- Howard Industries, Inc. v. Capsa Solutions LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01274 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 3 and 4 are unpatentable: claim 3 as obvious over Clark, Manner, and Santoro; claim 4 as obvious over Clark and Manner.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“have at least a four-year college degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, industrial design, or a closely related field and at least one year of experience in product development and design for commercial workstations and work platforms.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 17–18). Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience could substitute for formal education.” Id. Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in a pertinent discipline involving mechanical product design, such as mechanical engineering, with 2-3 years experience in in [sic] the design, manufacture, or analysis of mechanical devices.” PO Resp. 18. Patent Owner alternatively argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “with a 2-year mechanical engineering diploma and . . . 4-6 years of experience in in [sic] the design, manufacture, or analysis of mechanical components and devices.” Id. Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner submits a somewhat different, and broader, definition” of a person of ordinary skill in the art than Patent Owner’s definition because Petitioner’s definition includes industrial design which is a field that does not require the same level of hard sciences as Patent Owner’s definition. Id. Patent Owner further contends that “the Petition should be denied under either party’s definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art] as Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.” Id. at 18–19 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 45–47). We apply Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’668 patent and the prior art. Our Decision would not be affected if we were to apply Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionOther
“We have considered the parties’ respective arguments concerning the construction of this claim term and, for the following reasons, we adopt Patent Owner’s construction of “compartment” as “an enclosed space for containing an item.” First, Petitioner does not dispute that it agreed to adopt Patent Owner’s construction in the district court proceeding between the parties. Pet. Reply 5; Tr. 8:14–21. Second, Petitioner cites to several Board Decisions in which the panels construed claim terms even though the parties agreed to constructions in parallel litigation and argues that the agreement between Petitioner and Patent Owner in the parallel district court proceeding has no bearing on this proceeding. Id. (citing Cook Grp. Inc. v. Cook Med. LLC, IPR2017-00135, Paper 7 at 7–8 (PTAB May 16, 2017); Arris Int’l PLC v. Sony Corp., IPR2016-00834, Paper 54 at 26–29 (PTAB Sept. 28, 2017); Apple Inc. v. VirnetX Inc., IPR2015-00810, Paper 44 at 18–19 (PTAB Aug. 30, 2016)). But, those cited decisions are not precedential and two of them were decided under the “broadest reasonable interpretation standard,” not the Phillips standard, thereby rendering a stipulation between the parties in district court less informative to the panels’ determinations. See Apple, IPR2015-00810, Paper 44 at 18; Cook Grp., IPR2017-00135, Paper 7 at 7. More importantly, given Petitioner’s agreement with Patent Owner’s construction in the district court, we see no reason to apply a different construction here simply because Petitioner proposed that construction prior to agreeing to the construction with Patent Owner in district court. Tr. 11:21–25.8” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“There are two exceptions to the general rule that claims “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365. First, “when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer” or second, “when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Id. (citing Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1580). In order for the patentee to act as his or her own lexicographer, the patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning . . . [i]t is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must ‘clearly express an intent’ to define the term. Id. Further, in order to establish disavowal of claim scope, the specification must “make[] clear that the invention does not include a particular feature . . . even though the language of the claims, read without reference to the specification, might be considered broad enough to encompass the feature in question.” Id. As noted above, the underlying premise of Patent Owner’s proposed construction is that the language “disposed in” is broad enough to encompass compartments not “entirely in” or “contained in” the recited portion of the work platform.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“For the following reasons, we determine that the portions of the prosecution history of the ’650 patent relied on by Patent Owner do not “prov[e] the existence of a ‘clear and unmistakable’ disclaimer that would have been evident to one skilled in the art.” Trivascular, 812 F.3d at 1063– 64.14 Patent Owner argues that the prosecution history redefined the term forward “by disclaiming workstations that are mounted on top of or over the height adjustment mechanism.” PO Resp. 29. Claims 3 and 4 recite “a work platform including a work surface and compartments for containing items” not a “workstation.” It is unclear what Patent Owner is referring to as the “workstation,” i.e., the recited “work platform,” the recited “work surface,” or the combination of “work platform,” “work surface,” and the recited “compartments.” Patent Owner injects further ambiguity by rephrasing the disclaimer, as “Applicant explicitly disclaimed carts having work stations mounted entirely to the top of the height adjustment mechanism (e.g., carts like Clark and Reeder).” Id. at 30 (emphasis added). Regardless of these 14 Because of our determination that the requirements for a clear and unmistakable disclaimer are not met by the cited portions of the prosecution history of the ’650 patent, we need not and do not reach the question of relevance of the statements in the prosecution of the ’650 patent to the claims of the ’668 patent. ambiguities, Patent Owner misinterprets the statements in the prosecution history. The applicant’s primary argument was that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have incorporated moveable work surfaces above the “compartment” of Clark. Ex. 1033, 137–38. The applicant’s arguments, thus, do not support Patent Owner’s argument here that “workstations” should not be mounted “over or on top of the height adjustment mechanism.” See id.” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 7,594,668 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,594,668 - Howard Industries, Inc. v. Capsa Solutions LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01275 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5, 6, and 8 are unpatentable as obvious over Clark and Manner (claims 1–3, 5, 8) and Clark, Manner, and Hartman (claim 6).
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have at least a four-year college degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, industrial design, or a closely related field and at least one year of experience in product development and design for commercial workstations and work platforms.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 17–18). Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience could substitute for formal education.” Id. Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in a pertinent discipline involving mechanical product design, such as mechanical engineering, with 2-3 years experience in in [sic] the design, manufacture, or analysis of mechanical devices.” PO Resp. 17–18. Patent Owner alternatively argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “with a 2-year mechanical engineering diploma and . . . 4-6 years of experience in in [sic] the design, manufacture, or analysis of mechanical components and devices.” Id. at 18. Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner submits a somewhat different, and broader, definition” of a person of ordinary skill in the art than Patent Owner’s definition because Petitioner’s definition includes industrial design which is a field that does not require the same level of hard sciences as Patent Owner’s definition. Id. Patent Owner further contends that “the Petition should be denied under either party’s definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art] as Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.” Id. at 18–19 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 45–47). We apply Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’668 patent and the prior art. Our Decision would not be affected if we were to apply Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther
“i. “actuator” Petitioner contends in district court that the term “an actuator for controlling the driver” is indefinite for invoking means-plus-function claim language without providing corresponding structure. Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1023, 36–40; Ex. 1024, 28–32). For the purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner adopts the construction Patent Owner presented in the district court, i.e., “a mechanism to activate or control equipment, e.g., by use of pneumatic, hydraulic, or electronic signals.” Id. at 10 (quoting Ex. 1012, 3–4). Patent Owner does not address this term in this proceeding. See generally PO Resp.; Sur-reply. Because it is uncontested in this proceeding, we apply Patent Owner’s construction from the district court proceeding as presented here by Petitioner.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningOther
“Although not dispositive to our Decision, we apply the plain and ordinary meaning of this term, which does not require the work surface to be curved.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“There are two exceptions to the general rule that claims “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365. First, “when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer” or second, “when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Id. (citing Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1580). In order for the patentee to act of his or her own lexicographer, the patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning . . . [i]t is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must ‘clearly express an intent’ to define the term. Id. Further, in order to establish disavowal of claim scope, the specification must “make[] clear that the invention does not include a particular feature . . . even though the language of the claims, read without reference to the specification, might be considered broad enough to encompass the feature in question.” Id. As noted above, the underlying premise of Patent Owner’s proposed construction is that the language “disposed in” is broad enough to encompass compartments not “entirely in” or “contained in” the recited portion of the work platform. We start our analysis with the claim language. Claim 1 recites “wherein the work platform includes a portion projecting, relative to the height adjustment mechanism, in a forward direction . . . the compartment is disposed in the portion of the work platform projecting in the forward direction.” Ex. 1001, 14:39–43. By reciting “a portion projecting, relative to the height adjustment mechanism,” the claim language implies that the entire work platform is not required to project in the forward direction. We also note that nothing in claim 1 requires any particular size of the compartment. The only recitation in the claim regarding location of the compartment is that it “is disposed in the portion of the work platform projecting in the forward direction,” but that language on its face does not require or suggest that the compartments are “entirely in” or only “contained in” the recited portion of the work platform. In other words, nothing in the claims expressly restricts the compartments from being disposed in the “portion” recited as well as another portion of the work platform that does not project in the forward direction. Turning to the Specification, Patent Owner does not direct us to any” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 8,215,650 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,215,650 - Google LLC v. Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 14, 2025 · IPR2023-01212 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 7, 9, 32, 38, and 40 are unpatentable as anticipated by Spain and obvious over Spain as evidenced by Agiwal.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“III. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art: would have been someone knowledgeable in wireless networks, cellular radio systems, mobile communication devices and radio navigation systems. That person would have at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, with a background in radio frequency communications and/or navigation system technology as well as approximately two years of industry experience working on radio communication and/or navigation systems. Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 44). Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 13. 1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, effective March 16, 2013. Because the application and provisional application for the ’753 patent were filed before this date, the pre-AIA version of §§ 102, 103 apply. See Ex. 1001, codes (22), (60). Petitioner does not dispute that the filing date of the provisional application filing date applies. See Pet. 6; see generally Pet. Reply. 2 US 2003/0064735 A1, published April 3, 2003 (Ex. 1006). 3 Ankur Agiwal, LOCATOR – Location Estimation System For Wireless LANs, WMASH 2004: Proceedings of the Second ACM International Workshop on Wireless Mobile Applications and Services on WLAN Hotspots, 102–109 (2004) (Ex. 1005). For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent with the ’753 patent and the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s additional requirements of evaluating the calibration data to determine the boundaries of the area should not be included in the construction of “grid point.” Instead, based on the full record, and for the reasons explained below, we discern no reason to alter our prior construction in the Institution Decision of “grid point” as “a point associated with representative calibration data for an area.” Dec. 22– 23.” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“The evidence supports that Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated that Spain teaches “generating one or more sets of grid points for said calibration data,” as recited in limitation [1.2]. Spain states that: In another embodiment, the database is built by taking fingerprint measurements at predetermined locations and using intelligent algorithms that interpolate the fingerprints at all locations in between the sampled locations. Ex. 1006 ¶ 101. Relevant to this disclosure, Mr. Williams testifies that “Spain discloses generation of sets of grid points wherein each set includes newly interpolated grid points” because “the two grid points used to interpolate an additional grid point or points and the generated additional grid point or points are collectively a generated ‘set’ of grid points (i.e., a ‘set’ which includes the two calibrated grid points and the associated interpolated grid points).” Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 76–77 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 54, 55, 101). It is not disputed that Spain’s “fingerprints” are calibration data having characterizing parameters, such as observed signal strength, observed at calibration points. See Ex. 1006 ¶ 35. We find that this evidence demonstrates that Spain discloses generating one or more grid points, where the grid points are associated with calibration data.10 Accordingly, the evidence provides support that Spain’s interpolation of fingerprints at different locations discloses generation of one or more sets of grid points, where the grid points are associated with calibration data. Spain also discloses that: . . . the fingerprint corresponds not to one exact spot on the surface of the earth, but instead to a small area. The Lat and Long fields in this embodiment indicate a position inside the area, preferably the center point.” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“2. Discussion Petitioner refers to Agiwal to note that, like Spain, “Agiwal discloses an initial approximate location-based search of its database using live measurement data transmitted from a mobile device.” Pet. 18. Petitioner, however, relies only on Spain for its obviousness assertions. Id. at 22–38. The above discussion and Petitioner’s showing related to anticipation by Spain also equally apply to the obviousness showing over Spain as presented by Petitioner. See Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Patent Owner presents no additional arguments specifically directed to Petitioner’s showing as to obviousness under Spain that we have not already addressed. See generally PO Resp. Patent Owner also presents no evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness. See generally PO Resp. Weighing the record as a whole in view of the findings and analysis above, we conclude that Petitioner has met its burden to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 7, 9, 32, 38, and 40 would have been obvious over Spain as evidenced by Agiwal.” slip op. at 43
Patent outcomesUS 8,406,753 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,406,753 - Google LLC v. Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 14, 2025 · IPR2023-01211 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 4 and 26 are unpatentable: claim 4 is anticipated by Shkedi, and claims 4 and 26 are obvious over Zhu and Spain.
RulingsFinal written decision- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“requirement of evaluating the calibration data to determine the boundaries of the area represented by a grid point should not be included in the construction of either “grid point” or “non-uniform grid point.” Instead, based on the full record, we discern no reason to alter our prior construction of “grid point” as “a point associated with representative calibration data for an area” and maintain that construction for this Final Written Decision. The construction of “grid point” we adopt is supported by the Specification of the ’494 patent. Namely, the ’494 patent discloses that “[i]n general, a non-uniform grid point (NUG) may represent the signal characteristics and/or calibration data over a given region,” and “NUGs represent an area of collected calibration data.”9 Ex. 1001, 3:58–4:2. The district court identified the second quoted passage, which is identically recited in the ’104 patent (see Ex. 1018, 3:50–60) as “provid[ing] a clear indication of the meaning of ‘grid point.’” Ex. 1028, 19 (emphasis added). We agree with the district court’s analysis. Although the ’494 patent does not explain how a generic “grid point” might differ from the described “nonuniform grid point,” we do not find this distinction pertinent to construing “grid point” in this case because neither party raises this issue. Also, based on the claim words “non-uniform grid point,” a “non-uniform grid point” is a type of grid point. Furthermore, the district court construed “grid point” only, not “non-uniform grid point.” Id. at 18–20.” slip op. at 19
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“at the time the application was filed, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the critical time. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. The resolution of this question is important because it allows us to “maintain[] objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.” Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu–Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In assessing the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quotation omitted). Generally, it is easier to establish obviousness under a higher level of ordinary skill in the art. Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“A less sophisticated level of skill generally favors a determination of nonobviousness . . . while a higher level of skill favors the reverse.”). Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been someone knowledgeable in wireless networks, cellular radio systems, mobile communication devices and radio navigation systems, having at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, with a background in radio frequency communications and/or navigation system technology as well as approximately two years of industry experience working on radio communication and/or navigation systems. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 30). Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 11–12. We adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the ’494 patent specification and the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We also credit Mr. Williams’s testimony that determining which calibration data is representative of an area “would not require analysis” because “[i]t could be just the actual measurement,” and “analysis could be part of it, but it doesn’t have to be.” Ex. 2023, 37:10–22. Patent Owner’s argument that this testimony is not instructive because Mr. Williams limited his responses to the construction of calibration data and avoided responding to the question asked is not persuasive. See Sur-reply 8–9. Although Mr. Williams did refer to “the calibration data construction” in his response, we disagree that he avoided responding to the question asked. He was asked: “To determine which of that calibration data is representative of an area would require analyzing that set of collected calibration data, right?” and directly responded: “It would not require analysis. It could be just the actual measurement.” Ex. 2023, 37:10–16. This testimony responded to the question asked. He then stated: “I believe that is an issue as part of the calibration data construction,” before concluding: “So analysis could be part of it, but it doesn’t have to be.” Ex. 2023, 37:17–22. Merely expressing a belief that the issue or question asked relates to the calibration data construction does not equate to his response being limited to the calibration data construction.” slip op. at 23
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Thus, “grid points” and “calibration points” in the ’494 patent are distinct elements that can overlap. Specifically, a “grid point” is a point associated with representative calibration data for an area, and a “calibration point” is a point at which calibration data is collected. These points can occupy the same physical location (i.e., the same longitude/latitude coordinates) but still be a “grid point” and a “calibration point.” For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the overlap between “grid points” and “calibration points” in Shkedi undermines Petitioner’s position and evidentiary showing. Petitioner, thus, has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Shkedi teaches each element of claim 4 including non-uniform grid points. We determine that the preponderance of the evidence establishes that claim 4 is anticipated by Shkedi.” slip op. at 42
Patent outcomesUS 8,786,494 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,786,494 - Google LLC v. Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 10, 2025 · IPR2023-01213 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 10, 12, 13, 21, and 22 are unpatentable as obvious over Crane and Spain; claim 11 is dismissed as moot.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“at the time the application was filed, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the critical time. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. The resolution of this question is important because it allows us to “maintain[] objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.” Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu–Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In assessing the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quotation omitted). Generally, it is easier to establish obviousness under a higher level of ordinary skill in the art. Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“A less sophisticated level of skill generally favors a determination of nonobviousness . . . while a higher level of skill favors the reverse.”).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“after November 13, 2018, a patent claim shall be construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (as amended Oct. 11, 2018). This rule adopts the same claim construction standard used by Article III federal courts, which follow Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), and its progeny. Under this standard, the words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would have to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, in the context of the entire patent including the specification. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13.” slip op. at 10
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 15–18. Petitioner’s proposed constructions are consistent with the claim construction decision from related litigation or the parties’ prior stipulations regarding claim construction. Id.; Ex. 1023 (parties’ stipulation); Ex. 1027 (parties’ stipulation); Ex. 1028, pp. 24–32 (District Court order). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed claim construction. PO Resp. passim. We note that, the District Court held, in a non-final order, that claims 1 and 12 were indefinite because of the term “in proximity.” Ex. 1028, 24– 28. The District Court, however, did not issue a final ruling with respect to claims 1 and 12 because the parties narrowed the dispute concerning the ’784 Patent to only claim 11. Ex. 2018, ¶ 3. We also note that we do not need to assess whether or not the term “in proximity” renders claims 1 and 12 indefinite to assess the Petition. Rather, we agree with Petitioner that the “in proximity” language is at least broad enough to “encompass” the matter set forth in Petitioner’s claim construction. See Pet. 17, 37–41. This is sufficient definition to make it logically possible to reach the merits of Petitioner’s challenge. See Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 801, 813 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (holding that indefiniteness only precludes a patentability determination 102 or 103 if the indefiniteness makes it “logically impossible” to reach such a decision).” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to implement Spain’s location determination system as part of Crane’s system and that such an implementation would have a reasonable expectation of success. Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 111–112). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contentions regarding this recitation. Based on the entire trial record, we agree with Petitioner’s analysis and credit Mr. William’s testimony supporting Petitioner’s position. Thus, in view of the evidence of record, we find that Crane and Spain disclose the preamble of recitation 1.1.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 9,097,784 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,097,784 - Peloton Interactive, Inc. v. Johnson Health Tech Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 20, 2024 · IPR2023-01164 · APJ James P Calve · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: claims 1–7 and 10–20 over Morris and Ray, and claims 8, 9, and 18 over Morris, Ray, and Cox.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Having considered the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that it comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’375 patent. Accord Inst. Dec. 8. Patent Owner’s proposal adds “analyzing” and removes “cardiovascular,” but these differences are immaterial to this proceeding. See Pet. Reply 27 n.8. Moreover, all of our analysis in this Decision would remain the same under Patent Owner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner asserts that the claim term “exercise use data” needs to be construed to resolve the issues raised by Petitioner. PO Resp. 4. Patent Owner asserts that exercise use data is “data that would represent an amount of exercise of the user.” Id.; Ex. 2004 ¶ 32. Petitioner disagreed with this proposed construction in its briefing (Pet. Reply 1–5) but adopted it during the oral hearing (Tr. 14:12–15:17). The parties also agree that “exercise use data” includes time, distance, and calories of a user exercising on an exercise apparatus. PO Resp. 4–5, 14; Pet. Reply 3–4. For purposes of this proceeding, we apply Patent Owner’s proposed construction. For the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has shown that the challenged claims are unpatentable even under Patent Owner’s narrower construction. As a result, we do not need to construe this claim term further.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contentions. See PO Resp. We find that Petitioner has established that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve Morris’ treadmill by adding Ray’s camera, software instructions for validating user exercise data, its functionality of displaying a motivational image, and its ability to transmit exercise data to a remote location, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success. See Pet. 16–19, 27–28; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 137–147, 161–163; Ex. 1004, 5:27–29, 7:11–22, 9:55–57; Paper 8 (Scheduling Order), 9 (cautioning Patent Owner that any arguments not raised in the response may be deemed waived).” slip op. at 18
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“We have considered the testimony of Mr. van der Weide, who agrees with Patent Owner (see Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 35, 45–52), but we give his testimony on these points little weight. Mr. van der Weide discusses Mr. Rawls’ testimony, but he does not meaningfully discuss Ray’s disclosures. See id. As a result, he does not reconcile his opinions with the apparently conflicting portions of Ray. In addition, Mr. van der Weide’s testimony is conclusory because he does not identify evidence or reasoning sufficient to support his opinion that Ray fails to teach or suggest these aspects of the claim as discussed above. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 10,796,375 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,796,375 - Peloton Interactive, Inc. v. Johnson Health Tech Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 20, 2024 · IPR2023-01165 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Morris and Ray; the Board did not reach the alternative Ray–AAPA and Yi grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Having considered the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that Petitioner’s proposal comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’340 patent. Accord Inst. Dec. 8. Patent Owner’s proposal adds “analyzing” and removes “cardiovascular,” but we agree with Petitioner that these differences are immaterial to this proceeding. See Pet. Reply 29 n.12. Moreover, our analysis in this Decision would remain the same under Patent Owner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner contends it means “data that would represent an amount of exercise of the user.” PO Resp. 4. According to Patent Owner, the Specification of the ’340 patent defines this term. Id. at 4–5 (citing Ex. 1001,6 1:43–46, 6:33–34, claims 4, 5, 17; Ex. 2004 ¶ 33). In its briefing, Petitioner disagrees with Patent Owner’s proposed construction, arguing that it is “overly narrow . . . and arbitrarily excludes other forms of ‘exercise use data.’” Pet. Reply 1–2; see id. at 1–5 (further contesting Patent Owner’s proposed construction). However, during the oral hearing, Petitioner adopted Patent Owner’s proposal. Tr. 14:12–15:17. For purposes of this proceeding, we apply Patent Owner’s narrower construction and assume that “exercise use data” is “data that would represent an amount of exercise of the user.” We do not need to further construe this term because Petitioner shows that the Challenged Claims are unpatentable even under Patent Owner’s narrower construction.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We find that Petitioner has established that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve Morris’ treadmill by adding Ray’s camera, software instructions for validating user exercise data, its functionality of displaying a motivational image, and its ability to transmit 8 By not challenging Petitioner’s contentions as to motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success, we also find that Patent Owner has waived any argument contesting these contentions. See Paper 8 (Scheduling Order), 9 (“Patent Owner is cautioned that any arguments not raised in the response may be deemed waived.”). exercise data to a remote location, and that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the combination proposed for the reasons explained by Petitioner, as set forth above.” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“are contradictory and we also disagree with Patent Owner that Ray teaches away from “maintain[ing] communication between the exercise apparatus and the remote location while the user is determined by the controller not to be engaged with the operating member” as recited in claim 7. On the former point, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner “improperly equates generation and reporting of exercise use data with maintaining a connection with a remote location.” See Pet. Reply 20. Petitioner previously asserted that generation and reporting of the data would stop when Ray does not detect a user, but this does not mean that the connection would also be stopped. On the latter point, “[a] reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference . . . would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Haruna, 249 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (quoting Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Mich. Inc., 192 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); see In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that, to teach away, the prior art must “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed”). Patent Owner fails to point to anything in Ray that discourages or would otherwise lead one of ordinary skill in the art away from maintaining a connection with a remote location when exercise use data is not reported at that precise moment. Rather, Petitioner provides a reason with rational underpinning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to maintain the connection—“to avoid delays in trying to re-establish the connection once the user had come back.” Pet. 39. That position is supported by the testimony of Mr. Rawls. Ex. 1002 ¶ 186.” slip op. at 53
Patent outcomesUS 11,227,340 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,227,340 - Peloton Interactive, Inc. v. Johnson Health Tech Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 20, 2024 · IPR2023-01163 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Morris and Ray, with claims 10, 11, 13, and 20 also unpatentable over Morris, Ray, and Cox.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner proposes the same level of ordinary skill in the art, except that Patent Owner states that the industry experience would have been “in analyzing and/or designing exercise equipment (such as treadmills, bicycles, steppers, ellipticals) or in a similar field.” PO Resp. 15–16. Having considered the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that Petitioner’s proposal comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’227 patent. Accord Inst. Dec. 8. Patent Owner’s proposal adds “analyzing” and removes “cardiovascular,” but these differences are immaterial to this proceeding. See Pet. Reply 28 n.10. Moreover, all of our analysis in this Decision would remain the same under Patent Owner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner contends it means “data that would represent an amount of exercise of the user.” PO Resp. 4–6. According to Patent Owner, the Specification defines this claim term. Id. at 4–5 (citing Ex. 1001, 51:37– 40:59–6:4). In its briefing, Petitioner disagreed with Patent Owner’s proposed construction, arguing that it is “overly narrow . . . and arbitrarily excludes other forms of ‘exercise use data.’” Pet. Reply 2–4. However, during the oral hearing, Petitioner adopted Patent Owner’s proposal. Tr. 14:12–15:17. For purposes of this proceeding, we apply Patent Owner’s narrower construction and assume that “exercise use data” is “data that would represent an amount of exercise of the user.” We do not need to further construe this term because Petitioner shows that the challenged claims are unpatentable even under Patent Owner’s narrower construction of it.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Morris and Ray because they provide complementary teachings and address similar objectives. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1004, Abstr., 5:41–48, 8:22–26, 11:56–61, 13:20–30; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 6, 25, 33, 35, Abstr.; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 135–138). Petitioner also asserts that Morris contemplates use of an optical sensor, provides exercise data and “a human analog display that mimic[s] the user’s bouncing motion,” and includes a signal processing and display system with the necessary capabilities to implement the combination. Id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 139–143; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 32–36, 50, 56–58, claims 29–37, Figs. 6, 11–12C); see also id. at 26–27 (asserting that “including multiple sensors in treadmills was a routine and well-known task”) (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 159–162). Petitioner further asserts that Ray expressly teaches that “its user validation and motivation technology could be ‘easily and affordably merged’ into a treadmill.” Id. at 18 (quoting Ex. 1004, 9:55–57) (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 143–144). Finally, Petitioner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to make the proposed combination because it would have improved Morris’ treadmill to add both “Ray’s motivational image that showed a thinner image of the user as the intensity and duration of exercise increased” and Ray’s ability to share exercise data with a remote location. Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 7:11–22, 11:55–59, 13:50–57; Ex. 1006 ¶ 50; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 138, 145); see also id. at 16 (arguing that detection of a user’s presence could provide benefits, including motivation (citing Ex. 1004, 8:22–26, 11:56–61; Ex. 1006 ¶ 25)), 41 (arguing that data transmission was “a well-known and routine task” (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 188–189)). Patent Owner does not dispute these contentions. See PO Resp. We find that Petitioner has established that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve Morris’ treadmill by adding Ray’s camera, software instructions for validating user exercise data, its functionality of displaying a motivational image, and its ability to transmit exercise data to a remote location, and that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success. See Pet. 16–18, 26–27; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 135–138, 140–145, 161, 189; see also, e.g., Ex. 1004, 5:27–29, 7:11–22, 9:55–57.” slip op. at 22
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“We have considered the testimony of Mr. van der Weide, who agrees with Patent Owner (see Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 35, 60–71), but we give his testimony on these points little weight. Mr. van der Weide discusses Mr. Rawls’ testimony, but he does not meaningfully discuss Ray’s disclosure. See id. As a result, he does not reconcile his opinions with the apparently conflicting portions of Ray. In addition, Mr. van der Weide’s testimony is conclusory because he does not identify evidence or reasoning sufficient to support his opinion that Ray fails to teach or suggest these aspects of the claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 10,032,227 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,032,227 - Microsoft Corporation / Affirmed Networks, Inc. v. Lemko CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 10, 2024 · IPR2023-00531 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–9, and 20 are unpatentable as anticipated by Flore under § 102.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate unpatentability, and that burden never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To show anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, each and every claim element, arranged as in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The prior art need not, however, use the same words as the claims. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The anticipation inquiry takes into account the literal teachings of the prior art reference and inferences the ordinarily skilled person would draw from it. Eli Lilly and Co. v. Los Angeles Biomedical Res. Inst. at Harbor-UCLA Med. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1073, 1074–75 (Fed. Cir. 2017).” slip op. at 6
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner defines the person of ordinary skill in the art as follows: “As of 2008, a person of ordinary skill in the art [POSA or POSITA] . . . of the ’988 patent’s field would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering or an equivalent, as well as two years of industry experience related to telecommunications networks.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 56). Petitioner also asserts that “[a]dditional graduate education . . . could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. Patent Owner “applies this definition of a POSITA for its analysis.” PO Resp. 18. Based on the complete record now before us, we adopt Petitioner’s undisputed proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art and the ’988 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner also does not persuasively explain why we should disregard the ’988 patent’s exception to peer-to-peer connections, that is, “in not all cases will the DMA servers 406 be able to participate as peers in an IP network.” Id. at 9:12–13. Patent Owner’s assertions that when “DMA servers are able to connect as peers with an existing DMA network, they do so,” and that the “new DMA server is just the initial node in a new peer-to-peer network,” do not find support in the specification. See PO Resp. 23–24 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:9–24, Fig. 6). Instead, Patent Owner cites a portion of the specification that explains “in not all cases will the DMA servers 406 be able to participate as peers,” such as in rural areas, in which case “DMA gateways . . . enable DMA servers to communicate with one another when one or more of the DMA serves cannot participate directly in the IP network.” Ex. 1001, 9:12–21. Nothing in this passage suggests that a DMA server not acting as a peer would merely be a temporary condition and that once able to connect as a peer, it would do so. Such reasoning is gloss added by Patent Owner and Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Cooklev, whose testimony on this point mirrors the Response. Ex. 2021 ¶ 69. We do not find Dr. Cooklev’s testimony credible on this point because the testimony does not align with the ’988 patent specification.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Our reviewing court “has repeatedly cautioned against limiting the claimed invention to preferred embodiments or specific examples in the specification.” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1346–47 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “Absent disclaimer or lexicography, the plain meaning of the claim controls.” Toshiba Corp. v. Imation Corp., 681 F.3d 1358, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2012). There is no disclaimer or lexicography in the specification that requires us to limit the claims as Patent Owner wishes. We agree with Petitioner that the passages upon which Patent Owner relies use non-limiting, exemplary language. See Reply 6. For example, Patent Owner relies heavily on Figure 4 and its accompanying description, but Figure 4 “illustrates a non-limiting, exemplary embodiment.” PO Resp. 19–25; Ex. 1001, 6:31. Thus, Figure 4’s references to a “peer-to-peer connection,” “switch and route call[]” functionality, that “controlling logic can be distributed,” and “self-healing and redundant” wireless coverage, for example, do not limit the claim. See Ex. 1001, 6:48, 52, 64, 66 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 7,855,988 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 7,855,988 - Philip Morris Products, S.A. v. Rai Strategic Holdings, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 31, 2024 · PGR2020-00071 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · PGR · Remand
On remand, the Board held claims 10 and 27 unpatentable as obvious over Robinson, Greim, and Adams because skilled artisans would have optimized heater length through routine experimentation.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“Standard Operating Procedure 3 communicating the parties’ positions on submitting additional briefing on remand. Ex. 3001.2 We responded on April 15, 2024, authorizing the parties to file additional briefs limited to the question of “whether the Federal Circuit’s determinations on written description are applicable to an obviousness analysis, and if so, how they should be applied.” Ex. 3001. Petitioner filed its Supplemental Brief on Remand on April 29, 2024 (Paper 41, “Pet. Supp. Br.”), and Patent Owner filed its Supplemental Reply Brief on Remand on May 13, 2024 (Paper 42, “PO Supp. Reply”). B. The Issue on Remand As part of our Final Written Decision, we determined that Petitioner established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 10 and 27 lack adequate written description support. FWD 38–41. In view of this, we declined to address Petitioner’s arguments that claims 10 and 27 are unpatentable as obvious in view of Robinson,3 Greim,4 and Adams.5” slip op. at 4
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, chemistry, or physics, or a related field, and three to four years of industry experience, or a Master’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, chemistry, or physics, or a related field, and one to two years of industry experience. Such a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have been familiar with electrically powered smoking articles and/or the components and underlying technology used therein. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 26–30). Patent Owner states that “[f]or purposes of the trial in this proceeding, [Patent Owner] accepts Petitioner’s proposed education and experience level of the [person of ordinary skill in the art].” PO Resp. 13. In view of the foregoing, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. The prior art of record reflects this level of ordinary skill. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that “[t]he challenged claims are unpatentable under any reasonable construction,” and, “for purposes of this proceeding . . . adopts the plain meaning of the claims and submits that no claim term requires construction.” Pet. 14. Patent Owner contends it was improper for Petitioner to adopt the plain meaning of the claims without explaining what it considers the plain meaning of each claim term to be. PO Resp. 13. Patent Owner does not offer a construction for any claim term. PO Resp. 13. After considering the full record developed during trial, we determine that no claim limitations need an express construction for purposes of resolving the controversy.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Although Patent Owner is correct that Petitioner does not direct us to any disclosure of a heating member having a length that “falls within the claimed range,” such a disclosure in the art is not required for a showing of obviousness. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 136 (Fed. Cir. 1996). In Huang, the claim required a racquet grip comprising a textile layer and a polyurethane layer, and that the ratio of their thicknesses be “larger than approximately 0.18.” Id. at 137. The prior art disclosed a textile layer and polyurethane layer in thickness ratios ranging from 0.111–0.142. Id. at 136. Although the prior art did not disclose a ratio in the claimed range, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s obviousness rejection because the evidence showed that “one of ordinary skill in the art would have experimented with various thicknesses to obtain an optimum range.” Id. at 139; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955) (affirming an obviousness rejection of a claim to a chemical process reciting use of 25– 70% sulfuric acid at 40–80 degrees when the prior art disclosed the same reaction with 10% sulfuric acid at 100 degrees); In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955 (CCPA 1960) (affirming an obviousness rejection of a claim to a chemical process conducted at 150–250 degrees when the prior art disclosed the same reaction at 300 degrees). The Federal Circuit also noted that “Huang does not contend that he has achieved unexpected results by increasing the thickness of the polyurethane layer.” Huang, 100 F.3d at 139–140. Those principles apply with equal force to the facts in this case. Here, the evidence of record demonstrates that heaters having a length that spans some percentage of the length of the disposable aerosol forming substance were known in the art. For example, Robinson discloses one embodiment wherein heating element 72 has an elongated portion that extends into tobacco segment 89. Ex. 1006, 27:35–39, Fig. 3. Greim likewise discloses a heating element having some length, which may be inserted into a plug of an aerosol-forming substrate. Ex. 1007, 13, Fig. 4. Adams discloses similar information. Ex. 1008 ¶ 45 (“The axial length of the projection 72 is selected so that it does not extend all the way through the tobacco plug.”), Fig. 7. Following the reasoning in Huang, these disclosures of a heater having some length, albeit not necessarily a length in the claimed range, are sufficient to demonstrate obviousness if there is evidence demonstrating “one of ordinary skill in the art would have experimented with various [lengths] to obtain an optimum range” and there is no evidence that the claimed range provides unexpected results. Huang, 100 F.3d at 139.” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 10,492,542 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,492,542
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.