• Celltrion, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 29, 2018 · IPR2017-01373 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 12, 25, 29–31, 33, 42, 60, 62–64, 66, 67, 69, 71, 73, 74, 78, 80, and 81 are unpatentable; claims 65, 72, 75–77, and 79 are not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedOther

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In the Decision to Institute, we found the parties’ proposed definitions of a person of ordinary skill for the ’213 patent are similar. Dec. 10 (citing Pet. 12; Prelim. Resp. 17). We adopted Patent Owner’s proposed definition that “[a] person of ordinary skill for the ’213 patent would have had a Ph.D. or equivalent in chemistry, biochemistry, structural biology, or a closely related field, and experience with antibody structural characterization, engineering, and/or biological testing, or an M.D. with practical academic or industrial experience in antibody development.” Id. at 10–11. During trial, the parties did not dispute this finding. Having considered the complete record developed at trial, we see no reason to change our assessment. We further note that, in this case, the prior art itself demonstrates the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 10

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

    “In the Decision to Institute, we agreed with Patent Owner that the ’213 patent expressly defined “consensus human variable domain,” which appears in claims 4, 33, 62, and 69, to mean “a human variable domain which comprises the most frequently occurring amino acid residues at each location in all human immunoglobulins of any particular subclass or subunit structure.” Dec. 7; Ex. 1001, 11:32–38. During trial, the parties did not argue otherwise, and we see no reason to change our position as to claim construction. We, however, clarify that “all” in the consensus of “all human immunoglobulins” is not in the literal sense. Indeed, counsel for Patent Owner acknowledged that the term refers to “all reasonably available[,] all known at the time of the invention.” Tr. 47:21–48:5. Dr. Wilson, the expert witness for Patent Owner, testified that the consensus sequence of the ’213 patent was “derived from ‘all’ known antibody sequences of any particular subclass or subunit structure.” Ex. 2041 ¶ 207 (emphasis added); see also PO Resp. 52 (arguing the same); Ex. 1140, 59:22–60:1 (Dr. Carter testifying that the consensus sequence, as defined in the ’213 patent, “only describes what was known at that time or it’s only available sequences at that -- at that time”); Ex. 1142, 35:9–16 (Dr. Presta explaining that the consensus sequence of the ’213 patent had the most common residue at every position “for the sequences that were available”). And evidence of record shows that at the priority date of the ’213 patent, the sequences that were listed in Kabat 1987 “were the sequences available.” Ex. 1142, 35:9–20; see also Ex. 2016 ¶ 25 (Kabat 1987 “collected known sequence data of antibodies”); Ex. 1140, 60:13–25 (Dr. Carter explaining the consensus sequence was derived from Kabat 1987, which is what was available at the time of the ’213 patent); Ex. 1142, 27:19–25 (Dr. Presta stating that “Elvin Kabat had taken all known human/mouse/rabbit antibody sequences, published them in a government publication, and that there were human subgroups of sequences within the heavy and the light chains”). Thus, although we reiterate our previous construction of “consensus” slip op. at 11

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

    “For the purpose of this Decision, we see no need to expressly construe any other claim terms. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (stating claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 13

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

    “combination of Queen 1989 and the PDB database, together with the knowledge of an ordinary artisan, teaches or suggests each limitation of claims 12, 63, 66, 67, 71, 73, 74, and 78, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the references, and would have had a reasonable expectation of producing humanized antibodies with the substitutions and properties recited in those claims. We further determine that evidence of secondary considerations is not sufficient to outweigh the strong evidence of obviousness associated with the other Graham factors. As a result, we conclude that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 12, 63, 66, 67, 71, 73, 74, and 78 are unpatentable over Queen 1989 and the PDB database.” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 6,407,213 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,407,213
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Promos Technologies, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 28, 2018 · IPR2017-01416 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 14–16, 22, and 28–36 are unpatentable: claim 22 is anticipated by Ito; the other claims are obvious over the stated combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We agree with Petitioner. Although Patent Owner cites to the testimony of its declarant, Mr. Brahmbhatt, we do not find persuasive his testimony that the “claim element requiring the bias voltage to be ‘arbitrarily close to the ground voltage’ is not met by the Ito design which unintentionally, uncontrollably, and undesirably (per Ito) rises above – VTHP.” The intent, control, and desirability of the detector’s function in Ito is irrelevant to anticipation. See State Contracting & Eng’ g Corp. v. Condotte America, Inc., 346 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (A reference may be directed to an entirely different problem than the one addressed by the inventor and still be anticipatory); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell Intern. Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (Prior art that teaches away from the claimed invention can anticipate the claims based on what it discloses). Based on the disclosed function of the detector circuit in Ito, we determine that it meets the limitations recited in claim 22.” slip op. at 17

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

    “We agree with Petitioner. We determine that Petitioner, in the Petition, explained that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the trip point would be substantially insensitive to variations in VDD based on the parameters set in Baker. See Pet. 31–32. The Petitioner and Dr. Baker provide a reasoned explanation for why the subject limitation, i.e., a “trip point which is substantially insensitive to power supply variations,” is disclosed and suggested by Baker, and why one would have been motivated to configure the inverter in Park to have a stable trip point, per Baker. Id. Further, we reaffirm our determination that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to configure Park’s circuit to have its trip point be substantially insensitive to power supply voltage variations, in keeping with Park’s overall objective of “constantly maintaining a back bias voltage with respect to the variation of an external voltage.” Dec. on Inst. 21–22 (citing Pet. 32; Ex. 1007, 3:45–57; Ex. 1002 ¶ 110).” slip op. at 29

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a similar field, and at least two to three years of experience in integrated circuit design.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 20). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in its Patent Owner Response, but its declarant, Mr. Brahmbhatt, indicates that he has adopted and applied Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of his testimony. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 23. Based on the current record, we are concerned that Petitioner’s articulation contains no upper bounds, i.e., “at least a bachelor’s degree,” such that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner is not sufficiently specific. As such, we adopt the definition provided by Petitioner with minor variations: “a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of invention is a person with a Bachelor’s of Science degree in electrical engineering or a similar field, and two to three years of experience in integrated circuit design.” Additionally, we determine that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 12

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

    “September 24, 2018, i.e., during the pendency of the instituted proceeding” and contends that the challenged claims should be construed under the standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Pet. 10. We agree and determine that the instant patent expired on that date. Under the Phillips standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meanings, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, having taken into consideration the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record. In the Decision on Institution, we acknowledged that Petitioner did not propose an express construction for any claim terms. Dec. on Inst. 12 (citing Pet. 11). In its Response, Patent Owner likewise does not propose explicit claim constructions for any claim terms, and its declarant, Mr. Brahmbhatt, indicates that he has assumed “that the claim terms have their ordinary customary meaning and that there are no specific constructions that I am to apply.” See PO Resp.; Ex. 2001 ¶ 24. As such, we determine that no claim terms require express construction and we apply the ordinary and customary meanings for all claim terms, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 6,172,554 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,172,554
• Emerson Electric Co. v. Sipco, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 28, 2018 · IPR2017-00359 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 32, 34, 37–38, 55–57, and 59 are unpatentable over Cunningham; claims 1, 3–8, 11–14, 24–31, 36, 42, 43, 46–49, 51–54, and 60–64 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “This argument is conclusory and not supported by sufficient evidence. Moreover, the stated conclusion is vague with respect to the limitation at issue. Petitioner argues that “the node 18 must translate messages” (id. (emphasis added)), but does not explicitly argue that all three recited pieces of information—“the select information, the transmitter identification information, and transceiver identification information”—must be translated. Even assuming Mason’s node must translate all three recited pieces of information, Petitioner does not show that all such translated pieces of information must be further transmitted to the AMR server over the WAN. In particular, Petitioner does not show that transceiver identification information would have to be further transmitted.” slip op. at 21

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

    “Moreover, we agree with Petitioner that such a construction is “non- specific, vague and unhelpful” in the context of the ’692 patent. Reply. 16. Patent Owner’s construction limits “low power” to signals having a “limited transmission range,” but provides no guidance of what “limited” means, or what its boundaries might be. Petitioner argues correctly that Patent Owner’s construction fails to address questions its proposed construction raises, such as, what a ‘limited’ transmission range means and how ‘limited’ the range must be (i.e., what the range’s distance should be), whether the transmission range depends on the particular system or application, and whether other factors should be considered in determining whether the transmission range is limited.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Notably, Petitioner says these contentions are “further evidence” but does not explain how this evidence is to be used to buttress Cunningham’s disclosure or how it is to be combined with Cunningham’s disclosure. Specifically, given the limited contentions in the Petition detailed above, Petitioner does not explain how Energy Management Services or the “routines” described in the Provisional send control signals from the computer to the actuator as required by the claims. For example, even if we to accept that the “Williams Network Control Center” creates control signals as required by the claim Petitioner has not explained how those signals are translated from network transfer protocol to RF signals and then translated to an analog signal that can be used at an actuator. Even though the ’978 Provisional is allegedly incorporated by reference, an obviousness determination still requires--“[w]hether a [obviousness challenge] is based on combining disclosures from multiple references, combining multiple embodiments from a single reference, or selecting from large lists of elements in a single reference[--] a motivation to make the combination and a reasonable expectation that such a combination would be successful, otherwise a skilled artisan would not arrive at the claimed combination.” In re Stepan Co., 868 F.3d 1342, 1346 n. 1 (Fed. Cir. 2017); c.f. Boston Sci. Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (finding obviousness shown despite fact that “all of the limitations are found in two separate embodiments pictured side by side in the patent, not in one embodiment” because the party showed motivation to combine and reasonable likelihood of success). Additionally, “there must be evidence presented on the obviousness of the claim as a whole.” Circuit Check Inc. v. QXQ Inc., 795 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 420, 127 S.Ct. 1727); see also Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Roxane Labs., Inc., 903 F.3d 1310, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“The determination of obviousness is made with respect to the subject matter as a whole, not separate pieces of the claim”). Here, the “routines” described in the ’978 Provisional work differently than the “utility prices” embodiment of Cunningham. Petitioner has not explained how those would work together to meet the claim limitations.” slip op. at 30

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “Patent Owner’s argument is inapposite, as it is premised on reading a limitation into the claims, namely that the information encoded in the RF signal must be translated in real time. Further, we agree with Petitioner, that even under such an erroneously narrow construction, Cunningham would meet the limitation. In that regard, Petitioner argues that, “although Cunningham discloses sending cumulative data readings, individual signals from the sensor are identified by the gateway and this information is then transmitted (with transmitter identification information) to a computer on the WAN.” Reply 6 (citing Ex. 1046 ¶¶31–32; Ex. 1004, 31:6–28). Petitioner argues, and we are persuaded, that “Cunningham explains that the ‘most current cumulative reading’ is the current absolute ‘reading’ (i.e., information signal) from the sensor (Ex. 1004, 13:44–46) and that two cumulative readings can be used to ‘interpolate’ and ‘recover’ a missed reading (i.e., a signal from the sensor).” Reply 7 (citing Ex. 1004, 13:44–56; 31:6–27; Pet. 75; Ex. 1002 ¶¶115, 152; Ex. 1046 ¶32). We are persuaded that Cunningham discloses this limitation. Lastly, claim 32 also recites “a computer configured to execute at least one computer program that formats and stores select information responsive to the electrical signal for retrieval upon demand from a remotely located device.” To meet this limitation, Petitioner accurately points out that “Cunningham discloses that[,] in response to receiving information from the sensor interface module through the data collection modules, the host module compiles the information into a user specified readable format and stores it for later retrieval upon demand from a customer computer or workstation.” Pet. 83 (citing Ex. 1004, 7:19–27, 44:12–41, 44:53–64, 46:44–61, 47:44–54, Ex. 1002 ¶¶138–140). Patent Owner does not contest that Cunningham discloses “a computer configured to execute at least one computer program that formats and stores select information responsive to the electrical signal for retrieval upon demand from a remotely located device.” See PO Resp. 22–29, 41–46. We are persuaded that Cunningham discloses this limitation. For the forgoing reasons, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 6,437,692 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,437,692
• Pfizer, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 28, 2018 · IPR2017-01358 · APJ Jacqueline T Harlow · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 12, and 13 were not shown unpatentable because Shadle did not establish the claimed molarity and conductivity limitations, and the obviousness showing was insufficient.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “and several years of postgraduate training or practical experience in a relevant discipline such as biochemistry, process chemistry, protein chemistry, chemical engineering and/or biochemical engineering, among others.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 28). Petitioner further contends that “[s]uch a person would also understand that protein purification is a multidisciplinary field, and could take advantage of the specialized skills of others using a collaborative approach.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 28). Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s position on this matter and does not propose its own description for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. We agree with Petitioner, and adopt Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention of the ’815 patent. We also note that the applied prior art reflects a level of skill at the time of the claimed invention consistent with our determination. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7

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

    “Consistent with the Institution Decision, we determine that “the plain language of the claims, as well as the specification of the ’815 patent, indicates that the term ‘molarity’ refers to the total concentration of solute present in the solution, rather than the concentration of one particular solute.” Id. at 10–11. The claims of the ’815 patent refer consistently to the overall molarity of solutions, and not of any particular solute in a given solution. For example, claim 1 requires “an acidic aqueous solution of low conductivity . . . having a molarity of 100 mM or less” (Ex. 1001, 12:42–44 (emphasis added)), and further recites that the molarity of the “adjusted sample is 100 mM or less” (id. at 12:45–47 (emphasis added)). Claim 2 9 similarly limits the molarity of the “acidic aqueous solution.” Id. at 12:50– 52. Notably, these claims do not identify any particular solute to which the term molarity refers; rather, the claims of the ’815 patent describe solutions having certain characteristics, of which solution molarity is one. As we stated in our Institution Decision: Similarly, the specification of the ’815 patent refers to the molarity of the complete solution, rather than one solute in that solution. See, e.g., id. at 4:61–64 (“As used herein, a ‘neutral aqueous solution . . .’ generally refers to an aqueous solution . . . which has a molarity of 0 to 100mM”), 5:28–31 (“an ‘acidic aqueous solution of low conductivity’ generally refers to an aqueous solution . . . , which has a molarity of 0 to 100 mM”). The file history of the ’815 patent likewise references the molarity of the solution, rather than of a given solute in the solution. See e.g., Ex.1005, 82 (“an important feature of the present invention is to adjust pH value of the solution, the eluate, to from 4 to 8 while maintaining the molarity of the solution at 100mM or less.”), 107 (“0.1 M buffer was used as an eluent, and 1 M Tris-HCl was used to adjust the pH of the eluted fraction, that is, the fact that 0.1 M and 1 M solutions were used means that the molarity of the eluted fration [sic] must be over 0.1 M (100 mM)”). Inst. Dec. 11.” slip op. at 9

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

    “In the Institution Decision, we concluded that the claim terms “conductivity” and “ionic strength,” for which Petitioner proffered constructions in its Petition (Pet. 30, 35–36), did not require express construction for purposes of this proceeding. Dec. 8. Neither Petitioner nor Patent challenges that determination. See PO Resp. 11–22; Reply, passim. In its Response, Patent Owner proposes constructions for several additional 11 terms. Namely, Patent Owner contends that the preambles of claims 1 and 13 should be construed as limiting (PO Resp. 12), “to form particles” should be construed to require that the solution becomes clouded (id. at 16), and “the treated sample containing a physiologically active protein,” as recited in claim 5, should be interpreted to mean “the sample resulting from performing the method of claim 1, which concludes with removing particles in step 3” (id. at 17). Because interpretation of these claim terms is not necessary to our anticipation or obviousness analyses, we need not construe them. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 11

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

    “To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently. Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “To establish that a prior art reference inherently—rather than expressly— discloses a claim limitation, ‘the limitation at issue necessarily must be present, or [is] the natural result of the combination of elements explicitly disclosed by the prior art.’” Endo Pharm. Sols., Inc. v. Custopharm Inc., 894 F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (quoting PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 7,927,815 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,927,815
• Pfizer, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 28, 2018 · IPR2017-01357 · APJ Jacqueline T Harlow · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 and 13 were not held unpatentable because Petitioner failed to prove anticipation by Shadle or obviousness over Shadle.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least a graduate degree, such as a Ph.D., 6 and several years of postgraduate training or practical experience in a relevant discipline such as biochemistry, process chemistry, protein chemistry, chemical engineering and/or biochemical engineering, among others.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 28–29). Petitioner further contends that “[s]uch a person would also understand that protein purification is a multidisciplinary field, and could take advantage of the specialized skills of others using a collaborative approach.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 28–29). Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s position on this matter and does not propose its own description for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. We agree with Petitioner, and adopt Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention of the ’289 patent. We also note that the applied prior art reflects a level of skill at the time of the claimed invention consistent with our determination. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 6

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

    “Consistent with the Institution Decision, we determine that “the plain language of the claims, as well as the specification of the ’289 patent, indicates that the term ‘molarity’ refers to the total concentration of solute present in the solution, rather than the concentration of one particular solute.” Id. at 10. The claims of the ’289 patent refer consistently to the overall molarity of solutions, and not of any particular solute in a given solution. For example, claim 1 requires “an acidic aqueous solution of low conductivity having a molarity of 100 mM or less” (Ex. 1001, 12:50–51 (emphasis added)), and further recites that the “molarity of the neutralized 9 eluate is 100 mM or less” (id. at 12:54 (emphasis added)). Claim 2 similarly limits the molarity of the “acidic aqueous solution.” Id. at 12:59–61. Notably, these claims do not identify any particular solute to which the term molarity refers; rather, the claims of the ’289 patent describe solutions having certain characteristics, of which solution molarity is one. As we stated in our Institution Decision: Similarly, the specification of the ’289 patent refers to the molarity of the complete solution, rather than one solute in that solution. See, e.g., id. at 4:61–66 (“As used herein, a ‘neutral aqueous solution . . .’ generally refers to an-aqueous [sic] solution . . . which has a molarity of 0 to 100mM”), 5:28–31 (“an ‘acidic aqueous solution of low conductivity’ generally refers to an aqueous solution . . . , which has a molarity of 0 to 100 mM”). The prosecution history of the ’289 patent likewise references the molarity of the solution, rather than of a given solute in the solution. See e.g., Ex.1005, 12 (“an important feature of the present invention is to adjust pH value of the solution, the eluate, to from 4 to 8 while maintaining the molarity of the solution at 100mM or less.”), 37 (“0.1 M buffer was used as an eluent, and 1 M Tris-HCl was used to adjust the pH of the eluted fraction, that is, the fact that 0.1 M and 1 M solutions were used means that the molarity of the eluted fration [sic] must be over 0.1 M (100 mM)”). Inst. Dec. 10–11.” slip op. at 9

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

    “In its Response, Patent Owner proposes constructions for several additional terms. Namely, Patent Owner contends that the preamble of claim 1 should be construed as limiting (PO Resp. 12), “to form particles” should be construed to require that the solution becomes clouded (id. at 17), and “the treated sample containing an antibody,” as recited in claim 5, should be interpreted to mean “the sample resulting from performing the method of claim 1, which concludes with removing particles in step 4” (id. 11 at 18). Because interpretation of these claim terms is not necessary to our anticipation or obviousness analyses, we need not construe them. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 11

  • ExcludeOther

    “Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner untimely introduced Exhibits 2201–2207 for the first time during the deposition of Petitioner’s Reply declarant, Dr. Przybycien. Paper 36, 4. Petitioner additionally asserts that the challenged exhibits are inadmissible because they are irrelevant. Id. Patent Owner responds that the objected-to exhibits were timely introduced because they were used to challenge opinions presented by Dr. Przybycien for the first time in conjunction with Petitioner’s Reply. Paper 44, 2. Patent Owner further asserts that the exhibits are relevant because they illuminate gaps in Dr. Przybycien’s Reply testimony. Id. at 3. Because we have not relied on Exhibits 2201–2207, or Dr. Przybycien’s testimony regarding those exhibits in this Final Written Decision, we dismiss Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Exhibits 2201–2207 as moot.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 7,332,289 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,332,289
• Nautilus, Inc. v. Icon Health & Fitness Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 28, 2018 · IPR2017-01363 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 and 11–13 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 6–10 and 14–19 were not shown unpatentable because Six-Pak was not established as prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable

    “Petitioner’s evidence to be deficient. What we find lacking is evidence that persons interested in exercise equipment knew of the TuffStuff website or would have been able to locate it through reasonable diligence. Even assuming that the two archived webpages captured by the Wayback Machine show that Six-Pak was available for anyone to view or download from the TuffStuff website,9 “‘[p]ublic accessibility’ requires more than technical accessibility.” Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., __ F.3d __, 2018 WL 5795976, at *5 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 6, 2018) (affirming Board’s determination that a reference uploaded to a university website in the prior art period was not a printed publication when it was not meaningfully indexed to allow an ordinarily skilled person to locate the reference using the website’s search function). Petitioner has presented no evidence, in the Butler affidavit or elsewhere in the record, that the TuffStuff website could have been located through a reasonably diligent internet search.” slip op. at 16

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

    “2. Claims 2–5 Petitioner contends that claims 2–5 would have been obvious over Sleamaker in view of Hanoun. Pet. 26–31. Petitioner argues that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Sleamaker with Hanoun as proposed in its challenges to these claims because by 2013, it was known that exercise machines should track user performance and the market demanded such features. Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 44–50, 117–118). Sleamaker discloses electronics to track user performance (see Ex. 1002, 5:46–55), but according to Petitioner, “because the direction of its invention was not focused on the details of such electronics, a POSITA would have looked to Hanoun for a complimentary and more comprehensive system to measure performance in a flywheel-based exercise system.” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 117–118). We find that Petitioner’s stated reasoning for combining Sleamaker and Hanoun is supported by rational underpinnings.” slip op. at 25

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “In our Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal that an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of the invention of the ’047 patent “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or biomechanics and two years’ experience designing exercise equipment, or alternatively, an equivalent level of education and experience in product development and engineering regarding commercial fitness products.” Dec. on Inst. 7 (quoting Pet. 7). The parties’ post-institution briefing does not present any argument relating to the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We maintain the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art set forth in our Decision on Institution for the reasons stated therein. See Dec. on Inst. 7.” slip op. at 9

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

    “II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Under the version of our rules applicable to this inter partes review,7 claim terms in an unexpired patent are given their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2016); Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard). In our Decision on Institution, we determined that resolution of the disputed issues at that stage did not require an express interpretation of any claim term. See Dec. on Inst. 6 (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). The parties’ post-institution briefing does not present any claim construction arguments or issues. We maintain our determination that no express claim construction is necessary to resolve the disputed issues.” slip op. at 8

  Patent outcomesUS 9,403,047 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,403,047
• Intel Corporation v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Nov 27, 2018 · IPR2018-00661 · APJ Melissa A Haapala · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Intel’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1–9 and 17–22 because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of success on its asserted grounds.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “procedural rights. Petitioner had several options available to address the claim construction position set forth in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. For example, Petitioner could have sought leave to file a reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) (“A petitioner may seek leave to file a reply to the preliminary response . . . .”). But Petitioner did not seek our permission to file such a reply. Petitioner also was entitled to file a request for rehearing to identify any matter we misapprehended or overlooked when construing the challenged claims. See 37 § C.F.R. 42.71(d). Although Petitioner did submit a request for rehearing, it does not assert in its request that there is any error in the claim construction set forth in our Decision. See Req. Reh’g. And while Petitioner had several options available to respond to Patent Owner’s claim construction, Petitioner was not entitled to submit claim construction briefing after the Decision Denying Institution had been entered. Accordingly, we discern no violation of procedural rights in our denial of such briefing. See Ex. 1014.” slip op. at 3

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

    “We are also not persuaded of any error in our Decision that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in establishing independent claims 1 and 17 would have been obvious over the asserted Cederbaum-Lee combination. See Dec. 13–16. In its rehearing request, Petitioner now newly argues that we overlooked evidence that AAPA from the ’950 patent discloses performing the first three steps of claims 1 and 17 in sequential order. Req. Reh’g 6–9. However, Petitioner did not set forth any challenge to claims 1 and 17 in its Petition based on AAPA, but rather only challenged these claims based on the Cederbaum–Lee combination. See Paper 2, 6, 24–28. A petition must include the specific statutory grounds on which the challenge to the claim is based and the patents or printed publications relied upon for each ground. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2); see also SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S.Ct 1348, 1355 (2018) (explaining that it is the petitioner that gets to define the contours of the proceeding by describing each claim challenged and the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based). Petitioner acknowledges “it did not brief how the AAPA discloses how the AAPA discloses this claim construction in its petition.” Req. Reh’g 6. Because such a challenge was not presented in the Petition, it could not have been overlooked in our Decision.1” slip op. at 3

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in establishing independent claims 1 and 17 would have been obvious over the asserted Cederbaum-Lee combination. See Dec. 13–16. In its rehearing request, Petitioner now newly argues that we overlooked evidence that AAPA from the ’950 patent discloses performing the first three steps of claims 1 and 17 in sequential order. Req. Reh’g 6–9. However, Petitioner did not set forth any challenge to claims 1 and 17 in its Petition based on AAPA, but rather only challenged these claims based on the Cederbaum–Lee combination. See Paper 2, 6, 24–28. A petition must include the specific statutory grounds on which the challenge to the claim is based and the patents or printed publications relied upon for each ground. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2); see also SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S.Ct 1348, 1355 (2018) (explaining that it is the petitioner that gets to define the contours of the proceeding by describing each claim challenged and the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based). Petitioner acknowledges “it did not brief how the AAPA discloses how the AAPA discloses this claim construction in its petition.” Req. Reh’g 6. Because such a challenge was not presented in the Petition, it could not have been overlooked in our Decision.1 We conclude that Petitioner has not identified any matter that we misapprehended or overlooked, much less in a manner that constitutes an abuse of discretion.” slip op. at 3

  None
  Patents in suitUS 6,709,950
• Xerox Corp. / Acs Transport Solutions, Inc. et al. v. Bytemark, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Nov 20, 2018 · CBM2018-00018 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · CBM · Rehearing

  The Board denied Petitioner’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of CBM review of claims 1–17 and 22–24 because the patent did not qualify as a covered business method patent.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. ANALYSIS When rehearing a decision on institution, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if the 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.” slip op. at 2

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

    “completion of a purchase of a ticket, is a “recitation of a financial operation” sufficient to establish that claims 23 recite a covered business method. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a) (“The petitioner must demonstrate that the patent for which review is sought is a covered business method patent . . . .”). Petitioner simply does not now explain persuasively why the transmission of a secured validating display by a computer system in the course of validating a ticket that had been purchased constitutes activity that is “active[] and contemporaneous[]” with the “management or administration of a financial product or service.” See Req. Reh’g 3–4. In order to be eligible for a CBM review, the challenged patent must “claim[] a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service . . . .” AIA § 18(d)(1). After considering the Petition, we determined that Petitioner did not meets its burden of demonstrating that the patent for which review is sought is a covered business method patent. Although Petitioner may disagree with our determination as to claim 23, disagreement is not, itself, a proper basis for requesting rehearing. Here, Petitioner does not identify persuasively that we misapprehended or overlooked any matter in reaching a determination other than that desired by Petitioner.” slip op. at 5

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “The burdens and requirements of a request for rehearing are stated in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d): (d) Rehearing. . . . The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify 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. We address below, in the order presented in the Request for Rehearing, the matters Petitioner asserts we overlooked or misapprehended.” slip op. at 3

  None
  Patents in suitUS 9,239,993
• BMW Of North America, LLC / Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v. Theodore & Associates, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 20, 2018 · IPR2017-01380 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2, 4, 19, 23, 24, 27–31, 35, 44–46, 48, and 49 are unpatentable under § 103; claims 3, 6, 8–10, 32–34, 36, 37, and 43 were not proven unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Mr. Kunselman, neither of whom supports his opinion with objective evidence. Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 20); PO Resp. 11–12 (referring to Mr. Kunselman’s opinion appearing at Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 15–21); Reply 20–21 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 20; Ex. 1061 ¶¶ 11–13). The level of skill is determined “in the art to which the claimed invention pertains,” 35 U.S.C. § 103, and neither party identifies that art explicitly. The Specification describes the field of invention as follows: “This invention is related to the field of automotive chassis design and more specifically to the area of interchangeable chassis for use with many models of vehicles.” Ex. 1001, 1:17–19. The Specification repeatedly refers to the chassis as having “universal” characteristics. Id. at Title, passim. The Specification also describes an advantage of its chassis as having “an ability to adapt to different bodies and body styles,” id. at 2:17–21, and criticizes prior art chassis designs that “are not readily adaptable to a wide variety of vehicles without forcing major and expensive redesign work for each vehicle,” id. at 1:29–33. Claims 43 and 44 expressly require that the claimed chassis be “universally adapted” for more than one type of vehicular configuration. Id. at 16:40–17:19. Based on these descriptions of the chassis and the express requirements in at least some of the claims at issue, we determine that the art to which the claimed invention pertains is the design of interchangeable chassis for use with many models of vehicles. We consider Mr. Kunselman’s testimony on the level of ordinary skill to be tied more closely to this relevant art of designing a chassis for use with many models of vehicles. Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill for purposes of this Decision and evaluate priority of invention and obviousness from that perspective. We note that both Mr. Parker and Mr. Kunselman possess such a skill level. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 6–13; Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 4–9.” slip op. at 7

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateNot entitled to earlier dateMixed

    “in claims 9 and 32–43 when it states that: “During attachment of the central backbone between the front and rear structures, the operational components (e.g., quill shaft for conventional vehicle, battery for electric or hybrid vehicle), are suitably coupled or connected.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 43. Based on this disclosure in the ’490 App, Mr. Kunselman opines without citing any objective evidence in support that: “The only suitable connection it could be is a wire and a cable. No other option has ever been used, not a metal tab, buss bar, or printed circuit board.” Ex. 2012 ¶ 75 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 43). Because the testimony cited by the parties on this issue leads to stalemate, we examine other aspects of the ’490 App and other evidence. Figure 16 of the ’490 App, reproduced at right, illustrates batteries located in a central structure that connects one end of a chassis with a generator to the other end of the chassis with an electric motor. Mr. Parker testifies that components such as wires connecting batteries were “conventional components” that were “well known” and “found in almost all vehicles decades before the ’163 patent was filed.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 61. Figure 16 illustrates batteries within the central spine of the plug-in hybrid chassis, along with the generator on one end, which would charge those batteries, and an e-motor on the other end, which would be powered by those batteries. Ex. 1006, Figure 16. Both experts agree that an electrical wire is a well known type of electrical connection that would be suitable. Ex. 1003 ¶ 61, Ex. 2012 ¶ 75. On the record before us, we determine that Figure 16 in the ’490 App, along with the description of batteries being “suitably coupled and connected” constitutes a description of an electrical connection spanning the batteries within the central spine and to components connected to opposite ends of that spine. This is especially true given the high degree of skill possessed by an ordinarily skilled artisan. Such an artisan would have no trouble recognizing that the ’490 App described using wire to connect batteries located within the central structure and that those wires would span the entire central spine. Ex. 2012 ¶ 75. For this reason, we determine that the wire features of claims 9, 32–37, and 43 are supported by the description in the ’490 App.” slip op. at 12

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

    “lexicographically define “chassis” but merely describes “another aspect of the universal chassis apparatus.” Reply 17–18. We agree. To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must “clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term” other than its plain and ordinary meaning. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed.Cir.2002). It is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must “clearly express an intent” to redefine the term. Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed.Cir.2008); see also Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com, 582 F.3d 1341, 1347–48 (Fed.Cir.2009). At most, we understand the passage quoted by Patent Owner to be describing aspects of the “universal chassis apparatus” rather than providing a lexicographical definition of “chassis.” Petitioner also contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that “chassis” generally refers to the supporting structure or frame upon which the vehicle’s body, drive train, and suspension components are mounted. Reply 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 31). Petitioner notes that such an understanding is consistent with the definitions of “chassis” provided in two automotive industry dictionaries, one of which is provided by Patent Owner. Id. at 18–19 (citing Ex. 2024;5 Ex. 1063, 45:4–46:2, 46:20–47:14, 52:15–24; Ex. 1061, ¶ 25); see also Ex. 1052, 3 (defining “chassis” as the “[s]tructural lower part of a vehicle to which the running 5 Exhibit 2024 is an excerpt of a 1993 publication entitled “Auto Dictionary” in which “chassis” is defined as follows: “Lower structure of a vehicle to which the running gear and body are attached. On older cars, the chassis was a separate part of the vehicle with its own frame but, today, it is usually an integral part of the body structure.” Ex. 2024, 3. gear6 and body is attached.”). Mr. Kunselman testifies that “a variety of possible definitions for a chassis” exist. Ex. 1063, 74:12–14. Petitioner also points out that Patent Owner’s proffered definition for “chassis” conflicts with the Abstract of the ’163 patent, which indicates that “other components” including the suspension are attached to—and therefore separate from—a “vehicle chassis.” Reply 19 (citing Ex. 1001, Abstract, Ex. 1061 ¶ 26). Based on our review of the entire record, we conclude that “chassis” is neither precisely defined in the Specification nor understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan to have a precise universally agreed upon definition. Rather, “chassis” refers generally to the supporting structure or frame upon which the vehicle’s body, drive train, and suspension components are mounted.” slip op. at 22

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

    “Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive for at least three reasons. First, claims 2 and 27 merely require that the backbone have two sections or segments that together define “a substantially T-shape as viewed from above.” Ex. 1001, 13:41–44 (claim 2), 15:15–24 (claim 27). Even with Brandt’s heel plate 40 positioned between the compartments holding battery units 24 and 28, we consider the combination of Brandt’s two compartments to be arranged in “a substantially T-shape as viewed from above” as recited in claims 2 and 27. Additionally, “[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted). Third, both Greil and Brandt describe locating batteries in the lower central portion of a vehicle. Ex. 1016, ¶ 38, Figure 5; Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 21– 22, Figure 1. Brandt explicitly suggests arranging batteries in a T-shape configuration. Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 21–22, Figure 1. We conclude that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of evidence that the combination of Greil and Brandt renders claims 2, 4, and 27–31 unpatentable as obvious.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 9,045,163 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,045,163
• BMW Of North America, LLC / Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v. Theodore & Associates, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 20, 2018 · IPR2017-01379 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2–4, 6, 8–10, 19, 23, 24, 27–37, 43–46, 48, and 49 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “lexicographically define “chassis” but merely describes “another aspect of the universal chassis apparatus.” Reply 3–4. We agree. To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must “clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term” other than its plain and ordinary meaning. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). It is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must “clearly express an intent” to redefine the term. Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com, 582 F.3d 1341, 1347–48 (Fed. Cir. 2009). At most, we understand the passage quoted by Patent Owner to be describing aspects of the “universal chassis apparatus” rather than providing a lexicographical definition of “chassis.”” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “Claim 6 recites “the backbone structure further comprising a removable service plate, the backbone structure and plate together defining a substantially polygonal cross-sectional shape.” Ex. 1001 13:56–57. Plainly, the “service plate” is a removable component of the backbone structure. Based upon the arguments presented by the parties on whether Gastesi suggests the claimed service plate, we discern no reason to comment upon whether the “service plate” must “be on the backbone.”” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The level of skill is determined “in the art to which the claimed invention pertains,” 35 U.S.C. § 103, and neither party identifies that art explicitly. The Specification describes the field of invention as follows: “This invention is related to the field of automotive chassis design and more specifically to the area of interchangeable chassis for use with many models of vehicles.” Ex. 1001, 1:17–19. The Specification repeatedly refers to the chassis as having “universal” characteristics. Id. at Title, passim. The Specification also describes an advantage of its chassis as having “an ability to adapt to different bodies and body styles,” id. at 2:17–21, and criticizes prior art chassis designs that “are not readily adaptable to a wide variety of vehicles without forcing major and expensive redesign work for each vehicle,” id. at 1:29–33. Claims 43 and 44 expressly require that the claimed chassis be “universally adapted” for more than one type of vehicular configuration. Id. at 16:40–17:19. Based on these descriptions of the chassis and the express requirements in at least some of the claims at issue, we determine that the art to which the claimed invention pertains is the design of interchangeable chassis for use with many models of vehicles. We consider Mr. Kunselman’s testimony on the level of ordinary skill to be tied more closely to this relevant art of designing a chassis for use with many models of vehicles. Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill for purposes of this Decision and evaluate obviousness from that perspective. We note that both Mr. Parker and Mr. Kunselman possess such a skill level. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 6–13; Ex. 2025 ¶¶ 4–9.” slip op. at 18

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed

    “Petitioner persuasively argues that we should discount Mr. Kunselman’s testimony. First, we consider Mr. Kunselman’s testimony to be weak because it is not supported by objective evidence. Second, Mr. Kunselman bases his testimony on the faulty premise that Gastesi’s fuel tank 22 is “immediately adjacent engine 2.” Reply 8; see also Ex. 2025 ¶ 65 (“Since the gas tank is immediately adjacent engine 2, a POSITA would understand that the gas tank fittings would be also located at the lateral end.” (emphasis added).) Third, on cross examination, Mr. Kunselman concedes that Gastesi is not specific about whether its fuel tank is “immediately adjacent” the engine, but instead merely indicates that fuel tank 22 is located somewhere within the centrally located section “B” shown in Gastesi’s Figure 1. Ex. 1063, 121:10–122:19; see also Ex. 1012, 3:1–14, 4:3–4 (describing fuel tank 22 inside tubular structure 3 of Figures 3 and 4). Mr. Parker agrees. Ex. 1061 ¶¶ 30–31. Fourth, Mr. Kunselman also testifies that the installation of service plates to enable access to components positioned beneath the plate were known before 2007. Ex. 1063, 119:6– 120:7. As for the alleged “leak path” introduced by using a service plate in tubular member 3, Mr. Kunselman fails to explain why Gastesi’s fuel tank 22, which is a separate structure within tubular member 3,4 would leak simply because a service plate is installed in tubular member 3. Mr. Parker opines that an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that the leak path identified by Mr. Kunselman would be mitigated by Gastesi’s use of a separate structure for fuel tank 22. Ex. 1061 ¶ 32. We consider Mr. Parker to be more credible than Mr. Kunselman on this point because Mr. Parker testifies about the structures that Gastesi actually describes rather than simply positing risks without explanation.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 9,045,163 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,045,163

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.