• Skechers USA, Inc. v. Adidas AGNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 25, 2018 · IPR2017-00127 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–30 were not shown unpatentable under §103 because the proposed prior-art modifications lacked adequate support and rational underpinning.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The basis of disagreement boils down to an evaluation of a skilled artisan’s experience. In that respect, Petitioner urges that the artisan generally has “substantial experience in the structural design of flexible elements and plastic polymers,” whereas Patent Owner characterizes the experience as directed to “biomechanical systems.” The ’079 patent is clearly directed to matters of shoe construction, and takes note, for instance, of the desirability of “cushioning and biomechanically supporting the foot.” Ex. 1001, 1:27–29. It is also apparent that an overarching focus of the ’079 patent is concern with “balance” and “support” of a “foot against misorientations such as pronation and supination (i.e. a tilting movement of the forefoot part to the medial and the lateral side, respectively).” Id. at 2:34–39. Such concerns, in our view, go beyond general experience in the design of flexible elements and plastic polymers. In that regard, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Hinrichs, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have experience with biomechanical systems, such as shoes. See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 14–15. We have considered the respective opinions of the parties when it comes to the level of ordinary skill in the art. In reaching our decision as to the merits of this proceeding, for the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s evidence as to the ordinary skill of an artisan.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “substantial dissection and modification of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. That dissection is premised on Mr. Ganaja’s assessment of what a person of ordinary skill in the art would take from the record at hand. Yet, in our view, neither Mr. Ganaja nor Petitioner explains adequately how the teachings of the prior art would have led one down the path that they advocate. For instance, it is decidedly unclear from the record that any “longitudinal groove” as advanced in Petitioner’s annotated illustrations of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17 reproduced herein exists in the configuration proposed by Petitioner. Although Petitioner and Mr. Ganaja postulate that it does exist, Luthi ’202’s teachings are less than determinative in that respect. We credit the testimony of Dr. Hinrichs and Dr. Luthi, that no such groove or “gap” exists as proposed by Petitioner. PO Resp. 21–25 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 32–35, 42–43; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 6, 8–13).” slip op. at 22

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

    “We observe that Patent Owner relies on content of the ’079 patent at column 11, lines 31–34 to support the meaning of “leaf spring[s]” and “leaf spring element[s]” that it advances. That portion of the ’079 patent describes embodiments of the invention appearing in Figures 19 to 25. Referencing particular leaf spring elements 22 and 23 of those embodiments, the ’079 patent states that “[t]ypically the restoring force exerts a force that has a component orthogonal to the sole plate (e.g., for cushioning) and a component parallel to the sole in the rearward direction (e.g., for acceleration).” Ex. 1001, 11:31–34. While that language mirrors the meaning of “leaf spring[s]” and “leaf spring element[s]” proposed by Patent Owner, we discern that the noted clause also begins with the term “[t]ypically.” That leaf spring elements may “typically” include a component parallel to the sole in the rearward direction does not lend itself to the conclusion that a “leaf spring” necessarily includes such a component. Rather, it conveys the opposite. In that respect, the plain understanding of the pertinent content of the ’079 patent is that, while, perhaps, not typical, the ’079 patent contemplates other component arrangements, logically including those in which the parallel component is not in the rearward direction.” slip op. at 7

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

    “substantial dissection and modification of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. That dissection is premised on Mr. Ganaja’s assessment of what a person of ordinary skill in the art would take from the record at hand. Yet, in our view, neither Mr. Ganaja nor Petitioner explains adequately how the teachings of the prior art would have led one down the path that they advocate. For instance, it is decidedly unclear from the record that any “longitudinal groove” as advanced in Petitioner’s annotated illustrations of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17 reproduced herein exists in the configuration proposed by Petitioner. Although Petitioner and Mr. Ganaja postulate that it does exist, Luthi ’202’s teachings are less than determinative in that respect. We credit the testimony of Dr. Hinrichs and Dr. Luthi, that no such groove or “gap” exists as proposed by Petitioner. PO Resp. 21–25 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 32–35, 42–43; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 6, 8–13). Moreover, even if such groove does exist, neither Petitioner nor Mr. Ganaja adequately explains why the presence of such groove would create at least two leaf springs or leaf spring elements that are “integrally joined to form a single end not directly connected to the sole plate,” as required by all the claims involved in this proceeding. We agree with, and credit, the testimony of Dr. Hinrichs that “Luthi ’202 consistently discloses that the strut elements run the entire width of the shoe.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 32 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:47–50 (“the strut elements 22 extend substantially from the medial edge of the lateral edge of lower plate 26 . . .”)). In extending the entire width of the shoe, strut elements 22 (and 222) are more appropriately viewed as a single element (e.g., a spring element) rather than multiple spring elements that come together integrally. Petitioner and Mr. Ganaja also inadequately explain why combination of Luthi ’202’s teachings with those of either Luthi ’800 or Chan would result in the above-noted “central cavity” as a part of the directional element of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. Although Luthi ’800 and Chan may show spaces or cavities in components of their shoes, there appear substantial differences in the designs of those shoes, and in particular the cushioning aspects, as compared with Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. We credit Dr. Hinrichs’s and Dr. Luthi’s testimony that the presence of such a cavity as shown in Luthi ’800 and Chan would prove detrimental to the medial-lateral stability of Luthi ’202’s shoe, and specifically the directional element of such a shoe that is depicted in Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 42; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 11–13. To that end, we also find inadequate Petitioner’s general position that combining the teachings of Luthi ’202, Luthi ’800, and Chan would result simply in a “combination of familiar elements according to known methods that would yield predictable results,” and “well within the knowledge and skill of persons of ordinary skill in the art . . .” Pet. 35. We are not persuaded that any such combination would yield the “predictable results” advanced by Petitioner, or that “well within the knowledge and skill” of an artisan cited by Petitioner constitutes rational underpinning to support an obviousness conclusion. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (An assertion of unpatentability based on “obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”)” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 9,339,079 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,339,079
• Skechers USA, Inc. v. Adidas AGNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 25, 2018 · IPR2017-00125 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 20–32 were not shown unpatentable under §103 because the proposed modifications to Luthi ’202 were unsupported and relied on hindsight.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “artisan’s experience. In that respect, Petitioner urges that the artisan generally has “substantial experience in the structural design of flexible elements and plastic polymers,” whereas Patent Owner characterizes the experience as directed to “biomechanical systems.” The ’285 patent is clearly directed to matters of shoe construction, and takes note, for instance, of the desirability of “cushioning and biomechanically supporting the foot.” Ex. 1001, 1:19–21. It is also apparent that an overarching focus of the ’285 patent is concern with “balance” and “support” of a “foot against misorientations such as pronation and supination (i.e. a tilting movement of the forefoot part to the medial and the lateral side, respectively.” Id. at 2:28– 31. Such concerns, in our view, go beyond general experience in the design of flexible elements and plastic polymers. In that regard, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Hinrichs, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have experience with biomechanical systems, such as shoes. See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 14–15. In crediting Dr. Hinrichs’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art we observe that, although Petitioner makes reference to the testimony of its declarant Mr. Ganaja (see Pet. 6 (citing 1002 ¶¶ 39–43)), Mr. Ganaja makes no evaluation of his own in that testimony in connection with the level of ordinary skill. We have considered the respective opinions of the parties when it comes to the level of ordinary skill in the art. In reaching our decision as to the merits of this proceeding, for the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s evidence as to the ordinary skill of an artisan.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “substantial dissection and modification of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. That dissection is premised on Mr. Ganaja’s assessment of what a person of ordinary skill in the art would take from the record at hand. Yet, in our view, neither Mr. Ganaja nor Petitioner explains adequately how the teachings of the prior art would have led one down the path that they advocate. For instance, it is decidedly unclear from the record that any “longitudinal groove” as advanced in Petitioner’s annotated illustrations of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17 reproduced herein exists in the configuration proposed by Petitioner. Although Petitioner and Mr. Ganaja postulate that it does exist, Luthi ’202’s teachings are less than determinative in that respect. We credit the testimony of Dr. Hinrichs and Dr. Luthi, that no such groove or “gap” exists as proposed by Petitioner. PO Resp. 18–21 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 32–35, 42–43; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 8 and 11–13). Moreover, even if such groove does exist, neither Petitioner nor Mr. Ganaja adequately explains why the presence of such groove would create at least two leaf springs or leaf spring elements that “come together integrally to form a single end not directly connected to the sole plate,” as required by all the claims involved in this proceeding. We agree with, and credit, the testimony of Dr. Hinrichs that “Luthi ’202 consistently disclosed that the strut elements run the entire width of the shoe.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 32 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:47–50 (“the strut elements 22 extend substantially from the medial edge of the lateral edge of lower plate 26 . . .”)). In extending the entire width of the shoe, strut elements 22 (and 222) are more appropriately viewed as a single element (e.g., a spring element) rather than multiple spring elements that come together integrally.” slip op. at 20

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

    “column 11, lines 23–26 to support the meaning of “leaf spring[s]” and “leaf spring element[s]” that it advances. That portion of the ’285 patent describes embodiments of the invention appearing in Figures 19 to 25. Referencing particular leaf spring elements 22 and 23 of those embodiments, the ’285 patent states that “[t]ypically the restoring force exerts a force that has a component orthogonal to the sole plate (e.g., for cushioning) and a component parallel to the sole in the rearward direction (e.g., for acceleration).” Ex. 1001, 11:23–26. While that language mirrors the meaning of “leaf spring[s]” and “leaf spring element[s]” proposed by Patent Owner, we discern that the noted clause also begins with the term “[t]ypically.” That leaf spring elements may “typically” include a component parallel to the sole in the rearward direction does not lend itself to the conclusion that a “leaf spring” or “leaf spring element” necessarily includes such a component. Rather, it conveys the opposite. In that respect, the plain understanding of the pertinent content of the ’285 patent is that, while, perhaps, not typical, the ’285 patent contemplates other component arrangements, logically including those in which the parallel component is not in the rearward direction. Indeed, our above-noted understanding is also consistent with other embodiments described in the ’285 patent. For instance, embodiments depicted in Figures 13–16 show elements 23 extending in a forward direction with respect to the sole. The elements 23 of those figures are described as “leaf spring elements.” Id. at 10:15–50. Moreover, the ‘285 patent makes explicit that those leaf spring elements “are either forwardly or rearwardly directed.” Id. at 10:49–50. Patent Owner’s position that the claimed “leaf springs” or “leaf spring elements” require a parallel component extending in the rearward direction is inconsistent with these particular figures and the accompanying description in the ’285 patent. To that end, Patent Owner does not explain persuasively why the meaning of the term “leaf spring” encompasses only a parallel component in the rearward direction, yet the ’285 patent clearly provides that leaf springs may also have components that extend in the forward direction. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we again conclude that “leaf spring[s]” and “leaf spring element[s]” mean “a flexible member that deflects and provides a restoring force with an orthogonal and a parallel component in response to a load applied to the sole.” We discern that it is unnecessary to construe expressly any other claim term of the ’285 patent. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 7

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

    “substantial dissection and modification of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. That dissection is premised on Mr. Ganaja’s assessment of what a person of ordinary skill in the art would take from the record at hand. Yet, in our view, neither Mr. Ganaja nor Petitioner explains adequately how the teachings of the prior art would have led one down the path that they advocate. For instance, it is decidedly unclear from the record that any “longitudinal groove” as advanced in Petitioner’s annotated illustrations of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17 reproduced herein exists in the configuration proposed by Petitioner. Although Petitioner and Mr. Ganaja postulate that it does exist, Luthi ’202’s teachings are less than determinative in that respect. We credit the testimony of Dr. Hinrichs and Dr. Luthi, that no such groove or “gap” exists as proposed by Petitioner. PO Resp. 18–21 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 32–35, 42–43; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 8 and 11–13). Moreover, even if such groove does exist, neither Petitioner nor Mr. Ganaja adequately explains why the presence of such groove would create at least two leaf springs or leaf spring elements that “come together integrally to form a single end not directly connected to the sole plate,” as required by all the claims involved in this proceeding. We agree with, and credit, the testimony of Dr. Hinrichs that “Luthi ’202 consistently disclosed that the strut elements run the entire width of the shoe.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 32 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:47–50 (“the strut elements 22 extend substantially from the medial edge of the lateral edge of lower plate 26 . . .”)). In extending the entire width of the shoe, strut elements 22 (and 222) are more appropriately viewed as a single element (e.g., a spring element) rather than multiple spring elements that come together integrally.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 9,345,285 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,345,285
• 3shape Medical A/S v. Sirona Dental Systems GmbHNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 21, 2017 · IPR2016-00481 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 were not shown unpatentable: Mushabac did not anticipate claims 1–5 and 9–10, and the asserted combinations did not render claims 1–8 obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We determine that only the following claim phrase requires explicit construction for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (internal citation omitted)).” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner provides evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) is someone with a D.M.D. (Doctor of Medicine in Dentistry or Doctor of Dental Medicine) or D.D.S. (Doctor of Dental Surgery) and at least several years of experience with 3-D technology used in dental implant treatment, planning, and surgery. Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 63–66). Alternatively, such a person may have a computer engineering degree or be a trained dental laboratory technician having substantial experience with 3-D technology and software applications used in dental implant treatment, planning, and surgery. Id. Patent Owner has accepted Petitioner’s definition of a POSA for purposes of this IPR. We adopt and apply Petitioner’s definition of a POSA in this Decision.” slip op. at 9

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

    “2. Analysis of “optical measuring of the visible surfaces of the jaw” Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires “the presence in a single prior art disclosure of all elements of a claimed invention arranged as in the claim.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008).” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Dr. Ganz agreed under cross-examination that “Mushabac optically measures the teeth [a]nd then it uses … bone sounding to measure the surfaces of the jawbone.” Ex. 2026, 252:11–20. When directly asked where a three-dimensional optical measuring of visible surfaces of the jaw was “stipulated” in Mushabac, Dr. Ganz could not identify any passage to support that assertion made in paragraph 100 of his Declaration. Id. at 248:16–252:20. We find Dr. Ganz’s cross-examination testimony to be highly persuasive and consistent with the disclosures in Mushabac and the testimony of Dr. Erickson. For the reasons given above, we determine that Mushabac does not expressly disclose an “optical” (light-based) measurement of the “visible surfaces of the jaw” in three dimensions, as recited in claim 1 of the ’006 patent.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 6,319,006 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,319,006
• TCL Corporation / TCL Communication Technology Holdings, Ltd. et al. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM EricssonNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 25, 2017 · IPR2015-01628 · APJ Stacy B Margolies · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioners did not show claim 11 unpatentable under either § 103 ground because they did not establish a persuasive motivation to combine Usui and Gong.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not challenge Dr. Malek’s testimony regarding the level of skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. However, Dr. Muftic, Patent Owner’s declarant, opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would probably have had a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, with at least two years’ experience in the field of software security.” Ex. 2010 ¶ 22. Dr. Muftic’s proposed level of ordinary skill differs slightly from Dr. Malek’s. Patent Owner, however, does not cite the above testimony in its Patent Owner Response. Nor does Patent Owner or Dr. Muftic quarrel with the definition proposed by Petitioner and Dr. Malek. See generally PO Resp. We determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioners’ declarant is consistent with the challenged patent and the asserted prior art, and we therefore adopt Dr. Malek’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below. However, our analysis would not differ if we were to adopt Dr. Muftic’s definition.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Petitioners propose constructions for a number of terms, and asserts that “interface component,” “interception module,” “decision entity,” “security access manager,” and “access controller” are means-plus-function limitations. Pet. 16–20; Pet. Br. 5–15. Patent Owner disagrees that the foregoing terms are means-plus-function limitations and asserts that only “software services component” be explicitly construed. PO Br. 6–16; PO Resp. 8–9. As explained below, the dispositive issue in this case is whether Petitioners provide a persuasive articulated reason with rational underpinning to support their contention that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Usui and Gong. In reaching this issue, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 15

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

    “Indeed, Patent Owner cites uncontroverted evidence that in designing the J2ME platform for mobile phones, Sun Microsystems did not use the full security of the Java 2 Standard Edition and its fine-grained protection domains like that described in Gong. See Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 210, 211, 223, 224. For example, the specification for the CLDC of J2ME, which defines a “standard, minimum-footprint Java platform for small, resource-constrained, connected devices,” states that “the J2SE security model is too memory-consuming to be included in a CLDC device that allows only a few hundred kilobytes of total memory budget.” Ex. 2014, 14, 25; see also PO Resp. 21– 26. In addition, a 2000 JavaOne presentation from a Sun Microsystems employee explains that the “J2SE platform security model is much larger than the entire CLDC implementation” and that the “full J2SE™ platform security model” cannot be supported in CLDC target devices. Ex. 2015, 48. In view of this context, Petitioners lack of explanation regarding purported design incentives that would have prompted a skilled artisan to make the proposed combination is significant. See, e.g., Ex. 1010, 5 (disclosing that the Usui team designed the user interface (UI) “so that the Java part was as small as possible” to “achieve good performance of the UI capability in the mobile phone” and noting that “[r]eleasing resources that are no longer used by Java applications is very important for resource-limited systems such as mobile phones”); Ex. 1001, 1:55–61 (disclosing that “drastically increased functionality” in cellular telecommunications systems “has placed substantial demands on the developers of mobile terminals” and this demand “is exacerbated by the fact that a mobile terminal is a ‘resource scarce’ environment that is limited in size, memory, and power”).” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 7,149,510 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,149,510
• TCL Corporation / TCL Communication Technology Holdings, Ltd. et al. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM EricssonNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 25, 2017 · IPR2015-01622 · APJ Stacy B Margolies · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 and 7–10 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioners did not establish a persuasive motivation to combine Usui and Oaks, including for claim 4’s ground adding Spencer.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not challenge Dr. Malek’s testimony regarding the level of skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. However, Dr. Muftic, Patent Owner’s declarant, opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would probably have had a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, with at least two years’ experience in the field of software security.” Ex. 2009 ¶ 22. Dr. Muftic’s proposed level of ordinary skill differs slightly from Dr. Malek’s. Patent Owner, however, does not cite the above testimony in its Patent Owner Response. Nor does Patent Owner or Dr. Muftic quarrel with the definition proposed by Petitioner and Dr. Malek. See generally PO Resp. We determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioners’ declarant is consistent with the challenged patent and the asserted prior art, and we therefore adopt Dr. Malek’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below. However, our analysis would not differ if we were to adopt Dr. Muftic’s definition.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Petitioners propose constructions for a number of terms, and asserts that “interface component,” “interception module,” “decision entity,” “security access manager,” and “access controller” are means-plus-function limitations. Pet. 16–22; Pet. Br. 5–15. Patent Owner disagrees that the foregoing terms are means-plus-function limitations and asserts that only “software services component” and “identification of requesting application domain software” be explicitly construed. PO Br. 6–17; PO Resp. 7–11. As explained below, the dispositive issue in this case is whether Petitioners provide a persuasive articulated reason with rational underpinning to support their contention that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Usui and Oaks. In reaching this issue, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 15

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

    “explanation for why, simply because the two references are in the same field of endeavor, a skilled artisan would have had reason to make the proposed combination. See Ex. 1301 ¶ 173. Nor do Petitioners or Dr. Malek elucidate what design incentives would have prompted a skilled artisan to use the finegrained security control of Oaks with the mobile phone platform of Usui, given the design constraints of less memory and resources of a mobile phone. See, e.g., Ex. 1010, 5; Ex. 2014, 14, 25; Ex. 2015, 8. Indeed, Patent Owner cites uncontroverted evidence that in designing the J2ME platform for mobile phones, Sun Microsystems did not use the full security of the Java 2 Standard Edition like that described in Oaks. See Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 90 (security manager does not exist in J2ME), 185. For example, the specification for the CLDC of J2ME, which defines a “standard, minimum-footprint Java platform for small, resource-constrained, connected devices,” states that “the J2SE security model is too memory-consuming to be included in a CLDC device that allows only a few hundred kilobytes of total memory budget.” Ex. 2014, 14, 25; see also PO Resp. 17. In addition, a 2000 JavaOne presentation from a Sun Microsystems employee explains that the “J2SE platform security model is much larger than the entire CLDC implementation” and that the “full J2SE™ platform security model” cannot be supported in CLDC target devices. Ex. 2015, 48. In view of this context, Petitioners lack of explanation regarding purported design incentives that would have prompted a skilled artisan to make the proposed combination is significant. See, e.g., Ex. 1010, 5 (disclosing that the Usui team designed the user interface (UI) “so that the Java part was as small as possible” to “achieve good performance of the UI capability in the mobile phone” and noting that “[r]eleasing resources that are no longer used by Java applications is very important for resource-limited systems such as mobile phones”); Ex. 1001, 1:55–61 (disclosing that “drastically increased functionality” in cellular telecommunications systems “has placed substantial demands on the developers of mobile terminals” and this demand “is exacerbated by the fact that a mobile terminal is a ‘resource scarce’ environment that is limited in size, memory, and power”).” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 7,149,510 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,149,510
• TCL Corporation / TCL Communication Technology Holdings, Ltd. et al. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM EricssonNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 25, 2017 · IPR2015-01605 · APJ Stacy B Margolies · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 and 7–10 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioners failed to establish a persuasive motivation to combine Usui and Gong, including for claim 4’s ground with Spencer.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not challenge Dr. Malek’s testimony regarding the level of skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. However, Dr. Muftic, Patent Owner’s declarant, opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would probably have had a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, with at least two years’ experience in the field of software security.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 22. Dr. Muftic’s proposed level of ordinary skill differs slightly from Dr. Malek’s. Patent Owner, however, does not cite the above testimony in its Patent Owner Response. Nor does Patent Owner or Dr. Muftic quarrel with the definition proposed by Petitioner and Dr. Malek. See generally PO Resp. We determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioners’ declarant is consistent with the challenged patent and the asserted prior art, and we therefore adopt Dr. Malek’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below. However, our analysis would not differ if we were to adopt Dr. Muftic’s definition.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Petitioners propose constructions for a number of terms, and asserts that “interface component,” “interception module,” “decision entity,” “security access manager,” and “access controller” are means-plus-function limitations. Pet. 16–22; Pet. Br. 5–15. Patent Owner disagrees that the foregoing terms are means-plus-function limitations and asserts that only “software services component” and “identification of requesting application domain software” be explicitly construed. PO Br. 6–17; PO Resp. 7–11. As explained below, the dispositive issue in this case is whether Petitioners provide a persuasive articulated reason with rational underpinning to support their contention that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Usui and Gong. In reaching this issue, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 15

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

    “general field of endeavor and, as recognized by the Supreme Court, known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Pet. 29–30 (citing Ex. 1201 ¶ 175) (emphasis omitted). Petitioners’ declarant, Dr. Malek, repeats this statement from the Petition but fails to provide any additional explanation for why, simply because the two references are in the same field of endeavor, a skilled artisan would have had reason to make the proposed combination. See Ex. 1201 ¶ 175. Nor do Petitioners or Dr. Malek elucidate what design incentives would have prompted a skilled artisan to use the fine-grained security control of Gong with the mobile phone platform of Usui, given the design constraints of less memory and resources of a mobile phone. See, e.g., Ex. 1010, 5; Ex. 2014, 14, 25; Ex. 2015, 8. Indeed, Patent Owner cites uncontroverted evidence that in designing the J2ME platform for mobile phones, Sun Microsystems did not use the full security of the Java 2 Standard Edition and its fine-grained protection domains like that described in Gong. See Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 187, 188, 200, 201. For example, the specification for the CLDC of J2ME, which defines a “standard, minimum-footprint Java platform for small, resource-constrained, connected devices,” states that “the J2SE security model is too memory-consuming to be included in a CLDC device that allows only a few hundred kilobytes of total memory budget.” Ex. 2014, 14, 25; see also PO Resp. 17– 18. In addition, a 2000 JavaOne presentation from a Sun Microsystems employee explains that the “J2SE platform security model is much larger than the entire CLDC implementation” and that the “full J2SE™ platform security model” cannot be supported in CLDC target devices. Ex. 2015, 48. In view of this context, Petitioners lack of explanation regarding purported design incentives that would have prompted a skilled artisan to make the proposed combination is significant. See, e.g., Ex. 1010, 5 (disclosing that the Usui team designed the user interface (UI) “so that the Java part was as small as possible” to “achieve good performance of the UI capability in the mobile phone” and noting that “[r]eleasing resources that are no longer used by Java applications is very important for resource-limited systems such as mobile phones”); Ex. 1001, 1:55–61 (disclosing that “drastically increased functionality” in cellular telecommunications systems “has placed substantial demands on the developers of mobile terminals” and this demand” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 7,149,510 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,149,510
• Hilti, Inc. / Snap-On Incorporated v. Milwaukee Electric Tool CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 14, 2016 · IPR2016-00343 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Takano and Yanai because the proposed combinations and calculations lacked adequate support and relied on hindsight.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Takano, however, discloses a battery having a plurality of cells connected in series. Ex. 1072 ¶¶ 4, 11, 26. Although we do not question that connecting battery cells in series and/or parallel is known generally in the art, Petitioner does not provide adequate specific reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify Takano to connect cells in parallel when Takano clearly discloses a series connection. Dr. Abraham’s testimony that the type of connection would be chosen “as needed to provide whatever target voltage and amperage is desired for a particular application,” by itself, does not provide a sufficient reason to modify Takano’s series connection. Petitioner does not explain how the prior art discloses a desired voltage or amperage that would cause one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Takano in the manner proposed. In this case, the only teaching of a desired amperage comes from the ’290 patent itself. Furthermore, Dr. Abraham’s reliance on the disclosure at column 5, lines 57–61, of the ’290 patent as supporting the alleged obviousness of combining two cells in parallel is improper. This passage of the ’290 patent describes alternative configurations of the patentees’ own invention; it is not describing prior art. Relying on knowledge gleaned only from the challenged patent’s disclosure is impermissible hindsight. Cf. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (As long as a judgment on obviousness “takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.”).” slip op. at 18

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

    “Furthermore, Petitioner’s obviousness analysis relies on (1) selecting an 18650-size or 26650-size cell; (2) estimating the positive electrode surface area to be 540 cm2; (3) selecting a foil thickness of 15 micrometers; (4) selecting an average discharge voltage of 3.6 volts; and (5) for 18650-size cells, connecting two in parallel. Petitioner fails to point out how the prior art indicates that using all of these particular values in combination would be desirable for a lithium-based battery pack when several other possible values could have been selected. Where “‘the prior art gave either no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful,’ courts should reject ‘hindsight claims of obviousness.’” In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig., 676 F.3d 1063, 1070–71 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s obviousness analysis relies on impermissible hindsight.” slip op. at 20

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Third, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s argument that “three Yanai-based 18650 cells in parallel” would satisfy the 20 Amp Limitation is a new argument. Paper 60, 2. In our view, this argument does more than merely address Patent Owner’s argument regarding Dr. Abraham’s addition error. Rather, by relying on three cells instead of two, Petitioner attempts to provide a new theory as to why the combination of Takano and Yanai renders the challenged claims obvious that was not set forth clearly in the Petition. Because Petitioner waited until the Reply to make this argument, Patent Owner did not have an opportunity to respond to Petitioner’s new argument. We thus decline to consider Petitioner’s new argument as it is an improper reply. Furthermore, Petitioner’s assertion that Patent Owner made no attempt to explain why using three cells would have been just as obvious as using two cells is an improper attempt to shift the burden of proof with respect to obviousness to Patent Owner.” slip op. at 17

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

  Patent outcomesUS 7,554,290 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,554,290
• Hilti, Inc. / Snap-On Incorporated v. Milwaukee Electric Tool CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 14, 2016 · IPR2016-00344 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 were not shown unpatentable over Takano and Yanai under §103 because Petitioner’s evidence did not establish the 20 Amp Limitation without unsupported assumptions and hindsight.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Takano, however, discloses a battery having a plurality of cells connected in series. Ex. 1072 ¶¶ 4, 11, 26. Although we do not question that connecting battery cells in series and/or parallel is known generally in the art, Petitioner does not provide adequate specific reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify Takano to connect cells in parallel when Takano clearly discloses a series connection. Dr. Abraham’s testimony that the type of connection would be chosen “as needed to provide whatever target voltage and amperage is desired for a particular application,” by itself, does not provide a sufficient reason to modify Takano’s series connection. Petitioner does not explain how the prior art discloses a desired voltage or amperage that would cause one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Takano in the manner proposed. In this case, the only teaching of a desired amperage comes from the ’173 patent itself. Furthermore, Dr. Abraham’s reliance on the disclosure at column 5, lines 59–63, of the ’173 patent as supporting the alleged obviousness of combining two cells in parallel is improper. This passage of the ’173 patent describes alternative configurations of the patentees’ own invention; it is not describing prior art. Relying on knowledge gleaned only from the challenged patent’s disclosure is impermissible hindsight. Cf. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (As long as a judgment on obviousness “takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.”).” slip op. at 18

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

    “18650-size and 26650-size cells is flawed and thus fails to support Petitioner’s assertion that claim 1 would have been obvious over the combination of Takano and Yanai. Furthermore, Petitioner’s obviousness analysis relies on (1) selecting an 18650-size or 26650-size cell; (2) estimating the positive electrode surface area to be 540 cm2; (3) selecting a foil thickness of 15 micrometers; (4) selecting an average discharge voltage of 3.6 volts; and (5) for 18650-size cells, connecting two in parallel. Petitioner fails to point out how the prior art indicates that using all of these particular values in combination would be desirable for a lithium-based battery pack when several other possible values could have been selected. Where “‘the prior art gave either no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful,’ courts should reject ‘hindsight claims of obviousness.’” In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig., 676 F.3d 1063, 1070–71 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s obviousness analysis relies on impermissible hindsight.” slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached

    “e) Secondary Considerations Patent Owner argues that “[n]umerous secondary considerations strongly favor the patentability of the challenged claims.” PO Resp. 26–59. Because we are not persuaded Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently that the combination of Takano and Yanai render claim 1 obvious, we need not reach Patent Owner’s assertions regarding secondary considerations.” slip op. at 23

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Third, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s argument that “three Yanai-based 18650 cells in parallel” would satisfy the 20 Amp Limitation is a new argument. Paper 62, 2. In our view, this argument does more than merely address Patent Owner’s argument regarding Dr. Abraham’s addition error. Rather, by relying on three cells instead of two, Petitioner attempts to provide a new theory as to why the combination of Takano and Yanai renders the challenged claims obvious that was not set forth clearly in the Petition. Because Petitioner waited until the Reply to make this argument, Patent Owner did not have an opportunity to respond to Petitioner’s new argument. We thus decline to consider Petitioner’s new argument as it is an improper reply. Furthermore, Petitioner’s assertion that Patent Owner made no attempt to explain why using three cells would have been just as obvious as using two cells is an improper attempt to shift the burden of proof with respect to obviousness to Patent Owner.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 7,944,173 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,944,173
• Hilti, Inc. / Snap-On Incorporated v. Milwaukee Electric Tool CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 14, 2016 · IPR2016-00345 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Takano and Yanai because Petitioner’s evidence did not establish the 20 Amp Limitation without unsupported assumptions and hindsight.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “example 2 is described as having a positive electrode surface area of 6,700 cm2 (id. ¶ 40). This wide variance in the surface areas disclosed by Adachi suggests that the working examples are specific embodiments and not indicative of “common knowledge” in the field. Moreover, we are not persuaded that the range of 400– 680 cm2 is an industry standard surface area for 18650-size cells or that one of ordinary skill in the art necessarily would consider a value in this range to be a typical or likely choice of surface area for any 18650-size cell. Accordingly, the only basis to assert that it would have been obvious to select a positive electrode surface area of 540 cm2 for Yanai’s cell 1-4 would be to rely on the disclosure of Adachi; that is, to assert that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Takano and Yanai with the teaching of Adachi. Petitioner, however, has repeatedly argued that this is not what it proposes. Reply 3; Tr. 22:22–23:4. Furthermore, we agree with Patent Owner that the Petition does not provide an adequate reason to combine Adachi with Takano and Yanai.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Takano, however, discloses a battery having a plurality of cells connected in series. Ex. 1072 ¶¶ 4, 11, 26. Although we do not question that connecting battery cells in series and/or parallel is known generally in the art, Petitioner does not provide adequate specific reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify Takano to connect cells in parallel when Takano clearly discloses a series connection. Dr. Abraham’s testimony that the type of connection would be chosen “as needed to provide whatever target voltage and amperage is desired for a particular application,” by itself, does not provide a sufficient reason to modify Takano’s series connection. Petitioner does not explain how the prior art discloses a desired voltage or amperage that would cause one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Takano in the manner proposed. In this case, the only teaching of a desired amperage comes from the ’510 patent itself. Furthermore, Dr. Abraham’s reliance on the disclosure at column 5, lines 61–65, of the ’510 patent as supporting the alleged obviousness of combining two cells in parallel is improper. This passage of the ’510 patent describes alternative configurations of the patentees’ own invention; it is not describing prior art. Relying on knowledge gleaned only from the challenged patent’s disclosure is impermissible hindsight. Cf. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (As long as a judgment on obviousness “takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.”).” slip op. at 18

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

    “Furthermore, Petitioner’s obviousness analysis relies on (1) selecting an 18650-size or 26650-size cell; (2) estimating the positive electrode surface area to be 540 cm2; (3) selecting a foil thickness of 15 micrometers; (4) selecting an average discharge voltage of 3.6 volts; and (5) for 18650-size cells, connecting two in parallel. Petitioner fails to point out how the prior art indicates that using all of these particular values in combination would be desirable for a lithium-based battery pack when several other possible values could have been selected. Where “‘the prior art gave either no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful,’ courts should reject ‘hindsight claims of obviousness.’” In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig., 676 F.3d 1063, 1070–71 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s obviousness analysis relies on impermissible hindsight.” slip op. at 20

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Third, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s argument that “three Yanai-based 18650 cells in parallel” would satisfy the 20 Amp Limitation is a new argument. Paper 59, 2. In our view, this argument does more than merely address Patent Owner’s argument regarding Dr. Abraham’s addition error. Rather, by relying on three cells instead of two, Petitioner attempts to provide a new theory as to why the combination of Takano and Yanai renders the challenged claims obvious that was not set forth clearly in the Petition. Because Petitioner waited until the Reply to make this argument, Patent Owner did not have an opportunity to respond to Petitioner’s new argument. We thus decline to consider Petitioner’s new argument as it is an improper reply. Furthermore, Petitioner’s assertion that Patent Owner made no attempt to explain why using three cells would have been just as obvious as using two cells is an improper attempt to shift the burden of proof with respect to obviousness to Patent Owner.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 7,999,510 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,999,510
• Hilti, Inc. / Snap-On Incorporated v. Milwaukee Electric Tool CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 14, 2016 · IPR2015-01166 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Takano and Yanai because the proposed combination relied on unsupported assumptions and impermissible hindsight.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted

    “After institution, Snap-On Incorporated (“Snap-On”) filed a Petition and a Motion for Joinder to this proceeding. IPR2016-00345, Papers 2, 3. We granted the Motion for Joinder, and IPR2016-00345 was joined with IPR2015-01166 and terminated. Paper 24, 6. Consequently, Hilti and Snap-On (collectively, “Petitioner”) are joined in this proceeding.” slip op. at 2

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

    “We construed three claim terms in our Decision to Institute: (1) “hand held power tool,” (2) “battery cells being capable of producing an average discharge current greater than or equal to approximately 20 amps,” and (3) “nominal voltage.” Inst. Dec. 6–12. Neither party has indicated that the interpretations for those phrases were improper, and we do not perceive any reason or evidence that now compels any deviation from our initial determinations. Accordingly, the following interpretations are not in dispute and apply to this Decision:” slip op. at 6

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

    “select a positive electrode surface area of 540 cm2 for Yanai’s cell 1-4 would be to rely on the disclosure of Adachi; that is, to assert that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Takano and Yanai with the teaching of Adachi. Petitioner, however, has repeatedly argued that this is not what it proposes. Reply 3; Tr. 22:22–23:4. Furthermore, we agree with Patent Owner that the Petition does not provide an adequate reason to combine Adachi with Takano and Yanai.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableDecided for patent owner

    “Furthermore, Petitioner’s obviousness analysis relies on (1) selecting an 18650-size or 26650-size cell; (2) estimating the positive electrode surface area to be 540 cm2; (3) selecting a foil thickness of 15 micrometers; (4) selecting an average discharge voltage of 3.6 volts; and (5) for 18650-size cells, connecting two in parallel. Petitioner fails to point out how the prior art indicates that using all of these particular values in combination would be desirable for a lithium-based battery pack when several other possible values could have been selected. Where “‘the prior art gave either no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful,’ courts should reject ‘hindsight claims of obviousness.’” In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig., 676 F.3d 1063, 1070–71 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s obviousness analysis relies on impermissible hindsight.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 7,999,510 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,999,510

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.