• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. / Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Yeda Research & Development Co. Ltd.Rehearing granted
  PTAB · Dec 2, 2016 · IPR2015-01976 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Rehearing

  On rehearing, the Board modified its decision and held claims 1–20 unpatentable as obvious over Pinchasi with the 1996 SBOA and over Pinchasi with Flechter.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingGranted in part

    “we entered a Final Written Decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. Patent Owner filed a request for rehearing of our decision. Paper 87. In a concurrently issued Order, we grant-in-part Patent Owner’s request and vacate our original decision. Paper 89. We hereby issue this modified Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “in the art. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had (1) several years of experience in the pharmaceutical industry or in practicing medicine; (2) experience with the administration or formulation of therapeutic agents, dosing schedules and frequencies, and drug developmental study and design; and (3) a Ph.D. in pharmacology or an M.D. with experience in clinical pharmacology. Pet. 13. In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner asserted that a skilled artisan would have had knowledge of, and experience with, both MS and GA. Prelim. Resp. 33–34. In the Decision to Institute, we agreed with Patent Owner. Dec. 9. We noted that Dr. Green, one of Petitioner’s declarants, states that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “direct experience administering therapeutic agents for the treatment of MS, as well as familiarity with the dosing schedules and frequencies of the different therapeutic agents available for MS treatment.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 27). During trial, neither party contests our findings of the level of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Upon considering the full record, we see no reason to deviate from our prior determination. Thus, we reiterate that in addition to the qualifications specified by Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would also have experience treating MS with GA.” slip op. at 8

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

    “As an initial matter, we note that, in its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner challenged the status of the 1996 SBOA as a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Prelim. Resp. 47–48. In the Decision to Institute, we determined that, based on the record available then, the 1996 SBOA constitutes prior art under § 102(b). Dec. 12–13. In its Response, Patent Owner does not dispute this finding. Having considered the complete record developed at trial, we reiterate that Petitioner has presented sufficient evidence (see Ex. 1007) to show that the 1996 SBOA was publicly accessible at least by July 17, 2007, more than one year before the earliest possible priority date of the ’250 patent (i.e., August 20, 2008). See Dec. 12–13. Thus, the 1996 SBOA constitutes prior art under § 102(b).” slip op. at 9

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

    “Upon considering the evidence as a whole, we also find that an ordinary artisan would have been motivated to administer GA three times over a period of seven days to increase patient compliance. We note again that Pinchasi teaches administering 40 mg GA every other day, which equates to seven doses over two weeks. Ex. 1005, 9. Thus, the difference between the challenged claims (three doses over a period of seven days, or six doses over two weeks) and the prior art is one less injection every two weeks. Dr. Green testifies that it was a well-known principle that decreasing the frequency of injections would have a positive impact on patients to stay on course with treatment. Ex. 1004 ¶ 101. The desirability of less frequent injections is supported by the 1996 SBOA, in which the reviewer recommended that Teva evaluate the necessity of daily injections as opposed to more infrequent intermittent administration of Copaxone®. Ex. 1007, 252.” slip op. at 13

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,232,250
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. / Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Yeda Research & Development Co. Ltd.Rehearing granted
  PTAB · Dec 2, 2016 · IPR2015-00644 · APJ Tina E Hulse · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board granted rehearing on the Pinchasi–Flechter combination issue, denied rehearing on the remaining issues, and vacated the original final written decision.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedRehearing, deniedGranted in part

    “STANDARD OF REVIEW The party requesting rehearing has the burden to show that the decision should be modified. Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), the request for rehearing must identify, specifically, all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 2

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundDecided for patent owner

    “with tolerability, we acknowledge that our Decision regarding the combination of Pinchasi and Flechter does. See Dec. 32–33. Accordingly, we grant Patent Owner’s request for reconsideration as to this portion of our Decision. We, therefore, do not rely on the efficacy data of Flechter in Section II.E.2 of the Final Written Decision as the basis for rejecting Patent Owner’s argument regarding the lack of motivation to combine Pinchasi and Flechter. Nevertheless, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Flechter suggests that less frequent injections were less tolerable than daily injections reported in Meiner.3 In particular, Patent Owner points us to the Patent Owner Response, which compares the alternate-day data in Flechter with the daily administration data of Meiner. Reh’g Req. 7–8 (citing PO Resp. 35–36). Although Flechter itself did not compare the data,” slip op. at 3

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached

    “regarding the expected decrease in tolerability in our discussion of secondary considerations. Reh’g Req. 14–15. Patent Owner also states that our “finding that Patent Owner failed to provide any evidence of improved tolerability over the Pinchasi reference (FWD at 26–27) is also incorrect.” Id. at 14. First, we did not state that Patent Owner failed to provide any 8 Khan et al., Randomized, Prospective, Rater-Blinded, Four-Year, Pilot Study to Compare the Effect of Daily Versus Every-Other-Day Glatiramer Acetate 20 mg Subcutaneous Injections in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis, 14 MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS S296 (2008) (Ex. 1010) (“Khan 2008”). 9 Caon et al., Randomized, Prospective, Rater-Blinded, Four-Year, Pilot Study to Compare the Effect of Daily Versus Every-Other-Day Glatiramer Acetate 20 mg Subcutaneous Injections in RRMS, 72 NEUROLOGY A317 (Mar. 17, 2009) (Ex. 1011) (“Caon 2009”). evidence of improved tolerability—we stated that Patent Owner provided “insufficient evidence of record showing any unexpected results between the claimed requirement of three doses per week compared to dosing every other day.” Dec. 26–27 (emphasis added). As explained above, we did not find Patent Owner’s characterizations of the prior art, including Cohen, persuasive.” slip op. at 8

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,399,413
• Micron Technology, Inc. v. Innovative Memory Systems, Inc.Rehearing granted
  PTAB · Jul 1, 2016 · IPR2016-00326 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Rehearing

  On rehearing, the Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, and 13 based on anticipation by Anderl and obviousness over Anderl or Anderl and Hendry.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted

    “On June 17, 2016, Patent Owner filed a Request for Rehearing (Paper 13, “Request” or “Reh’g Req.”) of our Decision to Institute (Paper 10, “Decision”) an inter partes review in this case. We have reviewed Patent Owner’s Request, and we agree that we overlooked the matters identified in the Request. See Reh’g Req. 2–4. Thus, for the reasons stated in the Request, we grant Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing. On rehearing, we withdraw our previous Decision and reconsider our Decision in light of the full record, as Patent Owner requests. Id. at 4. Pursuant to this reconsideration, we issue the instant Amended Decision to Institute.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “determine that the information presented shows there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of claims 1, 2, and 13 (“the challenged claims”) of the ’537 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenOther

    “limitation, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown adequately that Anderl discloses “said appended information featuring said at least one associated type of permission for accessing the stored data,” as recited in claim 1. Patent Owner focuses narrowly on the value of the data included in protection bytes 43 to 45 of Anderl. See Prelim. Resp. 13–15. Yet the claim does not focus only on the data alone, but instead recites “appended information.” As the Petition explains, Anderl discloses that the information is appended based on location in file as the value at the particular location. See Pet. 23–24. In particular, Anderl discloses that each file includes prefix section 41 that is located in the first record of each file and contains file identification number 42 and protection bytes 43, 44, and 45. Ex. 1005, 6:57–60. Anderl states that “[t]he protection bytes 43 through 45 specify the file permissions.” Id. at 6:65–66 (emphasis added). As Anderl discloses,” slip op. at 20

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

    “not persuaded that “type of permission” is limited to only the type of action that can be performed, e.g., reading or writing, with respect to the data. Instead, the Specification repeatedly refers to the “types of permissions” as “for determining access to the stored data, such that if an attempt is made to access particular data which does not have a suitable permission type, access is denied.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Abstract (“The device, method and system enable various types of permissions to be set for determining access to the stored data, such that if an attempt is made to access particular data which does not have a suitable permission type, access is denied.”); 2:32–36 (“The present invention enables various types of permissions to be set for determining access to the stored data, such that if an attempt is made to access particular data which does not have a suitable permission type, access is denied.”); 3:4:26–30 (same). Given this broader usage in the Specification, for purposes of this decision, the “type of permission” is for determining access to the stored data, such that if an attempt is made to access particular data that does not have a suitable permission type, access is denied. The access, if not denied, may include reading from or writing to the stored data. As for “featuring,” we are not persuaded that “featuring,” as used in claim 1 of the ’537 patent is synonymous with “represent,” as Patent Owner contends. A relevant meaning of “featuring” is “to be an important part or aspect of something.” See Ex. 3001. This meaning only requires that the thing that is featured be an important part or aspect, not that it correspond to or represent the thing. Patent Owner does not point us to any disclaimer or definition that would limit this meaning. See Prelim. Resp. 13–15. Instead, the Specification appears to use the related term “feature” in this ordinary sense. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:54–56 (“As another option, the device may feature a single chip with a microprocessor and firmware for operating the data access features ….”); 5:25– 27 (“A system 10 features a CPU 12 for executing instructions….”); 8:15–19 (“For example, an access control code could be implemented with a combination of different types of data, each of which could again feature a separately selected and assigned data access permission, which optionally and preferably is different for each portion of the data.”). Moreover, the portion of Specification cited by Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:34–61)) makes clear that it only refers to a preferred embodiment and the permissions do not need to be stored as a “code,” i.e., specific information or data representing the permission. See id. at 6:35–36 (“According to preferred embodiments…”), 6:43–47 (“If such a permission is to be stored in an abbreviated code, the code for this particular type of permission could be given as ‘R/W/WP’, for example. Such a code could optionally be stored in the non-volatile 16, for example.” (emphases added)). Such optional language is not sufficient to limit the claimed “appended information” to only something that “represents” the permission, such as a code. See Prolitec Inc. v. Scentair Techs., Inc., 807 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[T]he use of ‘may’ signifies that the inventors did not intend to limit [the claim]. . . .”); Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 744 F.3d 732, 735 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (noting that non-limiting examples are not sufficient to redefine a term).” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,324,537
• Arctic Cat, Inc. v. Polaris Industries, Inc.Rehearing granted
  PTAB · May 3, 2016 · IPR2014-01427 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board granted rehearing only as to the assertions it addressed and denied the rest, finding no rehearing basis for the unbriefed “extending between” issue.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedRehearing, deniedGranted in part

    “A request for rehearing can only point out that which the Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Moreover, as the moving party, the burden of persuasion falls on Patent Owner. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012).” slip op. at 2

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for petitioner

    “proceeding that could plausibly be considered as being directed to “extending between.” Substantively, the only place in this proceeding where arguments and evidence were asserted concerning “extending between” was in the oral hearing transcript, which Patent Owner correctly identifies as being directed to both proceedings, and, thus, the contents of which are equally applicable to both proceedings. Paper 54, 3:18–23. As set forth expressly in our Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, however, “[n]o new evidence or arguments may be presented at the oral argument.” 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,768. See also Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC, 2016 WL 1019075, *6, *7 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 15, 2016) (“the Board denied Acceleron its procedural rights by relying in its decision on a factual assertion introduced into the proceeding only at oral argument, after Acceleron could meaningfully respond.”). Accordingly, when the oral hearing transcript is excluded from consideration, there is no argument or asserted evidence concerning “extending between” in this proceeding. Of course, there is asserted evidence, along with arguments providing context to that evidence, in the substantive papers for the other proceeding. In asserting that the Board should consider those arguments, Patent Owner asserts that claim constructions should be consistent across proceedings. We would agree with Patent Owner if the evidence and arguments presented in the two proceedings were consistent. Such is not the case here. Indeed, even if we were to import some arguments from the other proceeding, they would be directed solely to a proper construction of “extending between,” with no explanation of the relevance of “extending between” to the combination of Denney and Furuhashi in the instant proceeding, as that combination was not at issue in the other proceeding.” slip op. at 3

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITANot reached

    “claim construction of “extending between” in a Final Written Decision of related proceeding IPR2014-01428 (Ex. 2095, “other proceeding”). Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that if that claim construction of “extending between” from the other proceeding were applied in the instant proceeding, the record would show that the prior art asserted in the instant proceeding is missing a claim element recited in every challenged independent claim, and, thus, the Board’s determination that independent claims are unpatentable cannot be maintained. When considered in the confines of a request for rehearing, this is a straightforward case. By Patent Owner’s own acknowledgment, no proposed claim construction concerning “extending between,” much less any assertion concerning its relevance to proffered prior art, was considered in the Final Written Decision for the instant proceeding. This should come as no surprise, as it is undisputed that no argument or evidence has been advanced in any substantive paper, and, thus, no evaluation of any argument or evidence has been conducted, concerning this issue, in the instant proceeding. Absent such argument or evidence, Patent Owner has not, and cannot, identify that which the Board misapprehended or overlooked in the instant proceeding, as required by the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide. And without such identification, we are unpersuaded that there is any basis for a request for rehearing, in that it certainly cannot be said that the Board misapprehended or overlooked that which was not argued.” slip op. at 2

  Claim construction
  Patents in suitUS 8,596,405
• Boston Scientific Corporation v. Uab Research FoundationRehearing granted
  PTAB · Mar 7, 2016 · IPR2015-00918 · APJ James A Worth · IPR · Rehearing

  Rehearing was granted, and IPR was instituted on anticipation of claims 1–20 by KenKnight ’967; no other grounds were instituted.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted

    “II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). The request must identify, specifically, all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “background art in which two other patents described “pacing or pretreatment pulses” delivered through the same electrodes as defibrillation. Id. (citing Ex. 1002, 7). We recognize that Patent Owner has not yet had an opportunity to introduce testimonial evidence as to whether a person of ordinary skill would understand the ’261 Application to disclose the use of pacing (in addition to pretreatment pulses) through an electrode with the claimed positioning. At this stage of the proceeding, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that the patentee was not in possession of the claimed configuration of electrodes at the time of the filing of the ’261 Application. As such, Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its related assertion that the claims of the ’563 patent cannot benefit from the priority from the ’261 Application. Thus, Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that KenKnight ’967 is prior art to the ’563 patent.” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedReference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “Application (from .01 or .05 to 1 or 2 Joules) is greater than the value of a typical pacing pulse (0.000025 Joules). See Pet. 12; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 132–133; compare Ex. 1002, 12:29–31, with Ex. 1006 ¶ 66). We credit Dr. Benditt’s testimony that the smallest disclosed energy for the auxiliary pulse in the ’261 Application is about ten thousand times stronger than a pacing pulse, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that such a pulse does not correspond to a pacing pulse. Id. Based on this difference, and based on our claim construction, we conclude that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that the “auxiliary” pulses disclosed in the ’261 Application are not antitachycardia pacing energies, and do not otherwise qualify as antitachycardia pacing. Patent Owner, nevertheless, asserts that the ’261 Application states the intent to treat ventricular tachycardia (see supra), i.e., “[t]he present invention may be used to treat all forms of cardiac tachyarrythmias, including ventricular fibrillation, with defibrillation (including cardioversion) shocks or pulses.” See Opposition 3 (quoting Ex. 1002, 7:4– 9). However, the intent to treat ventricular tachycardia by itself is not enough because the claims require antitachycardia pacing as the treatment for tachycardia. In this regard, Petitioner correctly observes that the disclosure of the ’261 Application describes in large part defibrillation in combination with cardioversion shocks, including in the above passage relied on by Patent Owner. In other words, the above passage discloses defibrillation and cardioversion but does not necessarily include pacing.” slip op. at 9

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

    “D. Anticipation by KenKnight ’967 1. Claims 1, 3–7, 9–14, and 16–20 Relying on the Declaration of Dr. Benditt, Petitioner sets forth argument and evidence as to how KenKnight ’967 would anticipate each element of claims 1, 3–7, 9–14, and 16–20. Pet. 25–48. Patent Owner does not appear to dispute in its Preliminary Response that KenKnight ’967, if prior art, would anticipate claims 1, 3–7, 9–14, and 16–20. As above, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that KenKnight ’967 is prior art to the ’563 patent. Further, based on our own independent review of KenKnight ’967, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that KenKnight ’967 would anticipate claims 1, 3–7, 9–14, and 16–20.4” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 6,266,563
• Square, Inc. v. Think Computer CorporationRehearing granted
  PTAB · Feb 9, 2016 · CBM2014-00159 · APJ Michael W Kim · CBM · Rehearing

  The Board granted Patent Owner’s rehearing request insofar as it addressed the assertions in the decision, but denied it in all other respects; the prior analysis remained unchanged.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted in part

    “A request for rehearing can only point out that which the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and will be reviewed for abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Moreover, as the moving party, the burden of persuasion falls on Patent Owner. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012).” slip op. at 1

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

    “are unpersuaded that they would alter our construction. For example, Patent Owner asserts that the claim limitation “any particular transaction” requires that “bidirectional account” be construed as allowing an account to function simultaneously as both a merchant account and a purchaser account under all transactions. We disagree, primarily because we are unclear as to what Patent Owner means by “under all transactions.” The relevant limitation of independent claim 1 reads “wherein the first account and the second account are adapted to selectively function as either a merchant or a purchaser account during any particular transaction.” We find that “[a]ny particular transaction” means any specific transaction, and is not necessarily limited to all transactions going forward, and find further that, logically, an account need only function in “merchant mode” or “purchaser mode” for that particular transaction; otherwise the account would be in the awkward position of performing a transaction with itself. Moreover, we are unclear as to why the same account cannot function as both, depending on the transaction, as an account is merely a repository within which funds are held, and whether the account is in “merchant mode” (i.e., the ability to send funds from the account) or “purchaser mode” (i.e., the ability to send funds to the account) does not alter the fundamental repository nature of the account itself. A similar analysis of the cited portions of the prosecution history and Specification yields similar conclusions. For example, Patent Owner’s discussion of the prosecution history on pages 4 and 5 of the Request for Rehearing do not amount to Patent Owner providing an explicit definition of “selectively function,” “during any particular transition,” or any other claim term as meaning “simultaneously”; nor do Patent Owner’s statements rise to the level of a clear and unmistakable disclaimer with respect to the meaning of the claim terms.” slip op. at 8

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

    “2. whether Dalzell fails to meet the claims’ requirements Based on Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction of “bidirectional accounts,” Patent Owner asserts that Dalzell does not disclose “bidirectional accounts.” Req. 7‒10. As we are unpersuaded, however, that the Board misapprehended or overlooked the items identified by Patent Owner in construing “bidirectional accounts,” we are unpersuaded that our analysis of Dalzell and “bidirectional accounts” set forth on pages 28 to 29 of the Final Written Decision should be modified in any way. See Dec. 29 (“[W]e find that a more logical reading of paragraph 59 of Dalzell is that a buyer, from a particular account, can add a seller feature to that particular account, without the need to create a whole new account. Such a finding is supported by extensive analysis and testimony by Dr. Sadeh-Koniecpol, with explicit citations to Dalzell, which we find credible, reasonable, and persuasive. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 147-164 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 9, 27, 49, 57, 61, 82, 85, 87, 132, 163, Figs. 1A, 1B).”)” slip op. at 9

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,396,808
• Avx Corporation v. Greatbatch Ltd.Rehearing granted
  PTAB · Jan 13, 2016 · IPR2015-00710 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board granted rehearing in part and instituted review of claims 1, 2, 5–7, 10, 11, 16, 17, and 20 on anticipation and obviousness grounds; it denied rehearing on the remaining claims.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted in part

    “When the Petition and Dr. Irazoqui’s testimony are considered in view of the Request for Rehearing, we agree that we overlooked Petitioner’s argument that the “gas flow passage” of Figure 2 extends from the upper surface of insulator 122 to the upper exterior of feedthrough 100, i.e., traverses the space between insulator 122 and washer 124. Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1003, 7:18–21, 7:27–29). Given this evidence associating the “minute” gaps with the space between insulator 122 and washer 124, and in light of our current construction of “laminar delamination gap” requiring no specific dimensions for a “very thin gap,” we are persuaded that the evidence of record sufficiently supports Dr. Irazoqui’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Fraley discloses a “laminar delamination gap,” under a construction requiring a “very thin space.” 3 Pet. 37–38; Ex. 1002 ¶ 52 (p. 45). Accordingly, for the reasons discussed below, we grant-in-part and deny-in-part Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing and institute inter partes review on the grounds set forth below.” slip op. at 6

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “7. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 5–7, 10, 11, 16, 17, and 20 of the ’553 patent are anticipated by Fraley; we are not persuaded that claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 12–15, 18, and 19 of the ’553 patent are anticipated by Fraley.” slip op. at 12

  • BurdenMixed

    “of the Request for Rehearing, we agree that we overlooked Petitioner’s argument that the “gas flow passage” of Figure 2 extends from the upper surface of insulator 122 to the upper exterior of feedthrough 100, i.e., traverses the space between insulator 122 and washer 124. Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1003, 7:18–21, 7:27–29). Given this evidence associating the “minute” gaps with the space between insulator 122 and washer 124, and in light of our current construction of “laminar delamination gap” requiring no specific dimensions for a “very thin gap,” we are persuaded that the evidence of record sufficiently supports Dr. Irazoqui’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Fraley discloses a “laminar delamination gap,” under a construction requiring a “very thin space.” 3 Pet. 37–38; Ex. 1002 ¶ 52 (p. 45).” slip op. at 6

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

    “We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument because Exhibit 2008, relied upon by Patent Owner to support its argument, instructs that “[a] braze fillet should ideally be very small.” Ex. 2008, 1; see also id. at 2 (“Keep the fillet small. Remember, all the good things about a braze joint are happening INSIDE the joint, not in the outside fillets.”). Thus, on this record, regardless of any variation in the size of the braze-fillet, Patent Owner’s evidence and attorney argument do not demonstrate that the space between insulator 122 and washer 124 would be “substantial.” Based on the foregoing, and upon review of Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s arguments, the evidence of record, and the supporting testimony of Dr. Irazoqui, we are persuaded that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 16 of the ’553 patent are anticipated by Fraley.” slip op. at 8

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,327,553
• Captioncall, L.L.C. v. Ultratec, Inc.Rehearing granted
  PTAB · Dec 1, 2015 · IPR2013-00543 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board granted rehearing only to modify its analysis of combining Ryan and McLaughlin, denied rehearing otherwise, and maintained that claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedRehearing, deniedGranted in part

    “II. DISCUSSION The party challenging a decision in a request for rehearing bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed.” Id.” slip op. at 2

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

    “function. Ex. 1005, 4:19–28. According to Mr. Occhiogrosso, whose testimony we credit on this point, it was well known in the field of speech recognition at the time of the invention that speaker-dependent speech recognition (e.g., trained to the voice of a particular speaker) performed better than untrained, speaker-independent speech recognition. Ex. 1019 ¶¶ 23, 25; Ex. 1036 ¶ 55. This is reflected in Ryan’s teaching that the accuracy of a relay that uses speech recognition software may be improved if a call assistant re-voices the remote user’s words into a terminal with voice recognition software designed to recognize the call assistant’s voice. Ex. 1005, 4:33–38. Thus, McLaughlin teaches the use of automated equipment at a relay, Ex. 1009, 29:20–22, and Ryan teaches a computer with speech recognition software as one form of automated equipment that can be used at a relay, Ex. 1005, 4:33–38. McLaughlin also notes the use of computerized speech recognition in another context, i.e., translation of voice mail messages from voice to text. Ex. 1012, 26:59–62. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Ryan’s intermediate re-voicing solution—using voice recognition software trained to the voice of a call assistant at a relay— would address the shortcomings of applying voice recognition directly to a remote caller’s voice, acknowledged by McLaughlin. See Ex. 1036 ¶ 55. As Mr. Occhiogrosso explains, combining the teachings of Ryan and McLaughlin to achieve the claimed invention involves nothing more than directing the captioned telephone device of McLaughlin to connect to a re-voicing relay, as taught in Ryan, rather than a conventional relay. Ex. 1036 ¶ 54; see Reply 12. For these reasons, we are persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Ryan and McLaughlin, using Ryan’s re-voicing relay in place of McLaughlin’s relay, along with McLaughlin’s captioned telephone device.” slip op. at 4

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

    “use of trained voice recognition software. Id. at 54–55. In particular, Patent Owner submits that McLaughlin acknowledges the shortcomings of automated speech recognition technology and, therefore, would have discouraged one of ordinary skill in the art from attempting to design the relay claimed in the ’104 patent. Id. at 54 (citing Ex. 1012, 26:54–62). McLaughlin, however, refers to the limitations of speech recognition in the context of translating voice mail messages to text for deaf users, not in connection with relay services discussed in another section of McLaughlin. See Ex. 1012, 26:54–62. Moreover, as discussed previously, we credit the testimony of Mr. Occhiogrosso that it was well known in the field of speech recognition at the time of the invention that speaker-dependent speech recognition (e.g., trained to the voice of a particular speaker), such as that used in Ryan’s re-voicing technique, performed better than untrained, speaker-independent speech recognition, such as would be used in the voice mail application described in McLaughlin. See Ex. 1019 ¶¶ 23, 25; Ex. 1036 ¶ 55. On the facts presented here, we are not persuaded that McLaughlin’s statement regarding limitations of speech recognition technology sufficiently teaches away from the combination of Ryan’s re-voicing scheme with McLaughlin’s relay system to establish nonobviousness. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994).” slip op. at 6

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

    “determined that the ’104 patent contemplated software trained to a “voice pattern of the call assistant,” as set forth in the “Brief Summary of the Invention,” as well as software “specifically trained to the voice of [a] particular call assistant,” as described in the context of a particular relay embodiment shown in Figure 1. Final Dec. 9 (quoting Ex. 1002, 2:54–56, 6:17–20). Based on the evidence in the written description (including the disclosure of “voice pattern”), we determined that the ’104 patent did not indicate expressly how training occurs. Id. Giving the claim language its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification, we concluded we would not limit “trained to the voice of the call assistant” to require training to the voice of one particular call assistant. Id.” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,555,104
• Daicel Corporation v. Celanese International CorporationRehearing granted
  PTAB · Jun 26, 2015 · IPR2015-00173 · APJ Linda M Gaudette · IPR · Rehearing

  Rehearing was granted in part; IPR was instituted on claims 58–60, 67, 69, 71, and 72 for anticipation by the ’095 patent and claim 73 for obviousness over the ’095 patent and JP ’712.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted in part

    “the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if an unreasonable judgment is made in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315-16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing that the decision should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “the Petition, and overlooked the fact that Mr. Cooper’s opinion is also based on his own calculations and data in two published articles. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 97. Specifically, Mr. Cooper approximates reactor DME equilibrium concentrations in the ’095 patent examples and explains how these approximations were obtained using readily available data, specifically identifying data in two published articles. Ex. 1003 ¶ 97 (citing Exs. 1029, 1030). Mr. Cooper goes on to explain why, based on the reactor contents and distillation conditions in the ’095 patent examples, DME and” slip op. at 4

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureReference is prior artInherency foundInstituted

    “the Petition, and overlooked the fact that Mr. Cooper’s opinion is also based on his own calculations and data in two published articles. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 97. Specifically, Mr. Cooper approximates reactor DME equilibrium concentrations in the ’095 patent examples and explains how these approximations were obtained using readily available data, specifically identifying data in two published articles. Ex. 1003 ¶ 97 (citing Exs. 1029, 1030). Mr. Cooper goes on to explain why, based on the reactor contents and distillation conditions in the ’095 patent examples, DME and acetaldehyde would be present in the overhead distillation streams. Id. ¶¶ 99–100. Because Petitioner has shown Mr. Cooper’s testimony is supported by underlying factual evidence, and is not based solely on an unsupported assumption and the Miura Declaration, we determine Mr. Cooper’s testimony provides persuasive support for Petitioner’s contention that DME is inherently present in an overhead distillation stream of the ’095 patent process, and that claim 58 is anticipated by the ’095 patent. We have also reviewed the Petition’s analysis of dependent claims 59, 60, 67, 69, 71, and 72, and conclude Petitioner has provided sufficient explanation and evidence to support a reasonable likelihood that the additional limitations of these claims are described in the ’095 patent. See Pet. 25–30.” slip op. at 4

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

    “on the combination of the ’095 patent and Akinori, based on our determination in Section 1.A., above, that Petitioner had established a reasonable likelihood it would prevail on the merits in showing claim 58 was anticipated by the ’095 patent alone, and the Petition did not articulate a substantive difference between the two challenges. In the present challenge, the Petition fails to explain how Akinori is relied upon for a teaching of a claim 73 feature not described in the ’095 patent. See Pet. 47–51. The Petition does explain, however, why claim 73 would have been obvious over the combination of the ’095 patent and JP ’712. See id. at 50–51. Based on the record before us, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood it would prevail in showing claim 73 would have been obvious over the ’095 patent and JP ’712. Therefore, the Request for Rehearing is granted as to claim 73, and trial is instituted based on the combination of the ’095 patent and JP ’712.” slip op. at 11

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,076,507
• Daicel Corporation v. Celanese International CorporationRehearing granted
  PTAB · Jun 26, 2015 · IPR2015-00170 · APJ Linda M Gaudette · IPR · Rehearing

  Rehearing was granted in part and review instituted on claims 1–4, 6–11, and 13 as obvious over Singh, the ’095 patent, and Akinori.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted in part

    “the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if an unreasonable judgment is made in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing that the decision should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “overlooked the discussion on page 26 of the Petition which relies on Mr. Cooper’s declaration testimony. Mr. Cooper’s testimony is supported by underlying factual evidence, and is not based solely on unsupported assumptions and the Miura Declaration, which we determined were not persuasive evidence that DME would be present inherently in the overhead distillation of the ’095 patent Example. Thus, we agree with Petitioner that on the record before us, and for purposes of our decision on whether to institute trial on this challenge, Mr. Cooper’s testimony provides persuasive support for Petitioner’s contention that DME is inherently present in an overhead distillation stream of the ’095 patent process. Further, for purposes of this decision, the Petition identifies sufficiently how Singh discloses features in the dependent claims that are not explicitly described in the ’095 patent. See, e.g., Pet. 56 (claim 2), id. at 57 (claim 8). The Petitioner also provides adequate explanation of reasons for combining the references. See Pet. 50. In sum, upon reconsideration of this challenge in light of the Request for Rehearing, we determine Petitioner has provided sufficient explanation and evidence to support a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on the merits in showing claims 1–4, 6–11, and 13 would have been unpatentable over Singh, the ’095 patent, and Akinori. Therefore, the Request for Rehearing is granted and trial is instituted as to this challenge.” slip op. at 9

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

    “declaration testimony; rather, we assessed the persuasiveness of Mr. Miura’s testimony in light of other factual evidence in the record. See Dec. 16–20; Velander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“It is within the discretion of the trier of fact to give each item of evidence such weight as it feels appropriate. . . . In giving more weight to prior publications than to subsequent conclusory statements by experts, the Board acted well within that discretion.”). We did not conclude DME is absent in the distillation overhead in the ’095 patent Example. We found Mr. Miura’s testimony and Experiment 1 were not persuasive evidence that DME would be present inherently in the overhead distillation of the ’095 patent Example given the differences in the ’095 patent Example and Experiment 1 reaction liquids. Thesedifferences were not addressed adequately by Mr. Miura. In this regard, we found Mr. Miura’s dismissal of these differences as “slight,” without further discussion, was not persuasive in light of our actual comparison of the ’095 patent Example and Experiment 1, that revealed “Miura’s Experiment 1 contained more than twice the amount of rhodium and about 34% of the amount of water used in the ’095 patent Example,” Dec. 19, and our review of the ’095 patent and Petitioner’s own patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,683,212 B2 (Ex. 2014), that indicate these differences would affect the reaction product, Dec. 20.” slip op. at 4

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

    “overlooked the discussion on page 26 of the Petition which relies on Mr. Cooper’s declaration testimony. Mr. Cooper’s testimony is supported by underlying factual evidence, and is not based solely on unsupported assumptions and the Miura Declaration, which we determined were not persuasive evidence that DME would be present inherently in the overhead distillation of the ’095 patent Example. Thus, we agree with Petitioner that on the record before us, and for purposes of our decision on whether to institute trial on this challenge, Mr. Cooper’s testimony provides persuasive support for Petitioner’s contention that DME is inherently present in an overhead distillation stream of the ’095 patent process. Further, for purposes of this decision, the Petition identifies sufficiently how Singh discloses features in the dependent claims that are not explicitly described in the ’095 patent. See, e.g., Pet. 56 (claim 2), id. at 57 (claim 8). The Petitioner also provides adequate explanation of reasons for combining the references. See Pet. 50.” slip op. at 9

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,076,507

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.