• Applied Materials, Inc. / Intel Corporation et al. v. Demaray LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 29, 2022 · IPR2021-01091 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–21 were not shown unpatentable because the petitioner failed to establish the claimed narrow band-rejection filter or a sufficient reason to add one to Barber’s system.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, except that we deleted the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the appropriate amount of relevant experience. Inst. Dec. 10 (noting that the qualifier expands the range without an upper bound, i.e., encompassing an unlimited amount of years of experience, and thus, does not meaningfully indicate the level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 10

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

    “Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner assert that construction of any claim term is required to resolve any issues in dispute. See Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 54); PO Resp. 10–11. In our Decision on Institution we invited the parties to address whether the claim term “providing an RF bias that corresponds to the narrow band rejection filter to the substrate” requires that (1) the frequency of the RF bias be the same as the frequency at which the filter operates or whether (2) the frequency of the RF bias could be a shift from the frequency at which the filter operates. Inst. Dec. 37–38. Patent Owner states the term should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning, which the parties in the copending litigation allegedly agreed requires the claimed filter “to have a rejection band set at a frequency of the RF bias power supply.” PO Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2021; Ex. 2022, 7–10). Petitioner “disputes PO’s suggestion of ‘agree[ment] (EX 2022, 10)” but argues that Patent Owner’s “positions are not dispositive because they do not distinguish the prior art.” Reply 1. On the full record now before us, we agree that express construction of this term is not necessary as resolution of the present dispute does not turn on whether the frequency of the RF bias is the same as, or a shift from, the frequency at which the filter operates. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “narrow band-rejection filter (aka notch filter).” Pet. 22–23. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Subramanian, testified that the difference between a narrow band-rejection filter and a band-rejection filter depends on the relationship between the bandwidth and the center frequency. See, e.g., Ex. 2030, 95:15– 21 (explaining that the bandwidth is “much, much, much smaller than the center frequency”). There is inadequate evidence that the bandwidth of Hirose’s filter is sufficiently narrow to constitute a narrow band-rejection filter. Rather, the evidence of record shows that Hirose’s filter is a band-rejection filter, not a narrow band-rejection filter.” slip op. at 29

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Not reached

    “Petitioner met its burden of production to demonstrate that Hirose, which has a filing date prior to the filing date of the ’657 patent, was prior art by asserting Hirose was prior art under § 102(e). See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379. Hirose’s earlier filing date shifts the burden of production to Patent Owner to produce evidence supporting a date of invention before Hirose’s filing date. See id. With its Response, Patent Owner presents evidence it contends shows a date of conception of claims 1–8 and 10–21 prior to July 18, 2001, followed by reasonably continuous diligence. For the purposes of this decision, we need not determine whether Hirose qualifies as prior art, because, as explained below, even if Hirose qualifies as prior art, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that all of the asserted claims would have been obvious over the grounds asserting Hirose.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 7,381,657 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,381,657
• Applied Materials, Inc. / Intel Corporation et al. v. Demaray LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 29, 2022 · IPR2021-00104 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–21 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not establish the asserted obviousness grounds, including the required narrow band-rejection filter and motivation to modify Barber.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “In our Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, except that we deleted the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the appropriate amount of relevant experience. Inst. Dec. 10 (noting that the qualifier expands the range without an upper bound, i.e., encompassing an unlimited amount of years of experience, and thus, does not meaningfully indicate the level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 10

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

    “whether the claim term “providing an RF bias that corresponds to the narrow band rejection filter to the substrate” requires that (1) the frequency of the RF bias be the same as the frequency at which the filter operates or whether (2) the frequency of the RF bias could be a shift from the frequency at which the filter operates. Inst. Dec. 37–38. Patent Owner states the term should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning, which the parties in the copending litigation allegedly agreed requires the claimed filter “to have a rejection band set at a frequency of the RF bias power supply.” PO Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2021; Ex. 2022, 7–10). Petitioner “disputes PO’s suggestion of ‘agree[ment] (EX 2022, 10)” but argues that Patent Owner’s “positions are not dispositive because they do not distinguish the prior art.” Reply 1. On the full record now before us, we agree that express construction of this term is not necessary as resolution of the present dispute does not turn on whether the frequency of the RF bias is the same as, or a shift from, the frequency at which the filter operates. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Not reached

    “patent. Petitioner, who bears the burden to show Hirose is prior art, asserts that Hirose qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because Hirose’s filing date of July 18, 2001 is before the March 16, 2002 effective filing date of the ’657 patent. See Pet. 5. Patent Owner responds that Hirose does not qualify as prior art to the ’657 patent because the inventors of the ’657 patent conceived and reduced to practice the ’657 invention on or before Hirose’s filing date of July 18, 2001, likely as early as June 13, 2001. PO Resp. 12. To support this position, Patent Owner provides argument and evidence relating to the conception of the subject matter recited in claims 1–8 and 10–21. Id. at 15– 39. An inventor may antedate a § 102(e) reference by showing that the invention was conceived before the effective date of the reference, followed by reasonably continuous diligence until the constructive reduction to practice. Monsanto Co. v. Mycogen Plant Sci., Inc., 261 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Evidence of such conception and reduction to practice must be provided on a claim-by-claim basis.” slip op. at 18

  • BurdenFwd all claims patentableNot shown unpatentable

    “It is Petitioner’s burden to demonstrate that the cited art teaches each limitation of the challenged claims and to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims are unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d 1378. Here, Petitioner does not sufficiently demonstrate that Hirose teaches or suggests a narrow band-rejection filter as recited in claim elements 2[c] and 2[d]. See Pet. 21–22.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 7,381,657 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,381,657
• Applied Materials, Inc. / Intel Corporation et al. v. Demaray LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 29, 2022 · IPR2021-01030 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioner did not prove claims 1–13 unpatentable because the grounds failed to establish the claimed filter limitations or a reason to combine Barber and Hirose.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:10–14, 2:45–47; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 18–19). In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, except that we deleted the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the appropriate amount of relevant experience. Inst. Dec. 10.” slip op. at 9

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

    “AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019). Under Phillips, claim terms are afforded “their ordinary and customary meaning.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. “[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Id. at 1313. Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportNot reached

    “An inventor may antedate a § 102(e) reference by showing that the invention was conceived before the effective date of the reference, followed by reasonably continuous diligence until the constructive reduction to practice. Monsanto Co. v. Mycogen Plant Sci., Inc., 261 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 17

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

    “Just the knowledge, however, that a filter can be used to protect or isolate one power supply from another in various types of plasma systems is not sufficient to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a filter in Barber’s system to protect Barber’s pulsed DC power source from its RF power supply. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention”). In an inter partes review, “the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic, 815 F.3d at 1363. In support of its challenge, Petitioner and Petitioner’s expert may rely on general knowledge, supported by evidence, to argue that a challenged claim would be obvious in light of the general knowledge of a skilled artisan. Koninklijke Philips v. Google, 948 F.3d 1330, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (stating that although the prior art that can be considered in inter partes review is limited to patents and printed publications, “it does not follow that we ignore the skilled artisan’s knowledge when determining whether it would have been obvious to modify the prior art”). Although the Petition on its face relies on Barber and Hirose to meet the limitations of claim 1[f] (Pet. 24–36), Petitioner’s arguments rely not only on Barber and Hirose, but on numerous additional references, ostensibly to demonstrate the general knowledge of a skilled artisan. Id. For example, Petitioner cites to a number of references (i.e., Licata (Ex. 1010), Joo (Ex. 1014), Celestino (Ex. 1016), Quon (Ex. 1017), Johnson (Ex. 1018), Hong (Ex. 1019), Ohmi (Ex. 1020), and Keller (Ex. 1021)) that use different types of filters in various plasma systems for the “known use and benefits of filters in plasma systems for blocking interference/current of one power supply from another.” Pet. 32–33. Petitioner asserts that a POSITA would have understood that choosing to reject a narrow band of frequencies depending on the bandwidth of Barber’s RF supply, was a known way to achieve “the benefits” of Hirose. Id. at 31–32 (citing Ex. 1023 (Miller), 7:51–61; Ex. 1057 (Sill), 7:23–34; Ex. 1058 (Zennamo), 1:63–2:1). Petitioner also relies on a number of manuals (i.e. Exs. 1025, 1026, 1062, 1067, 1024, 1065, 1066) that illustrate “design concepts/guidance associated with use of such supplies in a plasma system with an RF power source.” Id. at 34–35. Even considering all the references in the Petition and the declaration, Petitioner does not adequately explain how the filters and principles in these relied-upon references and manuals would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to use a filter, let alone a narrow-band rejection filter, in Barber’s system.” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 7,544,276 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,544,276
• Applied Materials, Inc. / Intel Corporation et al. v. Demaray LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 29, 2022 · IPR2021-01090 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–13 not unpatentable because Petitioner failed to show the asserted combinations disclosed or motivated use of the claimed narrow band-rejection filter.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:10–14, 2:45–47; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 18–19). In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, except that we deleted the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the appropriate amount of relevant experience. Inst. Dec. 10. 14 Because we determine Petitioner has not sufficiently shown the challenged claims would have been obvious, we do not reach Patent Owner’s asserted objective evidence of non-obviousness. PO Resp. 70–72. Patent Owner does not appear to dispute this definition. See generally PO Resp. Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we retain our modified adoption of Petitioner’s definition. We further note that the prior art itself demonstrates the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that “specific findings on the level of skill in the art . . . [are not required] ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown’” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 9

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

    “On the full record now before us, we determine it is not necessary to construe any claim term expressly, because resolution of the present dispute does not turn on whether the frequency of the RF bias power supply is the same as, or offset from, the frequency at which the filter operates. Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803; Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in an inter partes review).” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference not prior artNot reached

    “Petitioner met its burden of production to demonstrate that Hirose, which has a filing date prior to the filing date of the ’276 patent, was prior art by asserting Hirose was prior art under § 102(e). See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379. Hirose’s earlier filing date shifts the burden of production to Patent Owner to produce evidence supporting a date of invention before Hirose’s filing date. See id. With its Response, Patent Owner presented evidence it contends shows a date of conception prior to July 18, 2001, followed by reasonably continuous diligence. PO Resp. 11– 41. For the purposes of this decision, we do not determine whether Hirose qualifies as prior art to claims 1–13, because, as explained below, even if Hirose qualifies as prior art, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that any of the asserted claims would have been obvious over the grounds asserting Hirose.” slip op. at 17

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “frequency response and that a POSITA would have understood that Hirose’s filter is “tuned to reject a narrow band of frequency,” which operates “like a narrow band-rejection filter (aka notch filter).” Pet. 28–29. Petitioner’s argument that Hirose discloses or suggests a narrow band-rejection filter is contained in this short portion of the Petition and relies on an inference that a V-shaped curve necessarily signifies a narrow band-rejection filter. Any such inference that a V-shaped curve is sufficient to characterize a filter as a narrow band-rejection filter, however, is belied by Dr. Subramanian’s own testimony. Indeed, Dr. Subramanian explains that the shape of a curve alone, including the shape of the curves of Figures 2–9(G) and (H) of Gibilisco, is not sufficient on its own to determine whether a filter corresponding to that curve is a narrow band-rejection filter or a broad bandrejection filter. See, e.g., Ex. 2030, 69:13–18 (stating, just looking Figure 2– 9(H), he could not tell if the figure corresponds to a narrow band-rejection filter because “I don’t have enough information”). Dr. Subramanian further testified that additional information beyond the mere shape of the curve is required to determine if the curve represents a narrow band-rejection filter; for example, Dr. Subramanian states that it was Gibilisco’s characterization of Figure 2–9(G) as having a sharp band rejection response that led him to conclude it was a narrow band-rejection filter. See Ex. 2030, 68:20–69:4 (Dr. Subramanian testifying that he would not “characterize the figure depicted in G as a narrow band” based just on the figures, but “on all the information that’s given,” which includes “this reference specifically [stating] at G, ‘sharp band rejection response’”); see also id. at 60:24–61:23, 62:7–63:11. Significantly, Petitioner does not point to statements in Hirose itself” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 7,544,276 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,544,276
• Applied Materials, Inc. / Intel Corporation et al. v. Demaray LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 29, 2022 · IPR2021-00103 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish the claimed filter limitations and a reason to combine Barber and Hirose.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:10–14, 2:45–47; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 18–19). In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, except that we deleted the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the appropriate amount of relevant experience. Inst. Dec. 10.” slip op. at 9

  • BurdenFwd mixedNot shown unpatentable

    “4. Conclusion On this record, we find that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown by a preponderance of the evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Barber and Hirose in a manner that discloses all of the limitations of independent claims 1 or 6, as set forth above, or all of the limitations of the challenged dependent claims 2, 3, 7, and 8, which carry forward the same limitations as independent claims 1 and 6.” slip op. at 47

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “frequency response and that a POSITA would have understood that Hirose’s filter is “tuned to reject a narrow band of frequency,” which operates “like a narrow band-rejection filter (aka notch filter).” Pet. 28–29. Petitioner’s argument that Hirose discloses or suggests a narrow band-rejection filter is contained in this short portion of the Petition and relies on an inference that a V-shaped curve necessarily signifies a narrow band-rejection filter. Any such inference that a V-shaped curve is sufficient to characterize a filter as a narrow band-rejection filter, however, is belied by Dr. Subramanian’s own testimony. Indeed, Dr. Subramanian explains that the shape of a curve alone, including the shape of the curves of Figures 2–9(G) and (H) of Gibilisco, is not sufficient on its own to determine whether a filter corresponding to that curve is a narrow band-rejection filter or a broad bandrejection filter. See, e.g., Ex. 2030, 69:13–18 (stating, just looking Figure 2– 9(H), he could not tell if the figure corresponds to a narrow band-rejection filter because “I don’t have enough information”). Dr. Subramanian further testified that additional information beyond the mere shape of the curve is required to determine if the curve represents a narrow band-rejection filter; for example, Dr. Subramanian states that it was Gibilisco’s characterization of Figure 2–9(G) as having a sharp band rejection response that led him to conclude it was a narrow band-rejection filter. See Ex. 2030, 68:20–69:4 (Dr. Subramanian testifying that he would not “characterize the figure depicted in G as a narrow band” based just on the figures, but “on all the information that’s given,” which includes “this reference specifically [stating] at G, ‘sharp band rejection response’”); see also id. at 60:24–61:23, 62:7–63:11.” slip op. at 32

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

    “On the full record now before us, we determine it is not necessary to construe any claim term expressly, because resolution of the present dispute does not turn on whether the frequency of the RF bias power supply is the same as, or offset from, the frequency at which the filter operates. Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803; Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in an inter partes review).” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 7,544,276 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,544,276
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Nanoco Technologies Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 16, 2022 · IPR2021-00184 · APJ Erica A Franklin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–16 and 21–25 were not shown unpatentable because Banin’s gold clusters were not shown to be molecular cluster compounds, and the Zaban combinations lacked motivation to combine.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least a Ph.D. in chemistry, physics, chemical engineering, material science, or equivalent technical degree or equivalent work experience, with knowledge regarding nanoparticles and methods of synthesizing them” and “[a]dditional education might supplement practical experience and vice-versa.” Pet. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 70). Patent Owner neither addresses Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art nor provides its own description. See PO Response. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s definition as we find it is unopposed and consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected by the prior art in this proceeding.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedMixed

    “suggested formula” assigned to them is “based on a calculation that relied on the average of a wide distribution of particle sizes reported in the literature by Hutchison.” Ex. 2030 ¶ 103(citing Ex. 2017, 12891). We assign persuasive weight to her testimony because it is based upon the disclosures in Hutchison, which Banin explicitly identifies as the published procedures by which it synthesized its clusters. In particular, Dr. Cossairt’s testimony is supported by the following discussion in Hutchison: To calculate an average molecular formula for 1 it is necessary to know the number of gold atoms in the metal core. Given the average particle size (1.5 nm) this number is estimated to be ~101 by the method of Whetten et al. and leads to an estimated formula of Au101(PPh3)21Cl5. Ex. 2017, 12891. In other words, Hutchison explains that it calculated an average molecular formula for its synthesized nanoparticles by estimating the number of gold atoms in the metal core based upon the average particle size of 1.5 nm. Id. Indeed, as Dr. Cossairt has recognized, Banin’s “suggested formula” is exactly the same molecular formula that Hutchison discloses as the “average molecular formula” for its nanoparticles. Thus, we determine that the record as a whole supports finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Banin’s “suggested formula” represents an average molecular formula for a disperse mixture of gold clusters that are not identical and do not have sufficiently well-defined chemical structure such that all molecules of the cluster compound possess the same relative molecular formula, as required for MCCs. slip op. at 23

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Specification expressly defines the term “molecular cluster” in a manner that refers to the cluster compound. According to the Specification, “Molecular cluster” is a term which is widely understood in the relevant technical field but for the sake of clarity should be understood herein to relate to clusters of 3 or more metal or nonmetal atoms and their associated ligands of sufficiently well defined chemical structure such that all molecules of the cluster compound possess the same relative molecular mass. Ex. 1001, 5:3–9. We note that the District Court determined that “the term ‘molecular formula’ as opposed to ‘molecular mass’ is most appropriate. By necessity, a compound with the same molecular formula will necessarily have the same molecular mass.” Ex. 1091, 16. The District Court explained also, “it appears that the difference between a molecular formula and a molecular mass, at least for purposes of this claim construction, in inconsequential.” Id. We agree and do not find any dispute on the current record from the parties on this matter. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we agree with the District Court that the term “molecular cluster compound” means “clusters of 3 or more metal atoms and their associated ligands of sufficiently well-defined chemical structure such that all molecules of the cluster compound possess the same relative molecular formula.” Id. at 18.” slip op. at 12

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

    “that Petitioner has not shown persuasively that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Banin’s small Au clusters to be MCCs. According to Petitioner and Dr. Green, Banin’s gold clusters are MCCs because they are clusters of three or more metal atoms with their associated ligands and “each cluster is ‘identical to one another.’” Ex. 1002 ¶ 90; Pet. 23. To begin, we do not find that the record supports Petitioner’s contention or Dr. Green’s opinion that “each cluster is ‘identical to one another.’” Ex. 1002 ¶ 90; Pet. 23. Petitioner and Dr. Green do not identify any disclosure in Banin describing the clusters as being identical. Instead, they refer to Banin’s disclosure that the Au clusters have “the suggested formula Au101(PPh3)21Cl5” and are “1.4 nm in mean diameter.” In doing so, Petitioner and Dr. Green do not meaningfully address or adequately explain how Banin derived its “suggested” molecular formula for the gold clusters or why Banin reported a “mean” diameter for those clusters. To that end, Petitioner and Dr. Green have failed to provide any reason why a skilled artisan would have understood Banin’s disclosures of a “suggested formula” and a “mean diameter” to convey that the Au clusters are identical.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 7,803,423 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,803,423
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Nanoco Technologies Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 16, 2022 · IPR2021-00183 · APJ Erica A Franklin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–6, and 8–14 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations failed to establish the claimed molecular cluster compounds or a reason to combine the references.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least a Ph.D. in chemistry, physics, chemical engineering, material science, or equivalent technical degree or equivalent work experience, with knowledge regarding nanoparticles and methods of synthesizing them” and “[a]dditional education might supplement practical experience and vice-versa.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 72–75). Patent Owner neither addresses Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art, nor provides its own description. See PO Resp. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s definition as we find it is unopposed and consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected by the prior art in this proceeding.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedMixed

    “on the average of a wide distribution of particle sizes reported in the literature by Hutchison.” Ex. 2030 ¶ 102 (citing Ex. 2017, 12891). We assign persuasive weight to her testimony because it is based upon the disclosures in Hutchison, which Banin explicitly identifies as the published procedures by which it synthesized its clusters. In particular, Dr. Cossairt’s testimony is supported by the following discussion in Hutchison: To calculate an average molecular formula for 1 it is necessary to know the number of gold atoms in the metal core. Given the average particle size (1.5 nm) this number is estimated to be ~101 by the method of Whetten et al. and leads to an estimated formula of Au101(PPh3)21Cl5. Ex. 2017, 12891. In other words, Hutchison explains that it calculated an average molecular formula for its synthesized nanoparticles by estimating the number of gold atoms in the metal core based upon the average particle size of 1.5 nm. Id. Indeed, as Dr. Cossairt has recognized, Banin’s “suggested formula” is exactly the same molecular formula that Hutchison discloses as the “average molecular formula” for its nanoparticles. Thus, we determine that the record as a whole supports finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Banin’s “suggested formula” represents an average molecular formula for a disperse mixture of gold clusters that are not identical and do not have sufficiently well-defined chemical structure such that all molecules of the cluster compound possess the same relative molecular formula, as required for MCCs.” slip op. at 24

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

    “Based on our consideration of the record as a whole, we find that the Specification expressly defines the term “molecular cluster” in a manner that refers to the cluster compound. According to the Specification, “Molecular cluster” is a term which is widely understood in the relevant technical field, but for the sake of clarity should be understood herein to relate to clusters of three or more metal atoms and their associated ligands of sufficiently well-defined chemical structure such that all molecules of the cluster compound possess approximately the same relative molecular formula. Ex. 1001, 3:28–34 (emphasis added). As there is no dispute that the term “molecular cluster compound” refers to “clusters of three or more metal atoms and their associated ligands of sufficiently well-defined chemical structure such that all molecules of the cluster compound possess approximately the same relative molecular formula,” we agree with the parties that no further construction of the claim is necessary for purposes of rendering this Decision. Additionally, we find that express construction of any remaining claim terms is unnecessary for purposes of rendering this Decision. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11

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

    “Moreover, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not demonstrated persuasively that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to replace Banin’s metal catalyst with Herron’s cluster compound. PO Resp. 44–49. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Green, does not dispute that Banin’s SLS process requires the use of a metal catalyst. Ex. 1002 ¶ 79; Ex. 1005, 4:3–9, 6:9–16. Nor does Dr. Green dispute that Herron’s Cd32S14(SC6H5)36 cluster is not a metal, but rather a cadmium sulfide semiconductor. Ex. 1002 ¶ 80; Ex. 1016, 1426. According to Patent Owner and Dr. Cossairt, there is no indication on the record that anyone has ever tried or succeeded in using a semiconductor as a catalyst in SLS nanorod synthesis. PO Resp. 53; Ex. 2030 ¶ 137. We agree and determine that Petitioner has not shown otherwise by referring to the use of a semiconductor in a different type of nanoparticle synthesis, i.e., a vapor-liquid-solid nanoparticle synthesis. See Pet. Reply 12. In any event, we find that the Petition fails to support a motivation to combine Herron’s cadmium sulfide semiconductor with Banin’s process because the Petition fails to address sufficiently (or at all) the differences between metal catalysts and Herron’s semiconductor material and to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have used such a semiconductor material in place of the metal as the catalyst in Banin’s process, despite Banin’s teachings that the catalyst must be a metal. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has failed to establish persuasively that a person of skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Banin’s nanoparticle synthesis by replacing its gold metal catalyst with Herron’s cadmium-based semiconductor.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 7,588,828 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,588,828
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Nanoco Technologies Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 16, 2022 · IPR2021-00182 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 1 was not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not establish that Dubrow’s disclosures concerned one embodiment or that separate embodiments should be combined.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “of a first liquid phase in a second liquid phase” and invited the parties to address at trial whether that construction is correct. Inst. Dec. 16. In the parallel proceeding in the Eastern District of Texas, the court construed “emulsion” as “a colloidal dispersion of two or more immiscible liquids.” Ex. 2022, 35. Patent Owner argues that, for the purpose of resolving the unpatentability issues presented in this proceeding, “there is not a meaningful distinction between the Board’s or District Court’s construction of ‘emulsion,’” because “[b]oth constructions require the presence of two immiscible liquids (e.g., a suspension of a liquid in another liquid).” PO Resp. 14 (emphases omitted). Petitioner agrees that the unpatentability issue should be resolved identically under both our previous construction and that adopted by the District Court. Reply 2 n.2 (“Claim 1 is . . . unpatentable under [either] the district court’s construction [or the Board’s construction].”). Thus, both parties agree that there is no meaningful distinction between our previous construction and that adopted by the District Court. Accordingly, we maintain our previous construction, and we note further that the two liquid phases in the “suspension of a first liquid phase in a second liquid phase” must be immiscible. See Ex. 2022, 31–35.” slip op. at 6

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

    “b. To show anticipation, Petitioner must show that the separate portions of Dubrow on which it relies refer to the same embodiment When a prior-art reference discloses every limitation of the challenged claim only through a combination of multiple embodiments, it does not anticipate the challenged claim. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1370–71 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“it is not enough that the prior art reference discloses . . . multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention”). Accordingly, to prevail on its anticipation argument, Petitioner must show that both the “preferred embodiment” disclosure of Dubrow and the “experimental example” portion of Dubrow describe the same embodiment.” slip op. at 9

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

    “argument relies on a single embodiment of Dubrow. Unlike an anticipation argument, an obviousness argument need not rely on a single embodiment within a prior-art reference. However, regardless of whether an obviousness argument “is based on combining disclosures from multiple references, combining multiple embodiments from a single reference, or selecting from large lists of elements in a single reference, there must be a motivation to make the combination and a reasonable expectation that such a combination would be successful, otherwise a skilled artisan would not arrive at the claimed combination.” In re Stepan, 868 F.3d 1342, 1346 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2017). To the extent that Petitioner intends to argue that it relies on multiple embodiments of Dubrow to teach or suggest the limitation “forming an emulsion comprising a first phase that comprises a first polymer and quantum dots and a second phase that comprises a second polymer,” Petitioner does not provide a reason to combine the teachings of those embodiments. See Pet. 27–29. Instead, Petitioner relies solely on its anticipation argument as support for Dubrow teaching this limitation. Id. at 27 (citing Pet. 21–23). To the extent that Petitioner intends to argue that the multiple portions of Dubrow on which Petitioner relies all relate to a single embodiment, Petitioner does not prove this by a preponderance of the evidence, for the reasons discussed above with respect to the anticipation argument. Thus, Petitioner has not shown either (1) that Dubrow’s teachings regarding the “forming an emulsion” limitation all relate to a single embodiment or (2) that those teachings relate to multiple embodiments that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine.” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 9,680,068 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,680,068
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Nanoco Technologies Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 16, 2022 · IPR2021-00186 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–23 were not proven unpatentable; Petitioner failed to show Banin’s gold clusters were molecular cluster compounds or establish the proposed combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Dr. Green’s annotated side-by-side comparison of the TEM images in Banin and Hutchison (Reply 3; Ex. 1093 ¶ 17), we are unable to discern any meaningful distinction between the images. We do not assign Dr. Green’s testimony on that point persuasive weight, as he does not supply sufficient facts and data to support his opinion that a skilled artisan would have understood that the differences in the appearances of the clusters in Banin’s TEM images are attributable to a different orientation of the non-spherical clusters and/or the aggregation of the clusters next to one another, as opposed to a size distribution among the clusters. See Ex. 1093 ¶¶ 19–20. As discussed in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide,18 expert testimony must be based on sufficient facts and data. See CTPG 35 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 702; 37 C.F.R. §42.65(a)). Although Dr. Green testifies that Banin’s gold clusters, as depicted in the TEM image, reflect “purified and size-selected” MCCs (Ex. 1093 ¶ 18), we remain unpersuaded by that testimony, because Dr. Green does not direct us to any disclosure in Banin reporting a size selection of the gold clusters, after being synthesized by Hutchison’s process, or prior to the TEM imaging (Ex. 1093 ¶¶ 17–21). Here again, we observe, a centrifugation step in Banin, to which Dr. Green refers as supporting his opinion in that regard, relates to the purification of the size-selected nanorods, not the gold metal clusters. See Ex. 1005, 7:4–5 (“The purification is carried out by centrifugation that affords purified nanorods having selected size.”); id. at 20:24–25 (“The rods were purified and size-selected by centrifugation.”); id. at 22:29–30 (“The rods were purified and size-selected by centrifugation.”).” slip op. at 28

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Our rules require a petitioner to explain with particularity, at the outset in the petition, why the patent it challenges is unpatentable. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “Unlike district court litigation—where parties have greater freedom to revise and develop their arguments over time and in response to newly discovered material—the expedited nature of” inter partes review proceedings “bring with it an obligation for petitioners to make their case in their petition to institute.” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, Petitioner carries a burden to “identify with particularity” at the outset, in the Petition, “the grounds on which the challenged to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). Although “the introduction of new evidence in the course of the trial is to be expected in inter partes review trial proceedings,” Genzyme Therapeutic Prods. LP v. Biomarin Pharm. Inc., 825 F.3d 1360, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the shifting of arguments is not, Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2017).” slip op. at 31

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Based on our consideration of the record as a whole, we agree with the District Court that the molecular cluster compound of the claimed invention must have “sufficiently well-defined chemical structure such that all molecules of the cluster compound possess the same relative molecular formula.” Ex. 1091, 18. To the extent that this or any other claim term requires further discussion, we provide it in our analysis of the challenges. No further express claim construction is necessary for purposes of this Decision. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We determine that the level of ordinary skill is reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (specific findings on the ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). To the extent a more specific definition is required, we adopt Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision, because that definition is unopposed and consistent with the disclosures of the asserted prior art references.” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 8,524,365 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,524,365
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Nanoco Technologies Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 16, 2022 · IPR2021-00185 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 16, and 17 were not proven unpatentable: Banin’s gold clusters were not shown to be MCCs, the Zaban combinations lacked adequate support, and the Lucey ground was withdrawn.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “primary guarantee of objectivity in an obviousness analysis. Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’l Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). In Petitioner’s view, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had “at least a Ph.D. in chemistry, physics, chemical engineering, material science, or equivalent technical degree or equivalent work experience, with knowledge regarding nanoparticles and methods of synthesizing them” and “[a]dditional education might supplement practical experience and vice-versa.” Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 76). Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s view or propose a counter definition. We determine that the level of ordinary skill is reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (specific findings on the ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). To the extent a more specific definition is required, we adopt Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision, because that definition is unopposed and consistent with the disclosures of the asserted prior art references.” slip op. at 9

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Based on our consideration of the record as a whole, we agree with the District Court that the molecular cluster compound of the claimed invention must have “sufficiently well-defined chemical structure such that all molecules of the cluster compound possess the same relative molecular formula.” Ex. 1091, 18. To the extent that this or any other claim term requires further discussion, we provide it in our analysis of the challenges. No further express claim construction is necessary for purposes of this Decision. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedMixed

    “opinion, with supporting citations to evidence, that Banin describes gold clusters that range in size and, further, why the reference indicates that the suggested formula assigned to those clusters is based on a calculation that relies on the average of a wide distribution of particle sizes reported in the literature by Hutchison. Ex. 2030 ¶¶ 102–125; Ex. 2017, 12891. We assign persuasive weight to her testimony because it is supported by clear disclosures in Hutchison, which Banin explicitly identifies as the source of the procedures by which Banin synthesizes its gold clusters. In particular, Dr. Cossairt’s testimony comports with this discussion in Hutchison: To calculate an average molecular formula for [gold nanoparticle] 1 it is necessary to know the number of gold atoms in the metal core. Given the average particle size (1.5 nm) this number is estimated to be ~101 by the method of Whetten et al. and leads to an estimated formula of Au101(PPh3)21Cl5. Ex. 2017, 12891. In other words, as this disclosure makes plain, Hutchison calculates an average molecular formula for its gold clusters by estimating the number of gold atoms in the metal core based upon the average particle size of 1.5 nm. Id. Indeed, as Dr. Cossairt recognizes, Banin’s suggested molecular formula is exactly the same formula that Hutchison calculates based on the average molecular formula for the variably-sized gold clusters produced according to its process. Ex. 2030 ¶¶ 102–105. Dr. Cossairt provides persuasive reasons why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Banin’s suggested formula represents an average molecular formula for a disperse mixture of gold clusters that are not identical in size and do not have sufficiently well-defined chemical structure such that all molecules of the cluster compound possess the same relative molecular formula, as required for MCCs. Id. ¶¶ 102–125.” slip op. at 26

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Our rules require a petitioner to explain with particularity, at the outset in the petition, why the patent it challenges is unpatentable. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “Unlike district court litigation — where parties have greater freedom to revise and develop their arguments over time and in response to newly discovered material — the expedited nature of” inter partes review proceedings “bring with it an obligation for petitioners to make their case in their petition to institute.” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, Petitioner carries a burden to “identify with particularity” at the outset, in the Petition, “the grounds on which the challenged to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). Although “the introduction of new evidence in the course of the trial is to be expected in inter partes review trial proceedings,” Genzyme Therapeutic Prods. LP v. Biomarin Pharm. Inc., 825 F.3d 1360, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the shifting of arguments is not, Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2017).” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 7,867,557 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,867,557

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.