• Netflix, Inc. v. Divx, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 13, 2021 · IPR2020-00511 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 10–12, 14, and 15 were not shown unpatentable under the three § 103 grounds because the combinations did not establish the encrypted-frame limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with at least two years of experience in video encryption and cryptography or . . . a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with a specialization in video encryption and cryptography.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 65–67). Patent Owner does not address, expressly, the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Response. See generally PO Resp. Dr. Nielson, however, applies Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in his Declaration (Ex. 2009 ¶ 34) and does not indicate that he does otherwise in his Second Declaration (see generally Ex. 2024). In our Institution Decision, we found that Petitioner’s proposal was consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record and we preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s unopposed position. Inst. Dec. 10 (citing Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978)). As neither party challenges our preliminary finding regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, we see no reason to disturb that finding. Accordingly, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with at least two years of experience in video encryption and cryptography or . . . a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with a specialization in video encryption and cryptography.” See Inst. Dec. 9–10 (finding the same).” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner contends that “the challenged claims are invalid under their plain and ordinary (‘P&O’) meaning.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 99). In the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner raised the meaning of two claim terms—“user encryption key” and “content encryption key.” Prelim. Resp. 40–44, 46–48. In the Institution Decision, we addressed each term to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy presented, and we found, in each instance, that Petitioner’s mapping of the prior art to these limitations of the claims was sufficient on the record presented at the time. See Inst. Dec. 12– 15 (discussing the construction of the terms), 22–28 (discussing limitation 1[a], which includes “user encryption key”), 28–31 (discussing limitation 1[b], which includes “content encryption key”). In particular, on the preliminary record, we found that “Chen’s master key Kw teaches the recited ‘user encryption key’” (id. at 28) and “Chen’s work key Kw teaches the recited ‘content encryption key’” (id. at 30). In the Response, Patent Owner does not propose a construction for any claim term or contest our preliminary findings regarding limitations 1[a] and 1[b]. See generally PO Resp. Accordingly, we maintain and reaffirm our preliminary determinations regarding the meaning of the recited “user encryption key” and “content encryption key.” Dec. 12–15. Additionally, we need not construe other claim terms to resolve the present controversy before us.6” slip op. at 13

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

    “techniques, and standards in the industry regarding the same in an attempt to explain how one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Chen at the time of the ’920 patent. As discussed herein, the weight of the evidence is very closely balanced. Fundamentally, however, it is Petitioner’s burden to establish how one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Chen and the combined teachings of Chen and Grab-333. And, as we find herein based on the full record developed during trial, Petitioner does not establish that the combined teachings of Chen and Grab-333 would have met limitation 1[c]. Below, we walk through the parties’ arguments and evidence, starting with the Petition, and then we discuss our findings regarding Chen in light of the full trial record.” slip op. at 24

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

    “To begin, 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) specifies, in relevant part, that “[a] sur-reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding reply and may not be accompanied by new evidence other than deposition transcripts of the cross-examination of any reply witness.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). The Consolidated TPG repeats the above-quoted language of the rule and also explains that [s]ur-replies should only respond to arguments made in reply briefs, comment on reply declaration testimony, or point to cross-examination testimony. As noted above, a sur-reply may address the institution decision if necessary to respond to the petitioner’s reply. This sur-reply practice essentially replaces the previous practice of filing observations on cross-examination testimony. Consolidated TPG at 73–74. Accordingly, Rule 42.23(b) provides a blanket prohibition on a patentee filing exhibits with a sur-reply, as Patent Owner has done here.” slip op. at 54

  Patent outcomesUS 9,184,920 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,184,920
• Unified Patents Inc. v. Divx, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 8, 2021 · IPR2019-01379 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 17 were not shown unpatentable over Kim and Huang because Petitioner did not establish an adequate motivation to combine their teachings.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related subject, and two to three years of work experience in image and/or video processing.” Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 42). Patent Owner neither comments on that proposal, nor proposes an alternative level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. 5 The burden of showing something by a preponderance of the evidence requires the trier of fact to believe that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence. Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Tr. for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993). Because Petitioner’s proposed definition is consistent with the cited prior art, we apply it for purposes of this Decision. In our view, moreover, the prior art itself demonstrates the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that prior art itself can reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art at the time of the invention).” slip op. at 9

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

    “00052, which also involves the ’651 patent, the Board construed the term “level of detail” as “level of change of visual elements across adjacent pixels,” and that the same construction should apply here. PO Resp. 58–60 (citing IPR2020-00052, Paper 42). Petitioner does not propose a construction for that term, but argues that “the combined Kim and Huang teachings would determine the level of detail for adjacent pixels under Patent Owner’s ‘adjacent pixels’ construction.” Pet. Reply 5–11. Because our ultimate decision does not rest on the construction of that claim term, we do not construe the term in this proceeding. 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.”); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). As part of our obviousness analysis, we address additional claim construction arguments regarding the “determining” limitation. See infra § III.E.1.a.” slip op. at 10

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “We agree with Patent Owner that these exhibits represent expressions of opinion of unnamed users that Patent Owner relies on to show cotemporaneous praise existed. These exhibits are cited in the Hanson Declaration only as evidence of industry praise, i.e., to support testimony based on his personal knowledge. See Ex. 2045 ¶ 51. And although Mr. Hanson quotes statements from these exhibits in his declaration, their relevance lies in that they allegedly reflect praise for DivX’s deblocking method. For example, the statement by user “temperance”—that Petitioner objects to as being relied on for the truth of the matter asserted (Paper 46, 1– 2)—is offered to show that “[t]here was plenty of healthy debate on the boards about the quality of the new version of the codec,” and “many commenters specifically praised the deblocking.” See Ex. 2045 ¶ 46. Moreover, it is clear that these are merely opinions of online users, not factual assertions. See id. (quoting temperance: “IMHO, DivX 6 deblocking is better (for metrics and eyes) than xvid’s”) (emphasis added); see Sonos, slip op. at 7 (separating admissible expressions of opinions that constitute praise from bare factual assertions). Other statements that Petitioner objects to (Paper 46, 2) are similarly opinions of online users, not factual assertions that Patent Owner relies upon for the truth of the matter stated therein. We are therefore not persuaded that Exhibits 2018–2030 and 2032–2033 contain inadmissible hearsay.11 See Cisco Sys., Paper 41 at 50–51 (allowing exhibits cited only as evidence of industry praise); Quanergy Sys., Inc. v. Velodyne Lidar, Inc., IPR2018-00255, 2020 WL 2595492, at *2 (PTAB May 21, 2020) (citing Asetek Danmark A/S v. CMI USA, Inc., 13-CV-00457-JST, 2014 WL 12644295, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2014)).” slip op. at 55

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition does not detail Petitioner’s newly proposed interpretation of this claim limitation. See Pet. 29–36 (arguing only that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Kim determines the level of detail for a region comprising an 8 x 8 block of pixels of a reconstructed video frame). On the contrary, the Petition argued: [T]he prior art cited in this Petition teaches and suggests exactly what is claimed and what allegedly distinguished the claims from Kim II: determining the level of detail of a region that includes pixels from multiple rows and multiple columns that encompass pixels immediately adjacent to at least two sides of the block boundary, and selecting a filter to apply.” Pet. 18 (emphasis added).6 Under these circumstances, we consider Petitioner’s new argument waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); see also Intelligent Bio-Sys., 821 F.3d at 1369 (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ 6 Petitioner refers to a different prior art reference, U.S. Patent No. 6,983,079, cited by the examiner during the prosecution of the ’651 patent, as Kim II. the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’”) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)).” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,139,651 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,139,651
• 3shape A/S / 3shape Inc. v. Align Technology, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 16, 2020 · IPR2019-00151 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 15–30 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish the required motivation to combine Picard with Ishihara or a reasonable expectation of success combining Gmitro with Tiziani.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “After considering the evidence and arguments of the parties, we determine that Petitioner has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 15–30 of the ’448 patent are unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). We issue this Final Written Decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a).” slip op. at 2

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

    “We agree that the law does not require Petitioner to show a person of ordinary skill in the art would have viewed the proposed modification as the most preferred or desirable approach. The law does, however, require Petitioner to show not only that a person of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the references in the proposed manner, but that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the references’ teachings in the proposed manner. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis added) (citation omitted) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention”). Here, Petitioner does not do so.” slip op. at 25

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner persuades us that, in Picard, the axial chromatism of lens 15 constitutes a key feature of its system, not a problem. PO Resp. 27– 31. We credit the unrebutted testimony of Mr. Aikens that Picard’s “basic principle of operation, and purported point of novelty, requires focusing light at different planes via axial chromatic aberration,” provided by lens 15. Ex. 2019 ¶ 107. Mr. Aikens explains that Picard leverages the axial chromatism of lens 15 to ascertain the position of an object along the z-axis. Id. ¶¶ 68–70, 107–116. Consistent with this, Dr. Sergienko testifies that “[t]he axial chromatism in Picard is the main feature to achieve this section,” elaborating that “[t]hey’re arranging the device to provide the longitudinal dynamics, because longitudinal dynamics, it’s information about position of the focal planes along the axis longitudinally.” Ex. 2012, 85:21–86:10.” slip op. at 24

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “have foreseen Patent Owner’s argument does not justify its insufficient explanation and lack of evidence in the Petition. As Patent Owner argues, its ITC brief, filed approximately a month before the Petition was filed, provided effective notice of Patent Owner’s position that there would have been issues using Gmitro’s fiber-optic bundle to carry the plurality of light beams used in Tiziani. Id. Moreover, even without such express notice, Petitioner should have recognized the requirement that its Petition must “identif[y], in writing and with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). The Petition was also required to include “[a] full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing laws, rules, and precedent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2). The Petition fails to meet these requirements with respect to its assertion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Gmitro’s fiber-optic bundle with Tiziani’s confocal imaging system and microlens array. It is “improper for a reply to present new evidence (including new expert testimony) that could have been presented in a prior filing.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019), 74– 75 (citing Genzyme Therapeutic Prods. Ltd. v. Biomarin Pharm. Inc., 825 F.3d 1360, 1365–69 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Petitioner does not provide any persuasive reason that the evidence it presented with its Reply to bolster its assertion of a reasonable expectation of success could not have been provided with the Petition. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner exceeded the proper scope of a reply with its newly presented arguments on pages 24– 27 of the Reply and with the its new citations of portions of the ’448 Patent (Ex. 1001, 7:53–8:3, 5:62–65, 5:39–41, 5:45–51, Fig. 1A), Picard (Ex. 1003, 25–26), Gmitro’s title (Ex. 1005, title), Dr. Sergienko’s new testimony (Ex. 1037 ¶¶ 22–28), and Exhibits 1038 and 1039.” slip op. at 44

  Patent outcomesUS 8,638,448 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,638,448
• Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 26, 2020 · IPR2018-01661 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 15, and 16 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations failed to establish the claimed power gain and power loss relationship used to determine whether to power down.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Relying on the testimony of Dr. Raghunathan, Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’014 patent “would have had at least an M.S. degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering (or equivalent experience), and would have three years of experience with computer hardware and software power management design techniques.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 57–58). In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal with a modification to the level of education based on Patent Owner’s proposal in its Preliminary Response. Inst. Dec. 7 (citing Prelim. Resp. 5). Specifically, we determined that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a B.S. degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering (or equivalent experience) and three years of experience with computer hardware and software power management design techniques.” Id. Neither party argues during trial that our definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. See PO Resp. 2–3. See generally Pet. Reply. Because our preliminary determination is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, we maintain and reaffirm that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a B.S. degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering (or equivalent experience) and three years of experience with computer hardware and software power management design techniques.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We need only construe claim terms that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). In this proceeding, neither party proposes a formal construction for any term. See Pet. 23; PO Resp. 3. We find it unnecessary to construe expressly any claim terms to resolve the controversy before us.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Weighing the parties’ arguments and evidence on the complete record now before us, we find Petitioner has not shown that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Takahashi’s “predetermined value” to be an estimated power gain. Patent Owner, with the support of Dr. Wolfe’s credible testimony, persuasively argues that Takahashi’s “predetermined value” is a previous value of the cache-miss rate. Petitioner, on the other hand, does not point to anything in Takahashi that describes the “predetermined value” as an estimated power gain, nor does Petitioner cite any testimony from Dr. Raghunathan in support of its position other than a portion of his declaration that is substantially the same as the discussion in the Petition. See Pet. 33–34 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 80); see also Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 72– 80 (testimony substantially the same as pages 29–34 of the Petition). Without any suggestion in Takahashi that the “predetermined value” relates to an estimated power gain, Takahashi’s stated goal of reducing power consumption is not sufficient to show that Takahashi’s “predetermined value” is representative of an estimated power gain. For these reasons, we find that Petitioner has not established that Takahashi teaches or suggests an estimated power gain or determining whether to power down a portion of a device component in response to a relationship between an estimated power gain and an estimated power loss, as recited in independent claim 1. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been obvious over the teachings of Takahashi.” slip op. at 19

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

    “We focus on one argument we find particularly persuasive—that Hu does not teach using the L2Access:leak ratio to “determin[e] whether to power down” a cache or a portion of a cache, as required by claim 1, even if the L2Access:leak ratio can be considered a relationship between an estimated power gain and an estimated power loss. See PO Resp. 24; PO Sur-reply 16–18. In its Reply, Petitioner alleges that “Hu explicitly discloses using the L2Access:leak ratio to determine when to power down the L1 cache.” Pet. Reply 16 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 97–98). Petitioner, however, does not support this proposition by quoting or citing specific language in Hu, relying only on Dr. Raghunathan’s declaration, which provides substantially the same discussion as the Petition. Compare Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 97–98, with Pet. 39–40. We agree with Patent Owner that the portion of Hu cited in the Petition and Dr. Raghunathan’s declaration does not teach using the L2Access:leak ratio to determine whether to power down the L1 cache, as Petitioner contends. See PO Sur-reply 16–18; Pet. 39–41; Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 97– 99. Rather, Hu discloses determining values of the normalized cache leakage energy for different decay intervals at four values of the L2Access:leak ratio—5, 10, 20, and 100. Ex. 1104, 175–76; see PO Sur-reply 17. Hu uses these assumed values of the L2Access:leak ratio as inputs to generate simulation data, not to determine whether to power down a cache or portion of a cache. Ex. 1104, 175, see PO Resp. 24; PO Sur-Reply 15–16. Petitioner argues that Hu teaches that the higher the L2Access:leak ratio, the longer the system should wait before powering down the cache. Pet. 39–41; Pet. Reply 16–17. Hu, however, does not expressly compare the effect of different L2Access:leak ratios other than to state that when the L2Access:leak ratio is 100, a small decay interval is detrimental to performance and power. Ex. 1104, 175. As Patent Owner correctly asserts, Hu does not describe using the L2Access:leak ratio to determine an appropriate decay interval, nor does Hu describe using the L2Access:leak ratio to determine whether to power down a portion of a cache. See PO Sur-Reply 17–18.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 8,020,014 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,020,014
• Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 12, 2020 · IPR2018-01040 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 10, 12, and 13 were not shown unpatentable because the prior art did not teach or support adding the separately claimed third voltage reference.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Adverse judgmentDenied

    “We agree with Patent Owner that we should not address the patentability of claim 9 in this Decision. See PO Resp. 63–64. Rather, following Federal Circuit case law, we treat claim 9 as if it never existed. See Gunn v. Kopf, 96 F.3d 1419, 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“A statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. § 253 has the effect of canceling the claims from the patent and the patent is viewed as though the disclaimed claims had never existed in the patent.”). Consistent with other Board decisions in which some, but not all, challenged claims have been disclaimed after institution, we address the patentability only of the remaining claims. See LG Elecs., Inc. v. Wi-LAN Inc., IPR2018-00673, Paper 48 at 3 (PTAB Sept. 5, 2019) (Final Written Decision); Yamaha Golf Car, Paper 63 at 3; Baker Hughes, Paper 74 at 6, 11–12. We also agree with Patent Owner that we should not enter adverse judgment as to claim 9. See PO Sur-reply 26–27. Arthrex, the case relied on by Petitioner, does not mandate a different outcome. By its terms, 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2) permits disclaimer to be construed as a request for adverse action when there are “no remaining claim[s] in the trial.” That was the situation in Arthrex. 880 F.3d at 1347 (“Arthrex, Inc. disclaimed all claims that were the subject of the petition.”). Here, in contrast, several claims remain in the trial. Furthermore, Arthrex does not support Petitioner’s patent are disclaimed.” Pet. Reply 27. The Arthrex language quoted by Petitioner compares disclaimer of an “entire patent” under § 42.73(b)(1) with disclaimer of “some of the claims” of the patent (i.e., fewer than all claims in the patent but all challenged claims so there are no remaining claims in the trial) under § 42.73(b)(2). 880 F.3d at 1350. Neither situation is present here when only one claim (claim 9) has been disclaimed and several challenged claims (claims 1–4, 10, 12, and 13) remain in the trial.” slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’207 patent “would have had at least a[n] M.S. degree in electrical engineering and would have at least two years of experience with circuit design.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 32). In our Institution Decision, we found Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the asserted prior art and adopted Petitioner’s position, which Patent Owner did not oppose in the Preliminary Response. Inst. Dec. 14 (citing Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). Neither Patent Owner, in its Response, nor Dr. Ipek, in his declaration, proposes a level of ordinary skill in the art. Dr. Ipek, however, states that “[f]or purposes of the subject IPR proceedings, I have been asked to employ [Petitioner’s proposed] standard of a person of ordinary skill, but I do not offer the opinion that it is the correct standard.” Ex. 2011 ¶ 19. Nothing in the full record persuades us that our preliminary finding as to the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. Accordingly, because our preliminary determination is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, we maintain and reaffirm that one least an M.S. degree in electrical engineering and at least two years of experience with circuit design. See Inst. Dec. 14; Pet. 17.” slip op. at 18

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

    “the complete record developed during this inter partes review, we again conclude that the “third voltage reference” must be separate from the “second voltage reference.” We begin with the language of claim 1, which recites a first voltage reference, a second voltage reference, and a third voltage reference as separate elements.7 “Where a claim lists elements separately, ‘the clear implication of the claim language’ is that those elements are ‘distinct component[s]’ of the patented invention.” Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). The terms “first,” “second,” and “third” are terms used to distinguish separate elements of a claim. See Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings, Inc., 405 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also 3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 350 F.3d 1365, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The use of the terms ‘first’ and ‘second’ is a common patent-law convention to distinguish between repeated instances of an element or limitation.”). Although Gillette and 3M address whether such terms impose a numerical or serial limitation, they nevertheless support Patent Owner’s position that enumerated elements typically are not construed to be the same element. See Sur-reply 11–12. Other cases cited by Patent Owner also support its position. See id. at 12 (citing Regents of the Univ. of Minn. v. AGA Med. Corp., 717 F.3d 929, 935–39 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (construing “first” and “second” disks as separate and discrete disks); Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 96 F.3d 1398, 1405) (Fed. Cir. 1996)” slip op. at 21

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “ordinary skill in the art would have sought to reduce power consumption in Takahashi to address the well-known problem of current leakage, and that providing a separate voltage reference for transistor 223 in Takahashi’s Figure 15 (i.e., a third voltage reference) would have achieved that goal. Pet. 34–35 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 88). But the only evidence Petitioner relies on for adding the proposed third voltage reference is the testimony of Dr. Stojanovic. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 88). Without any additional supporting evidence, Dr. Stojanovic’s testimony is insufficient to supply the missing “third voltage reference,” which is a key limitation of claim 1. See K/S Himpp v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 36 (Nov. 2019)9 (“[I]n an obviousness analysis, conclusory assertions from a third party about general knowledge in the art cannot, without supporting evidence of record, supply a limitation that is not evidently and indisputably within the common knowledge of those skilled in the art. . . . In other words, expert testimony may explain ‘patents and publications,’ but is not a substitute for disclosure in a prior art reference itself.” (citing K/S Himpp, 751 F.3d at 1365)); see also Inst. Dec. 30–31 (reaching the same conclusion on the preliminary record). Furthermore, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s proposed” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 7,706,207 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,706,207
• Campbell Soup Company / Campbell Sales Company et al. v. Gamon Plus, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 2, 2018 · IPR2017-00087 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–16 were cancelled at Patent Owner’s request; claims 27, 28, and 32–35 were not shown unpatentable over the instituted §103 grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the earliest priority date of the claims, would have had either: “(1) a Bachelor’s Degree in Industrial Design and at least 1-2 years of experience in designing gravity feed display dispensers, or (2) 5-10 years of experience in designing gravity feed display dispensers.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 36). Patent Owner does not propose an explicit level of ordinary skill in the art in its Response. Consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 18

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

    “construed according to their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In our Institution Decision, we construed several claim terms recited in claims 1–17. Inst. Dec. 13–20. Patent Owner requests cancellation of claims 1–16 and we did not institute inter partes review of claim 17. Thus, none of the claim terms we construed previously are at issue in the trial. Additionally, Patent Owner’s Response and Sur-Reply and Petitioner’s Reply do not request that we construe any additional claim terms. Accordingly, we need not construe expressly any claim terms to resolve the controversy before us. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803.” slip op. at 15

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

    “how or why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been led to combine Weichselbaum and Nesso in the manner claimed. On that point, the Petition rests on bare opinion testimony that is not tethered to any disclosure in the prior art or other objective proof. Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 168–170). We are mindful that a reason to combine prior art may exist “in the content of the public prior art, in the nature of the problem addressed by the invention, or even in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art.” Princeton Biochemicals Inc. v. Beckman Coulter Inc., 411 F.3d 1332, 1338-39 (Fed. Cir. 2005). But when we turn to the opinion testimony that undergirds Petitioner’s argument on the reasons to combine, we find no objective proof and inadequate reasoning. Id. Ultimately, Petitioner presents two very weak reasons based on unstated and unexplained factual assumptions in support of its view that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to modify Weichselbaum. Additionally, as explained above, Petitioner takes conflicting positions as to how Nesso’s second chute would be incorporated in Weichselbaum’s device and the record remains unclear as to the precise structure resulting from Petitioner’s combination. Accordingly, Petitioner fails to provide sufficient clarity regarding the specific modifications to Weichselbaum, fails to provide a sufficient reason with rational underpinning as to why and how one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Weichselbaum in light of Nesso, and appears, on this record, to engage in an impermissible exercise of hindsight reconstruction to make out a reason to combine the applied references in the manner claimed. Further, in light of the full trial record, including Patent Owner’s evidence of secondary considerations discussed below, we are persuaded that the bare opinions set forth in the Visser Declaration (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 168–170) are entitled to little weight. See Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“Lack of factual support for” opinion testimony “going to factual determinations” may be of little probative value in validity determination.”).” slip op. at 36

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

    “specific product and that product ‘is the invention disclosed and claimed in the patent.’” WBIP, 829 F.3d at 1329 (citation omitted). The presumption is rebuttable, but “a patent challenger cannot successfully rebut the presumption with argument alone—it must present evidence.” Id. (citation omitted). Patent Owner has shown that the asserted objective evidence, discussed further below, is tied to a specific product and that product “is the invention disclosed and claimed in the patent.” Id. (quoting J.T. Eaton & Co. v. Atl. Paste & Glue Co., 106 F.3d 1563, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). “This showing––that the specific products are embodiments of the claimed invention and that the proffered objective evidence relates to these products—is sufficient to establish the presumption of nexus for the objective considerations at issue in this case.” Id. at 1330. It is, therefore, Petitioner’s burden to rebut that presumption. Id. at 1329 (“a patent challenger cannot successfully rebut the presumption with argument alone— it must present evidence”); see Tr. 46:20–47:8 (Petitioner agreeing that nexus is presumed and that Petitioner has the burden to overcome the presumption.). Petitioner does not rebut the presumption of nexus. First, Petitioner’s entire argument is phrased as challenging whether Patent Owner satisfied its burden of establishing nexus, as opposed to whether Petitioner rebuts the presumption of nexus. Pet. Reply 20–21 (“It is Patent Owner’s burden to establish a nexus.”) (citing CaptionCall LLC v. Ultratec Inc., IPR2013- 00540, Paper 78 at 50 (PTAB Mar. 3, 2015)). Second, Petitioner points to other factors, including higher prices and increased advertising, referred to in Campbell’s annual reports that contributed to increased soup sales. Pet. Reply 21–22. There is no dispute that other factors also contributed to the increase in soup sales. But, there is also no dispute that Campbell’s own statements, through its Annual Reports and Mr. Finnel’s interview, tie increased soup sales expressly to Gamon’s display racks. Additionally, Campbell’s internal presentation describes Gamon’s IQ Maximizer as “Breakthrough Gravity Feed Shelving” and attributes the following to the display racks based on the results of its study: • +13.6% volume lift for Corporate Brand • +10% volume lift for Condensed Segment • +9.3% volume lift for Campbell’s Condensed • +5.5% volume lift for Wet Soup Category • Encourages purchase of additional varieties • Billboard effect improves branding: 210% larger • Positive labor impact due to elimination of shelf conditioning Ex. 2032, 4. Although other factors had some degree of impact on commercial success,29 we determine that Patent Owner has established that an appreciable amount of Campbell’s increased commercial success of soup during the relevant time period is attributable to the display rack covered by claim 27 of the ’111 patent. Accordingly, Gamon’s sales to Campbell of about $31 million from 2002–2009 as well as a portion of the increased sales of Campbell’s soup using Gamon’s display racks provide a strong showing of commercial success of the commercial embodiment of claim 27 of the ’111 patent.” slip op. at 61

  Patent outcomesUS 8,827,111 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,827,111
• Prairie Land Millwright Services, Inc. v. Sioux Steel CompanyNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 4, 2018 · IPR2016-01873 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–28 were not shown unpatentable because the proposed combinations did not establish the claimed pivot unit limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In view of this, and consistent with the Specification, we understand that the claim language “configured to carry a portion of the succession of interconnected paddles” uses “carry” in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning as supporting the paddles while they move. The pivot unit/drive unit embodiment shown in Figure 13 presents an example consistent with this. This pivot unit/drive unit includes rotatable driven member 60. See Ex. 1001, Fig. 13. Endless loop member 20 engages rotatable driven member 60. Id. at 9:65–67. Specifically, rotatable driven member 60 is engaged to an underside of upper stretch 23 of endless loop member 20, in a position to support a portion of the weight of endless loop member 20 and the weight of a portion of paddles 18. Id. at Fig. 13, Fig. 8. Accordingly, the embodiment of pivot unit/drive unit shown in Figure 13 is configured to support the weight of a portion of paddles 18 via rotatable driven member 60 while paddles 18 move. Indeed, the Specification consistently uses “carry” according to its plain and ordinary meaning. For example, the Specification discloses “endless loop member 20 carrying the paddles” (id. at 5:13–31) and that “power unit 26 may comprise a first base portion 28 which carries a portion of the succession of interconnected paddles 18” (id. at 5:41–43). Endless loop member 20 and first base portion 28 of power unit 26 support paddles 18 while they move. Endless loop 20 directly supports paddles 18, which mount to endless loop 20. See id. at 5:19–22, Figs. 8, 13. Base portion 28 of power unit 26 supports paddles 18 via endless loop 20, which mounts to rotatable driven member 30 of base portion 28. See id. at 5:41–51, Figs. 7, 8.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Figure 4 provides a cross-sectional view of Dixon’s sweep conveyor 27. Ex. 1007, 2:10–12, 2:38–45. Sprockets 49, 51 at the ends of Dixon’s sweep conveyor 27 carry (i.e., support) roller chain 57 and paddles 59. Id. at Fig. 4, 2:64–3:1, 3:16–22. Petitioner does not provide evidence or explanation demonstrating that the intermediate portion of Dixon’s sweep conveyor 27 carries, to any extent, roller chain 57 or the succession of paddles 59. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that making the intermediate portion of Dixon’s sweep a modular pivot unit (as Petitioner suggests would have been obvious) would produce a pivot unit “configured to carry a portion of the succession of interconnected paddles.” And Petitioner provides no reasoning or evidence persuading us that it would have been obvious, in addition to making Dixon’s intermediate portion a pivot unit, to further modify the intermediate portion to carry a portion of the succession of interconnected paddles. Thus, Petitioner’s assertion that it would have been obvious to make the intermediate portion of Dixon’s sweep a modular pivot unit fails to demonstrate obviousness of all of the limitations of claim 1.” slip op. at 23

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “been obvious for the pivot unit to be configured to carry a portion of the paddles (PO Resp. 16–17), Petitioner does not waiver from its position that the term “carry” has any meaning other than its plain and ordinary (see Pet. 11–12). Nor and does Petitioner offer persuasive evidence of how the allegedly obvious modifications would result in the claimed invention. Instead, Petitioner responds with nothing more than the conclusory assertion that modularizing Dixon’s sweep and adding a pivot would result in a pivot unit configured to carry a portion of the paddles. Pet. Reply 9–11. Petitioner cites no expert testimony to support this proposition. See id.; see also Pet. 19–20 (presenting substantially same proposition without citing expert testimony). The proposition presented by Petitioner cannot stand on the conclusory assertion Petitioner offers. Regarding dependent claims 2–4 and 6–11, Petitioner’s assertions do not cure the foregoing deficiencies in Petitioner’s contention that independent claim 1 would have been obvious. With respect to claim 4, for example, Petitioner asserts that it would have been obvious “to provide a pivot on the drive unit of the Dixon/Berreau/Borowski sweep discussed above with respect to claim 1 above, e.g., between the outer drive unit and an adjacent intermediate linking unit.” Pet. 21. Here again, Petitioner does not provide evidence or explanation of how the allegedly obvious modification would have resulted in “a pivot unit configured to carry a portion of the succession of interconnected paddles, the pivot unit including a pair of connected sections with each section being connected to an adjacent said unit of the array,” as required by claim 1 (and thus, claim 4). For example, in view of Petitioner identifying Dixon’s “drive unit” as being at outboard sweep end 37, Petitioner does not explain how including the drive unit as part of the pivot unit would result in the pivot unit including a pair of connected sections with each section being connected to an adjacent said unit of the array. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–4 and 6–11 would have been obvious over Dixon, Berreau, and Borowski.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 8,967,937 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,967,937
• Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. v. Smith International, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 2, 2018 · IPR2016-01452 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 22, 27, 46–52, 54, and 55 were not shown unpatentable over Myers, Myers and Bostock, or Anderson because the references did not disclose the claimed fluid-flow limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “to determine whether it further supports the contention that Myers discloses the “flowing a fluid” step. Mr. Shale’s declaration discusses the operation of Myers in a manner that is virtually identical in substance to the content of the Petition. Compare Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 49–53, with Pet. 21–24. Mr. Shale does not address directly the “flowing a fluid” step or otherwise explain how Myers discloses “flowing a fluid though an axial flowbore extending through the downhole tool.”7 Accordingly, we find Mr. Shale’s declaration fails to provide persuasive support for Petitioner’s contention that Myers discloses “flowing a fluid though an axial flowbore extending through the downhole tool while preventing the fluid from communicating with a different flowpath of the downhole tool,” as required by claim 22, beyond what Myers, itself, discloses.” slip op. at 17

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Ex. 1021, 75:25 – 76:7. Mr. Underwood’s testimony does not support Petitioner’s contention that Myers discloses the “flowing a fluid” step. Mr. Underwood was asked whether there is “a fluid flowing within the Myers tool,” not whether Myers discloses “flowing a fluid though an axial flowbore extending through the downhole tool,” as required by claim 22. Id. Moreover, Mr. Underwood testified that “fluid doesn’t flow through the tool,” but rather just flows “into the tool.” Id. (emphases added)” slip op. at 20

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

    “claims 22, 27, 46, 47, 50–52, 54, and 55 of the ’099 patent. Inst. Dec. 22; see also Pet. 21–29. 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). Specifically, “[f]or a claim to be anticipated, each claim element must be disclosed, either expressly or inherently, in a single prior art reference, and the claimed arrangement or combination of those elements must also be disclosed, either expressly or inherently, in that same prior art reference.” Id. at 1332–33. Inherent disclosure is established where the reference “must necessarily include the unstated limitation.” Id. (emphasis omitted); see Cont’l Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (holding that inherency can be established by extrinsic evidence that “make[s] clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill”).” slip op. at 10

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

    “C. ASSERTED OBVIOUSNESS OVER MYERS AND BOSTOCK Petitioner contends claim 22, and claims 48 and 49, which depend from claim 22, would have been obvious over Myers and Bostock. Pet. 29– 32. With regard to the “flowing a fluid” step of claim 22, Petitioner relies only on the contentions it set forth under its anticipation analysis with respect to claim 22. Pet. 31. Because Petitioner does not rely on Bostock to teach the recited “flowing a fluid” step, does not argue the step would have been obvious over the combination, and, for the reasons provided above, has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Myers discloses the step, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 22, 48, and 49 would have been obvious over Myers and Bostock.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 7,314,099 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,314,099
• Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. v. Smith International, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 1, 2018 · IPR2016-01440 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–20, and 28–42 were not shown unpatentable because Myers did not establish axial translation, and Myers with Bostock did not cure that deficiency.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “radially” in the Petition. In its Reply, Petitioner equates “radially” to “outwardly” and “axially” to “downwardly.” Pet. Reply 7. Patent Owner contends that “axially and radially” would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art “to refer to movement relative the body and oriented relative to the axis of the body.” PO Resp. 19 (citing Ex. 2018 ¶ 82). In particular, Patent Owner contends that “axial” refers to “movement along or parallel to the axis of the body, and that “radial” refers to “the direction perpendicular to the axis of the body.” PO Resp. 20. Patent Owner contends its interpretation is consistent with the Specification of the ’099 patent and is supported by both its expert, Mr. Underwood, and Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Shale. Id. at 18–21 (citations omitted). For example, Mr. Shale testified that “‘[r]adially’ basically means left to right within the tubular body,” and “‘axially’ means up and down within the tubular body.” Ex. 2021, 189:5–7. Patent Owner further notes that Figures 4, 5, 11, and 12 of the ’099 patent illustrate arms 520 moving axially and radially relative to body 510. PO Resp. 20. In its Reply, Petitioner argues that “[c]ontrary to Patent Owner’s assertion, claim 1 of the ’099 [p]atent does not require that the body 10 be the frame of reference for the axial and radial movement.” Pet. Reply 13 n.3. Petitioner, however, cites no persuasive evidence to counter Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, Mr. Shale agreed that “radially” corresponds to “outward from the body,” and that “axially” corresponds to “up and down of the body.” Ex. 2021 190:4–19. Consistent with Mr. Shale’s testimony, Petitioner’s analysis purports to show that Myers discloses movement of moveable arms (slips 30) “both axially and radially relative to the body 10 [of Myers].” Pet. 19– 20. Petitioner is not alleging movement of the slips of Myers relative to a feature other than the body of Myers or in some other frame of reference. See Tr. 10:1–21. Thus, based on the evidence discussed above, we determine “translates axially and radially,” as recited in claim 1, means “moves parallel to and perpendicular to the body” and does not encompass movement consisting of only rotation about a pivot point. slip op. at 9

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

    “The steps discussed above address how slips 30 of Myers are deployed, but do not explain expressly whether slips 30 move axially relative to body 10 during deployment. With regard to the slips, Myers further provides that: [Slips 30] are positively movable laterally relative to the expander upon relative longitudinal movement between the expander and slips by inclined spline connections between the slips and expander, provided by oppositely directed side tongues 32 on each slip sliding in companion grooves 33 in the expander on opposite sides of slots 34 in the expander in which the slips are disposed. The lower ends of the slips 30 are coupled for movement longitudinally with one another by being connected to a slip ring 35 having generally T-shaped slots 36 therein receiving companion T-shaped heads 37 on the lower portions of the slips. Thus, the slips 30 move longitudinally jointly with the slip ring 35, although they are still permitted to move radially or laterally inwardly and outwardly of the slip ring, upon relative longitudinal movement between the slips 30 and expander 26. Ex. 1004, 3:2–17. In this passage, the movement of the slips includes “longitudinal movement,” which we understand generally corresponds to a vertical direction, as opposed to lateral movement in a horizontal direction. However, the movement is described relative to expander 26, not relative to body 10. See Pet. 13 (using “lateral” consistent with the horizontal extent and “longitudinal” consistent with the vertical extent). Thus, this passage also does not explain expressly whether slips 30 move axially relative to the body during deployment.” slip op. at 18

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

    “C. ASSERTED OBVIOUSNESS OVER MYERS AND BOSTOCK Petitioner contends claims 4, 33, and 34, each of which depends from claim 1, would have been obvious over Myers and Bostock. Pet. 24–26. According to Petitioner, “[e]ach of claims 4, 33, and 34 recites biasing either a sleeve or a movable arm to a collapsed position.” Id. at 24. Petitioner relies on Bostock as disclosing a spring for biasing. Id. As to the limitations of claim 1 from which claims 4, 33, and 34 depend, including the requirement of “one moveable arm translates axially and radially,” Petitioner relies only on the contentions it set forth under its anticipation analysis with respect to claim 1. Because Petitioner does not rely on Bostock to teach the recited feature “one moveable arm translates axially and radially,” does not argue the feature would have been obvious over the combination, and, for the reasons provided above, has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Myers teaches the feature, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 4, 33, and 34 of the ’099 patent would have been obvious over Myers and Bostock.” slip op. at 25

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Mr. Shale expresses the opinion that “slips 30 move both axially and radially relative to the body 10, along ‘generally T-shaped slots 36’ that are linear and angled relative to the axial direction,” we find that testimony to be conclusory and entitled to little weight, in part because this testimony does not account for the upward movement of setting sleeve 40. See Ex. 1010 ¶ 53 (quoting Ex. 1004, 3:11); see also In re Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). Accordingly, we find Mr. Shale’s declaration fails to provide persuasive support for Petitioner’s contention that Myers discloses “one moveable arm translates axially and radially,” as required by claim 1, beyond what Myers, itself, discloses. We find more persuasive Mr. Underwood’s testimony, on behalf of Patent Owner, that Myers fails to disclose axial movement of slips 30. Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 90–107. According to Mr. Underwood: slots [36 of Myers] are shown as angled relative to the slip ring 35. However, though the slips may move downward (axially) relative to the slip ring 35 as the slips move outward (radially), the slip ring 35 at the same time moves upward (axially) relative to the body. As such, the angle of the slots 36 within the slip ring 35 is not, itself, indicative of the overall movement of the slips. Id. ¶ 91. Mr. Underwood further reasons that “as the slip ring moves upwardly, the movement of the slips relative to the body in the axial direction is zero due to the slips sliding downward in the slots 36 relative to the slip ring 35 in equal proportion.” Id. ¶ 94. Mr. Underwood also” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 7,314,099 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,314,099
• Henny Penny Corporation v. Frymaster L.L.C.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 21, 2017 · IPR2016-01435 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–12, and 17–21, 23 were not proven unpatentable over Kauffman and Iwaguchi, with Howard for claims 18 and 20, because the motivation to combine was insufficiently shown.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner proposes that the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been a “Bachelors of Science degree in Biosystems & Agricultural Engineering (or equivalent) or other Engineering major with a minor in Food Science and Technology and have had one or more years’ experience in the field of research and development of foods.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 74). Patent Owner does not propose an explicit level of ordinary skill in the art in its Response. Dr. Keener, however, expressly adopts Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art. Ex. 2032 ¶ 63. Consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 13

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

    “means for re-circulating” In the Institution Decision, we preliminarily construed the claim term “means for re-circulating” as a means-plus-function limitation, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Id. at 17–18. We construed the function as “re-circulating said cooking oil” and identified the corresponding structure as “a pump and structural equivalents thereof.” Id. at 18–19. Neither party contests our construction of the term, and we maintain that construction here for the same reasons. slip op. at 7

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that we need not expressly construe the term “adapter.” We reiterate the following from our Institution Decision: The term “adapter” appears in each claim of the ’691 patent. Neither party contends that the specification or prosecution history contains a lexicographic definition of the term, and neither party asserts that the specification or prosecution history contains a disclaimer of any portion of the plain and ordinary meaning of the term. From our review of the record, the structure and location of the adapter recited in the claims is provided by other claim language describing that (1) the adapter is located external to the fryer, (2) the sensor is disposed in the adapter, (3) the adapter is installed between two portions of the return pipe or drain pipe, and (4) the adapter has two opposite ends wherein one of the two ends is connected to one of the two portions of either the return pipe or the drain pipe and the other end is connected to the other portion of pipe.3 Inst. Dec. 9–10. In light of the above discussion, and because the focus of the parties’ dispute is not on the meaning of the term “adapter,” we decline to expressly construe the term further.” slip op. at 8

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Differences Between the Prior Art and the Claims; Motivation to Modify We instituted Petitioner’s challenge of these claims, and those that depend therefrom, based on Petitioner’s position that Kauffman disclosed most of the elements of the independent claims with the exception of a sensor capable of measuring an electrical property that is indicative of total polar materials. See, e.g., Inst. Dec. 31. Thus, the theory of obviousness, as discussed above, relies upon substituting Iwaguchi’s sensor for Kauffman’s analyzer. See id. at 31 (“Petitioner provides a second argument that relies upon a modification to Kauffman’s system, in which Iwaguchi’s sensor is employed instead of Kauffman’s analyzer. Because Petitioner provides adequate support for this second position, we address Patent Owner’s arguments based on this proposed combination.”). Petitioner confirmed at the oral argument that its Petition proposed a theory in which Iwaguchi’s sensor is simply swapped for that of Kauffman’s and did not present a more general theory as to modifying Kauffman’s sensor per the teachings of Iwaguchi: JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Did you include both of those alternative theories in your petition or is that something that you’re – you’ve come up with now in the reply? MR. VAIDYA: It’s something that we -- again, in the reply, we wanted to make it very clear that we aren’t going on a 102 basis and we are -- and what -- I think what -- we did have that alternate in the reply, so the alternate -- and I can point to paragraphs if that helps. And so, the idea is again primarily we’re going with the idea of swapping sensors, but that it would be possible to modify the sensor in Kauffman. JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Because in the petition, it was a swap of the sensors. MR. VAIDYA: That’s right. JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: And that’s what we instituted -- MR. VAIDYA: That’s correct. JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: -- based on. MR. VAIDYA: That’s correct. Tr. 13:21–14:12. We disregard Petitioner’s alternative position as it was an attempt to raise a new theory of unpatentability improperly for the first time in the Reply. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“All arguments for the relief requested in a motion must be made in the motion. A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, or patent owner response.”).” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 8,497,691 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,497,691

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.