliance on the testimony of Mr. Marscher and Mr. Schaaf that a skilled artisan could reasonably discern the numerical pressure range at issue here, based on the bare disclosure in the ’694 Application of “high pressure” pumping, is not persuasive for the reasons provided above. The Indivior decision also considered a narrower claim directed to a film comprising “about 48.2 wt % to about 58.6 wt % of the water-soluble polymetric matrix,” and concluded that it also did not have written description support in the specification at issue, even though the specification provided examples of films having the two end point values of the range (48.2% and 58.6%). See Indivior, 18 F.4th at 1325 (claim 7), 1329–30 (discussing claim 7). The Court concluded that finding written description support on those facts would “amount[] to cobbling together numbers after the fact” whereas “[a] written description sufficient to satisfy the requirement of the law requires a statement of an invention, not an invitation to go on a hunting expedition to patch together after the fact a synthetic definition of an invention.” Id. at 1329. We conclude in the present case that Patent Owner’s witnesses went on a hunting expedition which conflicts with the Indivior decision.” slip op. at 20
- BurdenNot reached
“E. Petitioner’s Unpatentability Grounds In light of our determination above that proposed substitute claims 20–38 lack written description support in the application that issued as the ’500 patent, we do not reach the grounds of unpatentability set forth in Petitioner’s Opposition for these claims. See Mot. Opp. 5–6 (listing the grounds).” slip op. at 21
NonePatents in suitUS 9,893,500 - PTAB · Jan 24, 2023 · IPR2021-01066 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Final written decision
The Board cancelled original claims 1–20 and denied substitute claims 21–40 because their numerical pressure ranges added new matter.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“The test for new matter is whether the original application’s disclosure “reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc); see also Senju Pharm. Co. v. Apotex Inc., 746 F.3d 1344, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Ariad as providing the test for determining new matter under 35 U.S.C. § 132(a)). We perform “an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art,” to determine whether it demonstrates possession of the claimed subject matter. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351.” slip op. at 11
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateDenied
“The test for new matter is whether the original application’s disclosure “reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc); see also Senju Pharm. Co. v. Apotex Inc., 746 F.3d 1344, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Ariad as providing the test for determining new matter under 35 U.S.C. § 132(a)). We perform “an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art,” to determine whether it demonstrates possession of the claimed subject matter. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“to the ’711 patent would have either: “(1) a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Petroleum Engineering or an equivalent field as well as at least 2 years of academic or industry experience in the oil and gas industry, including well drilling, completion, or production”; or (2) “at least four years of industry experience in the oil and gas industry including well drilling, completion, or production.” Pet. 18. Patent Owner utilizes the same formulation of ordinary skill. See Mot. 10–11. 2 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. The parties’ agreed-upon formulation of ordinary skill is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’711 patent and the prior art of record. We therefore apply it in the present Decision.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“disclosures of the ’656 Application into demonstrating possession of the numerical pressure ranges recited in proposed substitute claims 21 and 33 is unavailing, for several reasons. First, as seen from the deposition testimony quoted above, Patent Owner’s own witnesses cannot agree on a numerical definition of “high pressure.” Mr. Marscher says high pressure is between 5,000 psi and 15,000 psi (see Ex. 1020, 111:1–112:3), whereas Mr. Schaaf says high pressure is between 8,000 psi and 12,000 psi and specifically disagrees with Mr. Marscher’s testimony that high pressure can be below 8,000 psi (see Ex. 2014, 43:6–44:13). Thus, the testimony of Patent Owner’s own witnesses is contrary to Patent Owner’s position that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the ’656 Application’s disclosure of “high pressure” pumping demonstrates possession of a specific numerical range of pumping pressures. Second, neither Mr. Marscher nor Mr. Schaaf cites any objective evidence to support their respective notions of what “high pressure” might be, in the context of hydraulic fracturing. For example, neither cites to any published industry standards to support their respective opinions. This lack of objective evidentiary support weakens the persuasiveness of both witnesses’ testimony on this issue, especially because their opinions conflict with each other.” slip op. at 18
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 10,020,711 - PTAB · Jan 17, 2023 · IPR2021-01036 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Final written decision
The Board granted cancellation of original claims 1–13, denied substitute claims 14–19 and 21 for new matter, and denied claims 20 and 22–26 as unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“V. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS We grant Patent Owner’s non-contingent request to cancel original claims 1–13 of the ’728 patent, and we deny Patent Owner’s request to add proposed substitute claims 14–26 to the ’728 patent.16 Thus, the result of this Decision is summarized by the following table. Motion to Amend Outcome Claim(s) Original Claims Canceled by Amendment 1–13 Substitute Claims Proposed in the Amendment 14–26 Substitute Claims: Motion to Amend Granted Substitute Claims: Motion to Amend Denied 14–26 Substitute Claims: Not Reached VI. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend is granted as to the non-contingent request to cancel original claims 1–13 of the ’728 patent; 16 Should Patent Owner wish to pursue amendment of the challenged claims in a reissue or reexamination proceeding subsequent to the issuance of this Decision, we draw Patent Owner’s attention to the April 2019 Notice Regarding Options for Amendments by Patent Owner Through Reissue or Reexamination During a Pending AIA Trial Proceeding. See 84 Fed. Reg. 16,654 (Apr. 22, 2019). If Patent Owner chooses to file a reissue application or a request for reexamination of the challenged patent, we remind Patent Owner of its continuing obligation to notify the Board of any such related matters in updated mandatory notices. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(3), (b)(2). FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend is” slip op. at 39
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“2. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person having ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the ’728 patent would have either: (1) a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Petroleum Engineering or an equivalent field as well as at least two years of academic or industry experience in the oil and gas industry, including well drilling, completion, or production; or (2) at least four years of industry experience in the oil and gas industry, including well drilling, completion, or production. 2 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. Pet. 14–15. Patent Owner utilizes Petitioner’s formulation of ordinary skill. See Mot. 12–13. Petitioner’s formulation of ordinary skill is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’728 patent and the prior art of record. We therefore apply it in the present Decision. 3.” slip op. at 12
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateDenied
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“We see no evidence of improper hindsight. The Robinson/Broussard/ Henry combination does not disclose the claimed load box. Morris discloses mobile source of electricity 103 to supply electric power to fracturing equipment within mobile fracturing system 103 that includes at least one switchgear transport 112, a plurality of drive transports 104, at least one auxiliary power transport 106, at least one blender transport 110, at least one data van 114 and a plurality of fracturing pump transports 108 that deliver fracturing fluid through wellhead 101 to subsurface geological formations. Ex. 1037 ¶ 43. Morris discloses that “switch gear transport 112 may comprise a plurality of electrical disconnect switches, fuses, transformers, and/or circuit protectors to protect the fracturing equipment.” Id. Dr. Ehsani, Petitioner’s expert, testifies that “the switchgear (with switches, fuses, and circuit protectors) described in Morris is one example of a ‘load box’” comparing it to the ’728 patent’s disclosure that “tie ins for devices that operate at the stepped down voltage” are exemplary load boxes. Ex. 1041 ¶ 60 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:50–52). Dr. Ehsani further testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have recognized that lube oil heaters would be part of the fracturing pump transport or the additional auxiliary equipment to which power would be directed from switchgear.” Id. We credit Dr. Ehsani’s unrebutted testimony, which is supported by Morris’ disclosures discussed above. For these reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that proposed substitute claim 20 is unpatentable over the combined teachings of Robinson, Broussard, Henry, and Morris.” slip op. at 35
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,611,728 - PTAB · Jan 4, 2023 · IPR2021-01034 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Final written decision
The Board cancelled original claims 1–11 and denied substitute claims 12–22 because their numerical pressure ranges introduced new matter unsupported by the original disclosure.
RulingsFinal written decision- 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“The test for new matter is whether the original application’s disclosure “reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc); see also Senju Pharm. Co. v. Apotex Inc., 746 F.3d 1344, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Ariad as providing the test for determining new matter under 35 U.S.C. § 132(a)). We perform “an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art,” to determine whether it demonstrates possession of the claimed subject matter. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“2. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person having ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the ’308 patent would have either: “(1) a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Petroleum Engineering or an equivalent field as well as at least 2 years of academic or industry experience in the oil and gas industry, including well drilling, completion, or production”; or (2) “at least four years of industry experience in the oil and gas industry, including well drilling, completion, or production.” Pet. 24–25. Patent Owner utilizes the same formulation of ordinary skill. See Mot. 8. The parties’ agreed-upon formulation of ordinary skill is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’308 patent and the prior art of record. We therefore apply it in the present Decision.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“the ’085 Application into demonstrating possession of the numerical pressure ranges recited in proposed substitute claims 12 and 16 is unavailing, for several reasons. First, as seen from the deposition testimony quoted above, Patent Owner’s own witnesses cannot agree on a numerical definition of “high pressure.” Mr. Marscher says high pressure is between 5,000 psi and 15,000 psi (see Ex. 1059, 111:1–112:3), whereas Mr. Schaaf says high pressure is between 8,000 psi and 12,000 psi and specifically disagrees with Mr. Marscher’s testimony that high pressure can be below 8,000 psi (see Ex. 1061, 43:6–44:13). Thus, the testimony of Patent Owner’s own witnesses is contrary to Patent Owner’s position that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the ’085 Application’s disclosure of “high pressure” pumping demonstrates possession of a specific numerical range of pumping pressures. Second, neither Mr. Marscher nor Mr. Schaaf cites any objective evidence to support their respective notions of what “high pressure” might be, in the context of hydraulic fracturing. For example, neither cites to any published industry standards to support their respective opinions. This lack of objective evidentiary support weakens the persuasiveness of both witness’s testimony on this issue, especially because their opinions conflict with each other. We are instead persuaded by the testimony of Petitioner’s witness Dr. Durham that “[t]he mere disclosure of ‘high pressure’ in the [’085 Application] specification[] . . . does not allow a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to recognize the ranges of pressures in” proposed substitute claims 12 and 16. Ex. 1079 ¶ 24. Further according to Dr. Durham: “What might be ‘high’ pressure according to one POSITA may not be ‘high’ pressure to another POSITA” and “[t]here is no universally accepted definition of ‘high pressure,’” as demonstrated by the testimony of Mr. Marscher and Mr. Schaaf and the lack of objective evidentiary support for their respective opinions. Id.” slip op. at 18
- ExcludeNot reached
“V. PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence seeks to exclude evidence relating to Petitioner’s reliance on the S&S Proposal6 as a prior art 6 Stewart & Stevenson, Electric Fracturing Pump: Commercial Proposal, Quotation No., Rev. 4 (July 31, 2012) (Ex. 1056). reference to challenge the patentability of proposed substitute claims 11–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See Papers 57 and 58 (moving to exclude Exs. 1071–1073). As discussed above, we do not reach these grounds of unpatentability, so we do not need to rule on the Motion to Exclude.” slip op. at 23
NonePatents in suitUS 10,337,308 - PTAB · Jan 4, 2023 · IPR2021-01032 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Final written decision
The Board canceled original claims 1–14 and 17–21, denied substitute claims 22–40 for adding new matter, and did not reach the unpatentability grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“Upon review of the foregoing, we agree with Petitioner’s position that the numerical pressure ranges recited in proposed substitute claims 22, 31, and 38 each introduce new matter into the ’689 Application. We have reviewed the ’689 Application disclosures cited by Patent Owner. See Ex. 1005, 19–40 (¶¶ 5, 7, 10, 11, 16–18, 20, 25–28, 31, 33, 35, Abstract, Figs. 1–2). These disclosures pertinently demonstrate possession only of “a system for hydraulically fracturing an underground formation” that is “configured to pump fluid into the wellbore at high pressure so that the fluid passes from the wellbore into the formation, and fractures the formation.” Ex. 1005, 22 (¶ 5) (emphases added); see also id. at 22–23 (¶ 7) (“pumping the hydraulic fracturing fluid at high pressure to crack the formation” (emphasis added)); id. at 24 (¶ 11) (“pumping fracturing fluid into the well with an electrically powered pump at a high pressure so that the fracturing fluid enters and cracks the formation” (emphasis added)); id. at 32–33 (¶ 33) (“The fracturing fluid can be pumped into the wellbore at a high enough pressure that the fracturing fluid cracks the formation, and enters into the cracks.” (emphasis added)). Thus, the ’689 Application demonstrates possession of pumping fluid at a “high pressure” to fracture an underground formation, but does not specify any particular numerical ranges of pressures that might correspond to the “high pressure,” including the three ranges specified in proposed substitute claims 22, 31, and 38. See, e.g., Tr. 44:11– 22.” slip op. at 18
- ExcludeNot reached
“V. PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence seeks to exclude evidence relating to Petitioner’s reliance on the S&S Proposal7 as a prior art reference to challenge the patentability of proposed substitute claims 22–40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See Papers 58 and 59 (moving to exclude Exs. 1071–1073). As discussed above, we do not reach these grounds of unpatentability, so we do not need to rule on the Motion to Exclude.” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
NonePatents in suitUS 9,410,410 - PTAB · Mar 31, 2021 · IPR2019-01662 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Final written decision
The Board canceled claims 1, 8, 13, and 17; it denied entry of substitute claims 23–26 because claims 23 and 25 lacked written-description support and claims 24 and 26 were indefinite.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“C. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART In the Institution Decision, we determined that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had sufficient experience and/or education in the food industry to possess an understanding of (1) sugar particle size as it 1 “One degree Brix is one gram of sucrose in 100 grams of solution . . . . Brewed sweetened tea has a typical Brix level of 10½ to 11.” Ex. 1001, 1:35–43. pertains to brewed beverages, (2) sugar particle size screening, and (3) the storage and use of sugar in commercial settings.” Inst. Dec. 7. We observed that this level of ordinary skill is consistent with the level of ordinary skill that we adopted in a related case that involves similar subject matter. See Red Diamond, Inc. v. Southern Visions, LLP, PGR2019-00045, Paper 9 at 6– 8 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2019). We also asked the parties to expressly discuss the level of ordinary skill in the art in the remaining briefing if either party disagreed with our determination. Inst. Dec. 8. For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we maintain our determination from the Institution Decision because neither party disputes the level of ordinary skill identified in the Institution Decision (see Revised MTA 12–13), and because we continue to find that the stated level of ordinary skill is consistent with the record.” slip op. at 4
- 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“Structurally, Patent Owner has claimed a broad genus of brewing products – any product that includes sugar having particles in the range of U.S. mesh size nos. 3–35. Patent Owner attempts to further distinguish the genus by including the functional limitation of requiring the product to be capable of producing a tea with a Brix level of at least 10.5 degrees. Patent Owner does not dispute that there are products falling within the structural limitations that do not satisfy the functional limitations. Indeed, there is undisputed testing evidence on the record demonstrating that the entire range of recited structures does not perform the recited function. See Ex. 2076 at Exhibit C, 20–29 (Table 3); Revised MTA 8 (Patent Owner arguing the claims only cover products that include particles within the claimed range that perform the recited function). Here, we discern no evidence on this record of “a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can ‘visualize or recognize’ the members of the genus.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1350. Nor do we discern “a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, physical properties, or other properties, of species falling within the genus sufficient to distinguish the genus from other materials” in the disclosures, or evidence that “the art has established a correlation between structure and function.” Id. Instead, we view Patent Owner’s proposed substitute claims to involve “merely drawing a fence around the outer limits of a purported genus,” which “is not an adequate substitute for describing a variety of materials constituting the genus and showing that one has invented a genus and not just a species.” Id. We recognize that the subject matter here is different from, and less complex than, the chemical and biochemical subject matter in Ariad. Nevertheless, the written description requirement still requires sufficient description to convey to one of skill in the relevant art that the inventors “had possession of the claimed invention” and “showing that the applicant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus.” Id. at 1351, 1356. Thus we consider the difference in technology in determining “the level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement,” but do not consider the difference in technology to eliminate entirely the need for some disclosure in the specification indicating possession of the claimed invention. Id. at 1351. Patent Owner has not directed us to any portion of the ’526 or ’881” slip op. at 20
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot shown unpatentable
“Structurally, Patent Owner has claimed a broad genus of brewing products – any product that includes sugar having particles in the range of U.S. mesh size nos. 3–35. Patent Owner attempts to further distinguish the genus by including the functional limitation of requiring the product to be capable of producing a tea with a Brix level of at least 10.5 degrees. Patent Owner does not dispute that there are products falling within the structural limitations that do not satisfy the functional limitations. Indeed, there is undisputed testing evidence on the record demonstrating that the entire range of recited structures does not perform the recited function. See Ex. 2076 at Exhibit C, 20–29 (Table 3); Revised MTA 8 (Patent Owner arguing the claims only cover products that include particles within the claimed range that perform the recited function). Here, we discern no evidence on this record of “a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can ‘visualize or recognize’ the members of the genus.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1350. Nor do we discern “a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, physical properties, or other properties, of species falling within the genus sufficient to distinguish the genus from other materials” in the disclosures, or evidence that “the art has established a correlation between structure and function.” Id. Instead, we view Patent Owner’s proposed substitute claims to involve “merely drawing a fence around the outer limits of a purported genus,” which “is not an adequate substitute for describing a variety of materials constituting the genus and showing that one has invented a genus and not just a species.” Id. We recognize that the subject matter here is different from, and less complex than, the chemical and biochemical subject matter in Ariad. Nevertheless, the written description requirement still requires sufficient description to convey to one of skill in the relevant art that the inventors “had possession of the claimed invention” and “showing that the applicant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus.” Id. at 1351, 1356. Thus we consider the difference in technology in determining “the level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement,” but do not consider the difference in technology to eliminate entirely the need for some disclosure in the specification indicating possession of the claimed invention. Id. at 1351. Patent Owner has not directed us to any portion of the ’526 or ’881” slip op. at 20
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteUnpatentable
“which indicates that between 2–25% of the particles in EFG sugar can have a size in the range of U.S mesh sieve nos. 20–30. Ex. 2003, 42 (showing the “Typical Analysis” for “X-fine” granulated sugar). Even if we were to agree with Patent Owner that this shows a typical analysis for EFG sugar, it still presents a variance of up to 20% for particles having a size in the range of U.S. mesh sieve nos. 20 and 30. Ex. 2003, 42. Thus, the evidence of record suggests that the particle size distribution for EFG sugar, including the number of particles falling in the range of U.S. mesh sieve nos. 3–35, can vary among different EFG sugars. Thus, the term “typical grocery store sugar,” “might mean several different things” in terms of the number of its particles having a size in the range of U.S. mesh sieve nos. 3–35, and “no informed and confident choice is available among the contending definitions.” HZNP Meds. LLC v. Actavis Labs UT, 940 F.3d 680, 698 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Media Rights Techs., Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 800 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015)); Opp. 7–10; Reply 4. Proposed substitute claims 24 and 26 compare the dissolution of the claimed beverage brewing product against the dissolution of a product using typical grocery store sugar (i.e., EFG). Patent Owner explains that the size of the particles affects dissolution – namely that larger sugar is more advantageous – in the claimed invention. See, e.g., Revised MTA 5; Ex. 1001, 9:23–27, 10:19–22. This suggests that an EFG sugar product having a greater percentage of large particles will be capable of dissolving “more of granulated sugar” as compared to an EFG sugar product having a lower percentage of large particles. As a result, using the dissolution properties of “typical grocery store sugar” as a comparator in the claims is problematic as there is a potential for inconsistent results based on which particular EFG sugar product is used. The potential for inconsistent results undermines Patent Owner’s argument that these claims satisfy the definiteness requirement because a person of ordinary skill in the art “can buy EFG . . . and perform brew tests with it in order to determine the scope of the claims.” Reply 4. Particle size is a critical factor for proposed substitute claims 24 and 26, which require a comparison of dissolution properties of the sugar used in the recited brewing product and typical grocery store sugar. Patent Owner contends “[t]here is an ‘informed and confident’ choice for ‘typical grocery store sugar’ - EFG sugar.” Reply 4. The evidence of record, however, shows the number of large particles (3–35 mesh) varies among EFG sugars. Ex. 2003, 42; Ex. 1004, at pages 51–53. In view of this, we find a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood “typical grocery store sugar” identifies sugar having particles of a particular size with sufficient specificity to allow the comparisons that proposed substitute claims 24 and 26 require. Accordingly, proposed substitute claims 24 and 26 are indefinite because they “fail[ ] to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014); see USPTO Memorandum on the Approach to Indefiniteness Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings (Jan. 6, 2021); MPEP 2173.05(e) (9th ed., Rev. 08.2017, June 2020).” slip op. at 25
§ 112 disclosurecites NautilusPatents in suitUS 9,725,232
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.