• Fujifilm Corporation v. Sony CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 3, 2018 · IPR2017-01390 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held that claims 1–18 were not shown unpatentable because the prior art did not establish the claimed volume concentration in the formed magnetic layer.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “define the term “volume concentration.” In the context of the ’331 patent, “volume concentration” refers to the volume concentration of the magnetic particles in the formed magnetic layer.” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “(1) a bachelor’s degree in materials science, physics, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, chemistry, or a closely related field, and at least five years of experience in the field of magnetic recording, or (2) a Master’s degree or higher in materials science, physics, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, chemistry, or a closely related field, with an emphasis in magnetic recording, and at least three years of experience in the field of magnetic recording. Pet. 12; Ex. 1017 ¶ 60. Although Patent Owner does not expressly define the appropriate level of skill in the art in the Patent Owner Response or its Supplemental Response, Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Bain, presents a definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art in his declaration that is nearly identical to Petitioner’s definition. Ex. 2001 ¶ 44. In view of this, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 16

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

    “information, is not sufficient evidence to establish that Mori discloses the “volume concentration” recited in claim 1. Patent Owner does not dispute that there is some magnetic alloy present “in the magnetic layer” of Mori. The relevant question, however, is how much and how Mori’s disclosed values were determined. Unlike the term “volume concentration,” for which the parties offered undisputed evidence regarding accepted meanings of the term in the art (i.e., packing fraction and pigment volume concentration), we have not been directed to similar evidence regarding the phrase “fill rate”/“filling rate” in Mori. Thus, although Mori states “[t]he filling rate by volume of the strongly magnetic alloy powder in the magnetic layer can be equal to or higher than 30%” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 11 (emphasis added)), Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence demonstrating that the term “filling rate” in Mori refers to a final product-based value. As a result, we find that this language in Mori does not establish, by a preponderance of evidence, that Mori discloses the “volume concentration” recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “For all of the foregoing reasons, we find that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of evidence, that the combined teachings of Aonuma and Mori disclose or suggest “[a] dual layer magnetic recording medium comprising . . . a magnetic upper recording layer formed over [a] lower support layer, the magnetic upper recording layer comprising a volume concentration of at least about 35% of a primary magnetic particulate pigment,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 16. Ex. 1001, 11:14–20, 12:25–31. Claims 2–15, 17, and 18 depend from claim 1 or claim 16, and, therefore, include the “volume concentration” limitation of claims 1 and 16. As a result, we find that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that Aonuma and Mori disclose or suggest each limitation of claims 1–18, and, therefore, has not demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that claims 1–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Aonuma and Mori.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 7,115,331 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,115,331
• Fujifilm Corporation v. Sony CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 22, 2018 · IPR2017-01267 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–13 and 15–20 not shown unpatentable over Law and Sasaki because the evidence did not establish the claimed surface properties.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “degree in materials science, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, chemistry, or a closely related field, and at least five years of experience” in industry or academic research relating to magnetic tape, or “a master’s degree or higher” in the same fields and at least three years of experience relating to magnetic tape. Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 65). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assessment in its Response, and Dr. Talke agrees that it “is reasonable.” Ex. 2026 ¶¶ 25–26. Petitioner’s assessment appears consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art in this proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art. B.” slip op. at 8

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

    “reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which [the claims] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (May 2, 2016); see Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“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)). For the purposes of the Institution Decision, we determined that, based on the record at that time, no claim term required express construction (Dec. on Inst. 7), and we see no reason to modify that determination in light of the record developed during trial. C.” slip op. at 8

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

    “The evidence, however, does not establish that a backside surface having a skew less than about 0.5 and a kurtosis less than about 4.0 necessarily results from reducing the size and prevalence of the protrusions on the backside surface of Law’s magnetic tape. As Petitioner agrees, Law and Sasaki do not discuss skew and kurtosis values. See Pet. 29 (stating that Law does not expressly disclose skew or kurtosis values); Reply 23 (recognizing that neither Law nor Sasaki contain express disclosures of skew and kurtosis); Tr. 18:22–23 (Petitioner’s counsel noting that there are no reported skew and kurtosis values in Law or Sasaki). Thus, Petitioner relies on Mr. Isobe’s testimony to establish that reducing the protrusions on Law’s backside surface would result in a skew less than about 0.5 and a kurtosis less than about 4.0. See Pet. 45–49; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 79–81, 170–174. In that regard, Mr. Isobe testified as follows:” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “At best, the evidence establishes that reducing protrusions in Law’s backside coating may result in the surface approaching a Gaussian distribution (namely, a skew of 0 and a kurtosis of 3). See Ex. 1003 ¶ 171 (“By reducing the number of peaks the overall surface may become closer to a Gaussian distribution, which by definition has a skew of zero.” (emphasis added)), ¶ 174 (“As the frequency of large protrusions is reduced, the skew of the backcoat surface approaches 0 and the kurtosis becomes closer to 3.” (emphases added)). There is no evidence of record, however, that establishes the skew and kurtosis values of Law’s backside coating before reducing the protrusions as Petitioner proposes. While it is possible that reducing Law’s protrusions could result in skew and kurtosis values within the claimed range, it is also possible that reducing the protrusions could result in a surface that approaches a Gaussian distribution but still has a skew above 0.5 and a kurtosis above 4.0. See Ex. 2026 ¶¶ 36–60, 77–83, 90; see also PAR Pharm., 773 F.3d at 1195 (Inherency “may not be established by probabilities or possibilities.”). Thus, even if reducing the protrusions on Law’s backside coating caused the surface to approach a Gaussian distribution, that is not sufficient to establish that it necessarily results in a skew less than about 0.5 and a kurtosis less than about 4.0 as claimed. The skew and kurtosis values recited in claims 1 and 20 are not simply properties possessed by any backside coating that otherwise satisfies the structural limitations. Instead, they are recited as limitations on which magnetic recording media fall within the scope of the claims. The evidence of record does not establish that reducing the protrusions in Law’s backside coating, as taught by Sasaki, “would have naturally led to a backside surface having a skew less than about 0.5 and a kurtosis less than about 4.0” as Petitioner contends. Pet. 45. Accordingly, on the record before us, we find that Petitioner has not established that claims 1 and 20 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Law and Sasaki.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,029,774 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,029,774
• Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd. v. United Technologies CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 12, 2018 · IPR2017-00966 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 8–13, 16, and 17 were not shown unpatentable under either § 103 ground because SEI did not establish a sufficient reason to combine the references.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingNo construction neededDecided for petitioner

    “We disagree. As the Federal Circuit has observed, “[a] preamble is not a claim limitation if the claim body ‘defines a structurally complete invention . . . and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention.’” Georgetown Rail, 867 F.3d at 1236 (citing Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). The fact that the claims were amended to include storage tanks and recirculation loops actually cuts against UTC’s position, as the claim as amended describes a structurally complete invention and reliance on the preamble for this structure is unnecessary. UTC also points to the fact that the Examiner amended the preamble during prosecution, from merely reciting a “flow battery” to a “redox flow battery.” PO Resp. 15. While “clear reliance on the preamble during prosecution to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art” (Catalina Mktg., 289 F.3d at 809) may be a reason to view the preamble as limiting, UTC directs us to no evidence here that the Examiner intended the amendment to distinguish the claims from the prior art. Indeed, as UTC acknowledges in its Response, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the ’243 patent to use “‘redox flow battery’ and ‘flow battery’ to mean the same thing.” PO Resp. 13 (emphasis added). If, as UTC concedes, the Examiner’s amendment merely substituted one synonym for another, the amendment could not have changed the scope of the claim or distinguished over the prior art. For these reasons, we conclude that the preamble of the claims is not limiting, and, therefore, we need not construe the term redox flow battery.” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “SEI contends that the person of ordinary skill should not be limited to only a degree in chemistry or chemical engineering, because the claimed features of the flow batteries are not directed to chemistry. Pet. Reply 7. We agree, and adopt SEI’s definition of the relevant educational background. While the parties differ as to the number of years of experience in working with flow batteries, we do not consider the difference (one versus two years) to be significant. We find that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would be a person with a degree in chemistry, physics, chemical engineering, electrical engineering, or mechanical engineering, who has at least one year of experience designing or testing flow batteries so as to obtain functional knowledge of their structure and operation. We have reviewed the level of skill reflected in the prior art and consider it consistent with this definition. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 15

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “evidence. Our Rule 42.64 provides that a motion to exclude is necessary to preserve any objection, and refers to those objections as “objections to the admissibility” of evidence. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(a), (c). The Board’s Trial Practice Guide further explains that a motion to exclude “must explain why the evidence is not admissible.” See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767. In other words, objections to the timing of late-arising evidence or procedural infirmities are not proper for a motion to exclude. For this reason, the objections raised in UTC’s motion to exclude are improper. First, UTC argues that Exhibit 1066 is untimely under 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b), which requires a translation of a foreign-language document to be filed with the document. Mot. 5. By UTC’s reasoning, because the Supplemental Declaration revisits Mr. Yagaeshi’s prior translation, but was not submitted with the foreign-language document, it violates the Board’s rules. Id. As this is clearly a procedural objection to the timing of the evidence, as opposed to its admissibility, we deny the motion to exclude on this basis. In any event, even if it were procedurally proper, we would not exclude the Supplemental Declaration on this basis. The Board’s Rule requires only that the original foreign-language document be accompanied by a translation, and there is no dispute that is what happened here. We see nothing in Rule 42.63(b) that prohibits a party to revisit, or even modify, its translation at a later date, given sufficient notice and opportunity to respond by the opposing party. Here, we granted UTC the opportunity to submit its own responsive declaration and address the translation issue at the oral hearing, and UTC did so.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “character as a minus sign, which is consistent with Mr. Yagaeshi’s original translation, makes more grammatical sense in the context of the sentence. We take note of the fact that SEI only changed its position on the translation—and asked Mr. Yagaeshi to correct his prior translation—once UTC made arguments based on the original translation that might be detrimental to SEI’s case. While it is conceivable that SEI only became aware of the alleged error once UTC called attention to it in the Response, we consider it fair to hold SEI to its original interpretation, especially given that that original interpretation is in agreement with Mr. Baldwin’s translation, which has remained consistent since at least 2016. For these reasons, we will interpret the disputed passage of JP228 to read “the potential was negative 0.4V.”” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 9,166,243 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,166,243
• World Bottling Cap, LLC v. Crown Packaging Technology, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 19, 2017 · IPR2015-01651 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioner did not prove claims 1–20 unpatentable: secondary considerations outweighed the obviousness evidence, and the Frishman ground also failed to show the claimed liner beads in claims 11 and 16.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “requires the stretching of one of its grooves, and asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art would avoid using Wagner’s cap with a harder steel because it would be more difficult to stretch the grooves because of the harder steel. PO Resp. 49 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 41). We credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Kontsos, on this point, as evidence tending to suggest that a person of ordinary skill in the art, who is familiar with materials science and metal packaging (Pet. 17; PO Resp. 56), would understand that using “harder steel would interfere with the flattening operation” of Wagner. Petitioner argues that we should not credit Dr. Kontsos’s testimony (Pet. Reply 9–11), but we find he is sufficiently “qualified in the pertinent art” to testify as to this point because he has an education in materials science and experience in understanding the yielding and plastic deformation of materials. Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 3–5; Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1363–64 (Fed. Cir. 2008); SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 594 F.3d 1360, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (upholding admission of the testimony of an expert who admittedly lacked expertise in the design of the patented invention, but had experience with materials selected for use in the invention); Mytee Prods., Inc. v. Harris Research, Inc., 439 Fed. App’x. 882, 886–87 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (non-precedential) (upholding admission of the testimony of an expert who “had experience relevant to the field of the invention,” despite admission that he was not a person of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 15

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

    “We do not consider the evidence to teach away or render the proposed combination inoperable, however, because we do not have sufficient evidence that the effect would be so great as to preclude a person of ordinary skill in the art from considering or making the combination. In other words, we have evidence of a deleterious effect, but Patent Owner has not provided evidence as to the magnitude of that deleterious effect. The mere presence of a contraindicating factor does not preclude a combination. See 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.”); Winner Intern. Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.”). Given the particular facts at hand, without further evidence as to the magnitude of the effect, or evidence explaining how the level of ordinary skill in the art is not high enough to overcome it, we do not consider the proposed combination to be taught away from or inoperable. Accordingly, we more simply consider this evidence as suggesting that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the use of harder steel for crown caps would come with certain disadvantages. This is not dispositive of the obviousness inquiry, because notwithstanding the evidence tending to suggest that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that tinplate steel harder than 62 might interfere with the flattening of Wagner’s cap, Petitioner has provided roughly equal or better evidence tending to suggest that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have selected steel having an average hardness of at least 62.5, because Industrial Heating directly suggests doing so, and several other references suggest similarly. We now turn to the evidence of secondary considerations to determine if or how they contribute to the balancing of evidence.” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia with nexusDecided for patent owner

    “(1) Nexus Patent Owner’s evidence of nexus shows that the claimed invention reads on the product sold, and that the claimed invention is not a subcomponent of, but rather the entirety of, the product sold. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 39–41; see also Exs. 2010–2015 (describing the PPP cap as having the claimed features of a groove and/or harder steel); WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]here is a presumption of nexus . . . when the patentee shows that the asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product and that product ‘is the invention disclosed and claimed.’”); Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (presumption does not apply if the claimed invention is merely a subcomponent of the product). Although the hardness of the steel in the product sold is much higher than the lower end of the claimed range,15 based on the evidence before us we consider this a maximization of the benefits of PPP’s innovation in its commercial embodiment (i.e., using the thinnest, hardest steel for the most cost savings), rather than evidence that the secondary considerations only apply to a small portion of the claims. Further, although some of the evidence of secondary considerations is drawn to the thinness of the steel rather than its hardness (e.g., Exs. 2013, 2014), based on the record before us, the thinness of the steel is only allowed because it is harder. See, e.g., Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 15–16 (Mr. Merino testifying that “the crown-cap industry has focused on light-weighting – that is, reducing the thickness of the steel used . . . and offsetting for the reduced thickness by using harder steel”). That is, the purpose of using harder steel is so that a manufacturer can use less of it per cap, to reap the benefits of using less raw material. In conclusion, Patent Owner’s evidence regarding nexus indicates that there will be a strong correlation between any evidence in this case highlighting the merits of the commercial PPP crown cap and the merits of the claimed invention. In other words, we will consider evidence of the success and praise of the new PPP crown cap as direct evidence of the 15 The evidence before us indicates that PPP used caps having an average hardness of about 76. Ex. 2005 ¶ 40; Ex. 2011 (specifying DR9CA steel); Ex. 2012 (same). Claim 1 requires a minimum average hardness of greater than 62; claims 5–8 walk that minimum up to 65, 68, 71, and 73, respectively.” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Commercial successObjective indicia with nexusDecided for patent owner

    “claimed invention, was introduced in 2009. Id. ¶ 45. The table shows how sales of the new low-gauge (“LG”) cap displaced sales of the standard (“STD”) cap from 2010–2015. In and of itself, this displacement pattern does not show success—it shows a typical obsolescence curve as one version of a product replaces another. If this were enough to show success, then virtually every product generation would instantly be successful, even if sales or market share remained flat overall.16 What is persuasive here is that PPP’s market share grew during this replacement period, by about 7%— from 88.7% of the market to 95.5% of the market. This allows us to infer that the increase in market share is because of the merits of the new product, even if we cannot infer that the displacement was because of the merits of the new product.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 8,550,271 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,550,271
• Daicel Corporation v. Celanese International CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 23, 2016 · IPR2015-00171 · APJ Linda M Gaudette · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 42–44, 47–51, 53, and 55–57 were not shown unpatentable: the ’095 patent did not establish the required amount of DME, and JP ’712 did not cure that deficiency.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “Based on our analysis of the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, we agree with Patent Owner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the ’507 patent to speak in terms of effects, not molecules. See PO Resp. 4– 5; Tr. 41:8–16. We, therefore, construe the recitation “distilling [a mixture comprising water, acetic acid, methyl iodide, methyl acetate, methanol, and at least one PRC] to separate the mixture into a plurality of streams, at least one of said streams being a PRC enriched overhead stream comprising dimethyl ether” in step (a) of claim 42 as requiring the presence of dimethyl ether in the PRC enriched overhead stream in an amount that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as being more than trace or insubstantial. Such amount would be, for example, more than the amount produced in a conventional, prior art, low water carbonylation process that used the same initial reactor contents and conditions, and the same processing equipment. We further interpret this language as requiring the presence of DME in the PRC enriched overhead stream in an amount sufficient to cause (1) a reduction in the solubility of methyl iodide in water during the extraction of the PRC enriched overhead stream (claim 42, step (b)) and (2) an increase in the amount of methyl iodide recoverable during a subsequent extraction of the raffinate stream, which increase in recoverable methyl iodide would be recognized as more than insubstantial by the ordinary artisan.” slip op. at 42

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Mr. Jones and Dr. Porcelli agree the description in the ’507 patent implies that the inventive process is a low water process. Ex. 1039 ¶ 52; Ex. 2029 ¶ 26. As discussed in Section VI. B., below, these experts further agree that there are differences in the reactants and reaction products produced in high and low water processes. We find both Mr. Jones and Dr. Porcelli are qualified to give an opinion as to the level of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, for purposes of this proceeding we adopt Mr. Jones’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, and add that the ordinary artisan also would have had a specific understanding of the low water carbonylation process for production of acetic acid and its implementation on an industrial scale.” slip op. at 27

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “We are not persuaded that Mr. Jones’s calculations provide a reliable method of determining the amount of DME present in a methanol carbonylation process. Mr. Miura and Dr. Porcelli agreed that it is extremely difficult to anticipate the presence or amount of a component such as DME in a methanol carbonylation system such as the one described in the ’095 patent. See Ex. 1046, 281:14–22; Ex. 2029 ¶ 112. Dr. Porcelli testified that Mr. Jones’s estimates of DME content in the ’095 patent Example were based on numerous assumptions that rendered his estimations of reactor and distillation overhead DME concentrations meaningless. See Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 137, 140, 151. Dr. Porcelli testified, for example, that it was “improper and incorrect” for Mr. Jones “to fail to account for DME lost with the vent stream in the reactor, especially because of the high volatility of DME.” Id. ¶ 148. Mr. Miura’s measured amount of DME present in the first overhead in Experiment 1 was less than half the amount Mr. Jones calculated would be present, supporting Dr. Porcelli’s testimony that the loss of DME via the vents would have had a marked impact on the actual amount of DME sent to distillation column 40 (from which the second overhead stream is produced) in the ’095 patent Example. See Ex. 1060 ¶ 153 (“(103 ppm (calc.) vs. 48 ppm (actual)) is likely to due to loss of DME with the vent gas from the splitter condenser, due to the very low boiling point of DME”); see also Ex. 1039 ¶ 99; Ex. 1060 ¶ 121 (wherein Mr. Jones agreed that the loss of DME from the vent stream in the separator (or decanter) after splitter column 14 in the ’095 patent process would be substantial).” slip op. at 56

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “In sum, we determine Petitioner has failed to meet its burden to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the ’095 patent describes a process that inherently results in dimethyl ether in a PRC enriched overhead stream (produced by distilling a mixture comprising water, acetic acid, methyl iodide, methyl acetate, methanol, and at least one PRC) in an amount that is (1) more than trace or insubstantial, and (2) sufficient to cause (a) a reduction in the solubility of methyl iodide in water during extraction of the PRC enriched overhead stream and (b) an increase in the amount of methyl iodide recoverable during a subsequent extraction of the raffinate stream, as required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 42. Absent from the record is any evidence that DME is present in the second overhead in the ’095 patent Example in the amount required by independent claim 42 and its dependent claims 43, 44, 47–51, 53, and 55–57. Petitioner’s challenge with respect to claim 57 is based on obviousness over the combination of the ’095 patent and JP ’712. Petitioner relies on JP ’712 for a teaching that “methyl iodide concentration can be controlled by extraction temperature, . . . and that the concentration[] recited in [claim 57 is] well known in the art.” Pet. 55. Petitioner has not explained how JP ’712 cures the deficiency in the ’095 patent’s failure to describe step (a) of claim 42. Accordingly, we likewise determine Petitioner has failed to meet its burden to show unpatentability of claim 57 by a preponderance of the evidence. We conclude Petitioner has failed to meet its burden to show unpatentability of claims 42–44, 47–51, 53, and 55–57 of the ’507 patent.” slip op. at 59

  Patent outcomesUS 8,076,507 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,076,507
• Daicel Corporation v. Celanese International CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 23, 2016 · IPR2015-00173 · APJ Linda M Gaudette · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 58–60, 67, 69, and 71–72 were not shown unpatentable over the ’095 patent; claim 73 was not shown unpatentable over the ’095 patent and JP ’712 because the required amount of DME was not …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner relies on Mr. Jones’s testimony to establish the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Pet. 17. Mr. Jones testified that the person of ordinary skill in the art “as of March 2, 2004, the effective filing date of the ’507 Patent” (Ex. 1039 ¶ 15) would have been a chemist or chemical engineer with an advanced degree, or a Bachelor of Science degree and equivalent work experience (e.g., five years in an industrial setting producing acetic acid, acetic anhydride, or related chemicals), and would have generally understood acetic acid production on an industrial scale including the distillation processes and extraction processes that are used in acetic acid or acetic anhydride production. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood chemical reactions in general, and, particularly, the primary reactions and the side-reactions associated with acetic acid production (id. ¶ 16). Mr. Jones further testified that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had separations experience, an understanding of industrial-scale processes, and experience in the production of acetic acid, acetic anhydride, or related chemicals. Id. ¶ 17. Dr. Porcelli, testified that he “generally agree[s]” with Mr. Jones’s opinion as to the level of ordinary skill in the art” (Ex. 2029 ¶ 15; see also Ex. 1065, 65:9–66:5). During cross-examination, however, Dr. Porcelli testified that one of ordinary skill in the art would require, more specifically, an understanding of the low water acetic process and its implementation on an industrial scale. See, e.g., Ex. 1065, 126:18–127:1.” slip op. at 26

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionOther

    “Based on our analysis of the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, we agree with Patent Owner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the ’507 patent to speak in terms of effects, not molecules. See PO Resp. 4– 5; Tr. 41:8–16. We, therefore, construe the recitation “distilling [a mixture comprising water, acetic acid, methyl iodide, methyl acetate, methanol, and at least one PRC] to separate the mixture into a plurality of streams, at least one of said streams being a PRC enriched overhead stream comprising dimethyl ether” in step (a) of claim 58 as requiring the presence of dimethyl ether in the PRC enriched overhead stream in an amount that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as being more than trace or insubstantial. Such amount would be, for example, more than the amount produced in a conventional, prior art, low water carbonylation process that used the same initial reactor contents and conditions, and the same processing equipment. We further interpret this language as requiring the presence of DME in the PRC enriched overhead stream in an amount sufficient to cause (1) a reduction in the solubility of methyl iodide in water during the extraction of the PRC enriched overhead stream and (2) an increase in the amount of methyl iodide recoverable during the subsequent extraction of the first raffinate stream (claim 58, step (b)), which increase in recoverable methyl iodide would be recognized as more than insubstantial by the ordinary artisan.” slip op. at 42

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We are not persuaded that Mr. Jones’s calculations provide a reliable method of determining the amount of DME present in a methanol carbonylation process. Mr. Miura and Dr. Porcelli agreed that it is extremely difficult to anticipate the presence or amount of a component such as DME in a methanol carbonylation system such as the one described in the ’095 patent. See Ex. 1046, 281:14–22; Ex. 2029 ¶ 112. Dr. Porcelli testified that Mr. Jones’s estimates of DME content in the ’095 patent Example were based on numerous assumptions that rendered his estimations of reactor and distillation overhead DME concentrations meaningless. See Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 137, 140, 151. Dr. Porcelli testified, for example, that it was “improper and incorrect” for Mr. Jones “to fail to account for DME lost with the vent stream in the reactor, especially because of the high volatility of DME.” Id. ¶ 148. Mr. Miura’s measured amount of DME present in the first overhead in Experiment 1 was less than half the amount Mr. Jones calculated would be present, supporting Dr. Porcelli’s testimony that the loss of DME via the vents would have had a marked impact on the actual amount of DME sent to distillation column 40 (from which the second overhead stream is produced) in the ’095 patent Example. See Ex. 1060 ¶ 153 (“(103 ppm (calc.) vs. 48 ppm (actual)) is likely to due to loss of DME with the vent gas from the splitter condenser, due to the very low boiling point of DME”); see also Ex. 1039 ¶ 97; Ex. 1060 ¶ 121 (wherein Mr. Jones agreed that the loss of DME from the vent stream in the separator (or decanter) after splitter column 14 in the ’095 patent process would be substantial). Dr. Porcelli testified that he believed removal of DME by rapid carbonylation would have had a significant effect on the presence of DME in the ’095 patent Example and that this irreversible reaction should have been considered by Mr. Jones in his calculations. Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 130–131. Mr. Jones conceded “some DME will be carbonylated in the reactor” (Ex. 1060 ¶ 45), and that the carbonylation of DME to make acetic acid under low water conditions is an irreversible reaction (Ex. 2026, 227:19–228:1). See also Ex. 1060 ¶ 27 (arguing Exhibits 2032, 2034 evidence DME formation in a batch reactor during methanol carbonylation, but admitting that as the water and methyl acetate start to diminish, DME concentration begins to drop and DME is eventually carbonylated into either acetic acid or acetic anhydride). Mr. Jones disagreed with Dr. Porcelli’s testimony that “carbonylation of DME is . . . known to have a fast reaction rate” and “would be consumed by carbonylation faster than it would be formed by methanol dehydration, especially under low water conditions” (Ex. 2029 ¶ 130). Ex. 1060 ¶ 44. Mr. Jones provided testimony explaining why he believes “the carbonylation of DME is not particularly fast.” Id.; see id. ¶¶ 45–48. Mr. Jones relied on a textbook by Gauthier-Lafaye (Ex. 1062), published in 1987, as evidence that the carbonylation of DME proceeds more slowly than the carbonylation of methyl acetate. Ex. 1060 ¶ 47. Mr. Jones testified that because the reaction liquid in the ’095 patent Example is reported to contain 1.6 wt% methyl acetate, and the carbonylation rate of DME is even slower than that of methyl acetate, then “it stands to reason that the carbonylation rate of DME is not going to be so fast as to ‘immediately’ react away any DME that is formed via the methanol dehydration equilibrium reaction.” Id. ¶ 48. Mr. Jones further testified that consideration of this competing side reaction was “irrelevant to calculating equilibrium concentration” of DME in the reactor in the ’095 patent Example. Id. ¶ 51. The disclosure in Gauthier-Lafaye relied upon by Mr. Jones relates to the carbonylation of methyl acetate into acetic anhydride (Ex. 1062, 9), i.e., a different reaction system than the ’095 and ’507 patents (see Paper 73, 8 (Observation #F.1)). This evidence, therefore, does not support Mr. Jones’s testimony that the carbonylation of DME in the ’095 patent reaction system was irrelevant to his calculation of equilibrium DME concentration. Rather we credit Dr. Porcelli’s testimony that removal of DME by rapid carbonylation would have had an effect on the presence, or at least the quantity, of DME in the ’095 patent Example, and that this factor should have been taken into consideration by Mr. Jones in his calculations. See Ex. 2029 ¶ 130. Mr. Jones testified that in view of the low boiling point of DME (-23.7 ºC), most of the DME will immediately flash from the reactor product . . . and be concentrated in the overhead streams. In view of the relatively low amount of DME in the reactor and overhead, DME’s very low boiling point, and the elevated temperatures in the reactor, special handling techniques would be needed to sample for such a compound in the reaction mixture. It is therefore not surprising that the presence of DME was not measured in the ’095 patent, despite the fact that it was undoubtedly present. Ex. 1060 ¶ 118. Given Mr. Miura’s testimony that he believed DME, if present, would have been detectable (Ex. 1046, 280:9–281:1), and Paulik’s disclosure that insubstantial amounts of DME were measurable as early as 1970 (see, e.g., Ex. 2037, 13:47–49, 15:32–34), Mr. Jones’s testimony (see, e.g., Ex. 1060 ¶ 101 (“It should be clear to someone skilled in the art that very dilute and trace components are frequently not reported in chemical analytical results or in listed process stream compositions.”)) does not show convincingly that DME was present in the second overhead in more than a trace quantity, if at all. See id. ¶ 90 (“[T]he only issue is whether some amount of DME exists (which clearly it does).”).” slip op. at 56

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “have been present in the distillation overhead in the ’095 patent Example in an amount sufficient to reduce solubility of methyl iodide in water during subsequent water extraction steps. Mr. Miura testified that 1.2 wt% DME was present in the second overhead in Experiment 1. Ex. 1005 ¶ 13, Table 1. Mr. Jones testified that he would expect the amount of DME in the second overhead in the ’095 patent process to be about three times the amount of DME in the overhead in Miura Experiment 1 (Ex. 2040, 289:10–– 298:7), because Mr. Miura’s experiment was carried out under conditions less favorable to DME formation as compared to the conditions in the ’095 patent Example (see Ex. 1060 ¶¶ 130, 139). A preponderance of the evidence, however, does not support a finding that DME was present, if at all, in more than a trace quantity/insubstantial amount in the second overhead of the ’095 patent Example, for the following reasons: Although Mr. Miura reported that the second overhead in his Experiment 1 contained 1.2% DME (Ex. 1005 ¶ 13, Table 1), he did not testify that this quantity would be present in the ’095 patent Example despite acknowledged differences in quantities of reaction components and operating conditions (see id. ¶ 21). Rather, Mr. Miura testified that Experiment 1 provided evidence that DME simply was present in some amount in the second overhead in the ’095 patent Example. Id. (“[T]he deviations would not affect the outcome with respect to the presence of DME in the first and second overheads.”). Mr. Miura testified that he supervised the ’095 patent Example and believed DME was present and accounted for in the 0.9 wt% reported as “others.” Ex. 1046, 241:17–242:9. Therefore, we are not persuaded by Mr. Jones’s testimony that the amount of DME in the second overhead in the ’095 patent process would be about three times the amount of DME in the overhead in Miura Experiment 1, i.e. 3.6 wt% (Ex. 2040, 289:10––298:7). See Tr. 70:3–8 (wherein Patent Owner’s counsel raises this inconsistency). We are not persuaded by Mr. Jones’s testimony that an amount as high as 3.6 wt% DME could have been present in the ’095 patent Example, but not reported (see Ex. 2040, 301:18–303:2; Paper 73, 5–6 (Observation #C.4)), since the prior art, e.g., Paulik, clearly indicates DME was considered an undesirable reaction byproduct in a carbonylation process. Mr. Miura did not testify as to what portion of the 0.9 wt% reported as “others” in the ’095 patent Example constituted DME, or whether the amount of DME would be considered more than a trace quantity/insubstantial amount. Nor is there any testimony or evidence that 0.9 wt% or less DME in the overhead/feed to the extractor would have been an amount sufficient to cause a reduction in the solubility of methyl iodide in water during extraction of the PRC enriched overhead stream and an increase in the amount of methyl iodide recoverable during the subsequent extraction of the first raffinate stream as required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 58 of the ’507 patent. We are not persuaded that Mr. Jones’s calculations provide a reliable method of determining the amount of DME present in a methanol carbonylation process. Mr. Miura and Dr. Porcelli agreed that it is extremely difficult to anticipate the presence or amount of a component such as DME in a methanol carbonylation system such as the one described in the ’095 patent. See Ex. 1046, 281:14–22; Ex. 2029 ¶ 112. Dr. Porcelli testified that Mr. Jones’s estimates of DME content in the ’095 patent Example were based on numerous assumptions that rendered his estimations of reactor and distillation overhead DME concentrations meaningless. See Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 137, 140, 151. Dr. Porcelli testified, for example, that it was “improper and incorrect” for Mr. Jones “to fail to account for DME lost with the vent stream in the reactor, especially because of the high volatility of DME.” Id. ¶ 148. Mr. Miura’s measured amount of DME present in the first overhead in Experiment 1 was less than half the amount Mr. Jones calculated would be present, supporting Dr. Porcelli’s testimony that the loss of DME via the vents would have had a marked impact on the actual amount of DME sent to distillation column 40 (from which the second overhead stream is produced) in the ’095 patent Example. See Ex. 1060 ¶ 153 (“(103 ppm (calc.) vs. 48 ppm (actual)) is likely to due to loss of DME with the vent gas from the splitter condenser, due to the very low boiling point of DME”); see also Ex. 1039 ¶ 97; Ex. 1060 ¶ 121 (wherein Mr. Jones agreed that the loss of DME from the vent stream in the separator (or decanter) after splitter column 14 in the ’095 patent process would be substantial).” slip op. at 55

  Patent outcomesUS 8,076,507 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,076,507
• Daicel Corporation v. Celanese International CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 23, 2016 · IPR2015-00170 · APJ Linda M Gaudette · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–11, and 13 were not held unpatentable under § 103 because the evidence did not show the required amount of dimethyl ether in the second overhead.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “Based on our analysis of the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, we agree with Patent Owner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the ’507 patent to speak in terms of effects, not molecules. See PO Resp. 50–51; Tr. 41:8–16. We, therefore, construe the recitation “distilling at least a portion of [a] first overhead [comprising methyl iodide, water and at least one PRC] to produce a second overhead stream comprising . . . dimethyl ether” in step (a) of claim 1 as requiring the presence of dimethyl ether in the second overhead stream in an amount that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as being more than trace or insubstantial. Such amount would be, for example, more than the amount produced in a conventional, prior art, low water carbonylation process that used the same initial reactor contents and conditions, and the same processing equipment. We further interpret this language as requiring the presence of DME in the second overhead stream in an amount sufficient to cause (1) a reduction in the solubility of methyl iodide in water during the extraction of the second overhead (claim 1, step (b)) and (2) an increase in the amount of methyl iodide recoverable during the extraction of the first raffinate (claim 1, step (c)), which increase in recoverable methyl iodide would be recognized as more than insubstantial by the ordinary artisan.” slip op. at 43

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner substantially agrees with Mr. Jones’s opinion, stating: “a person of ordinary skill in the art may be a qualified chemist or chemical engineer, however separations experience, an understanding of industrial-scale processes, and experience in the production of acetic acid, acetic anhydride, or related chemicals is required.” PO Resp. 14. Dr. Porcelli, testified that he “generally agree[s]” with Mr. Jones’s opinion as to the level of ordinary skill in the art” (Ex. 2029 ¶ 15; see also Ex. 1065, 65:9–66:5). During cross-examination, however, Dr. Porcelli testified that one of ordinary skill in the art would require, more specifically, an understanding of the low water acetic process and its implementation on an industrial scale. See, e.g., Ex. 1065, 126:18–127:1. Mr. Jones and Dr. Porcelli agree the description in the ’507 patent implies that the inventive process is a low water process. Ex. 1039 ¶ 50; Ex. 2029 ¶ 26. As discussed in Section VI. B., below, these experts further agree that there are differences in the reactants and reaction products produced in high and low water processes. We find both Mr. Jones and Dr. Porcelli are qualified to give an opinion as to the level of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, for purposes of this proceeding we adopt Mr. Jones’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, and add that the ordinary artisan also would have had a specific understanding of the low water carbonylation process for production of acetic acid and its implementation on an industrial scale.” slip op. at 27

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “at least one PRC] to produce a second overhead stream comprising . . . dimethyl ether” as requiring the presence of dimethyl ether in the second overhead stream in an amount that is (1) more than trace or insubstantial, and (2) sufficient to cause (a) a reduction in the solubility of methyl iodide in water during extraction of the second overhead and (b) an increase in the amount of methyl iodide recoverable during the extraction of the first raffinate. Neither Mr. Miura nor Mr. Jones testified that dimethyl ether would have been present in the second distillation overhead in the ’095 patent Example in an amount that is (1) more than trace or insubstantial, and (2) sufficient to cause (a) a reduction in the solubility of methyl iodide in water during extraction of the second overhead and (b) an increase in the amount of methyl iodide recoverable during the extraction of the first raffinate. Mr. Miura testified that 1.2 wt% DME was present in the second overhead in Experiment 1. Ex. 1005 ¶ 13, Table 1. Mr. Jones testified that he would expect the amount of DME in the second overhead in the ’095 patent process to be about three times the amount of DME in the overhead in Miura Experiment 1 (Ex. 2040, 289:10––298:7), because Mr. Miura’s experiment was carried out under conditions less favorable to DME formation as compared to the conditions in the ’095 patent Example (see Ex. 1060 ¶¶ 133, 139). A preponderance of the evidence, however, does not support a finding that DME was present, if at all, in more than a trace quantity/insubstantial amount in the second overhead of the ’095 patent Example, for the following reasons:” slip op. at 57

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “We are not persuaded that Mr. Jones’s calculations provide a reliable method of determining the amount of DME present in a methanol carbonylation process. Mr. Miura and Dr. Porcelli agreed that it is extremely difficult to anticipate the presence or amount of a component such as DME in a methanol carbonylation system such as the one described in the ’095 patent. See Ex. 1046, 281:14–22; Ex. 2029 ¶ 112. Dr. Porcelli testified that Mr. Jones’s estimates of DME content in the ’095 patent Example were based on numerous assumptions that rendered his estimations of reactor and distillation overhead DME concentrations meaningless. See Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 137, 140, 151. Dr. Porcelli testified, for example, that it was “improper and incorrect” for Mr. Jones “to fail to account for DME lost with the vent stream in the reactor, especially because of the high volatility of DME.” Id. ¶ 148. Mr. Miura’s measured amount of DME present in the first overhead in Experiment 1 was less than half the amount Mr. Jones calculated would be present, supporting Dr. Porcelli’s testimony that the loss of DME via the vents would have had a marked impact on the actual amount of DME sent to distillation column 40 (from which the second overhead stream is produced) in the ’095 patent Example. See Ex. 1060 ¶ 153 (“(103 ppm (calc.) vs. 48 ppm (actual)) is likely to due to loss of DME with the vent gas from the splitter condenser, due to the very low boiling point of DME”); see also Ex. 1039 ¶ 97; Ex. 1060 ¶ 121 (wherein Mr. Jones agreed that the loss of DME from the vent stream in the separator (or decanter) after splitter column 14 in the ’095 patent process would be substantial). Dr. Porcelli testified that he believed removal of DME by rapid carbonylation would have had a significant effect on the presence of DME in the ’095 patent Example and that this irreversible reaction should have been considered by Mr. Jones in his calculations. Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 130–131. Mr. Jones conceded “some DME will be carbonylated in the reactor” (Ex. 1060 ¶ 45), and that the carbonylation of DME to make acetic acid under low water conditions is an irreversible reaction (Ex. 2026, 227:19–228:1). See also Ex. 1060 ¶ 27 (arguing Exhibits 2032, 2034 evidence DME formation in a batch reactor during methanol carbonylation, but admitting that as the water and methyl acetate start to diminish, DME concentration begins to drop and DME is eventually carbonylated into either acetic acid or acetic anhydride). Mr. Jones disagreed with Dr. Porcelli’s testimony that “carbonylation of DME is . . . known to have a fast reaction rate” and “would be consumed by carbonylation faster than it would be formed by methanol dehydration, especially under low water conditions” (Ex. 2029 ¶ 130). Ex. 1060 ¶ 44. Mr. Jones provided testimony explaining why he believes “the carbonylation of DME is not particularly fast.” Id.; see id. ¶¶ 45–48. Mr. Jones relied on a textbook by Gauthier-Lafaye (Ex. 1062), published in 1987, as evidence that the carbonylation of DME proceeds more slowly than the carbonylation of methyl acetate. Ex. 1060 ¶ 47. Mr. Jones testified that because the reaction liquid in the ’095 patent Example is reported to contain 1.6 wt% methyl acetate, and the carbonylation rate of DME is even slower than that of methyl acetate, then “it stands to reason that the carbonylation rate of DME is not going to be so fast as to ‘immediately’ react away any DME that is formed via the methanol dehydration equilibrium reaction.” Id. ¶ 48. Mr. Jones further testified that consideration of this competing side reaction was “irrelevant to calculating equilibrium concentration” of DME in the reactor in the ’095 patent Example. Id. ¶ 51. The disclosure in Gauthier-Lafaye relied upon by Mr. Jones relates to the carbonylation of methyl acetate into acetic anhydride. Ex. 1062, 9. The ’095 patent, however, relates to production of acetic acid by a carbonylation process, wherein, according to Akinori, “intermediates [e.g. DME and methyl acetate] ultimately change into acetic acid” (Ex. 1013, 8, equations (2), (3)). Ex. 2029 ¶ 130; see Paper 79, 8–9 (Observation #G.1). In other words, the evidence relied on by Mr. Jones relates to a different reaction system and does not support his testimony that the carbonylation of DME in the ’095 patent reaction system was irrelevant to his calculation of equilibrium DME concentration. Rather we credit Dr. Porcelli’s testimony that removal of DME by rapid carbonylation would have had an effect on the presence, or at least the quantity, of DME in the ’095 patent Example, and that this factor should have been taken into consideration by Mr. Jones in his calculations. See Ex. 2029 ¶ 130.” slip op. at 59

  Patent outcomesUS 8,076,507 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,076,507
• Google Inc. v. Network-1 Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 20, 2016 · IPR2015-00343 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–3, 6–14, 18, 19, 21–27, and 29–37 not shown unpatentable because Conwell did not disclose a non-exhaustive search and Ghias and Philyaw did not teach one.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “exhaustive, as required by independent claims 1, 13, and 25. PO Resp. 23– 32. Patent Owner argues that Conwell teaches identifying a match using a look-up table, but the process is not disclosed to be non-exhaustive. Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1009, 3:43–44, 5:59–61, Fig. 3; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 364–366). Patent Owner additionally argues that “[w]hile there are ways to search the lookup table disclosed in Conwell using a non-exhaustive approach, Conwell does not disclose any such non-exhaustive approach.” Id. at 26 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 369). We agree that Conwell does not explicitly disclose that the look-up is performed non-exhaustively. Further, Patent Owner argues that Conwell also does not inherently disclose using the look-up table to conduct a non-exhaustive search. Id. at 27–31. Patent Owner continues that “Conwell provides no details as to how the exact-match search between the hashed identifier of the work to be identified and the hashed identifiers in the reference database is actually performed.” Id. at 29 (citing Ex. 1009, 3:43–62). Patent Owner argues that Conwell details how its database is maintained, but does not provide specific disclosures as to how the database is searched. Id. at 31–32. We also agree that Conwell does not inherently disclose that the look-up is performed nonexhaustively.” slip op. at 8

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

    “As Patent Owner points out, the second search of the identified matches is performed exhaustively of Works A, C, D, and E. Tr. 40–43 (citing Ex. 1010 7:4–9; Ex. 2005 ¶ 288; Ex. 2006, 325:12–21, 336:12–22). If viewed as separate and independent searches, both would be exhaustive of the data set being searched, and if viewed as a single search, all of the initially input records of the data set (i.e., Works A–E) would be searched by that single search, making it exhaustive. As such, we agree that Ghias does not teach or suggest a non-exhaustive search, as recited in the independent claims. Petitioner responds that Ghias’s subsequent searches are non- exhaustive (Reply 13–14), but we have addressed the same in the prior paragraph, not finding it to be persuasive. Petitioner also argues that the queries from the “first” and “second” searches need not be the same, and in fact would likely be different, such that the results for the first query could exclude non-matches from the results, where those non-matches would be matches for the second query, so that the subsequent search for the second query would not consider these excluded references. Id. at 14. We are not persuaded, however, as the search would still be exhaustive to the dataset provided to the search algorithm. As discussed above, we construe “non-exhaustive search” as “a search that locates a match without a comparison of all possible matches.” We are not persuaded that simply because a search does not seek matches outside of its input records would make that search non-exhaustive; that would make every search non-exhaustive, because it is, by definition, limited to the records input or available to the search algorithm. Petitioner also argues that Ghias discloses that its string matching algorithms operate faster than a brute force search (Reply 14–15), but we are persuaded, as discussed above, that this disclosure is related to comparing a work with a single record in the database, and not with respect to all of the records in the database. Petitioner also argues that Ghias discloses that performance may be improved by “packing all the songs into one file,” whereby the non-exhaustive searching within a record would apply to all of the concatenated record, making the search of the records non-exhaustive. Id. at 15. With respect to this latter argument, we agree with Patent Owner that this represents a “new theory” of the ground than that established in the Petition. Paper 24, 1–2. Compare Pet. 47–48, with Reply 14–15. We will not consider such new arguments for the purposes of this decision. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 2016 WL 2620512, at *8–9 (Fed. Cir. May 9, 2016) (concluding the Board did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider reply brief arguments advocating a “new theory” of unpatentability under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)).” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “i.e., exhaustive and non-exhaustive, and that “one would have envisaged a ‘non-exhaustive’ search as the predominant form of ‘database query,’” such that Conwell discloses the elements of the claims in substance. Reply 11–12 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 371; In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334, 1337–38 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). We do not agree. Instead, we find persuasive the testimony of Dr. Karypis that exhaustive methods may be employed to perform the database lookup in Conwell, and that Conwell does not disclose any non-exhaustive approach. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 367–369. Although Petitioner alleges that Dr. Karypis’s declaration “is replete with attorney argument presented in the guise of expert testimony,” and thus entitled to little weight (Reply 19), we find no fault with his specific review and interpretation of Conwell, and we are persuaded that it demonstrates that the lookup processes in Conwell need not be non-exhaustive.” slip op. at 9

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “With respect to this latter argument, we agree with Patent Owner that this represents a “new theory” of the ground than that established in the Petition. Paper 24, 1–2. Compare Pet. 47–48, with Reply 14–15. We will not consider such new arguments for the purposes of this decision. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 2016 WL 2620512, at *8–9 (Fed. Cir. May 9, 2016) (concluding the Board did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider reply brief arguments advocating a “new theory” of unpatentability under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)).” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 8,640,179 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,640,179
• Google Inc. v. Network-1 Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 20, 2016 · IPR2015-00347 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 15–17, 21–28, 31–33, 38, 51, and 52 were not shown unpatentable because Ghias and Iwamura did not disclose the claimed non-exhaustive search.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “For these reasons, we are not persuaded that Ghias discloses “a non- exhaustive search identifying a neighbor,” as recited in independent claim 15. Claims 16, 17, 21–23, 28, 31, and 51 depend from claim 15. Therefore, Petitioner has not demonstrated that Ghias discloses each and every limitation of claims 15–17, 21–23, 28, 31, and 51. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Ghias anticipates 15–17, 21–23, 28, 31, and 51 of the ’988 patent.” slip op. at 12

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, No. 15–446, slip op. at 13 (U.S. June 20, 2016). In our Institution Decision, we construed “a non-exhaustive search” to mean “a search that locates a match without a comparison of all possible matches.” Dec. 7. We disagreed with Petitioner’s view that a search that conducts a comparison with all possible matches is nevertheless non-” slip op. at 5

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

    “For these reasons, we are not persuaded that Ghias discloses “a non- exhaustive search identifying a neighbor,” as recited in independent claim 15. Claims 16, 17, 21–23, 28, 31, and 51 depend from claim 15. Therefore, Petitioner has not demonstrated that Ghias discloses each and every limitation of claims 15–17, 21–23, 28, 31, and 51. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Ghias anticipates 15–17, 21–23, 28, 31, and 51 of the ’988 patent.” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “With respect to its contention that claims 22, 24–26, and 52 would have been obvious over Ghias, Petitioner does not present any additional analysis of the recited “non-exhaustive search” beyond that addressed above in connection with claim 15. Therefore, for the same reasons, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 22, 24–26, and 52 are unpatentable for obviousness over Ghias.” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 8,010,988 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,010,988
• Google Inc. v. Network-1 Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 20, 2016 · IPR2015-00348 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 6, 8–14, 18, 19, 21–27, 29, and 30 were not shown unpatentable because neither Conwell nor Ghias and Philyaw disclosed the claimed non-exhaustive neighbor search.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, No. 15–446, slip op. at 13 (U.S. June 20, 2016). In our Institution Decision, we construed “a non-exhaustive . . . search” to mean “a search that locates a match without a comparison of all possible matches.” Dec. 7. We disagreed with Petitioner’s view that a search that conducts a comparison with all possible matches is nevertheless non-exhaustive if it does not compare all data within all possible matches. Id.” slip op. at 6

  • Skill levelOther

    “demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). A claim is anticipated if a single prior art reference either expressly or inherently discloses every limitation of the claim. Orion IP, LLC v. Hyundai Motor Am., 605 F.3d 967, 975 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “two species—exhaustive and non-exhaustive—and a skilled artisan “would have envisaged a ‘non-exhaustive’ search as the predominant form of ‘database query.’” Pet. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 371). Therefore, according to Petitioner, Conwell discloses a non-exhaustive search in substance. Id. (citing In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). We do not agree. Instead, we find persuasive the testimony of Dr. Karypis that the database look-up in Conwell may use exhaustive methods, and Conwell does not disclose any non-exhaustive approach. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 367– 69. Although Petitioner alleges that Dr. Karypis’s declaration is entitled to little weight because it “is replete with attorney argument presented in the guise of expert testimony,” Pet. Reply 19, we are persuaded that his analysis of Conwell demonstrates that the look-up processes disclosed in Conwell need not be non-exhaustive. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that Conwell discloses “a non-exhaustive neighbor search,” as recited in independent claims 1, 13, and 25. Claims 2, 3, 6, 8–12, 14, 19, 21–24, 26, and 30 each depend from one of the independent claims and thus also include this limitation. Therefore, Petitioner has not demonstrated that Conwell discloses each and every limitation of claims 1–3, 6, 8–14, 19, 21–26, and 30. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Conwell anticipates claims 1–3, 6, 8–14, 19, 21–26, and 30 of the ’441 patent.” slip op. at 11

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

    “recitation of claim limitations. Pet. Reply 9. Further, Petitioner contends, at the time the ’441 patent was filed, “it was at least ‘probable’ that one skilled in the art would use a non-exhaustive lookup to conduct a database query.” Id. However, the fact that a certain result or characteristic may occur or be present in the prior art is not sufficient to establish the inherency of that result or characteristic. In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1534 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Even if it would have been trivial to perform the look-up in Conwell using a non-exhaustive process, such a possible application does not demonstrate that Conwell expressly or inherently discloses a non-exhaustive search, as is required for anticipation.” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 8,656,441 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,656,441

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.