• Nintendo Co., Ltd. / Nintendo Of America Inc. v. Gamevice, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 29, 2024 · IPR2023-00643 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 are unpatentable as obvious over Willner and Park; the Board did not reach the other instituted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The main distinction between Petitioner’s ordinarily skilled artisan and Patent Owner’s is that Patent Owner’s definition requires “a mechanical engineering degree” whereas Petitioner’s definition allows for a degree in “mechanical, electrical, or computer engineering.” See Pet. Reply 16 (citing Pet. 13). However, Mr. Kitchen states that he qualifies as one of ordinary skill in the art based on Patent Owner’s proffered definition “even without an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering” because he has “over 40 years of experience in the design and development of interactive products, including specifically with respect to handheld gaming devices.” Ex. 1033 ¶ 7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 24–30). Mr. Kitchen asserts that his experience is in “the same category of products claimed in the ’393 patent and described in the prior art references at issue in this proceeding.” Id. In view of this and based on the complete record before us, we view the parties’ proposals as substantially the same because Petitioner’s proposed definition includes the requisite education Patent Owner’s definition requires. Thus, we find (as we did in the Institution Decision) that Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’393 patent and the prior art of record. See Inst. Dec. 20–21 (citing Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355). More particularly, we do not agree with Patent Owner that the education component for the level of ordinary skill in the art for computing gaming devices would be limited to just mechanical engineering. We note that, based on the record and evidence before us, our decision and analysis would be the same applying either party’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 10

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

    “After reviewing the full record, we determine that it is unnecessary to construe the term “confinement structures,” as it appears in the limitation “a pair of confinement structures” to reach a determination in this proceeding. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those 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)). However, we will address the parties’ dispute regarding whether the prior art discloses or teaches physical component(s) that hold(s) a computing device within our merits analysis below. The parties do not dispute the construction of any other claim terms and we find that no other terms require express construction to resolve the controversy between the parties. Accordingly, we do not construe any other claim terms expressly. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375 (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803).” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “First, the test for obviousness “is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference, . . . but rather whether ‘a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention.’” Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Pet. Reply 11–12 (arguing the same). Second, we disagree with Patent Owner’s assertion that the proposed combination would fail “to retain[] computing device 10 in position during normal user operation” because Park’s adjustable bridge “configuration does not allow mobile phone (1) to be seated for stability in the device.” PO Resp. 20 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 42; Ex. 2004 ¶ 68). At the outset, we note that Patent Owner’s argument mischaracterizes the disclosure of Park. Instead, we find Park discloses that a “basic configuration of [Park’s] game pad device for a mobile phone according to the present invention” “sufficiently allows mobile phone (1) to be mounted on the device according to the present invention and used.” Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 25, 41. Although Park discloses that “mobile phone (1) may come loose during gaming or become detached in severe cases” (id. ¶ 41), we do not view this disclosure to otherwise negate Park’s teaching that its adjustable bridge (30,40) “sufficiently allows mobile phone (1) to be mounted on the device according to the present invention and used.” Id. We credit Mr. Kitchen’s declaration testimony to that effect. See Ex. 1033 ¶ 47 (declaring that one of ordinary skill in the art would have “understood this disclosure to mean that a computing device (mobile phone) would have been secured by the device for normal use . . . as part of a handheld gaming device.”).” slip op. at 24

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner and find more credible Mr. Kitchen’s opinion regarding “normal user operation.” In doing so, we credit Mr. Kitchen’s opinion that Willner’s sidewalls would “function to secure the sides of the computing device and hold it in place” and, “[i]n the combination, Park’s bridge would be adjusted to reduce the length of the bridge and thereby ‘mount’ a computing device by having Willner’s side walls (confinement structures) ‘apply pressure’ to opposing sides of the computing device.” Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 154–156 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 38–41). We note that the ’393 patent operates in a similar manner using a sufficient compressive load to hold a computing device. More particularly, the ’393 patent discloses that [t]he expansion and contraction of the distance between the pair of confinement structures 316, facilitates placement of the computing device 302 between the pair of confinement structures 316, the application of sufficient compressive load being placed on the computing device 302 to securely hold the computing device between the pair of confinement structures 316. Ex. 1001, 10:11–20. Thus, we find Mr. Kitchen’s opinion credible and supported by the complete record. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the combination of Willner and Park teaches or suggests “a pair of confinement structures,” as recited by limitation 1[b][1].” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 10,391,393 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,391,393
• Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 1, 2024 · IPR2023-00734 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 are unpatentable as obvious under §103 over the combinations of prior art identified in the eight grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We discern no material difference between the parties’ definitions. Cf. PO Resp. 14 (Patent Owner stating that “[t]he analysis presented [in the Response] remains unchanged even if [Petitioner’s proposed] skill level is applied.”). Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. We note, however, that were we to adopt Patent Owner’s assessment, the outcome of this Decision would be the same.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner proposes constructions for certain terms concerning the cover material—“a cover formed from a dielectric material,” “a transparent substrate,” and “a cover comprising a non-conductive material”—and window terms such as “defines at least one window” and “window defined.” Pet. 7–10. Patent Owner states that it does not take a position regarding Petitioner’s offered constructions. PO Resp. 15. On this record and for purposes of this decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to make the proposed combination and would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in making that combination. See, e.g., PO Resp. 34–35. These arguments are not persuasive at least because Patent Owner’s motivation requirement and implied definition of success are not sufficiently tied to the claimed invention. See, e.g., Elekta Ltd. v. ZAP Surgical Sys., Inc., 81 F.4th 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“Reasonable expectation of success refers to the likelihood of success in combining references to meet the limitations of the claimed invention.”). Patent Owner would require a successful outcome to be “quick and efficient wireless charging.” See PO Resp. 34–35. In making these arguments, Patent Owner is improperly superimposing the purported goals and purpose of Honda, the secondary reference, onto the ordinary artisan. See, e.g., id. at 41–45. However, the intended purpose of a prior art reference does not control the obviousness inquiry. Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Our reviewing court recently explained: The [motivation-to-combine] inquiry is not whether a relevant artisan would combine a first reference’s feature with a second reference’s feature to meet requirements of the first reference that are not requirements of the claims at issue. A contrary view would run counter to established principles, including that the claim defines the invention whose obviousness is being assessed and that a skilled artisan may be motivated to combine particular features of different references, e.g., to secure some benefits at the expense of others, even when bodily incorporation would be impossible or inadvisable. Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 73 F.4th 950, 957 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Petitioner’s combination yields the benefit of the addition of wireless charging capability to a biosensor device. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find that benefit to be a motivating reason to make the combination. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 176 (Dr. Duckworth’s motivation opinion based, in part, on “Kotanagi’s own statement that its rechargeable battery can be recharged ‘in a contactless state.’”); id. ¶ 149 (Dr. Duckworth describing a motivating factor in “Honda’s teaching of a wireless receive coil near a rear opening similar to that taught in Kotanagi (where both Honda’s and Kotanagi’s openings have a cover glass)” and opining that, in the proposed modifications, “the resulting magnetic flux would pass through the cover glass, as taught by Honda”); see also Ex. 1052, 45:16–46:2 (Dr. Anthony, on cross-examination and after being asked whether wireless charging is an improvement over wired charging for a consumer watch, responding that “in some instances it could be, and in others it may not be.”). And, as to a reasonable expectation of success, Patent Owner admits that “Petitioner has presented a device configuration in which a wireless charging coil could be provided in Kotanagi’s through hole 22.” PO Resp. 54; see also id. at 3 (Patent Owner arguing that “the size of coil that could be provided in this allegedly available space would be small and would significantly limit the amount of wireless power signal transmission,” but not arguing that even Patent Owner’s purported size-limited configuration would be inoperative); see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 155–156 (Dr. Duckworth credibly testifying that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kotanagi and Honda).” slip op. at 27

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “would limit the size and positioning of a charging coil, and that the purported combination, as characterized by Patent Owner, would result in a “significantly degrad[ed] wireless charging efficiency” of Honda’s coil. PO Resp. 41–42; see id. at 36–45, id. at 55 (Patent Owner arguing that, “given the size restrictions imposed by Kotanagi,” the housing and cover glass cannot be expanded to allow for a larger coil). Patent Owner further argues that the combination would have to be configured a certain way and that the resulting configuration would “would frustrate Honda’s goals and intended purpose.” Id. at 37–38, 40–41; see also, e.g., id. at 43–44 (Patent Owner arguing that the combination, as characterized by Patent Owner, would inject noise and interference that are contrary to Honda’s goals of quick and efficient power transmission). We do not agree with this line of argument. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The person of ordinary skill in the art is not compelled to blindly follow the teaching of one prior art reference over the other without the exercise of independent judgment. See Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984). As the Supreme Court recognized in KSR, “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” 550 U.S. at 421. Dr. Duckworth persuasively testifies that, “if, under the relevant engineering trade-offs, a POSITA wanted to increase charging speed, consistent with Honda’s teachings, Honda would have provided the motivation and information to either re-size or reshape Kotanagi’s protrusion and/or cover glass to provide for a larger coil.” Ex. 1060 ¶ 346; see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 157–159 (“[I]t would have been feasible to make the second modification option discussed above: to enlarge Kotanagi’s opening and cover glass to make room for a coil behind the cover glass, surrounding the LED and PD.”); Ex. 2039, 47:5–10 (“[A] POSITA would view Honda’s teachings to either modify Kotanagi to position wireless charging coil behind Kotanagi’s cover glass or enlarge the Kotanagi’s opening and cover glass to make room for a coil behind the cover glass.”); PO Resp. 44 (Patent Owner admitting that Honda teaches that metal is inferior for power transmission and “[t]his is precisely why Honda seeks to provide glass for its rear cover.”). And, although the references express certain goals, Patent Owner does not adequately identify any disclosure in either reference that disparages Petitioner’s articulated combination. See DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“A reference does not teach away, however, if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not ‘criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage’ investigation into the invention claimed.”). Even if, as Patent Owner argues, the proposed combination would not quickly charge the device, this is not dispositive. Dr. Anthony agrees that “[d]evices, depending on their use and their function, can benefit from either fast charge or trickle charge or a little bit of charge.” Ex. 1052, 19:3–6. “It’s not necessary to show that a combination is ‘the best option, only that it be a suitable option.’” Intel Corp., 21 F.4th at 800 (quoting PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197–98 (Fed. Cir. 2014)); see also In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[J]ust because better alternatives exist in the prior art does not mean that an inferior combination is inapt for obviousness purposes.”); Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.”). Based upon the final record before us, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider even a slow charging configuration to be a suitable option.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 10,942,491 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,942,491
• Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 23, 2024 · IPR2023-00634 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 17–20 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 6–8, 11–13, and 16 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We discern no material difference between the parties’ definitions. Cf. PO Resp. 16 (Patent Owner stating that “[t]he analysis presented [in the Response] remains unchanged even if [Petitioner’s proposed] skill level is applied.”). Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. We note, however, that were we to adopt Patent Owner’s assessment, the outcome of this Decision would be the same.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We find Patent Owner’s position to be persuasive. Not only are the cover and biosensor module recited separately in the list of components of the device of claim 9, we also agree that the “disposed over” claim language establishes the configuration of two separate components relative to each other. Additionally, the claim language that requires the cover to be “configured to pass optical signals to and from the biosensor module” supports an interpretation where the cover is separate from the biosensor module, otherwise it seemingly would be passing signals to and from itself. The understanding that the cover is separate from the biosensor module in claim 9 is consistent with the Specification’s description of an embodiment that tracks the language of claim 9 and speaks of the two elements as separate, individual components, namely the statement that “[a] biosensor module may be disposed within the opening of the housing” and “[a] rear cover may be disposed over the biosensor module.” Ex. 1001, 2:59–62; see also id. at 2:56 (the same paragraph beginning with “Some embodiments . . .”). Petitioner asserts that its proposed construction is consistent with the claim language, arguing that “the word ‘cover’ naturally suggests that its role is to be ‘disposed over,’” and that “[a] cover can be part of a module just as a clear plastic lid can be both disposed over, and part of, a container, allowing a view of its contents.” Pet. Reply 4. We disagree with Petitioner’s analogy. Although a clear lid may be over a jar, it cannot be said to be “disposed over” the container consisting of both the jar and the lid because it then would be disposed over itself.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “Patent Owner argues that the proposed combination will result in a configuration “that is contrary to Honda’s teachings and its stated goals and purpose of achieving quick and efficient wireless charging.” PO Resp. 30– 31. Patent Owner’s focus on these properties is misplaced. We agree with Petitioner that characteristics such as charging speed and efficiency are not claimed. See Pet. Reply 1 (“[T]he ’783 patent does not disclose, let alone claim, sizing or other details [Patent Owner] Apple asserts are necessary for successful wireless charging.”); id. at 6 (“[C]harging speed [is] not claimed.”). Rather, the claim drafter utilized broad language to encompass a biosensor device having the capability to wireless charge through a cover— both good configurations and those that Patent Owner argues are inferior. And, even if the proposed combination does not yield a commercially viable product, as Patent Owner implies, the broad claim scope would hinder an innovating competitor’s ability to utilize and test that purported less desirable combination on the way to development of a better device. Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to make the proposed combination and would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in making that combination. See, e.g., PO Resp. 31. These arguments are not persuasive at least because Patent Owner’s motivation requirement and implied definition of success are not sufficiently tied to the claimed invention. See, e.g., Elekta Ltd. v. ZAP Surgical Sys., Inc., 81 F.4th 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“Reasonable expectation of success refers to the likelihood of success in combining references to meet the limitations of the claimed invention.”). Patent Owner would require a successful outcome to be “quick and efficient wireless charging.” See PO Resp. 31. In making these arguments, Patent Owner is improperly superimposing the purported goals and purpose of Honda, the secondary reference, onto the ordinary artisan. See, e.g., id. at 37–41. However, the intended purpose of a prior art reference does not control the obviousness inquiry. Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Our reviewing court recently explained: The [motivation-to-combine] inquiry is not whether a relevant artisan would combine a first reference’s feature with a second reference’s feature to meet requirements of the first reference that are not requirements of the claims at issue. A contrary view would run counter to established principles, including that the claim defines the invention whose obviousness is being assessed and that a skilled artisan may be motivated to combine particular features of different references, e.g., to secure some benefits at the expense of others, even when bodily incorporation would be impossible or inadvisable. Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 73 F.4th 950, 957 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Petitioner’s combination yields the benefit of the addition of wireless charging capability to a biosensor device. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find that benefit to be a motivating reason to make the combination. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 121 (Dr. Duckworth’s motivation opinion based, in part, on “Kotanagi’s own statement that its rechargeable battery can be recharged ‘in a contactless state.’”); id. ¶ 127 (Dr. Duckworth’s describing a motivating factor in Honda’s explanation “that this [charging] station passes wireless power to the wireless charging receiving coil through a rear cover glass (similar to that of Kotanagi), using the physics of induced currents and magnetic flux.”); see also Ex. 1052, 45:16–46:2 (Dr. Anthony, on cross-examination and after being asked whether wireless charging is an improvement over wired charging for a consumer watch, responding that “in some instances it could be, and in others it may not be.”). And, as to a reasonable expectation of success, Patent Owner admits that “Petitioner has presented a device configuration in which a wireless charging coil could be provided in Kotanagi’s through hole 22.” PO Resp. 56; see also id. at 3 (Patent Owner arguing that “the size of coil that could be provided in this allegedly available space would be small and would significantly limit the amount of wireless power signal transmission,” but not arguing that even Patent Owner’s purported size-limited configuration would be inoperative); see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 130–133 (Dr. Duckworth credibly testifying that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kotanagi and Honda).” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 10,627,783 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,627,783
• Parse Biosciences, Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 17, 2024 · IPR2023-00876 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6 are unpatentable: claims 1–4 and 6 as obvious over Linnarsson and McCloskey, and claim 5 as obvious over those references and ordinary skill.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedGranted in part

    “Clearly, the second Hall-Ellis declaration is offered to prove that McCloskey is a prior art printed publication. See, e.g., Ex. 1065 ¶50 (“In view of the foregoing, it is my opinion that [McCloskey] was publicly available no later than [January 3, 2008].”). Thus, the second Hall-Ellis declaration should have been served within ten business days of Patent Owner’s October, 27, 2023, objection to the admissibility of McCloskey. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) (“The party relying on evidence to which an objection is timely served may respond to the objection by serving supplemental evidence within ten business days of service of the objection.”). Because it was not filed until March 29, 2024, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is granted with respect to the second Hall-Ellis declaration. In its Opposition to the Motion to Exclude, Petitioner argues that, under Hulu LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, No. IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential), it was allowed to wait until its Reply to file the second Hall-Ellis declaration. Paper 37, 1–2. The Board in Hulu does state that, “if the patent owner challenges a reference’s status as a printed publication, a petitioner may submit a supporting declaration with its reply to further support its argument that a reference qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu, at 15 (37 C.F.R. § 42.23). However, the Board’s statement was referring to the scope of permissible reply arguments under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). See Hulu at 14 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)’s requirement that “[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, or patent owner response”). The Board in Hulu does not purport to interpret 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 or even discuss supplemental evidence. Petitioner clearly missed the deadline imposed by 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2), which was triggered by Patent Owner’s October 27, 2023, objection to McCloskey. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is granted with respect to the second Hall-Ellis declaration (i.e., Ex. 1065).” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “We find that both references are analogous art to the ’981 patent, as there is ample supporting evidence in the record, including that to which the Reply cites (citations identified in the immediately preceding paragraph). Indeed, Patent Owner does not dispute the merits of either argument. PO Sur-Reply 27–28. Rather, Patent Owner, argues that we “should not now permit Petitioner to rewrite its clearly-deficient Petition.” Id. at 28. Petitioner’s Reply does not re-write its Petition. What Petitioner’s Reply does, in response to Patent Owner’s arguments, is precisely what Sanofi-Aventis contemplates as being proper in a reply brief. Indeed, in ruling against the petitioner in Sanofi-Aventis, the Federal Circuit specifically noted that the petitioner could have used its reply brief “to explain how [the prior art reference] is analogous to the [challenged] patent” but did not do so. 66 F.4th at 1379–1380. Here, in contrast, Petitioner used its Reply brief to explain how Linnarsson and McCloskey are analogous to the ’981 patent. Petitioner’s explanation in its Reply brief was both proper and persuasive.” slip op. at 14

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedReference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “That McCloskey is what it purports to be (a journal article) and that it was published in 2007 are corroborated by multiple pieces of evidence. McCloskey names four authors, all four of whom are named inventors of US 2007/0020640 A1, published Jan. 25, 2007 (“McCloskey ’640”). Ex. 1004, 1, Ex. 2001, code (76). Patent Owner concedes that McCloskey and McCloskey ’640 involve the same subject matter, having argued that the consideration of McCloskey ’640 supported discretionary denial of the Petition based on McCloskey. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 22 (“Petitioner’s secondary reference, an article by McCloskey, is at best cumulative of the far more detailed McCloskey ’640, which was raised by the Office and substantively discussed as the basis for a potential rejection using its asserted disclosure of a polynucleotide-specific tag—the same purported teaching for which Petitioner relies on McCloskey here.”). Notably, McCloskey ’640 was published on January 25, 2007. Ex. 2001, code (43). That is just days before McCloskey was received by BIOCHEMICAL GENETICS on January 31, 2007. See EX. 1004, 1 (“Received: 31 January 2007 / Accepted: 29 May 2007 / Published online: 23 October 2007”). In other words, it appears that the authors sought to have their research published in a scientific journal promptly after the subject matter of their research had been published by the Office. Further, the existence of McCloskey and its publication year of 2007 is confirmed by other sources in the record. See Ex. 1029, code (56) (United States Patent identifying as a cited reference: “McCloskey, et al. Encoding Pcr products with batch-stamps and barcodes. Biochem Genet. Dec. 2007;45(11-12):761-7. Epub Oct. 23, 2007.”); Ex. 1053, code (56) (same); Ex. 1060 (article’s bibliography citing “McCloskey ML, Stöger R, Hansen RS, Laird CD. Encoding PCR products with batch-stamps and barcodes. Biochem. Genet 2007;45:761–767. [PubMed: 17955361]”). Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is denied with respect to” slip op. at 19

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

    “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 proposed constructions for “multiplex-identifier (MID)” and “providing a sample.” Id. Patent Owner, in its Preliminary Response, stated 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. In instituting the IPR, we found no need to provide an express construction of any claim term. Inst. Dec. 6. In the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner repeats that it “does not believe any term needs construction,” but nonetheless “applies the Petition’s definitions for ‘MID’ and ‘sample.’” PO Resp. 19. The Petition defines MID as “‘a tag or combination of tags associated with a polynucleotide whose identity (e.g., the tag DNA sequence) can be used to differentiate polynucleotides in a sample.’” Pet. 36 (quoting Ex. 1001, 6:33–38). The Petition defines sample as “‘a quantity of material from a biological, environmental medical, or patient source in which detection, measurement, or labeling of target nucleic acids is sought.’” Id. (quoting Ex. 1001, 12:7– 10). We apply these same definitions in our analysis.” slip op. at 6

  Patent outcomesUS 10,155,981 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,155,981
• Life Spine, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 13, 2024 · IPR2022-01600 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 1–7 and 9–20 over Olmos and Varela ’774, and claim 8 over Olmos, Varela ’774, and Oglaza.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (sometimes abbreviated herein as “POSITA”): would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or biomedical engineering and two or more years of experience in biomechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, and/or spinal implant devices. A person could also have qualified as a POSITA with some combination of more formal education (e.g., an M.D.) and less technical experience or less formal education and more technical or professional experience in the foregoing fields, and would have had further appreciation of various technical concepts in this field. Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 32–35). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. See Response 8. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (indicating that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level).” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed

    “We credit Mr. Drewry’s testimony that it would have been well within the ordinary skill of a POSITA to make the proposed modifications. See Ex. 1002 (Drewry Decl.) ¶¶ 34, 56–71 (discussing the qualifications of a POSITA and the types of engineering concepts the POSITA would have understood); Ex. 1030 (Drewry Reply Decl.) ¶¶ 37, 48–56, 59–66. To the extent Mr. Culbert testifies otherwise, we do not find such testimony persuasive. Indeed, Olmos itself further supports Mr. Drewry’s testimony that a POSITA would have known how to modify dimensions to fit specific needs and make changes necessary to adapt features from one embodiment to fit another. See Ex. 1006 (Olmos) ¶¶ 153, 188 (providing a range of implant sizes and noting that “specific dimensions” of any disclosed 9 Patent Owner’s citation to Mr. Drewry’s deposition transcript at 87:13– 88:9 appears to be incorrect. We understand that the intended citation is 69:34–70:7. embodiment can be varied as is apparent to a POSITA and “all features discussed in connection with any one embodiment herein can be readily adapted for use in other embodiments herein to form various combinations and sub-combinations”). Given the POSITA’s ability to make the proposed modifications, we do not find that Patent Owner’s evidence regarding the number of modifications required undermines Petitioner’s articulated reasoning for the combination.” slip op. at 35

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

    “Petitioner asserts that “no terms require constructions differing from their plain and ordinary meaning.” Pet. 19. Patent Owner states that it “takes no position on Petitioner’s assertion because the Board need not construe any claim term to find that the Challenged Claims are not unpatentable.” Response 8. We find that for purposes of this Decision, we need not construe any claim term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e 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 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

  Patent outcomesUS 10,973,649 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,973,649
• Life Spine, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 11, 2024 · IPR2022-01602 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14 are unpatentable: claims 1–3 and 8–10 are anticipated by Weiman, and claims 4–7 and 11–14 are obvious over Weiman and Mozeleski; the revised motion to amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 (Drewry Decl.) ¶¶ 76–79). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. See generally Response. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed on this record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (indicating that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level).” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We find persuasive, and credit, Mr. Drewry’s testimony that (1) a POSITA would have appreciated that the proposed modification to replace Weiman’s screw/socket with Waugh’s angled version provides benefits including “avoiding selected muscular and abdominal anatomical structures,” and (2) such “benefits would have been desirable for certain applications, such as those where the patient’s anatomy dictates that OLIF would provide the patient with the best medical outcome.” Ex. 1044 (Drewry Second Supp. Decl.) ¶¶ 23–26; see also Ex. 1043 (Waugh), ¶¶ 54, 87–90 (describing use of angled screw holes to, e.g., “receive a fastener via a surgical pathway” and configured “to penetrate endplate tissue of a vertebral body”). We find the weight of evidence supports Petitioner’s articulation of a POSITA’s understanding of how to use angles to avoid anatomical features” slip op. at 61

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

    “Petitioner asserts that no terms require construction “because they are shown to be anticipated and/or obvious regardless of construction.” Pet. 12. Patent Owner did not propose any terms for construction. See generally Response. We determine that no claim terms require express construction to render this Decision.” slip op. at 18

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “j. Conclusion on Claim 1 For the above reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Weiman discloses each and every limitation of claim 1, and therefore anticipates claim 1.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 9,956,087 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,956,087
• Intel Corporation / Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v. 3d Surfaces, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 16, 2024 · IPR2023-00004 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 9–11, 17, and 18 are unpatentable: claims 1–4, 9, 11, and 17 as obvious over Sfarti and Foley; claims 10 and 18 as obvious over Sfarti, Foley, and Möller.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “to the ’299 patent “would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related scientific field, and approximately two years of work experience in computer graphics or, alternatively, two years[’] work towards a masters or doctorate degree in these scientific fields.” Pet. 10; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 96–97. Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s formulation of ordinary skill in the Patent Owner Response. See PO Resp. 10–11; Ex. 2005 ¶ 31. Based on the record presented, we now find as we did in the Institution Decision that Petitioner’s formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’299 patent and the prior art of record, and is not disputed by Patent Owner. See Inst. Dec. 20–21. We, therefore, apply Petitioner’s formulation in this Decision.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “function limitations subject to § 112, ¶ 6, we conclude that they are. Because the Unit Terms do not use the word “means,” we apply a rebuttable presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 does not apply. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348–49 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in relevant part). Nonetheless, as Petitioner argues, the claim term “unit” does not connote any particular structure, and the terms “transform unit”, “lighting unit”, “renderer unit”, and “tessellate unit” recite function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function. The “unit” term at issue here is closely akin to the “module” term at issue in Williamson, and similarly generic terms such as “element” and “device,” and is, therefore, in the context of the ’299 patent claims and specification, a “nonce” word used “in a manner that is tantamount to using the word ‘means.’” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350–51; see also Diebold Nixdorf, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 899 F.3d 1291, 1298–1301 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding the claim term “cheque standby unit” was subject to § 112, ¶ 6, because it failed to “recite any structure, much less ‘sufficiently definite structure,’” and the claim recited a function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function, despite an expert witness’s contrary testimony); WSOU Invs. LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2022-1066, 2023 WL 6210607, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 25, 2023) (stating “the term ‘unit,’ in a vacuum, is defined only by the function it performs, much like terms such as ‘element’ or ‘means’” and “[a] ‘unit’ could be almost anything”).4 We therefore agree with Petitioner’s position that the rebuttable presumption against application of § 112, ¶ 6 is overcome in this case, because the Unit Terms are not understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure. See Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349 (“The standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.”).” slip op. at 15

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

    “transforming is performed by a GPU with computer graphics pipeline hardware including a processor programmed to execute the transforming step of the disclosed microcode. See Ex. 1001, 5:20–29, 5:51–67, 7:1–8, 7:12–13, 12:24–28; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 104–105. We construe “transform unit” as a means-plus-function limitation with the function of transforming graphic objects into transformed objects (claims 1 and 11) including control points (claims 2 and 11), and with the corresponding structure of a GPU with computer graphics pipeline hardware including a processor programmed to execute the transforming step of the microcode disclosed in the specification. The foregoing construction of “transform unit” is identical to the preliminary construction in the Institution Decision, with two exceptions. First, it adds that the corresponding structure is a GPU with computer graphics pipeline hardware including a processor. See Inst. Dec. 22–23. We agree with Patent Owner’s contention that the ’299 patent describes such pipeline hardware as being part of “[t]he present invention,” so we include it in our construction. Ex. 1001, 5:20–29. Second, our construction does not require a dedicated processor, which is part of Petitioner’s claim construction. See Inst. Dec. 22–23; Pet. 11–12. As Patent Owner points out, the ’299 patent specification does not include the term “dedicated.” To the extent Petitioner’s “dedicated” term is meant to require that the processor is programmed solely to perform the claimed transforming function, to the exclusion of any other processing, we conclude the claim is open to both a dedicated processor and a non-dedicated processor.” slip op. at 19

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

    “7. Remaining Claim Terms Upon review of the arguments and evidence, we determine no further construction of any claim term is needed. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (claim terms need to be construed “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 25

  Patent outcomesUS 7,245,299 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,245,299
• Intel Corporation / Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v. 3d Surfaces, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 16, 2024 · IPR2022-01589 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 9–11, 17, and 18 are unpatentable as obvious over Sfarti and Foley, with claims 10 and 18 also unpatentable over Sfarti, Foley, and Möller.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “to the ’299 patent “would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related scientific field, and approximately two years of work experience in computer graphics or, alternatively, two years[’] work towards a masters or doctorate degree in these scientific fields.” Pet. 10; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 96–97. Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s formulation of ordinary skill in the Patent Owner Response. See PO Resp. 10–11; Ex. 2005 ¶ 31. Based on the record presented, we now find as we did in the Institution Decision that Petitioner’s formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’299 patent and the prior art of record, and is not disputed by Patent Owner. See Inst. Dec. 20–21. We, therefore, apply Petitioner’s formulation in this Decision.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner

    “function limitations subject to § 112, ¶ 6, we conclude that they are. Because the Unit Terms do not use the word “means,” we apply a rebuttable presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 does not apply. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348–49 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in relevant part). Nonetheless, as Petitioner argues, the claim term “unit” does not connote any particular structure, and the terms “transform unit”, “lighting unit”, “renderer unit”, and “tessellate unit” recite function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function. The “unit” term at issue here is closely akin to the “module” term at issue in Williamson, and similarly generic terms such as “element” and “device,” and is, therefore, in the context of the ’299 patent claims and specification, a “nonce” word used “in a manner that is tantamount to using the word ‘means.’” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350–51; see also Diebold Nixdorf, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 899 F.3d 1291, 1298–1301 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding the claim term “cheque standby unit” was subject to § 112, ¶ 6, because it failed to “recite any structure, much less ‘sufficiently definite structure,’” and the claim recited a function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function, despite an expert witness’s contrary testimony); WSOU Invs. LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2022-1066, 2023 WL 6210607, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 25, 2023) (stating “the term ‘unit,’ in a vacuum, is defined only by the function it performs, much like terms such as ‘element’ or ‘means’” and “[a] ‘unit’ could be almost anything”).4 We therefore agree with Petitioner’s position that the rebuttable presumption against application of § 112, ¶ 6 is overcome in this case, because the Unit Terms are not understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure. See Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349 (“The standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.”).” slip op. at 15

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “transforming is performed by a GPU with computer graphics pipeline hardware including a processor programmed to execute the transforming step of the disclosed microcode. See Ex. 1001, 5:20–29, 5:51–67, 7:1–8, 7:12–13, 12:24–28; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 104–105. We construe “transform unit” as a means-plus-function limitation with the function of transforming graphic objects into transformed objects (claims 1 and 11) including control points (claims 2 and 11), and with the corresponding structure of a GPU with computer graphics pipeline hardware including a processor programmed to execute the transforming step of the microcode disclosed in the specification. The foregoing construction of “transform unit” is identical to the preliminary construction in the Institution Decision, with two exceptions. First, it adds that the corresponding structure is a GPU with computer graphics pipeline hardware including a processor. See Inst. Dec. 22–23. We agree with Patent Owner’s contention that the ’299 patent describes such pipeline hardware as being part of “[t]he present invention,” so we include it in our construction. Ex. 1001, 5:20–29. Second, our construction does not require a dedicated processor, which is part of Petitioner’s claim construction. See Inst. Dec. 22–23; Pet. 11–12. As Patent Owner points out, the ’299 patent specification does not include the term “dedicated.” To the extent Petitioner’s “dedicated” term is meant to require that the processor is programmed solely to perform the claimed transforming function, to the exclusion of any other processing, we conclude the claim is open to both a dedicated processor and a non-dedicated processor.” slip op. at 19

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

    “7. Remaining Claim Terms Upon review of the arguments and evidence, we determine no further construction of any claim term is needed. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (claim terms need to be construed “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 25

  Patent outcomesUS 7,245,299 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,245,299
• Intel Corporation / Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v. 3d Surfaces, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 16, 2024 · IPR2023-00006 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 10–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Sfarti and Foley because the combination teaches the claimed graphics pipeline, including a tessellation unit between transformation and lighting.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “to the ’534 patent “would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related scientific field, and approximately two years of work experience in computer graphics or, alternatively, two years[’] work towards a masters or doctorate degree in these scientific fields.” Pet. 10; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 96–97. Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s formulation of ordinary skill in the Patent Owner Response. See PO Resp. 11; Ex. 2005 ¶ 31. Based on the record presented, we now find as we did in the Institution Decision that Petitioner’s formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’534 patent and the prior art of record, and is not disputed by Patent Owner. See Inst. Dec. 7–8. We, therefore, apply Petitioner’s formulation in this Decision.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner

    “function limitations subject to § 112, ¶ 6, we conclude that they are. Because the Unit Terms do not use the word “means,” we apply a rebuttable presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 does not apply. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348–49 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in relevant part). Nonetheless, as Petitioner argues, the claim term “unit” does not connote any particular structure, and the terms “transform unit”, “lighting unit”, “rendering unit”, and “tessellating unit” recite function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function. The “unit” term at issue here is closely akin to the “module” term at issue in Williamson, and similarly generic terms such as “element” and “device,” and is, therefore, in the context of the ’534 patent claims and specification, a “nonce” word used “in a manner that is tantamount to using the word ‘means.’” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350–51; see also Diebold Nixdorf, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 899 F.3d 1291, 1298–1301 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding the claim term “cheque standby unit” was subject to § 112, ¶ 6, because it failed to “recite any structure, much less ‘sufficiently definite structure,’” and the claim recited a function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function, despite an expert witness’s contrary testimony); WSOU Invs. LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2022-1066, 2023 WL 6210607, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 25, 2023) (stating “the term ‘unit,’ in a vacuum, is defined only by the function it performs, much like terms such as ‘element’ or ‘means’” and “[a] ‘unit’ could be almost anything”).4 We therefore agree with Petitioner’s position that the rebuttable presumption against application of § 112, ¶ 6 is overcome in this case, because the Unit Terms are not understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure. See Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349 (“The standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.”). Patent Owner’s and Mr. Van Dyke’s apparent disagreement with this” slip op. at 14

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

    “Second, our construction does not require a dedicated processor, which is part of Petitioner’s claim construction. See Inst. Dec. 10; Pet. 14– 15. As Patent Owner points out, the ’534 patent specification does not include the term “dedicated.” To the extent Petitioner’s “dedicated” term is meant to require that the processor is programmed solely to perform the claimed transforming function, to the exclusion of any other processing, we conclude that the claim is open to both a dedicated processor and a non-dedicated processor. Nonetheless, we agree with Petitioner’s position that the transform unit encompasses, at least in some embodiments, a different unit from the other three claimed units. This is suggested by the language of claim 10, which refers to each of the units separately. Claim 10 additionally refers to the tessellation unit being “coupled between the transform unit and the lighting unit,” demonstrating that at least those three units can be different units. Further, Figure 3 of the ’534 patent correspondingly illustrates four separate units 2, 9, 3, and 4 within GPU 7. See Ex. 1001, Fig. 3, 7:4–15. Thus, although the transform unit may perform functions other than the transforming function, the transform unit in at least some embodiments does not perform the lighting, rendering, or tessellating functions of the other claimed units. In summary, we construe “transform unit” as a means plus function limitation with the function of transforming graphic objects into transformed objects (claims 10 and 15), or the function of transforming the spatial coordinates of said graphic objects (claim 12), and with the corresponding structure of a GPU with computer graphics pipeline hardware including a processor programmed to execute the transforming step of the microcode disclosed in the ’534 patent specification. Further, the transform unit does not perform the lighting, rendering, or tessellating functions of the other claimed units.” slip op. at 18

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

    “7. Remaining Claim Terms Upon review of the arguments and evidence, we determine no further construction of any claim term is needed. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (claim terms need to be construed “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 23

  Patent outcomesUS RE42,534 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
• Life Spine, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 15, 2024 · IPR2022-01599 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 7–13, and 16 are unpatentable as obvious over the cited prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Petitioner that Patent Owner’s proposed construction improperly reads in limitations from example embodiments in the Specification. See Inst. Dec. 20. We noted that the Specification uses the term “extension” to refer to a variety of additions to a main structure having a variety of shapes, not all of which “increase the length” of the main structure. Id. at 21. Accordingly, we construed the term “central ramp extension” in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning, i.e., “an addition to the central ramp.” Id.” slip op. at 25

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

    “5. Conclusion—Obviousness Based on Chung with Boehm and/or Song On this record, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a” slip op. at 64

  Patent outcomesUS 8,845,732 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,845,732

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.