- PTAB · Jun 27, 2024 · IPR2024-00368 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–9 on all asserted grounds: anticipation and obviousness over Horie.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the Petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to claims 1–9 (the “challenged claims”) of the ’564 patent on all grounds of unpatentability presented.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Other
“and evidence that the receipt of the request and the notification of the customer each occurs via a “distinct” transmission channel. See Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 39–41 (details of communication), 44, 54, 76, 78 (sending notification), Fig. 1, Fig. 9; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 213–215, 221, 223–227. Although Patent Owner shows that Petitioner relies on certain duplicate elements in Petitioner’s identified first and second transmission channels, the transmission channels identified include different elements as well, and thus, on the current record 7 Although Patent Owner argues that “Petitioner incorporates hundreds of paragraphs from a 139-page expert declaration in the Petition, including extensive use of block cites and diagrams,” on this record and without more specific references we do not discern improper incorporation by reference in the Petition. Prelim. Resp. 15–16 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(1)(i) and (a)(3)); see also Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 40 (“The Board expects that most petitions and motions will rely upon affidavits of experts.”) (The Consolidated Trial Practice Guide is available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated). and preliminarily, we determine that they are “distinct” as required in limitation 1d. Pet. 27. With respect to Patent Owner’s argument that that Petitioner does not show that the channels are completely separate and that Figure 1 of the ’564 patent and/or other disclosed embodiments in the ’564 patent include completely separate channels (see Prelim. Resp. 4, 10–12), these arguments by Patent Owner are not commensurate with the scope of the claim, which requires that “the second transmission channel [be] distinct from the first transmission channel.” To the extent that Patent Owner argues that a specific claim construction should be accorded to limitation 1d of claim 1 that excludes Horie’s partially overlapping channels, on the present record we discern no evidence or argument regarding such a claim construction. And, to the extent that Patent Owner argues a distinction between Horie and the ’564 patent disclosure (rather than the claim), such arguments are inapposite. With respect to the requirement of limitation 1e that authorization occur without requiring of a response from the customer, on the present record and for the purpose of institution, Petitioner sufficiently shows that Horie discloses this in its disclosure of a pre-authorization notification. See Pet. 29–308; Ex. 1006 ¶ 73 (sending notification during the card authentication process as opposed to after that process is complete); Ex. 8 While Patent Owner argues that Petitioner only argues that Horie “suggests” this embodiment (as opposed to disclosing it, as required for an anticipation ground) (see Prelim. Resp. 7 n.1 (quoting Pet. 29)), even given the appearance of the verb “suggests” in one instance in the Petition, we understand Petitioner’s argument is that Horie discloses a pre-authorization notification. See Pet. 29 (“Horie . . . discloses . . . the [notification] e-mail can also be sent . . . during the card authorization process”), 20 (“Horie discloses each element of claims 1 through 9”). 1003 ¶¶ 232–233. Having considered Patent Owner’s argument that “if Horie notifies a customer prior to authorization, the system requires a response” (Prelim. Resp. 8), for institution, we credit Dr. Akl’s uncontroverted testimony that the embodiment of Horie’s paragraph 73 does not require any affirmative action on the part of the customer to process a transaction but merely discloses the possibility of canceling a transaction rather than disclosing a requirement for a positive response from a recipient to authorize the transaction. Ex. 1006 ¶ 73 (“[T]he e-mail can also be sent . . . during the card authentication process . . . [to make] it possible to issue a transaction cancellation request to the authentication hosts.”); Ex. 1003 ¶ 233. We additionally do not agree with Patent Owner’s allegation that Horie does not enable the disclosure of paragraph 73. Prelim. Resp. 8–9 n.2. While Petitioner asserts that Horie does not disclose the details regarding a transaction cancellation request (Pet. 18), we note that the issuance of a transaction cancellation request is not part of the claimed invention, and determine that on this record, Petitioner’s argument (or admission) in the Petition regarding the disclosure of Horie is not sufficient to cast doubt on the likelihood of Petitioner’s success before us by removing the presumption of enablement. See Impax Labs., Inc. v. Aventis Pharm., Inc., 545 F.3d 1312, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (establishing a presumption that an anticipating disclosure in a prior art patent is enabling); Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, Ltd., 861 Fed. Appx. 443, 449 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (adopting this for AIA trial proceedings). For these reasons, upon consideration of the preliminary record, we determine that Petitioner has sufficiently shown a likelihood of success in showing claim 1 to be anticipated by Horie.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successOther
“While Petitioner’s argument with respect to claim 1d is presented as an obviousness argument, we do not discern that Petitioner presents any argument distinct from its analysis for anticipation. Id. at 39–42. While Petitioner cites Dr. Akl’s testimony to support its arguments regarding what Horie discloses, Petitioner does not discuss Dr. Akl’s testimony regarding obviousness or provide any suggestion of what a modification of Horie would be or discuss, e.g., motivation or expectation of success for a modification. Compare Pet. 39–42 with Ex. 1003 ¶ 229 (“[The] differences between the channels described in Horie would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art that separate lines of communication could be employed in Horie’s system.”). Similarly, Petitioner’s arguments with respect to claim 2 do not appear to address obviousness.” slip op. at 25
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,783,564 - PTAB · Jun 27, 2024 · IPR2024-00367 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–4 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is anticipated by Horie.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2024). “When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2023).” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Other
“corners of a single, prior art document describe every element of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention without undue experimentation.” Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “A single prior art reference may anticipate without disclosing a feature of the claimed invention if such feature is necessarily present, or inherent, in that reference.” Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 754 F.3d 952, 958 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Moreover, the reference must also “disclose[] within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the 1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) included revisions to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 that became effective on March 16, 2013. Because the ’310 patent has an application filing date of March 11, 2005, we apply the pre-AIA version of the statutory basis for unpatentability. See Ex. 1001, code (22). 2 Japanese Patent Application 2002-133100, published May 10, 2002 (Ex. 1009). All citations are to the Petitioner-provided English translation. Ex. 1006. claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). However, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test.” In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009).” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Because Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one claim of the ’310 patent is unpatentable, we institute on all grounds and all claims raised in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Therefore, at this stage of the proceeding, it is not necessary for us to provide an assessment of every challenge raised by Petitioner, especially, as in this case, when Patent Owner does not separately argue this ground. Those challenges, in our view, are best left for trial after full development of the record.10 10 As guidance to the parties, we note that it is unclear that the Petition, unlike Dr. Akl’s testimony, argues how a person having ordinary skill in the art would have modified Horie. Compare Ex. 1003 ¶ 98 (arguing that the differences between the first and second transmission channels in Horie “would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art that separate and independent lines of communication could be employed in Horie’s system for the sending/receiving of requests and notifications.”), with Pet. 32–33 (not making the argument in Dr. Akl’s testimony). The parties should address in the Response and Reply (1) whether the Petition argues how and why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have modified Horie and (2), if not, whether we can rely on the argument in Dr. Akl’s testimony that is not made in the Petition.” slip op. at 21
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner argues that “no claim terms require an express construction.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 62). 3 If Patent Owner disagrees with this formulation of the level of skill in the art, it must raise that disagreement in its Response. If a different level of skill would affect the outcome in this case, the parties must brief that issue as well. The failure of Patent Owner to describe how a different level of skill in the art is determinative will be a forfeiture of that argument. If there is a dispute regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, then the parties are also encouraged to submit evidence, other than conclusory expert testimony, that supports their position. 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.”). For the purposes of this Decision, we need not expressly construe any claim terms.4, 5 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’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,357,310 - PTAB · Jun 27, 2024 · IPR2024-00369 · APJ Andreas Baltatzis · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–7 based on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2024); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). We may institute inter partes review when “the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). After considering the Petition and the evidence of record, we institute an inter partes review as to claims 1–7 of the ’706 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“motivated to combine Horie and Kobayashi, specifically to improve Horie’s confirmation option. Pet. 18–21. For example, Petitioner asserts Horie discloses sending a card transaction notification to a user device, with the option to issue a transaction cancellation request. Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 73). But, Petitioner notes that Horie does not disclose details on cancelling a transaction. Id. So Petitioner asserts that one of skill in the art would have looked to Kobayashi’s known techniques for preventing fraudulent transactions. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 72–73). Specifically, Petitioner cites to Kobayashi’s method for verifying user identity, by notifying a user of a transaction using a pre-registered mobile phone number. Id. (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 57; Ex. 1003 ¶ 74). In response, the user indicates whether or not the card can be used by entering a number determined at the time of card creation and a predetermined operation button. Id. at 19–20 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 60, 61; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 73–74). Petitioner contends that implementing Kobayashi’s fraud prevention interface with Horie applies a known technique to improve a similar system in the same way. Id. at 20 (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 75, 76). Petitioner concludes that, given the similarity between Horie and Kobayashi, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the disclosures. Id. at 20–21 (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 75, 76). On this record and for purposes of institution, we determine that Petitioner has presented sufficient motivation to combine Horie and Kobayashi and reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“terms require an express construction.” Pet. 8. Instead, Petitioner addresses what it asserts is a typographical error in claim 1, which twice recites the term “merchant’s.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 5:54); see also Ex. 1001, 5:56. The possessive term “merchant’s” is not followed by a subject noun. See id. Although not identified by Petitioner, claim 6 also includes the recitation of “merchant’s” without a subject noun. See Ex. 1001, 6:52. Petitioner contends that during prosecution of the parent patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,357,310 B2, “the applicant explained that the ‘secure network and the ‘payment guarantee’ channel are illustrated between the acquirer 8 [sic] and the modem 5 of the merchant’s terminal.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1013, 45). Accordingly, Petitioner asserts that both instances of “merchant’s” should be read as “merchant’s terminal.” Id. We accept Petitioner’s argument at this stage of the proceeding. The parties should address this apparent typographical error in claims 1 and 6 during trial, including (1) whether there is an obvious typographical error and (2) whether we should correct it. See Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Pavo Solutions LLC v. Kingston Tech. Co., 35 F.4th 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2022); Beable Education, Inc. v. Achieve3000, Inc., IPR2021-01169, Paper 34, 10–11 (PTAB Jan. 3, 2023) (Final Written Decision). At this stage of the proceeding and based on the current record, we need not construe explicitly any of the claim language discussed in this section or any other claim terms because doing so would not change the outcome of the analysis below.8 See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“(“POSITA”) at the time the invention was made “would have a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related study, and would have at least one or two years of experience with wired and wireless networks used to securely process requests for authorization of activity such as financial transactions.” Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 22). Additionally, Petitioner contends that “[l]ess experience is necessary with additional education (e.g., a Master’s degree), and likewise, less education is necessary with additional work experience (e.g., 5–6 years).” Id. Patent Owner does not oppose or comment on Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA. 6 In the present record, neither party presents arguments or evidence relating to secondary considerations. On this record and for the purposes of institution, we determine this level of skill, with the exception of the open-ended phrase “at least,” which we remove from Petitioner’s proposal, comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’706 patent and the prior art of record.7” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,954,706 - PTAB · Jun 13, 2024 · IPR2024-00240 · APJ Deborah Katz · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–42 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success and declining discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“The Director may not authorize an inter partes review “unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). We determine whether to institute a post grant review on behalf of the Director. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The following findings of fact and conclusions of law are not final, but are made for the sole purpose of determining whether Petitioner meets the threshold for initiating review. Any final decision shall be based on the full trial record, including any response timely filed by Patent Owner. Upon considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated there is a reasonable likelihood that the petition would prevail in showing that at least one challenged is unpatentable. Accordingly, we institute inter partes review of all challenged claims on all asserted grounds. See SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1354, 1359–60 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“patient is MSI-H after enrollment in a study in which pembrolizumab is to be administered is not within the scope of the claim step “in response to determining that the colorectal cancer is microsatellite instability high or DNA mismatch repair deficient, treating the patient with a therapeutically effective amount of pembrolizumab.” At this point in the proceeding, though, we do not interpret the claim step as meaning anything other than the treatment of colorectal cancer patients after they have been determined to be microsatellite instability high or DNA mismatch repair deficient. Although the term “in response to” in claim 1 requires that treatment of the patient occur after the determination that the colorectal cancer is MSI-H, we do not interpret the term to mean that other patients are not treated or that the recruitment and enrollment of patients for a clinical trial has any bearing on the steps recited in claim 1. We interpret a claim “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) (2019). Under this standard, we construe the claim “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id. Patent Owner has not directed us to evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood treating a patient “in response to” the determination that the patient has a condition excludes treatment of other patients without the condition, although it does require that treatment of the patient occur after the determination that the colorectal cancer is MSI-H. The language of claim 1 refers only to patients that are determined to have microsatellite instability high or DNA mismatch repair deficient colorectal cancer, not to other patients. (See Ex. 1001, 25:40–50.) At this point in the proceeding, the record does not indicate that the treatment of patients determined not to be MSI-H is be factored into whether the teaching of treating patients determined to be MSI-H anticipates the method of claim 1. At this point in the proceeding, we construe the “in response to” limitation of claim 1 to mean that pembrolizumab is administered to a patient after the patient has been determined to be microsatellite instability high or DNA mismatch repair deficient, regardless of whether pembrolizumab is also administered to other patients.” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“H Study Record teaches treating colorectal cancer patients after they were determined to be microsatellite instability high or DNA mismatch repair deficient with pembrolizumab. (See MSI-H Study Record, Ex, 1005, 4 (Arms and Interventions); see also id., 2 (Study Identification), 3 (Study Description), 4–5 (Outcome Measures), 5–6 (Eligibility); see Neugut Decl., Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 58–62.) At this point in the proceeding, Petitioner has sufficiently shown that there is a reasonable likelihood of a causal relationship in the MSI-H Study Record between treatment of colorectal cancer patients and the determination of their MSI status — all colorectal cancer patients determined to be microsatellite instability high or DNA mismatch repair deficient were treated. Whether or not other patients were treated or enrolled in the study does not detract from this teaching.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Furthermore, to the extent the MSI-H Study Record does not disclose the limitation of “in response to determining that the colorectal cancer is microsatellite instability high or DNA mismatch repair deficient, treating the patient with a therapeutically effective amount of pembrolizumab,” the record before us supports this limitation being rendered obvious by Pernot and the MSI-H Study Record. Specifically, because Pernot teaches that colorectal cancer patients are good candidates for immunotherapy, the evidence of the current record shows that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to use to PD-1 inhibitors to treat colorectal cancers. (See Ex. 1006, 3741.) Additionally, the focus in the MSI-H Study Record on a clinical study treating colorectal cancer patients who had been determined to be MSI-H with prembrolizumab indicates that it would have been obvious to test for this condition before treatment. The additional references discussed by Petitioner contribute further to a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail. For example, Libson reports the successful treatment of a colorectal cancer patient having MSI-H status with a PD- 1 inhibitor (see Ex. 1057, 463-64) and Champiat discusses evaluating the clinical activity of PD-1 agents in DNA mismatch repair, such as MSI+, colorectal cancer (see Ex. 1032, e27817-5). (See Pet. 44.) Thus, based on the entire record before us, Petitioner presents a reasonable likelihood that the method of claim 1 would have been considered obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,591,393 - PTAB · Feb 1, 2024 · IPR2023-01298 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–30 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Chell anticipates at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The Board determines whether to institute a trial on behalf of the Director. 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). A decision to institute is “a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition.” PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have possessed a strong understanding in the use and development of genetics and genomics approaches for detecting or monitoring human diseases, such as spatial detection of a target analyte (e.g., mRNA or DNA) in a tissue, and would typically have a Ph.D. in a relevant field (e.g., molecular biology, genetics, and bioinformatics) with two years of experience. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 24–25). For the purposes of its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not provide its own proposed level of skill. Prelim. Resp. 10. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s unchallenged definition as it is consistent with the cited prior art and disclosure of the ’689 patent.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“a) contacting the tissue sample with a plurality of nucleic acid probes, wherein each of the nucleic acid probes comprise a target binding domain that binds to the at least one target analyte, wherein the tissue sample [has been] is treated to facilitate binding of the nucleic acid probes to the target analyte b/c) collecting the nucleic acid probes, or portions thereof, bound to the at least one target analyte in a first/second location of the tissue sample under conditions that release the nucleic acid probes, or portions thereof, from the first/second location of the tissue sample d/e) performing an extension reaction that incorporates at least one nucleic acid sequence that identifies the first/second location of the tissue sample into each of the nucleic acid probes, or portions thereof, collected in step (b), thereby forming a first plurality of extension products that comprise the nucleic acid probes, or portions thereof, collected in step (b) and the at least one nucleic acid sequence that identifies the first/second location of the tissue sample Ex. 1001, 145:51–147:11 (emphasis added). Thus, according to claim 1, the “nucleic acid probe” must 1) comprise a target binding domain that binds to the at least one target analyte, 2) be bound to the at least one target analyte; 3) be released in whole or as a portion, and 4) have a location-identifying nucleic acid sequence incorporated into it through an extension reaction. Steps a), b), and c) occur in relation to the target analyte, while steps d) and e) occur after the probe is” slip op. at 21
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We further interpret “collecting the nucleic acid probes” to mean “releasing all or a portion of the nucleic acid probe bound to the at least one target analyte through application of a force followed by retrieval of the released probe or portion of the probe.” The question then becomes whether So-465, which teaches replication of a probe that was bound and then at least partially released to make genomic amplicons, followed by collection of those genomic amplicons, anticipates collection of probes as recited in claims 1 and 16. On this record, we do not see sufficient evidence that the genomic amplicons disclosed in So-456 that Petitioner identifies as “captured” were ever “bound to the analyte” in part or in whole as required by the claim language, but rather were amplified in situ from the probe or partial probe that was released. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 181–183. In particular, the process of So-456 differs from the ’689 patent claims in that the extension reaction to incorporate the tissue-identifying nucleic acid sequence in So-465 occurs after the identifier nucleotide is cleaved from the tissue sample. “Anticipation requires that all of the claim elements and their limitations are shown in a single prior art reference.” In re Skvorecz, 580 F.3d 1262, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Petitioner has not demonstrated that So-456 teaches this claim limitation or otherwise demonstrates that this limitation would have been inherent in the disclosure of So-456 for claims 1 and 16. For these reasons, on this record we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that So-456 anticipates either of independent claims 1 or 16.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,377,689 - PTAB · Oct 13, 2023 · IPR2023-00876 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 1–6; the Board found a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would be unpatentable as obvious over Linnarsson and McCloskey.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“In sum, on the record presented, it appears that Petitioner is correct in stating that “no arguments were made during examination with respect to McCloskey or any similar reference disclosing an oligonucleotide with two tags.” Pet. 70 (underlining added).” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“4. Conclusion as to Claim 1 There is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in proving that claim 1 is unpatentable on this ground.” slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The Petition states that “Petitioner does not believe that any terms require explicit construction in view of the prior art being presented.” Pet. 36. Despite this stated position, Petitioner proposes constructions for “multiplex-identifier (MID)” and “providing a sample.” Id. Patent Owner, for its part, states that it “agrees that at this time, solely for purposes of an institution decision on the Petition, no terms require explicit construction.” Prelim. Resp. 45. On the record before us, and for purposes of institution, we find there is no need to provide an express construction of any claim term.” slip op. at 6
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 21–22 (citations omitted). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute the level of skill proposed by Petitioner. Because Petitioner’s formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art appears consistent with the disclosure of the ’981 patent and the asserted prior art, and because there is no argument to the contrary at this stage of the proceeding, we apply Petitioner’s formulation in our analysis below.” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,155,981 - PTAB · Oct 13, 2023 · PGR2023-00022 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–33 under all petition grounds, finding it more likely than not that at least one claim lacks written description and enablement.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Based on the information presented, we agree with Patent Owner that the asserted prior art itself is sufficient to demonstrate 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) (prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art). We do not find it necessary to define the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention at this time. However, for purposes of deciding whether to institute trial, we find that Dr. Silverstone is qualified to provide helpful opinion testimony on the issues regarding which we cite his testimony in this decision. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 6–15.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“Based on the above, we agree with Patent Owner that many of the arguments raised by the Examiner are highly similar to the challenges in this proceeding, particularly the written description challenge. However, some arguments differ. For instance, Petitioner’s enablement argument identifies that, contrary to Applicant’s statement during prosecution reproduced above, amino acids and protein structure outside the disclosed AAD-12 motif can also affect the activity of the claimed dioxygenases to degrade phenoxy auxin and pyridyloxy auxin. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 42–50, 79 (Dr. Silverstone describing the mechanics of protein binding and explaining why the ’055 patent disclosure fails to provide sufficient information to the skilled artisan to know which amino acids could be changed while retaining the ability to enzymatically degrade both phenoxy and pyridyloxy auxin herbicides). See also Pet. 27–34 (asserting, e.g., 85% homology to AAD-12 motif alone is insufficient to predict enzymatic degradation activity). While the Examiner’s rejections regarded the disclosure corresponding to the ability to degrade herbicides, the Examiner plainly relied on Applicant’s statements that the AAD-12 motif’s structure alone was responsible when deciding to withdraw the rejection. Ex. 1002, 355. The Examiner did not have the additional testimony supplied by the Silverstone declaration explaining otherwise. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 42–50, 79. Petitioner, through Dr. Silverstone, also addresses the effort the skilled artisan would have needed to undertake to determine what proteins outside of the AAD-12 motif would affect the ability of homologues to enzymatically degrade the recited herbicides, and provides evidence for consideration regarding the lack of a clear link between the AAD-12 motif and the ability to enzymatically degrade both phenoxy and pyridyloxy auxin herbicides. Ex. 1003, 347. Therefore, the arguments are not entirely overlapping. And while these issues do in part overlap with Petitioner’s arguments pertaining to enablement, we agree with Petitioner that the Examiner did not complete a written Wands analysis. Although we conclude that the arguments are not entirely overlapping, we proceed to the second step in the analysis, for completeness.” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Because Petitioner has shown that it is more likely than not that Petitioner will prevail in showing that at least one claim lacks sufficient written description and is not enabled, we conclude the challenged claims are eligible for post-grant review. V. CONCLUSION After considering the evidence and arguments presently before us, we determine Petitioner has shown it is more likely than not that at least one challenged claim of the ’055 patent lacks written description and is unpatentable. Accordingly, we institute a post-grant review. VI. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), a post-grant review of claims 1–33 of the ’055 patent is instituted with respect to all grounds set forth in the Petition; and” slip op. at 57
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateOther
“85% identity as “highly identical” in this field and that the “conserved motif residues comprise ‘the active site that is essential for catalytic activity.’” Prelim. Resp. 31 (citing Ex. 1001, 11:1–6)). However, on the record before us, we are unpersuaded that this is sufficient because the Specification lacks disclosure supporting that a polypeptide of, for example, 86% identity to SEQ ID NO: 2 would retain the ability to degrade herbicides if the 5 amino acids in the general formula of HX109D(X)111-134 T(X)136-261H(X)263-272R, and the required chain lengths are present. In this regard we are persuaded by the testimony of Dr. Silverstone (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 48–93) regarding the limitations of the disclosure of the ’055 patent and the lack of information supporting the skilled artisan in understanding that the inventor possessed the entire claimed genus (e.g., lack of example at lower end of sequence identity and lack of information to assist the skilled artisan in predicting whether an α-ketoglutarate-dependent dioxygenase would interact with or degrade either phenoxy auxin herbicides and/or pyridyloxy auxin herbicides). Dr. Silverstone testifies, and we are persuaded on this record, that the skilled artisan would not have read the guidance in the disclosure and understood that the inventors possessed the ability to design a modified SEQ ID NO: 2 at the 85% identity level that retained the function of degrading the recited herbicides, let alone the full scope of the claimed genus. Id. Patent Owner argues that Dr. Silverstone’s testimony that conserved amino acids of the AAD-12 motif are present in other α- ketoglutarate-dependent dioxygenases but do not have the claimed dual activity (Ex. 1003 ¶ 48) is misplaced because it “ignores that the location and spacing of those residues in other αKG-dependent dioxygenases differ from those in the AAD-12 motif.” Prelim. Resp. 38. However, Patent Owner offers no evidence that supports its argument. Id. It is thus unpersuasive.” slip op. at 36
§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,371,055 - Apotex Inc. v. Cellgene CorporationInstitutedPTAB · Jul 20, 2023 · IPR2023-00512 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 6–9, 11–28, 32–36, and 38–43 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“IV. CONCLUSION Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing at trial in showing that at least one of claims 1, 2, 6–9, 11–28, 32–36, and 38–43 of the ’628 patent is unpatentable over the cited prior art. Our decision derives from our review of the preliminary record before us. Accordingly, we institute inter partes review of each challenged claim the ’628 patent on each of the grounds asserted by Petitioner. This decision does not reflect a final determination on the patentability of the claims. ORDER Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Petition is granted and we institute inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 6–9, 11–28, 32–36, and 38–43 of the ’628 patent based on the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 53
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess. In such cases, the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Moreover, “[w]hen the specification explains and defines a term used in the claims, without ambiguity or incompleteness, there is no need to search further for the meaning of the term.” Multiform Dessicants, Inc. v. Medzam Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1998). We agree with the parties that the ’628 patent expressly defines this term in stating “[t]he term ‘non-enteric-coated,’ when used herein, refers to a pharmaceutical composition, formulation, or dosage form that does not comprise a coating intended to release the active ingredient(s) beyond the stomach (e.g., in the intestine),” and we adopt this express definition herein with regard to “nonenteric coated tablet.”9 Ex. 1001, 11:42–48 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“to, and sometimes associated with, but not identical to the claim term “subject”), which appears in claims 11, 12, 18–22, and 38–43, means “a human or other animal who received the recited pharmaceutical composition in connection with a test of the recited parameter.” Prelim. Resp. 18–19 (also asserting Petitioner does not appear to dispute this construction). We first note that the term “test subject” appears in the ’628 patent only in the claims. See generally Ex. 1001. However, we find Patent Owner’s definition comports with the Specification’s express definition of “subject,” a term the Specification appears to use synonymously with the claim term “test subject” and the word patient, and that Patent Owner’s definition adds that the subject received the pharmaceutical composition in connection with a test of the recited parameter, which we find to be a reasonable interpretation of the claim term “test subject,” in accordance with the plain language of the claims on their face, and as supported by the relevant portions of the Written Description that describe testing parameters relating to drug administration. Ex. 1001, 35:45–36:62, 67:61–81:48. We adopt Patent Owner’s definition herein.” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable
“A single prior art reference may anticipate without disclosing a feature of the claimed invention if such feature is necessarily present, or inherent, in that reference.” Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 754 F.3d 952, 958 (Fed. Cir. 2014). However, “‘[i]nherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities.’” In re Montgomery, 677 F.3d 1375, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citations omitted, alterations in original). “The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient to establish inherency.” Scaltech Inc. v. Retec/Tetra L.L.C., 178 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1999). slip op. at 38
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,846,628 - Candela Corporation v. Nikolai TankovichInstitutedPTAB · Jun 8, 2023 · IPR2023-00234 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–28, finding a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims would be unpatentable under the five asserted § 103 grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“when no part of the distribution patterns of the two beams cross each other at the point of reference, identified above in Figure 2D–F as “in a tissue.” Id. As both claim 1 and claim 11 refer to tissue treatment, we interpret the point of reference for determining whether the beams overlap to be the point at which the beams first intersect the tissue being treated. This interpretation is supported by the diagrams in Figure 2 above and in the Specification. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:67–2:4 (“The invention can avoid interference of the wavelengths by delivering the wavelengths simultaneously and in spatially separated and overlapping regions of the tissue being treated.”). In view of the above, we determine that the term “overlapping,” as used in the claims, refers to the crossing of the beam pattern at the point at which the beams intersect the tissue being treated.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“when no part of the distribution patterns of the two beams cross each other at the point of reference, identified above in Figure 2D–F as “in a tissue.” Id. As both claim 1 and claim 11 refer to tissue treatment, we interpret the point of reference for determining whether the beams overlap to be the point at which the beams first intersect the tissue being treated. This interpretation is supported by the diagrams in Figure 2 above and in the Specification. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:67–2:4 (“The invention can avoid interference of the wavelengths by delivering the wavelengths simultaneously and in spatially separated and overlapping regions of the tissue being treated.”). In view of the above, we determine that the term “overlapping,” as used in the claims, refers to the crossing of the beam pattern at the point at which the beams intersect the tissue being treated.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Black discloses that its combined beam can be controlled to rotate the mirrors to “generate various different kinds of treatment patterns” and can “create any type of three-dimensional paths and treatment pattern.” See Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 61, 62; Ex. 1002 ¶ 69. On this record and at this stage, the ability to generate treatment patterns meets the limitations of the claims, which each require a pattern of “overlapping beams and non-overlapping beams. We credit Dr. Milner’s uncontroverted testimony that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that a scanner could be used with or instead of a modulator to provide adjustability to one or more lasers, that the artisan would have been familiar with the control and programming of multiple scanners taught in Black, and that the artisan would have been able to implement these features in Hsia’s system without undue experimentation. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 93, 95, 97, 98. Additionally, we credit Dr. Milner’s uncontroverted testimony that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious from the teachings in Black to combine and scan multiple beams into a desired pattern, such as overlapping and non-overlapping in order to optimize treatment results and because the combination would have provided multiple potential benefits. Id. ¶¶ 98, 101, 112, 116, 118–128. We acknowledge Patent Owner’s argument that Dr. Milner’s testimony regarding the ordinary artisan’s motivation to combine references parrots the rationales identified and discussed in the ’481 patent. Prelim. Resp. 36–38. Dr. Milner, however, also cites disclosures in both Hsia and Black citing advantages of combined beams including improved treatment efficacy, improved healing, the ability to treat simultaneously at multiple depths, and reduction in the number of required treatments. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 117–119. “[T]he motivation-to-combine analysis is a flexible one. Any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (citing KSR Int’l, 550 U.S. at 420 (alterations, emphasis, and internal quotation marks omitted).” slip op. at 21
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Black discloses that its combined beam can be controlled to rotate the mirrors to “generate various different kinds of treatment patterns” and can “create any type of three-dimensional paths and treatment pattern.” See Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 61, 62; Ex. 1002 ¶ 69. On this record and at this stage, the ability to generate treatment patterns meets the limitations of the claims, which each require a pattern of “overlapping beams and non-overlapping beams. We credit Dr. Milner’s uncontroverted testimony that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that a scanner could be used with or instead of a modulator to provide adjustability to one or more lasers, that the artisan would have been familiar with the control and programming of multiple scanners taught in Black, and that the artisan would have been able to implement these features in Hsia’s system without undue experimentation. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 93, 95, 97, 98. Additionally, we credit Dr. Milner’s uncontroverted testimony that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious from the teachings in Black to combine and scan multiple beams into a desired pattern, such as overlapping and non-overlapping in order to optimize treatment results and because the combination would have provided multiple potential benefits. Id. ¶¶ 98, 101, 112, 116, 118–128. We acknowledge Patent Owner’s argument that Dr. Milner’s testimony regarding the ordinary artisan’s motivation to combine references parrots the rationales identified and discussed in the ’481 patent. Prelim. Resp. 36–38. Dr. Milner, however, also cites disclosures in both Hsia and Black citing advantages of combined beams including improved treatment efficacy, improved healing, the ability to treat simultaneously at multiple depths, and reduction in the number of required treatments. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 117–119. “[T]he motivation-to-combine analysis is a flexible one. Any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (citing KSR Int’l, 550 U.S. at 420 (alterations, emphasis, and internal quotation marks omitted).” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,675,481 - PTAB · Mar 30, 2023 · IPR2023-00026 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–8 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 5 are anticipated by Prevost-2006.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We understand “filled” to have a broad plain and ordinary meaning. That is, “filled” broadly embraces the circumstances where something is fully filled or partially filled. Here, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Hoare, provides an opinion that is consistent with our understanding of the regular meaning of the word. Pet. 23; Ex. 1002, ¶ 142. We understand that Patent Owner’s position essentially contends that “filled” does not include “fully filled”—arguing that Prevost-2006 does not describe the extent to which the core material “filled” the shell structure, or that Petitioner does not show sufficiently that “filled” means “completely occupies.” Prelim. Resp. 8–10; Ex. 2001, ¶ 39. As an initial matter, we observe that neither Petitioner’s nor Patent Owner’s declarant directs us to information that would help us understand why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood “filled” to exclude the circumstance of being completely filled. Because of this, for purposes of deciding whether to institute review, we see no reason to interpret “filled” in a manner inconsistent with the term’s plain and ordinary meaning, which broadly includes the circumstance of being completely filled. Patent Owner is free to develop this issue in timely filed response to the Petition. On this record, however, we preliminarily find that Prevost-2006 meets the “completely occupies” limitation of claim 1 because its fiber is described as a shell structure that is “filled” with a core structure. Ex. 1010, 345, 349. That circumstance distinguishes Provost-2006 from the Lee reference, which unlike Provost-2006 concerned “hollow fibers” and, during examination, was overcome by an amendment that added the “completely occupies” limitation. Prelim. Resp. 9 (quoting Ex. 1004, 616) (emphasis omitted).” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“We understand “filled” to have a broad plain and ordinary meaning. That is, “filled” broadly embraces the circumstances where something is fully filled or partially filled. Here, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Hoare, provides an opinion that is consistent with our understanding of the regular meaning of the word. Pet. 23; Ex. 1002, ¶ 142. We understand that Patent Owner’s position essentially contends that “filled” does not include “fully filled”—arguing that Prevost-2006 does not describe the extent to which the core material “filled” the shell structure, or that Petitioner does not show sufficiently that “filled” means “completely occupies.” Prelim. Resp. 8–10; Ex. 2001, ¶ 39. As an initial matter, we observe that neither Petitioner’s nor Patent Owner’s declarant directs us to information that would help us understand why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood “filled” to exclude the circumstance of being completely filled. Because of this, for purposes of deciding whether to institute review, we see no reason to interpret “filled” in a manner inconsistent with the term’s plain and ordinary meaning, which broadly includes the circumstance of being completely filled. Patent Owner is free to develop this issue in timely filed response to the Petition. On this record, however, we preliminarily find that Prevost-2006 meets the “completely occupies” limitation of claim 1 because its fiber is described as a shell structure that is “filled” with a core structure. Ex. 1010, 345, 349. That circumstance distinguishes Provost-2006 from the Lee reference, which unlike Provost-2006 concerned “hollow fibers” and, during examination, was overcome by an amendment that added the “completely occupies” limitation. Prelim. Resp. 9 (quoting Ex. 1004, 616) (emphasis omitted). Claim 5 further recites that “a cell or cell culture is contained in the micro gel fiber.” As we observe above, Prevost-2006 discloses that its “hollow fibers were filled with islets [cells] suspended in agarose.” Ex. 1010, 345; Pet. 24. Thus, on this record, we also find that Prevost-2006 discloses the claimed microfiber containing “a cell or cell culture” within the micro gel fiber. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it “would prevail with respect to” claim 1 and claim 5 based on anticipation by Provost-2006. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). To provide guidance to the parties and streamline the issues for trial, we discuss below the other challenges asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundInstituted
“For example, Petitioner does not identify a reason why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined the teachings of double-layer and single-layer fibers. We recognize that “it is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.” In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Nevertheless, to support a conclusion of obviousness when combining the teachings of multiple references, an articulated reason with some rational underpinning to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed must be provided. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); see also In re Magnum Oil Tools, Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (It is the petitioner’s “burden to demonstrate both that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention[s], and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.”) (citation and internal quotation omitted). Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and evidence of record, we have doubts that Petitioner provides sufficient reasons an ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined the teachings of the multiple references asserted in this challenge to achieve the claimed invention or would have reasonably believed they would have been successful in doing so. Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prods. Inc., 876 F.3d 1350, 1360–61 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (showing of a motivation to combine references must include evidence that a skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation of success in doing so).” slip op. at 19
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther
“We have concerns about whether Petitioner shows sufficiently that Nelson- 603’s disclosures would have led an ordinarily skilled artisan to create an “alginate-alginate bicomponent fiber.” Petitioner’s arguments and Dr. Hoare’s opinions contain similar wording and do not explain adequately why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have created such a fiber—beyond Nelson-603’s general disclosure that “it will be apparent to those of skill in the art that variations may be applied to the compositions and methods.” Pet. 39–40; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 162, 199, 120; Ex. 1011, 12:57–66; 33:58–66. Without additional evidence and reasoning, we assign Dr. Hoare’s testimony on this issue little weight. See Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 (August 24, 2022) (designated: February 10, 2023) (holding declaration is entitled to little weight when it contains an exact restatement of the petition’s arguments without any additional supporting evidence or reasoning). On this record, that general instruction is not sufficient to establish that Nelson-603 would have prompted an ordinarily skilled artisan to modify any fiber disclosed in the reference to achieve the claimed invention.” slip op. at 15
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,785,195
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.