• Rimfrost As v. Aker Biomarine Antarctic AsAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 6, 2022 · IPR2020-01533 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 are unpatentable as obvious over the combined prior art, considered with the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Neither Patent Owner nor Dr. Jaczynski disputes Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 2015 ¶ 8 (“For purposes of this proceeding, I will accept [Petitioner’s] definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art].”). Upon review of the ’046 patent and the prior art of record, we find Petitioner’s uncontested definition reasonable and supported by the evidence of record. Accordingly, we adopt this definition of one of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Upon review of the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, we determine that no terms of the ’046 patent require construction in order to resolve the disputes in this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting 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 9

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel does not applyDecided for patent owner

    “Collateral estoppel protects a party from having to litigate issues that have been fully and fairly tried in a previous action and adversely resolved against a party-opponent.” Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps South, LLC, 735 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In the context of patent claims, collateral estoppel applies “[i]f the differences between the unadjudicated patent claims and adjudicated patent claims do not materially alter the question of invalidity.” Id. Petitioner points to no prior decision of the Board where the issue of whether it would have been obvious to denature a krill product and then store it for 1 to 36 months before extraction was at issue. Moreover, to demonstrate that the added limitation would have been obvious, Petitioner relies heavily on the disclosures of Budziński, which was not at issue or analyzed in the prior proceedings. Pet. 39. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated that collateral estoppel applies to any issue in this proceeding. slip op. at 10

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

    “Breivik II’s disclosures would have understood that extraction of fresh krill is preferable over stored krill products, and that extraction should be performed on the fishing vessel as opposed to on land. PO Resp. 53. On this record, we agree with Patent Owner that Breivik II teaches or suggests a successful method of immediately processing and extracting fresh caught krill on-board a fishing vessel. We also agree that Breivik II suggests that its disclosed method may have advantages over conventional krill oil extraction processes. The disclosed advantages to immediately denaturing and extracting krill oil discussed in Breivik II, however, are only “expected,” not definitive, and we are directed to no disclosure in Breivik II to suggest that extraction from a stored, denatured krill meal was unlikely to result in a useful krill oil. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that the case law “does not require that a particular combination must be the preferred, or the most desirable, combination described in the prior art in order to provide motivation for the current invention”); In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (explaining that a reference teaches away when it suggest that a particular course of action “is unlikely to be productive of the result sought by the applicant,” and that “[a] known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product of the same use”). Moreover, although, as noted in Breivik II, oxidation and enzymatic hydrolysis are of particular concern during krill processing procedures, Petitioner and Dr. Tallon persuasively demonstrate that the denatured and “stable” krill meal of Budziński was not subject to significant enzymatic hydrolysis or deterioration of krill lipid antioxidants, such as astaxanthin. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 172, 421, 434; Ex. 1086 ¶¶ 50–51; see also Ex. 1010, 822–823 (Fricke disclosing storing denatured krill products for a period of time before extraction with a polar solvent). As such, we are not persuaded that Breivik II would have taught away from, or otherwise discouraged, one of ordinary skill in the art from extracting krill oil from a denatured and stable krill meal that has been stored from between 1 and 36 months. Patent Owner further argues that, consistent with Breivik II’s disclosures, Budziński instructs that krill should be “processed as soon as possible after capture” and that “[t]he only way to meet this requirement is to install processing facilities on-board the vessel.” PO Resp. 51 (citing Ex. 1008, 25). The required processing of Budziński, however, is to denature the problematic krill enzymes, not to extract krill oil. Ex. 1008, 25. And, once the krill products are denatured, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that krill oil extraction could be successfully performed either on-board a vessel or on land after a storage period of up to 13 months. In view of the foregoing, we find that Breivik II and Budziński do not teach away from, or counsel against, extracting krill oil from a krill meal that had been denatured and stored for 1 to 36 months.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 9,816,046 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,816,046
• Rimfrost As v. Aker Biomarine Antarctic AsAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 6, 2022 · IPR2020-01532 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations of prior art, because the combined teachings establish every limitation and a reason to combine with a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel does not applyDecided for patent owner

    “Collateral estoppel protects a party from having to litigate issues that have been fully and fairly tried in a previous action and adversely resolved against a party-opponent.” Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps South, LLC, 735 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In the context of patent claims, collateral estoppel applies “[i]f the differences between the unadjudicated patent claims and adjudicated patent claims do not materially alter the question of invalidity.” Id. Petitioner points to no prior decision of the Board where the issue of whether it would have been obvious to denature a krill product and then store it for 1 to 24 months before extraction was at issue. Moreover, to demonstrate that the added limitation would have been obvious, Petitioner relies heavily on the disclosures of Budziński, which was not at issue or analyzed in the prior proceedings. Pet. 45; PO Resp. 13 (asserting that the prior art in the previous proceedings “did not include Budziński”). Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated that collateral estoppel applies in this proceeding. slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Neither Patent Owner nor Dr. Jaczynski dispute Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 2015 ¶ 8 (“For purposes of this proceeding, I will accept [Petitioner’s] definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art].”). Upon review of the ’169 patent and the prior art of record, we find Petitioner’s uncontested definition reasonable and supported by the evidence of record. Accordingly, we adopt this definition of one of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8

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

    “oil,” “denature lipases and phospholipases,” “polar solvent,” “astaxanthin esters,” “krill meal,” and “freshly harvested.” Pet. 32–39. With respect to “krill meal,” Petitioner contends this term should be construed to mean “processed krill with reduced water content from which krill oil can be extracted.” Id. at 38. Patent Owner provides proposed constructions for the terms “krill meal” and “denature lipases and phospholipases.” PO Resp. 7–12. With respect to “krill meal,” Patent Owner contends Petitioner’s proposed construction of “krill meal” is overbroad and ignores the ordinary and customary meaning of a meal, which is a “powder formed by particle size reduction of a starting material.” Id. at 8 (citing Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 14–16). Thus, Patent Owner construes “krill meal” to mean “a krill powder resulting from the processing of krill.” Id. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, we determine that no terms of the ’169 patent require construction in order to resolve the disputes in this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting 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 9

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

    “As noted by Patent Owner, the evidence of record suggests that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that krill processing—both denaturation and krill oil extraction—could be successfully performed on board a ship. Ex. 1037, 3–4; Ex. 2019, 49:18–25 (Dr. Tallon testifying 12 Because Patent Owner relies on various disclosures of Breivik II as potentially counselling against combining the references to arrive at the claimed subject matter, we will consider these teachings in our Decision. We do not, however, consider Breivik II or Petitioner’s arguments with respect to this reference in determining whether the prior art teaches or suggests every limitation of the challenged claims. during cross-examination that flammable solvents can be successfully managed on a ship). At the same time, Petitioner and Dr. Tallon explain that the dangers of using flammable solvents on a vessel are still a relevant consideration. Ex. 1086 ¶¶ 97–99; Ex. 2019, 49:18–25 (Tallon Deposition). Moreover, Dr. Tallon also persuasively identifies several other benefits of land-based krill oil extraction, such as the reduced costs of outfitting each ship with its own processing equipment (which is often essentially identical to that used on land), the ability to extract krill oil to meet specific demand in the market, and cheaper access to fuel. Pet. 61 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 173, 443); see KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (noting that market forces and design needs can provide the reason to combine or modify prior art references). Patent Owner presents no argument or evidence to refute these additional benefits of land-based extractions, other than to note that Dr. Tallon does not cite any specific documents to support his assertions. PO Resp. 45 (Patent Owner noting the testimony of Dr. Tallon). Upon review of the evidence of record, we credit the testimony of Dr. Tallon that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that, in addition to avoiding the need to manage the use of flammable solvents at sea, there were a number of other benefits to land-based extractions of krill oil that would have motivated a skilled artisan to store the denatured krill products for between 1 and 24 months, as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 9,644,169 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,644,169
• Sealed Air Corporation v. Ranpak Corp.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 12, 2022 · IPR2020-01249 · APJ Wesley B Derrick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 13–15 are unpatentable as obvious over Kirkpatrick; the Board did not reach the alternative grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner fails to cite any authority to support its argument that we should, in effect, disregard Mr. Klass’ testimony as to the level of ordinary skill in the art because he is not a person of ordinary skill in what Patent Owner contends is the relevant field. See PO Resp.; PO Sur-Reply. Patent Owner’s counsel similarly was unable to identify any such authority at the hearing. Tr. 42:9–15. Further, Mr. Klass’ testimony was not that he is not a person of ordinary skill in the art, but rather that his opinions set forth in his earlier declaration would not be different under the level of ordinary skill as defined by Mr. May. Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 4–5. On this record, we find Mr. Klass’ testimony well-supported as it pertains to relevant issues and see no reason to summarily disregard it. See Exs. 1002, 1028. Complete overlap between a witness’ technical qualifications in the field of the invention is not necessary for the witness’ testimony to be admissible. See SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 594 F.3d 1360, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide November 2019 (“CTPG”)5 at 34 (“There is . . . no requirement of a perfect match between the expert’s experience and the relevant field.”). Nor must they themselves be a person of ordinary skill in the art, but only that they are “qualified in the pertinent art.” CTPG at 34 (citing Sundance, Inc. v. DelMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 136364 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Mr. Klass’ education includes a minor in Pulp & Paper Technology (Ex. 1006) and his lengthy experience in the pulp and paper industry includes work—as a process engineer—involving splicing and corrugators (Ex. 1002 ¶ 8). Mr. Klass has the “knowledge, skill, experience, training, [and] education” of a “specialized” nature that is likely to “assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. Accordingly, we find Mr. Klass has sufficient relevant technical expertise to consider and weigh his testimony as we have in this decision. See SEB S.A., 594 F.3d at 1373.” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “On this record, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have included those with a bachelor’s degree in mechanical or paper engineering with at least a year’s experience relating to producing cushioning materials, dunnage pads, and other protective packaging. As admitted by Patent Owner, production of such materials using kraft paper stock was known. PO Resp. 14. As to the use of double-sided adhesive, we do not agree with Patent Owner that it was unknown to the person of ordinary skill in the art because using double-sided tape to join rolls of sheet stock was known in the wider field of paper processing and we find that field reasonably includes producing paper cushioning products, and that such related knowledge reasonably would also have been within the knowledge of a skilled artisan in the “cushioning conversion machine” field as the same or similar paper cushioning products are produced. Moreover, regardless of whether double-sided tape was used in what Patent Owner contends is the “cushioning conversion machine” field, Mr. May’s testimony is limited to it not being used in that field, not that double-sided tape itself was not known to one of ordinary skill in the art in the field. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 53–57. It reasonably follows that a person having knowledge of double-sided tape would also have knowledge of joining together sheets of paper or other stock using double-sided tape. Further, to the extent that Patent Owner and Mr. May rely on “cushioning conversion machines” differing from paper processing machines that produce paper cushioning products, on this record, there is insufficient evidence of a meaningful difference in their complexity, size, or operation. For example, Patent Owner relies heavily on the paper processing machines including machinery to allow splicing on the fly, but the prior art also teaches that non-continuous roll-to-roll splicing can be used. See Ex. 1010, 1:13–16 (disclosing that a splicing tape system “is applicable both to systems in which the splice is made on the fly and to systems in which the splice is made while the running web is stationary”); Ex.1017, 1:15–19 (disclosing that “[t]he splicing operation can be performed in a static or a dynamic mode.”). As to size, similarly, Patent Owner relies on the machinery for paper making or producing corrugated cardboard being larger than “cushioning conversion machines,” but there is no clear distinction between the two as to size, as discussed below. Also, there is no evidence that paper processing machines forming paper cushioning products from paper itself do not do so in the same general manner as the ’096 patent. Accordingly, finding no meaningful distinction to “cushioning conversion machines,” we discern no meaningful difference in the knowledge of the skilled artisan as it relates to the challenged claims. Moreover, to the extent that there would be a narrower “cushioning conversion machine” field that did not include the use of double-sided tape, as Patent Owner contends, there would be no difference in the outcome of this case. As to obviousness, the scope of analogous prior art is not limited to the field of inventor’s endeavor, but also includes references that are “still reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As discussed below, we find Kirkpatrick reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” slip op. at 12

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

    “On this record, we determine that the preamble’s recitation of “sheet stock material for use in a cushioning conversion machine” is a statement of intended use and does not constitute a limitation. In doing so, we must construe the meaning of the term “cushioning conversion machine.” In construing “cushioning conversion machine,” we note there is no guidance elsewhere in the remaining claim language as to its meaning, including in other claims, and so turn to the specification of the ’096 patent. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13, 1315. The ’096 patent states that “[c]ushioning conversion machines convert [paper] sheet stock material . . . into a cushioning dunnage product.” Ex. 1001, 1:23–25 (Background). The ’096 patent also identifies its “invention [as] relat[ing] to machines for converting sheet stock material into a dunnage product.” Id. at 1:15–16 (Field of the Invention). Figures 1 and 2 are identified as top plan and side elevational views of a cushioning conversion machine. Id. at 3:57–63. The ’096 patent discloses that the “operation of the [cushioning] conversion machine 10 may be controlled by a controller, also in a well-known manner” (emphasis added). Id. at 6:42–44. The ’096 patent provides no disclosure as to the size of the cushioning conversion machine or the sheet stock material that it converts into cushioning dunnage product. See Ex. 1001.” slip op. at 20

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

    “On this record, Mr. May’s testimony of what “cushioning conversion machine” means in the field of paper dunnage machines fails to bear the weight required to limit the term as Patent Owner proposes. The ’096 patent identifies “cushioning conversion machines” to be machines that “convert sheet stock material . . . into a cushioning dunnage product.” Ex. 1001, 1:23–25 (Background). This is in effect the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves identifying a machine that converts feedstock into cushioning. Further, we find it consistent with the ’096 patent as a whole. Mr. May’s contrary testimony, as discussed above, lacks sufficient evidentiary basis to support Patent Owner’s contended construction over the plain and ordinary meaning. In effect, the basis for Mr. May’s testimony is limited to a showing that the meaning of the term encompasses a machine such as shown in the ’096 patent’s Figure 1 and 2. Mr. May’s testimony as to the PadPak machine being a “popular cushioning conversion machine[]” only goes to establishing that “cushioning conversion machine” encompasses similar machines, not that the term would be understood to be limited to the PadPak machine. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 65–66. As to “cushioning conversion machines” being stop/start machines, the ’096 patent’s states that “the conversion machine 10 may be controlled by a controller” (emphasis 7 Elsewhere Patent Owner cites a number of its patents for using the term “cushioning conversion machine,” but this only supports that Patent Owner uses the term. See PO Resp. 27. added), not that it must be. Ex. 1001, 6:42–43. As to size, as discussed above, the ’096 patent provides no limitation as to the size of the apparatus or the sheet stock material. Petitioner highlights that another of Patent Owner’s patents, U.S. Patent No. 6,200,251 B1 (Ex. 1026, “the ’251 patent”), discloses “that in a ‘preferred cushioning conversion machine, the stock supply assembly is adapted to supply stock material which is between 25 to 35 inches wide’” (emphasis added). Pet. Reply 14 (citing Ex. 1026, 2:56–59). Petitioner also highlights that the ’251 patent was filed before the ’096 patent’s priority date and names the ’096 patent’s inventor among its inventors. Id.; compare Ex. 1026, codes (22), (75), with Ex. 1001, codes (22), (75). Such disclosure of a preferred embodiment in this circumstance is reasonable evidence that a skilled artisan would understand that a “cushioning conversion machine” included those “adapted to supply stock material . . . between 25 and 35 inches wide,” but not that such machines were limited to using such widths. The relevance of this is that the sheet stock material used is not manifestly distinct from the sheet stock material used for corrugators, ranging from 35 to 110 inches in width, where Patent Owner contends corrugators are distinct from “cushioning conversion machines.” See Ex. 2003, 95:22–96:6 (Mr. Klass testifying that the “width of commercial corrugators could be anywhere from 35 to 110 inches.”); PO Resp. 33–34 (relying on Mr. Klass’ testimony). Similarly, there is no persuasive evidence of a clear distinction in weight. Patent Owner and Mr. May rely on Mr. Klass’ testimony as to the weight of paper rolls for corrugators, focusing solely on testimony as to the weight of large rolls and ignoring that the testimony also set forth that “[s]ome corrugators use smaller rolls.” PO Resp. 34; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 77–79; Pet. Reply 14–15; see also Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 21–22 (Mr. Klass’ testimony that “web feed rolls at the lower end of that range would be especially well suited for use in a cushioning conversion machine, even under [Patent Owner’s] narrow definition of such a machine” and that “my testimony certainly was not that Kirkpatrick’s web feed rolls would weigh tons.”). In sum, on this record, we determine that “cushioning conversion” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 6,756,096 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,756,096
• Peag LLC (D/B/A Jlab Audio) / Audio Partnership LLC et al. v. Varta Microbattery GmbHAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 5, 2022 · IPR2020-01214 · APJ Avelyn M Ross · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 are unpatentable as obvious over Kobayashi and skilled-artisan knowledge; the contingent motion to amend is granted for substitute claims 9–16.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeNew argument disregardedNew argument consideredGranted in part

    “regarding (1) the motivation to combine Kaun with Kobayashi based on dendrite formation (id. at 2–4), (2) additional motivations to modify Kaun with Kobayashi (id. at 4–6), (3) a reasonable expectation of success relating to Kaun’s central fastener (id. at 6–7), and (4) a reasonable expectation of success regarding Kobayashi’s modified electrode assembly (id. at 7–9). Because we do not reach Petitioner’s challenge based on the combination of Kaun and Kobayashi, as discussed below, we similarly need not reach Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Mr. Gardner’s opinions as they relate to the Kaun/Kobayashi combination. Accordingly, we dismiss Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude these purportedly new opinions as moot. We address Patent Owner’s remaining concerns, relating to Mr. Gardner’s allegedly new testimony regarding Kobayashi, below.” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In the Decision on Institution, we determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’913 patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, or a similar field, such as materials engineering, chemical engineering, or physics with at least five years of experience in the field of battery design and manufacturing. A person with a master’s degree in one of the above fields could have less practical experience of approximately three years. A person with a PhD could have less practical experience, about two years. A person with less education but more relevant practical experience may also meet this standard. DI 20–21 (adopting Petitioner’s proposed definition). For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we maintain our determination from the Decision on Institution because neither party asserts that our decision depends on that determination and because the level of skill is consistent with the record. See PO Resp. 8 (stating that “[t]he claims are patentable regardless of which definition is used.”); see generally Pet. Reply; MTA Opp. 1–2 (“Regardless of which definition is used, however, Patent Owner’s Substitute Claims are still not patentable.”).” slip op. at 12

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

    “In their briefing, the parties dispute the meaning of three claim terms or phrases—(1) “insulating means”, (2) “connected to one another by at least one flat separator,” and (3) “button cell.” See Pet. 17–21; PO Resp. 9–12. We discern no material difference between the parties’ respective constructions. Additionally, Patent Owner, during the hearing, expressed a general view that claim construction was unlikely to affect the parties’ positions.6 In particular, Patent Owner states that “[o]ur position is that really nothing turns on claim construction. You don’t have to engage in claim construction in this case.” Tr. 56:18–20, 56:21–24 (explaining that 6 The parties disagree as to what the newly added phrase “the cup casing include[ing] a first part proximal to the flat bottom area and a second part disposed in the overlapping area, the first part of the casing being disposed radially inward with respect to the second part” means. See generally MTA Opp.; MTA Reply; MTA Sur-reply. Neither party proposes an express construction for this phrase. Id. We address the interpretation of this phrase below and only to the extent necessary to resolve the dispute raised by the parties’ substantive arguments. limitations were submitted for construction “to gain some benefit in the co-pending litigations.”). Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then 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., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) in the context of an inter partes review). Because the outcome of our decision does not depend on either parties’ claim construction position, we determine that none of the identified claim terms require construction to resolve the issues in dispute in this proceeding.” slip op. at 13

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

    “On this issue, we agree with Petitioner. Mr. Gardner explains that the skilled artisan “would further recognize that the output conductor can be comprised of various materials . . . . which could be metal or various materials . . . . [and] the shape of the output conductor is not particularly limited.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 322. Mr. Gardner further testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would recognize, not only that metal foil conductors could be inserted into these grooves without difficulty, but also that the depth of the grooves can be altered in order to better accommodate metal foil output conductors.” Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 53, 70. We recognize Patent Owner’s argument that numerous factors must be considered and that conventional battery design does not necessarily translate to button cell designs (PO Resp 25–26), but as Mr. Gardner testifies, “this may be true in some cases, [but] the lessons and advantages of using techniques from conventional battery design and applying it to button cell would be obvious to a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Ex. 1041 ¶ 103. He continues to explain that “[n]aturally, such transposition of techniques would require some modification and adjustments. . . . [and that] each of these adjustments, . . . would be well within the skill of a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Id. ¶ 104 (describing, for example, “reducing the thickness of the conductor plates of Kobayashi”). We credit Mr. Gardner’s testimony. Moreover, Patent Owner does not allege that any proposed modification would be beyond the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art or explain how any of the “constraints unique to . . . button cell design” (PO Resp. 25) are relevant to the proposed substitution of a metal foil for a metal terminal electrode plate. See generally id.; Sur-reply. Finally, Patent Owner argues that “[r]eliance upon the general knowledge of a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to provide a missing element in a combination of references is an exception rather than the rule” and “is particularly true where the proposed modification goes to the essence of the claims.” PO Resp. 26. Patent Owner states that “Petitioners have provided no more than ‘conclusory statements and unspecified expert testimony’ to supply a metal foil that is admittedly missing from Kobayashi, and is not shown in any other button cell art.” Id. at 27. We disagree. As the Federal Circuit has explained ‘common sense and common knowledge have their proper place in the obviousness inquiry,’ (a) invoking ‘common sense . . . to supply a limitation that was admittedly missing from the prior art’ should generally only be done when the [missing] limitation in question [is] unusually simple and the technology particularly straightforward;’ and (b) references to common sense ‘cannot be used as a wholesale substitute for reasoned analysis and evidentiary support’ Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google LLC, 948 F.3d 1330, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2020)(quoting Arendi S.A.R.L v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1361–1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). Here, Petitioner proposes to substitute a metal foil for a metal terminal electrode plate to provide contact with the inner surface of the button cell housing. Ex. 1006 ¶ 34. As detailed above, Petitioner and Mr. Gardner direct our attention to the prior art of record which suggests use of foil within small battery cells to provide electrical contact was well-known and explains why the skilled artisan would have reduced the thickness of the terminal electrode plate to maximize the available space for active electrode components. Accordingly, unlike the expert in Arendi, Petitioner here provides more than “conclusory statements and unspecific expert testimony.” Arendi, 832 F.3d at 1366.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 9,799,913 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,799,913
• Peag LLC (D/B/A Jlab Audio) / Audio Partnership LLC et al. v. Varta Microbattery GmbHAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 5, 2022 · IPR2020-01212 · APJ Avelyn M Ross · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12 are unpatentable as obvious over Kobayashi and Kaun; the contingent motion to amend is granted for substitute claims 14–25.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “that “Kaun discloses that the cell is sealed ‘by a ‘U’ shaped insulator/gasket 32 . . . to seal the cell without pressure-loading,’” and therefore, venting via a pressure release seal is not required. Pet. 64 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 120). In an alternate embodiment, Kaun provides a means to relieve gas pressure “via the peripheral gasket which can reseal after an event.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 91. As Petitioner explains, “Kaun discloses that it is sealed, but upon the application of certain conditions, the internal pressure of gases within the cell can cause gases to vent. During such events, Kaun discloses ‘[t]he specified limit for internal pressure is handled by release via the peripheral gasket which can reseal after an event.’” Pet. Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 37–39; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 91, 101). Thus, while Kaun discloses venting to prevent pressure build up, Kaun “is otherwise sealed at all times during functioning.” Id. (citing Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 38–39; Ex. 1005 ¶ 101). Neither the ’835 patent nor Patent Owner’s own proposed construction of “closed without being beaded over” requires closure at all times. Furthermore, Mr. Gardner testifies that “[i]f a battery which, upon application of significant internal pressure, would be considered not ‘closed’ at other times, th[e]n almost no battery could be considered closed. [Because] [a]ny battery, when subjected to certain pressures, would leak or burst.” Ex. 1041 ¶ 39. We credit Mr. Gardner’s undisputed testimony in this regard. Mr. Gardner reasons that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Kaun is closed.” Id. Dr. Peckerar similarly testifies that Kaun shows a housing that is closed without being beaded over. Ex. 1034, 131:4–11; 237:19–238:22 (describing Kaun as “closed during normal operation”). Accordingly, the record evidence supports Petitioner’s assertion that the combination of Kobayashi and Kaun suggests a button cell that is closed without being beaded over.” slip op. at 28

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

    “We discern no material difference between the parties’ respective constructions. Additionally, Patent Owner, during the hearing, expressed a general view that claim construction was unlikely to affect the parties’ positions.8 In particular, Patent Owner states that “[o]ur position is that really nothing turns on claim construction. You don’t have to engage in 8 The parties disagree as to what the newly added phrase “the cup casing include[ing] a first part proximal to the flat bottom area and a second part disposed in the overlapping area, the first part of the casing being disposed radially inward with respect to the second part” means. See generally MTA Opp.; MTA Reply; MTA Sur-reply. Neither party proposes an express construction for this phrase. Id. We address the interpretation of this phrase below and only to the extent necessary to resolve the dispute raised by the parties’ substantive arguments. claim construction in this case.” Tr. 56:18–20, 56:20–24 (explaining that limitations were submitted for construction “to gain some benefit in the co-pending litigations.”). Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then 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., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) in the context of an inter partes review). Because the outcome of our decision does not depend on either parties’ claim construction position, we determine that none of the identified claim terms require construction to resolve the issues in dispute in this proceeding.” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “Thus, Patent Owner identifies three claimed features—i.e., the jelly- roll configuration, the insulating layer, and a housing closed without being beaded over—as responsible for the improved performance of the VARTA CoinPower® button cell batteries. Id. However, Patent Owner’s declarants testify further and explain that it is the combination of the three identified features, in addition to a flat foil conductor resting flat between the electrode top and housing and welding the foil conductor from outside the housing, that are responsible for improved performance. In particular, Mr. Miehlich, employed in VARTA’s marketing and sales department, testifies that the new cell design, which “provided unprecedented increases in performance, including in energy density, charge capacity, and cycling stability,” consisted of a “jelly roll electrode coil packed tightly into an uncrimped, button-like housing. The electrode coil was protected against short-circuiting by [an] insulating means, and was connected to the cell terminals by a flexible flat foil conductors resting flat between the electrode top and housing, and welded to the housing components from the outside. These features are all found in the claims of the VARTA patents here under review. Ex. 2045 ¶¶ 15–16. And, Dr. Lindner, one of the named inventors of the ’835 patent, testifies that the complex issues we faced were how to safely pack the required amount of electrode material into the very small “button”-sized housing and protect it against short circuits; how to connect the “jelly roll” electrode to the terminals in such a confined space without itself consuming much volume, and how to seal the top and bottom of the cell housing, all while accommodating the expansion and contraction of the electrode winding and the resulting mechanical forces. Ex. 2046 ¶ 33. According to Dr. Linder, the jelly-roll configuration with an insulator, flexible foil output conductors, sealing the cell without crimping, and welding the foil conductors from outside the housing each contributed to the improved battery performance. Id. ¶¶ 34–43. Thus, it is the combination of five elements—not the three claimed in the ’835 patent—that are purportedly responsible for the “vastly increased performance characteristics” of the CoinPower® products. Id. ¶ 43; see also id. ¶ 45 (noting that “various aspects of our invention are covered by 10 issued patents, including the four United States patents here under review” (emphasis added)); Tr. 84:24–85:10 (explaining that welding, for example, is “also part of the success”). Like the patent owner in Fox Factory, “[i]n light of the patentee’s own assertions about the significance of the unclaimed features, no reasonable fact finder could conclude that these features are insignificant.” Fox Factory, 944 F.3d 1375. As a result, the patent claims are not coextensive with the CoinPower® products because those products include “‘critical’ unclaimed feature[s] that [are] claimed by a different patent and materially impacts the product’s functionality.” Id.” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 9,153,835 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,153,835
• Peag LLC (D/B/A Jlab Audio) / Audio Partnership LLC et al. v. Varta Microbattery GmbHAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 5, 2022 · IPR2020-01211 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12 are unpatentable as obvious over Kobayashi; substitute claims 14–25 are allowed because the cited combinations do not teach the claimed cup casing structure.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In the Decision on Institution, we determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’581 patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, or a similar field, such as materials engineering, chemical engineering, or physics with at least five years of experience in the field of battery design and manufacturing. A person with a master’s degree in one of the above fields could have less practical experience of approximately three years. A person with a PhD could have less practical experience, of about two years. A person with less education but more relevant practical experience may also meet this standard. DI 20 (adopting Petitioner’s proposed definition). For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we maintain our determination from the Decision on Institution because neither party disputes that determination and because the level of skill is consistent with the record. See PO Resp. 6 (stating that “[t]he claims are patentable regardless of which definition is used.”); see generally Pet. Reply.” slip op. at 14

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “We are not persuaded that the identified portions of Mr. Gardner’s Supplemental Declaration are improper. In the Petition, Petitioner alleged that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to substitute known metal foils for the metal conductor plates of Kobayashi in order to reduce the size of inactive materials and improve performance. Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 323). In its Response, Patent Owner argued, among other things, that the metal foil lacks the requisite rigidity to support the remaining components of the winding axis core (PO Resp. 22–27, 31), and that because metal connecting plates 4a and 5b are positioned within recesses of insulating plates 8 and 9, replacing the metal connecting plates with metal foils would result in an unreliable connection because the metal foil would become embedded within the grooves of the insulating plates (id. at 28, 31). Mr. Gardner’s supplemental testimony specifically addresses Dr. Peckerar’s and Patent Owner’s concerns that metal foils would be unsuitable in Kobayashi due to their flexibility and thickness as compared to the insulating plates. Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 53 (“the depth of the grooves can be altered in order to better accommodate metal foil output conductors”), 70, 71 (explaining that it is the winding core that provides structure not the output conductor plates), 81, 86 (explaining that the person of ordinary skill in the art could either adjust the size of the output conductors or the depth of the cavities themselves), 87. Therefore, Mr. Gardner’s testimony that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood how to account for the technical challenges Patent Owner identified properly responds to arguments raised by Patent Owner in its Patent Owner Response. Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Mr. Gardner’s testimony regarding Kobayashi’s modified electrode assembly.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Upon review of Petitioner’s arguments and supporting evidence, we find that Petitioner adequately shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Kobayashi to include metal foils in place of its terminal electrode plates. Petitioner explains that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that metal foil may be used in batteries because the use of metal foil as a conductor is common in the art. Pet. 31, 39 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 256, 323). Petitioner directs our attention to Kobayashi which details use of metal foil for conducting elements. Id. at 39; see also Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 7, 21, 26, 27 (describing metal foil electrodes). Furthermore, Mr. Gardner testifies that “reducing the thickness of the output conductors has the effect of reducing the ratio of inactive to active components within the cell, which improves energy density . . . . [and is] a well-known goal in the art.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 323. Mr. Gardner further opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would be motivated to reduce the thickness of the output conductors of Kobayashi in order to increase energy density within the cell” and “to use metal foils as the output conductors, as this furthers the well-known goal in the art of reducing the size of internal battery components.” Id. We acknowledge Patent Owner’s argument that Mr. Gardner relies on teachings related to conventional battery design—not button cell batteries—and that he discusses considerations “relating to thickness of the electrodes, not of output conductors.” PO Resp. 19–20. But, Mr. Gardner’s testimony similarly relies on passages directed to “basic concepts” of battery operations and, as a whole, focuses on the concept that reducing the thickness of the terminal electrode plates would “maximize the space available inside the cell for active components,” thereby increasing electrode density and improving battery performance. Ex. 1003 ¶ 323 (citing Ex. 1009, 35). According to Mr. Gardner, “these adjustments would be well within the skill of a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 104. We credit Mr. Gardner’s testimony. “Moreover, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person’s skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 401.” slip op. at 21

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

    “Upon review of Petitioner’s arguments and supporting evidence, we find that Petitioner adequately shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Kobayashi to include metal foils in place of its terminal electrode plates. Petitioner explains that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that metal foil may be used in batteries because the use of metal foil as a conductor is common in the art. Pet. 31, 39 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 256, 323). Petitioner directs our attention to Kobayashi which details use of metal foil for conducting elements. Id. at 39; see also Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 7, 21, 26, 27 (describing metal foil electrodes). Furthermore, Mr. Gardner testifies that “reducing the thickness of the output conductors has the effect of reducing the ratio of inactive to active components within the cell, which improves energy density . . . . [and is] a well-known goal in the art.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 323. Mr. Gardner further opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would be motivated to reduce the thickness of the output conductors of Kobayashi in order to increase energy density within the cell” and “to use metal foils as the output conductors, as this furthers the well-known goal in the art of reducing the size of internal battery components.” Id. We acknowledge Patent Owner’s argument that Mr. Gardner relies on teachings related to conventional battery design—not button cell batteries—and that he discusses considerations “relating to thickness of the electrodes, not of output conductors.” PO Resp. 19–20. But, Mr. Gardner’s testimony similarly relies on passages directed to “basic concepts” of battery operations and, as a whole, focuses on the concept that reducing the thickness of the terminal electrode plates would “maximize the space available inside the cell for active components,” thereby increasing electrode density and improving battery performance. Ex. 1003 ¶ 323 (citing Ex. 1009, 35). According to Mr. Gardner, “these adjustments would be well within the skill of a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 104. We credit Mr. Gardner’s testimony. “Moreover, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person’s skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 401.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 9,496,581 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,496,581
• Ty Inc. v. Softbelly’S, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 10, 2021 · IPR2020-00689 · APJ John E Schneider · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 15 and 16 are unpatentable: claim 15 as anticipated by Ogawa and obvious over Ogawa and Masahiro; claim 16 as obvious over Ogawa with Cherk, and with Masahiro and Cherk.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We have considered the arguments presented by the parties and the evidence of record and are not persuaded that our original definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art was in error. While the claims at issue refer to an optical grade fabric, we note that the fabric is not the invention. Rather, as stated in the Specification, the field of the invention is “cleaning tools for electronic display screens, and more specifically to cleaning tools for computer display screens and the like.” Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 4–6. The claims further narrow the field of the invention to cleaning tools in the form of a doll-like structure. Id. at col. 6, l. 37. Based on the forgoing, we continue to apply the same definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art we used in our Decision on Institution. However, the findings and conclusions set forth below would have been the same had we instead adopted Patent Owner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We have considered the arguments presented by the parties and the evidence of record and conclude that Petitioner has the better position. The term “display screen,” as used in the challenged claims, refers to an intended use of the cleaning tool. As such, it does limit the scope of the claims. We begin by noting that the challenged claims are directed to a device or apparatus. Ex. 1002, col. 2, ll. 8–13. As such, the claims “cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (1990). The preamble of both claims 6 and 11 read in part: “doll-like figure for cleaning or wiping the surface of a display screen.” Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 37–38; col. 7, ll. 1–2. Both claims end with the clause “providing a pliant cleaning tool for wiping a display screen.” Id. at col. 6, ll. 50–51; col. 7, ll. 13–14. These phrases are crafted in terms of a device for performing a specific function or use. This type of phrase has been found to recite an intended use and not a physical limitation. See Marrin v. Griffin, 599 F.3d 1290, 1294–96 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The recitation of the intended use in the body of the claim does not affect our analysis. The term for wiping a display screen still recites a use of the device that does not impart a structural limitation.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We have considered the testimony of both experts and the evidence of record and find Mrs. Ryan’s testimony to be more persuasive. Therefore, we agree with Petitioner that Ogawa discloses a wiping tool which has an inner chamber formed by a strip of optical grade fabric — the wipe portion — and a non-optical grade fabric — the gripping body. We give more weight to Mrs. Ryan’s testimony based on her extensive experience in designing plush toys. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3–5. Mrs. Ryan has worked in the area of plush toy design for over twenty-six years and has taught classes relating to plush toy design. Id. ¶¶ 3–4; page 40. In addition, Mrs. Ryan’s testimony regarding how one skilled in the art would envision the wiping tool of Ogawa is consistent with the evidence of record. For example, King4 teaches that teddy bears are formed by joining pieces of fabric creating an inner pocket into which stuffing is inserted. Ex. 1026, 7–12. Cockrill5 also teaches that teddy bears are traditionally made by cutting out the material, sewing the pieces together, and then stuffing the bears. Ex. 1025, 67.” slip op. at 17

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “We have considered the testimony of both experts and the evidence of record and find Mrs. Ryan’s testimony to be more persuasive. Therefore, we agree with Petitioner that Ogawa discloses a wiping tool which has an inner chamber formed by a strip of optical grade fabric — the wipe portion — and a non-optical grade fabric — the gripping body. We give more weight to Mrs. Ryan’s testimony based on her extensive experience in designing plush toys. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3–5. Mrs. Ryan has worked in the area of plush toy design for over twenty-six years and has taught classes relating to plush toy design. Id. ¶¶ 3–4; page 40. In addition, Mrs. Ryan’s testimony regarding how one skilled in the art would envision the wiping tool of Ogawa is consistent with the evidence of record. For example, King4 teaches that teddy bears are formed by joining pieces of fabric creating an inner pocket into which stuffing is inserted. Ex. 1026, 7–12. Cockrill5 also teaches that teddy bears are traditionally made by cutting out the material, sewing the pieces together, and then stuffing the bears. Ex. 1025, 67. Dr. Adanur’s experience and expertise appears to be primarily focused on textiles. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 8–24. While Dr. Adanur testified that he has some experience in the area of plush toys, that experience appears to be limited to selection of fabric that could be used to manufacture plush toys and making several puppets at home to earn extra money. Ex. 1027, 52, 57–59, 78–79. In addition, Dr. Adanur does not cite to any evidence other than Ogawa to support his opinions as to what one skilled in the art would envision upon reading Ogawa. See Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 84–87. Patent Owner, however, contends that Ogawa is silent as to whether the tool has an inner chamber made from a piece of optical grade fabric and a piece of non-optical grade fabric. PO Resp. 1, 22. 4 King, Make Your Own Teddy Bears, 1985 (Ex. 1026) (“King”). 5 Cockrill, The Teddy Bear Encyclopedia, 1993 (Ex. 1025) (“Cockrill”).” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 6,195,831 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,195,831
• Microsoft Corporation v. Uniloc 2017 LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 5, 2021 · IPR2020-00102 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 1 is unpatentable under § 103 over Lee and 802.3u; the Board did not reach the USB 1.1 and Morris ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed definition for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’541 patent as one who “would have had a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical Engineering or a related subject, and at least one year experience designing electronics devices for use in communications systems, including both hardware and software components.” Dec. on Inst. 9 (quoting Pet. 13– 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 50)). We also adopted Petitioner’s additions that “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a Master’s Degree, and vice versa,” and that one of ordinary skill in” slip op. at 8

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

    “Having reviewed the parties’ arguments, we disagree with Patent Owner that this limitation is limited to connecting and disconnecting stations at will or physically. Rather, we agree with Petitioner that presence or absence for a particular connection is best understood in terms of whether a reflected wave signal is detected for that connection. This conclusion best comports with the plain claim language, which recites that a connection is detected by transmitting a transmitted wave signal, splitting a return wave, and being operated dependent on whether there is a reflection of the transmitted wave signal. Ex. 1001, 5:59–6:5.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “Having reviewed the parties’ arguments, we agree with Petitioner that the plain and ordinary meaning of “being operated in accordance with presence or absence” in the context of the limitation broadly covers operating consistently with the non-detection (presence) or detection (absence) of a reflection of a transmitted signal. The claim language does not limit the scope of the claim to require a particular operation, other than that it is in accordance with the further station’s presence or absence. Ex. 1001, 5:59–6:5. Moreover, we agree with Petitioner that the Specification provides examples of operations that each are in accordance with presence or absence, but does not limit the operations to any specific one. Id. at code (57) (“operate in different control modes”), 1:39–42 (“no messages commands etc. are transmitted”), 2:28–30 (“the upstream station takes the appropriate actions to remove the downstream station logically from the system”), 2:35–36 (“the upstream station takes the appropriate actions to incorporate the downstream station into the system”). We disagree with Patent Owner (PO Resp. Br. 4.) that the Specification defines “being operated in accordance with presence or absence.” Rather, we determine that the sentence Patent Owner relies on as a definition instead provides an example of a claimed operation. See Ex. 1001, 1:38–42 (“The system detects whether or not a downstream station is connected to or disconnected from the connector and operates accordingly: no messages commands etc. are transmitted via connectors to which no downstream station is connected.”). First, the sentence’s operation (no messages commands etc. are transmitted) pertains only to when a station is absent, and thus, would be an incomplete definition that does not account for when a station is present. Id. Second, we are not persuaded that the use of a colon in the sentence would have signified to an ordinarily skilled artisan that what follows is a definition. Patent Owner does not point to any evidence to support this argument, and thus, we afford it little weight. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (explaining that attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value). Third, an inventor must define specific terms with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision” in order to be his own lexicographer. See Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“The patentee’s lexicography must, of course, appear ‘with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision’ before it can affect the claim.”) (quoting In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). We find that this sentence lacks the necessary clarity, deliberateness, and precision to redefine the broad recital of “being operated in accordance with” so as to limit the term to a specific operation. Accordingly, we find that the cited sentence provides an example of “being operated in accordance with presence or absence,” rather than a definition. See Ex. 1001, 1:38–42. In addition, we disagree with Patent Owner that logically incorporating and disincorporating a further station is a necessary part of “being operated in accordance with presence or absence.” As we discuss above, although logical incorporation or disincorporation is an example operation that falls within the scope of claim 1, there is no basis in the claim language or Specification (which provides multiple example operations) to require any particular operation, such as logically incorporating and disincorporating a station. See supra; Ex. 1001, 1:39–42, 2:28–30, 2:35–36, 5:59–6:5. Nor are we persuaded that the Specification, by describing that “automatic incorporation and disincorporation is an important feature to make the system easy to use for non-specialist consumers,” acts to limit the claim language. Ex. 1001, 1:14–23. First, this passage relates to the background description of USB systems, and does not specifically address the invention of the ’541 patent. See id. Second, we do not view describing an operation as “an important feature” for a specific class of users (“non-specialist consumers”) as a sufficient basis to limit claim language that has broader effect. See Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc., 579 F.3d 1363, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[C]laims will not be read restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope”); cf. Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (“[P]articular embodiments appearing in the written description will not be used to limit claim language that has broader effect.”). Nor do we view the Specification’s teaching that “[a]ccording to the invention this effect [of wave reflection] is used to control the incorporation and especially disincorporation of downstream stations into and from the system” as sufficient to limit the broader claim language of “being operated in accordance with presence or absence.” Ex. 1001, 2:16–18; Martek, 579 F.3d at 1381. Again, this teaching of incorporation and disincorporation, instead provides an example of an operation performed in accordance with the presence or absence of a station, but the claim is not limited so as to require this particular operation. Ex. 1001, 2:16–18. In summary, we conclude that “being operated in accordance with presence or absence” broadly covers being operated consistently with the non-detection (presence) or detection (absence) of a reflection of a transmitted signal, rather than requiring a specific operation.” slip op. at 16

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Not reached

    “C. Or The parties dispute whether the “or” in the phrase “presence or absence” means that both presence and absence need to be shown in the prior art, or only one. Because we find below that Petitioner has demonstrated that the prior art teaches being operated in accordance with both presence and absence of the further station, we need not, and thus do not, reach or resolve this dispute. See, e.g., Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017. V.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 6,498,541 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,498,541
• Volvo Cars Of North America / Volvo Car Corporation A/K/A Volvo Personvagnar AB v. Watlow Electric Manufacturing CompanyAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 22, 2020 · IPR2019-01100 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 8–11 are unpatentable under § 103 over the decided Toyota-based grounds; the Board did not reach the Brook-Levinson-based grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “the ’869 patent “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, materials science, electrical engineering, or a similar discipline, as well as two or more years of relevant industry or research experience.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 13–15). Alternatively, according to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Master’s degree in mechanical engineering, materials science, electrical engineering, or a similar discipline, as well as one year of industry experience.” Id. Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been familiar with layered heating systems and/or the components and underlying technology used therein.” Id. at 8. Patent Owner does not address the level of skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the prior art of record and the ’869 patent.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Patent Owner, in turn, argues that a complex contour pattern “requires a structure having an outer shape that combines parts of multiple simple shapes such that it is complex.” PO Resp. 14 (citing Ex. 2011, 371; Ex. 2012, 465; Ex. 2013). Patent Owner agrees “that Figs. 2 and 3 of the ’869 Patent each illustrate an example of a ‘complex contour pattern.’” Id. at 17 n.4. We note that Figures 2 and 3 illustrate a spiral pattern on a cylindrical substrate. Ex. 1001, Figs. 2, 3. Patent Owner also contends that Figure 4 of the ’869 Patent discloses a “complex contour pattern . . . in the form[] of a meandering electrically conductive resistive material layer.” PO Resp. 5. Although Patent Owner contends its proposed construction is supported by the Specification of the ’869 patent (id. at 15), Patent Owner does not persuasively explain how either a spiral pattern or meandering pattern as shown in Figures 2–4 of the ’869 patent have outer shapes that “combine parts of multiple simple shapes,” as would be required by its proposed construction. See generally PO Resp. Consequently, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s construction. For the purposes of resolving the dispute between the parties, we determine that a “complex contour pattern” encompasses at least a spiral pattern on a cylinder and a meandering pattern.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITANo construction neededOther

    “With respect to Patent Owner’s proposed constructions, Patent Owner contends and Petitioner agrees that these limitations are written in product-by-process format. See PO Resp. 8–18; Sur-reply 4–5; Pet. Reply 2–7. We do not need to construe these limitations to resolve this dispute but, due to the nature of the product-by-process limitations, we address Patent Owner’s claim construction arguments below in the context of analyzing the patentability of these claims. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 9

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “exceed the proper scope of a Reply. Our Trial Practice Guide provides that “Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g., to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability. A party also may submit rebuttal evidence in support of its reply.” Consol. TPG,9 73 (Nov. 2019) (citing Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1077–78 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). The Federal Circuit has explained that “[a]s we have regularly held, ‘the petitioner in an inter partes review proceeding may introduce new evidence after the petition stage if the evidence is a legitimate reply to evidence introduced by the patent owner.” Apple, Inc. v. Andrea Elec. Corp., 949 F.3d 697, 706–707 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). In the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner refers to the testimony of Dr. McDonald and Mr. Selvy to support its argument that a skilled artisan “would not have been led by Toyota’s reference to ‘metallizing’ to use a thermal spray process to create the resistive layer of Toyota’s heater.” PO Resp. 31. Patent Owner further argues a skilled artisan “would not have considered Toyota’s reference to ‘metallizing’ to suggest the use of a thermal spray process to create an active resistive heating element, because such processes were understood at that time to be primarily, and nearly exclusively, used for passive protection against surface degradation.” Id. at 31–32. In the Reply, Petitioner contends that “Toyota cites prior art disclosing thermal spray processes in describing how ‘a 9 Available at www.uspto.gov/trialpracticeguideconsolidated. conventional heating roller’ was made.” Pet. Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1008, 2:34–48; Ex. 1078, 3). Petitioner does not rely on this evidence to establish its prima facie case but rather to rebut Patent Owner’s argument that Toyota’s reference to metallizing does not suggest thermal spraying as contended in the Petition. Consequently, Exhibit 1078 and 1079 constitute legitimate reply evidence in response to evidence introduced by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 7,361,869 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,361,869
• Cxloyalty, Inc. v. Maritz Holdings Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 19, 2019 · CBM2018-00037 · APJ Justin T Arbes · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable under § 101; the motion to amend is granted for proposed substitute claims 16–23, which were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable

    “does not remove the claim from the realm of abstract ideas. See Pet. 52–53; Reply 12; SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that it “does not matter to [the conclusion that the claim is directed to an abstract idea] whether the information here is information about real investments,” as “even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract” (citation omitted)). Further, the last two clauses of claim 1 that recite how the transaction is viewed from the perspectives of the participant and vendor system, respectively, merely express the “non-physical result” of the information transfers and confirm the abstract nature of the claimed subject matter. See Pet. 57. In fact, as to the vendor system clause, the Specification indicates that the vendor system transfers information no differently than it would for any other transaction. See Ex. 1001, col. 7, ll. 15–18 (disclosing that vendor system 208 responds to purchase request 216 “in the same way that it would respond to any other purchase request from a consumer that presents a credit card”).” slip op. at 35

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable

    “Our conclusion also is supported by the ’087 patent’s description of” slip op. at 41

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted

    “transaction, . . . display[ing] an order message indicating the completion of the purchase transaction to the respective participant.” Mot., App’x A, 4. An example in which a judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application is when “an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; Flook, 437 U.S. at 590 (holding that a step of adjusting an alarm limit variable was “post-solution activity”). Displaying an order message after the facilitated transaction has been completed amounts to insignificant post-solution activity, and does not support a conclusion that the abstract idea of claim 16 is integrated into a practical application.” slip op. at 75

  • 101 substituteMixed

    “transaction, . . . display[ing] an order message indicating the completion of the purchase transaction to the respective participant.” Mot., App’x A, 4. An example in which a judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application is when “an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; Flook, 437 U.S. at 590 (holding that a step of adjusting an alarm limit variable was “post-solution activity”). Displaying an order message after the facilitated transaction has been completed amounts to insignificant post-solution activity, and does not support a conclusion that the abstract idea of claim 16 is integrated into a practical application.” slip op. at 75

  Patent outcomesUS 7,134,087 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Berkheimer · Enfish
  Patents in suitUS 7,134,087

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.