- Google LLC v. Voip-Pal.Com, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 19, 2022 · IPR2022-01075 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the cited art disclosed the claimed location identifier limitations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). Petitioners cannot satisfy their burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Ex. 1005 ¶ 66. In this paragraph, Teodosiu is determining what phone number to supply to the mobile device to use to access the VoIP system. See id. ¶¶ 67–69. Teodosiu discloses selecting a VoIP phone number with the same area code as the mobile device phone number and “which is close in geographic vicinity to the phone number associated with mobile device 110.” Id. ¶ 66. But Patent Owner argues, and we agree, that the area code in the phone number of Teodosio’s mobile device is not “a location identifier identifying a geographical location of the wireless device.” See Prelim. Resp. 34–41. The area code does not change as the geographical location of the wireless device changes. The area code of the phone number associated with the mobile device does not identify the geographical location of the wireless device. number of the mobile device to select a VoIP phone number “which is close in geographic vicinity to the phone number associated with mobile device 110.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 66. And, because the location of the mobile device is not identified by the area code of the phone number associated with the mobile device, by disclosing receipt of the mobile device phone number (id. ¶ 63, Fig. 4 (ref. no. 440)), Teodosiu does not disclose “receiving/receive from the wireless device an access code request message including . . . a location identifier identifying a geographical location of the wireless device.” as recited in the challenged independent claims of the ’721 patent.” slip op. at 15
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“the Mir Declaration. See Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 81–83). We have considered the Mir Declaration and determine that it does not support finding that Teodosiu discloses receiving “a location identifier identifying [or associated with] a geographical location of the wireless device” as recited in the challenged independent claims of the ’721 patent by disclosing receipt of the mobile device’s phone number. The Mir Declaration states: “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that an area code associated with a device’s phone number can identify an area (e.g., location) in which the device may be located.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 81. We agree with this statement to the extent that we agree that the device’s phone number could possibly identify an area or location in which the device might be located. But, we do not agree with Dr. Mir’s conclusion that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the mobile device 110 phone number [as disclosed in Teodosiu] includes [a] ‘location identifier,’ as claimed.” Id. ¶ 83. Dr. Mir fails to adequately explain how or why the area” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“[a] person of ordinary skill in the art as of the claimed priority date of the ’721 patent . . . would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field along with at least two years of work experience in the field of networking.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 19–21). Petitioner further contends “[m]ore education can complement practical experience and vice versa.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 19–21). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the ’721 patent and the asserted prior art. slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,880,721 - Google LLC v. Voip-Pal.Com, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 19, 2022 · IPR2022-01074 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show Teodosiu disclosed the required location identifier, and the proposed combinations did not remedy that deficiency.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In summary, we determine that Petitioner has not shown that the cited art discloses all the limitations of any challenged claim and we deny institution on this basis. III. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude that there is not a reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner would prevail with respect at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. Therefore, we do not institute inter partes review on any claims or any challenge to the claims of the ’721 patent.” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“[a] person of ordinary skill in the art as of the claimed priority date of the ’721 patent . . . would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field along with at least two years of work experience in the field of networking.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 19–21). Petitioner further contends “[m]ore education can complement practical experience and vice versa.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 19–21). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the ’721 patent and the asserted prior art. slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“2018, “[claims] of a patent . . . shall be construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the [claims] in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the [claims] in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claims as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2018); see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005). We construe only terms that are in controversy and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, construe any claim terms in order to make this decision.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“the Mir Declaration. See Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 87–91). We have considered the Mir Declaration and determine that it does not support finding that Teodosiu discloses transmitting “a location identifier identifying a geographical location of the wireless device” as recited in each independent claim of the ’721 patent by disclosing transmission of the mobile device’s phone number. The Mir Declaration states: “[a] person of with a device’s phone number can identify an area (e.g., location) in which the device may be located.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 89. We agree with this statement to the extent that we agree that the device’s phone number could possibly identify an area or location in which the device might be located. But, we do not agree with Dr. Mir’s conclusion that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the mobile device 110 phone number [as disclosed in Teodosiu] includes [a] ‘location identifier,’ as claimed.” Id. ¶ 90. Dr. Mir fails to adequately explain how or why the area code of a mobile device’s phone number is a “location identifier identifying a geographical location of the wireless device.”” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,880,721 - PTAB · Dec 19, 2022 · IPR2022-01087 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–8 and 10–19 on all grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–8 and 10–19 would be obvious over Brochure and Blunt.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons below, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of the Challenged Claims on all grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Additionally, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“G. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner, supported by Dr. Eldering’s testimony, proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in physics or engineering and experience with the installation of cable,” and that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience and vice versa.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 15). At this stage of the proceeding and on the current record, we find that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’016 patent and 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). Therefore, we adopt it in our consideration of the issues presently before us.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to “modify Brochure’s cable reel with Blunt’s reel structure or substitute Brochure’s cable reel with Blunt’s reel 34" to . . . replenish the supply of cable in the cable reel installed in the Tote bag when it is exhausted in an environmentally friendly way.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 58–63; Ex. 1004 ¶ 107). Additionally, Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have expected success in modifying Brochure’s cable reel with the reel structure of Blunt’s reel 34" or substituting Brochure’s cable reel with Blunt’s reel 34" because the modification would merely involve using a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way taught.” Id. at 27 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 60). We have reviewed Petitioner’s detailed arguments challenging claims 1–8 and 10–19 and the evidence on which Petitioner relies (see Pet. 17–92), and we find, on the preliminary record before us, that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the combination of Brochure and Blunt satisfies the elements of claims 1–8 and 10–19, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as proposed by Petitioner with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,941,016 - PTAB · Dec 19, 2022 · IPR2022-01171 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–11 and 13–23, finding a reasonable likelihood that the Diggs and Cheng combination renders at least one challenged claim unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“. . . the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Interim Procedure, 3 (footnote omitted; citing Sotera). In other words, under the Interim Procedure, a petitioner may avoid discretionary denial of the petition based on a parallel district court litigation by providing a Sotera-style stipulation. The Interim Procedure does not, however, make a Sotera-style stipulation a prerequisite for institution. Under our informative precedent, an inter partes review may be instituted despite the absence of a Sotera-style stipulation. Sand Revolution at 12 n.5 (instituting inter partes review notwithstanding the” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the (requiring a petition for inter partes review to identify how the challenged claim is to be construed and where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon). A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved based on underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when presented, objective evidence of nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). Additionally, the obviousness inquiry typically requires an analysis of “whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (requiring “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”)). Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements,” but “must instead articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,966,347 - Viken Detection Corporation v. American Science And Engineering, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 16, 2022 · PGR2022-00047 · APJ Carl M Defranco · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Viken did not show that any of claims 1–22 was more likely than not unpatentable for lack of written description or enablement.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other
“We apply the claim construction standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). That is, “the words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning’ . . . that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Id. at 1312–13; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b). Viken asserts that “the only terms that need construction are ‘a first X-ray source,’ ‘a second X-ray source,’ and ‘a third X-ray source’ of claim 1.” Pet. 20. According to Viken, the “X-ray sources of claim 1 should be construed to be ‘a first backscatter X-ray source,’ ‘a second backscatter X-ray source,’ and ‘a third backscatter X-ray source,’ respectively,” because one skilled in the art “would understand these sources to be backscatter sources in view of the intrinsic evidence (claims and specification).” Id. at 21 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 95). In particular, Viken asserts “[t]he only sources paired with backscatter detectors in the ’783 patent are backscatter sources.” Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 88, 95). We disagree, as discussed below in connection with Viken’s first ground.” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Viken asserts that a person having ordinary skill in the art would be “a person with [a] Ph.D. in physics or similar discipline and at least two years of experience working with an interdisciplinary team designing and creating systems involving penetrating radiation sources and detectors.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 20). At this stage, ASE does not contest that formulation of the level of skill in the art. Nor do we discern any reason to question Viken’s formulation, as it appears consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’783 patent and the prior art of record. We, therefore, apply Viken’s formulation for purposes of determining whether to institute.” slip op. at 8
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable
“Viken is mistaken on both counts. First, we disagree with Viken’s assertion that the claims are limited to a backscatter-only imaging system. Nor do we agree with Viken’s assertion that the Specification is limited to describing only a combined transmission/backscatter imaging system. We address each of these assertions in turn.” slip op. at 9
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)EnabledNot shown unpatentable
“G. Ground 5 – Enablement of System that is not a Combination Viken asserts that “claims 1–22 of the ’783 patent are invalid for failing to comply with the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) because the specification does not enable a two-plane backscatter-only system.” Pet. 41. Viken’s non-enablement assertions fail for the simple reason that they are premised on the same improper assumptions discussed above with respect to Viken’s assertions that claim 1 is limited to a backscatter-only imaging system. As discussed above in section II.C., the claims of the ’783 patent are not so limited. Also, as discussed above in section II.D, the Specification of ’783 patent provides adequate written description support for an X-ray imaging system that includes two planes. Given the high level of skill in the art based on Viken’s formulation—“a person with [a] Ph.D. in physics or similar discipline and at least two years of experience working with an interdisciplinary team designing and creating systems involving penetrating radiation sources and detectors” (Pet. 9 )— and given Viken’s improper reading of limitations into the claims in alleging lack of enablement, we are not persuaded that one skilled in the art would be unable to make or use the invention as claimed.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,143,783 - Apple Inc. v. Jawbone Innovations, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Dec 16, 2022 · IPR2022-01084 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 14–42 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the asserted obviousness combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“to institute an inter partes review. We may institute an inter partes review only if “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). The “reasonable likelihood” standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018- 01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Interim Procedure at 3 (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A)); see id. at 7, 9. The Interim Procedure also explains that such a stipulation (a Sotera stipulation) “mitigates concerns of potentially conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts between the district court and the PTAB.” Id. at 7. In this proceeding, Petitioner “stipulates that, unless the Board denies or later vacates institution,” Petitioner “will not seek resolution in the litigation of invalidity based on the specific grounds asserted in” the Petition. Pet. 98–99. Petitioner asserts that its “stipulation prevents overlap because it requires the grounds addressed in each forum to be mutually exclusive, thereby obviating the possibility of inconsistent results.” Prelim. Reply 4.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“purposes of institution that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had reasons to combine Visser’s teachings with Avendano’s teachings in the way Petitioner proposes. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 101–125, 145–147, 163–164. As Dr. Kenny explains, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have (1) “applied Visser’s cross filter w12 to Avendano’s second signal x2 to further increase speech content in the first virtual microphone Cf” and (2) “applied Visser’s cross filter w21 to Avendano’s first signal x1 to further decrease speech content in the second virtual microphone Cb.” Id. ¶¶ 120, 145, 164. As Dr. Kenny also explains, these modifications would have improved Avendano’s system by “further enhanc[ing] the separation of speech in Avendano’s system,” i.e., “further enhanc[ing] the separation between speech and noise.” Id. ¶¶ 119, 163. Any “need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining” references. KSR, 550 U.S. at 420. At this stage of the proceeding, we are persuaded that improving Avendano’s system by “further enhanc[ing] the separation of speech in Avendano’s system” suffices as a reason for combining Visser’s teachings with Avendano’s teachings. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 119–120, 145, 163–164. The “desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal . . . .” DyStar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Because Dr. Kenny explains that combining Visser’s teachings with Avendano’s teachings would have improved Avendano’s system by “further enhanc[ing] the separation of speech in Avendano’s system,” i.e., “further enhanc[ing] the separation between speech and noise,” we disagree with Patent Owner’s assertion that Petitioner provides “no reason” why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have configured “the modified Avendano system in the specific way” Petitioner proposes. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 119, 163; Prelim. Resp. 10. Patent Owner’s assertion that Avendano differs from Visser because (1) Avendano subtracts the signals supplied by delay nodes 402 and 404 and (2) Visser sums the signals supplied by cross filters w12 and w21 disregards the principle that “[c]ombining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.” See In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973); Prelim. Resp. 10–11. Obviousness does not depend on “whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). That Avendano already accounts for “changing acoustic signals” with a “Weiner filter and filter smoothing module,” as Patent Owner asserts, does not undermine modifying Avendano’s system to incorporate Visser’s cross filters w12 and w21 to “further enhance the separation of speech in Avendano’s system,” i.e., “further enhance the separation between speech and noise.” See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 119–120, 145, 163–164; Prelim. Resp. 12. Visser’s cross filters w12 and w21 would have improved Avendano’s system regardless whether the cross filters adapted during operation. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 119–120, 145, 163–164. We are persuaded that Visser’s disclosure about filters adapting during operation and learning to separate speech “according to the specific acoustic environment,” such that the system can accurately separate speech “even in a changing acoustic environment,” provides an independent reason for combining Visser’s teachings with Avendano’s teachings. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 104, 111–112, 147; Ex. 1006, 7:1–5, 9:8–12, 16:8–19, 16:62–17:4, code (57). (j)” slip op. at 55
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention “would have at least a bachelor of science in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, mechanical engineering, or a related discipline, with at least two years of relevant experience in a field related to acoustics, speech recognition, speech detection, or signal processing.” Pet. 6–7. Petitioner also asserts that “[a]dditional education or industry experience may compensate for a deficit in the other.” Id. at 7. Dr. Kenny’s testimony supports Petitioner’s assertions. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 22–23. For purposes of the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner “utilizes Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 5 (quoting Pet. 6–7). Based on the current record and for purposes of analysis, we accept Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan as consistent with the ’213 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,321,213 - Apple Inc. v. Identity Security LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 15, 2022 · IPR2022-00171 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Apple’s rehearing request, leaving the denial of institution for claims 1–4, 12, and 13 unchanged because Apple showed no abuse of discretion or overlooked matter.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. THE REQUEST FOR REHEARING On request for rehearing, “[t]he burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “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, a reply, or a surreply.” Id. 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.”” slip op. at 2
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“conclusions on the basis that Dr. Russ’s testimony is conclusory. Id. at 11. We disagree. We indicated in the Decision Denying Institution that Dr. Neuman’s testimony is conclusory. Dec. 22. For instance, Dr. Neuman testifies that the modifications that would have been needed for Petitioner’s proposed combination would have been “straightforward.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 81. Dr. Neuman’s testimony, however, is simply a conclusory statement without persuasive, supporting explanation or evidence. Id. As we indicated in the Decision Denying Institution, “Petitioner does not indicate or provide evidence supporting that the proposed modifications would have been made without introducing complexities.” Dec. 24. “Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Decision to Institute as relating to only convenience. Req. 1–2, 8–11. In the Decision Denying Institution, we explained that Petitioner’s reasons to combine are insufficient because “Petitioner does not address the full teachings of Gullman.” Dec. 22, 25. We stated “[c]ontrary to Petitioner’s assertion (Pet. 33; Ex. 1003 ¶ 81) and consistent with Patent Owner’s position and Dr. Russ’s testimony that Gullman’s system eliminates the risk of the biometric template and input from being stolen during transmission (Ex. 2001 ¶ 119), Gullman describes its system as ‘secure,’ providing ‘secure identification,’ and, importantly, as providing ‘[t]ransmission security.’” Dec. 22–23 (citing Ex. 1004, 6:46–56). We particularly noted (id. at 23) Gullman’s teachings as follows: The method and apparatus of the present invention have significant advantages over known security systems. Reliable and secure identification is provided which eliminates the need for the user to memorize a code or carry a printed memorandum of the code. Transmission security is provided which is convenient, secure and useful on existing access devices of host systems in current use. In particular, the method and apparatus obviate the need for specially-designed hardware additions or modifications to existing access devices. Ex. 1004, 6:46–56. As we noted in the Decision to Institute, the Petition did not address Gullman’s teaching that its system provides “significant advantages” over known, more complex systems, which might have led an ordinarily skilled artisan away from using Padgett’s more complicated hashing process. Dec. 23–24.” slip op. at 4
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,020,008 - PTAB · Dec 15, 2022 · IPR2022-01174 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–27 of the ’141 patent, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–16, 20, 21, and 25–27 would be obvious over Olin and ITRC.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2019). An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Moreover, a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in environmental science or environmental, civil or chemical engineering and 4–5 years of experience working in the field of soil remediation, or an equivalent combination of education and/or experience in related fields.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1065 ¶¶ 24–25).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“C. Claim Construction We apply the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, claim terms “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning” as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips v. AWG Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–17 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)). Extrinsic evidence is “less significant than the intrinsic record in determining ‘the legally operative meaning of claim language.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“In support of the asserted combination, according to Petitioner, Olin and ITRC both teach “same physical separation techniques, in the same sequence, using the same well-known equipment for soil washing,” both “recognize variation in contamination sites and describe designing and operating soil washing systems based on site-specific parameters.” Pet. 14– 16 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1004, 3–6, 11–16, 23–56, 58, 62; Ex. 1005, 30, 47–48; ITRC contemplate using soil washing systems in combination with secondary treatment processes, it would have also been obvious to use additional secondary or tertiary remediation technologies because doing so would involve combining known processes and equipment to achieve predictable results,” and that there would have been “a reasonable likelihood of success because it was routine and well within a [person of ordinary skill in the art’s] skill level.” Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1004, 13; Ex. 1005, 49; Ex. 1065 ¶ 219).” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,399,141 - Philip Morris Products S.A. v. Healthier Choices Management Corp.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 15, 2022 · IPR2022-00454 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8 are unpatentable as anticipated by Hammel; the revised contingent motion to amend with substitute claims 9–16 is denied for lack of written-description support.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field and two to three years of industry experience, or a Master’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field, and one to two years of industry experience” and “would have been familiar with electrically powered smoking devices and the components and underlying technology used therein.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 24–26). Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field, an understanding of combustion reactions in electric smoking articles, and one to three years of practical experience” and would have been “familiar with electrical smoking devices and the components and design considerations thereof.” PO Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 28–31). Neither party has responded to the other’s position as to the level of ordinary skill, or identified any material difference between their proposals. Having considered the parties’ arguments and evidence, we adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Patent Owner, because it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’170 patent and the prior art of record. We note, however, that neither party contends that any issue in this case turns on the differences between the parties’ definitions of one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“We decline to adopt Patent Owner’s construction because it improperly reads extraneous limitations into the claim from the specification, “wholly apart from any need to interpret what the patentee meant by particular words or phrases in the claim.” E.I. du Pont de Nemours v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The ’170 patent discloses multiple embodiments of a combustible material reservoir; Patent Owner does not dispute this. See PO Sur-reply 7–8. Further, Patent Owner does not present a sufficient underlying factual basis to support Dr. Garris’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand “combustible material reservoir” as Patent Owner proposes. See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 63–64. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the airflow limitations that Patent Owner reads into “combustible material reservoir” are necessary. In view of the foregoing, we construe the term “combustible material reservoir” to have its ordinary meaning, i.e., a reservoir for combustible material.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“insufficient because its text descriptions do not state that the heating element protrudes from the top of the case body, or that the porcelain tube has holes in it, do not adequately credit the ability of a person of ordinary skill in the art to interpret Hammel’s figures as a whole. The dispositive question regarding anticipation is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand or infer from the reference that every claim element is disclosed in that single reference. Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2017). As Petitioner asserts, and Dr. Deevi credibly testifies, a person of ordinary skill would have inferred the shape and location of the heating element in Figure 2 based on the labeled heating element in the exploded view of Figure 3. See Ex. 1007 ¶ 10. We find this assertion to be reasonable. In view of the level of ordinary skill and relative structural simplicity of the claimed subject matter, we also find that a person of ordinary skill would have reasonably understood from Hammel’s figures that its heating element has legs that fix it in place in holes within the porcelain tube. Dr. Deevi’s testimony supports these findings, because he explains that a person of ordinary skill would infer that the heating element within the porcelain tube would not be connected to the battery without holes in the porcelain tube. Ex. 1003 ¶ 244; Ex. 2003, 192–196. We find no contradiction in Dr. Deevi’s testimony, as Patent Owner asserts. Although Patent Owner asserts “Dr. Deevi conceded that Hammel does not describe any holes in the bottom half of the porcelain tube” (PO Resp. 60 (citing Ex. 2003, 193:7–11)), Dr. Deevi explained in his subsequent response that his opinion is based on the inference a person of ordinary skill would draw from Hammel’s disclosure. Ex. 2003, 193:13–16. We disagree with Patent Owner that Hammel’s disclosure provides insufficient evidence to support Dr. Deevi’s opinion, and we find Dr, Deevi’s explanation of Hammel supports a reasonable inference that it discloses a heating element fixed in the combustible material reservoir.” slip op. at 24
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“insufficient because its text descriptions do not state that the heating element protrudes from the top of the case body, or that the porcelain tube has holes in it, do not adequately credit the ability of a person of ordinary skill in the art to interpret Hammel’s figures as a whole. The dispositive question regarding anticipation is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand or infer from the reference that every claim element is disclosed in that single reference. Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2017). As Petitioner asserts, and Dr. Deevi credibly testifies, a person of ordinary skill would have inferred the shape and location of the heating element in Figure 2 based on the labeled heating element in the exploded view of Figure 3. See Ex. 1007 ¶ 10. We find this assertion to be reasonable. In view of the level of ordinary skill and relative structural simplicity of the claimed subject matter, we also find that a person of ordinary skill would have reasonably understood from Hammel’s figures that its heating element has legs that fix it in place in holes within the porcelain tube. Dr. Deevi’s testimony supports these findings, because he explains that a person of ordinary skill would infer that the heating element within the porcelain tube would not be connected to the battery without holes in the porcelain tube. Ex. 1003 ¶ 244; Ex. 2003, 192–196. We find no contradiction in Dr. Deevi’s testimony, as Patent Owner asserts. Although Patent Owner asserts “Dr. Deevi conceded that Hammel does not describe any holes in the bottom half of the porcelain tube” (PO Resp. 60 (citing Ex. 2003, 193:7–11)), Dr. Deevi explained in his subsequent response that his opinion is based on the inference a person of ordinary skill would draw from Hammel’s disclosure. Ex. 2003, 193:13–16. We disagree with Patent Owner that Hammel’s disclosure provides insufficient evidence to support Dr. Deevi’s opinion, and we find Dr, Deevi’s explanation of Hammel supports a reasonable inference that it discloses a heating element fixed in the combustible material reservoir. For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that a preponderance of the evidence shows that Hammel discloses each of the limitations of claims 1 and 5.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 10,561,170 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,561,170 - Philip Morris Products S.A. v. Healthier Choices Management Corp.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 15, 2022 · IPR2021-01079 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8 are unpatentable as anticipated by Hammel; the revised contingent motion to amend is denied for lack of written-description support for substitute claims 9–16.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“art include: “(1) educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of workers active in the field.” Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696–697 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Not all such factors may be present in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case. Id.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner argues that Patent Owner’s proposed construction imports limitations from a single embodiment of the specification into the claims. Pet. Reply 5–6. Petitioner further argues that the ’170 patent expressly describes reservoirs with attributes different than the embodiment relied on by Patent Owner, such as “the combustible material reservoir 165 may be located on the surface of and extends into the second pipe section 140.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1001, 4:57–63; also citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 3, 6:23–45, 9:15–35; Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 48–52). We decline to adopt Patent Owner’s construction because it improperly reads extraneous limitations into the claim from the specification, “wholly apart from any need to interpret what the patentee meant by particular words or phrases in the claim.” E.I. du Pont de Nemours v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The ’170 patent discloses multiple embodiments of a combustible material reservoir; Patent Owner does not dispute this. See PO Sur-reply 7–8. Further, Patent Owner does not present a sufficient underlying factual basis to support Dr. Garris’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand “combustible material reservoir” as Patent Owner proposes. See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 63–64. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the airflow limitations that Patent Owner reads into “combustible material reservoir” are necessary. In view of the foregoing, we construe the term “combustible material reservoir” to have its ordinary meaning, i.e., a reservoir for combustible material.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“insufficient because its text descriptions do not state that the heating element protrudes from the top of the case body, or that the porcelain tube has holes in it, do not adequately credit the ability of a person of ordinary skill in the art to interpret Hammel’s figures as a whole. The dispositive question regarding anticipation is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand or infer from the reference that every claim element is disclosed in that single reference. Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2017). As Petitioner asserts, and Dr. Deevi credibly testifies, a person of ordinary skill would have inferred the shape and location of the heating element in Figure 2 based on the labeled heating element in the exploded view of Figure 3. See Ex. 1007 ¶ 10. We find this assertion to be reasonable. In view of the level of ordinary skill and relative structural simplicity of the claimed subject matter, we also find that a person of ordinary skill would have reasonably understood from Hammel’s figures that its heating element has legs that fix it in place in holes within the porcelain tube. Dr. Deevi’s testimony supports these findings, because he explains that a person of ordinary skill would infer that the heating element within the porcelain tube would not be connected to the battery without holes in the porcelain tube. Ex. 1003 ¶ 244; Ex. 2003, 192–196. We find no contradiction in Dr. Deevi’s testimony, as Patent Owner asserts. Although Patent Owner asserts “Dr. Deevi conceded that Hammel does not describe any holes in the bottom half of the porcelain tube” (PO Resp. 60 (citing Ex. 2003, 193:7–11)), Dr. Deevi explained in his subsequent response that his opinion is based on the inference a person of ordinary skill would draw from Hammel’s disclosure. Ex. 2003, 193:13–16. We disagree with Patent Owner that Hammel’s disclosure provides insufficient evidence to support Dr. Deevi’s opinion, and we find Dr, Deevi’s explanation of Hammel supports a reasonable inference that it discloses a heating element fixed in the combustible material reservoir.” slip op. at 24
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“insufficient because its text descriptions do not state that the heating element protrudes from the top of the case body, or that the porcelain tube has holes in it, do not adequately credit the ability of a person of ordinary skill in the art to interpret Hammel’s figures as a whole. The dispositive question regarding anticipation is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand or infer from the reference that every claim element is disclosed in that single reference. Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2017). As Petitioner asserts, and Dr. Deevi credibly testifies, a person of ordinary skill would have inferred the shape and location of the heating element in Figure 2 based on the labeled heating element in the exploded view of Figure 3. See Ex. 1007 ¶ 10. We find this assertion to be reasonable. In view of the level of ordinary skill and relative structural simplicity of the claimed subject matter, we also find that a person of ordinary skill would have reasonably understood from Hammel’s figures that its heating element has legs that fix it in place in holes within the porcelain tube. Dr. Deevi’s testimony supports these findings, because he explains that a person of ordinary skill would infer that the heating element within the porcelain tube would not be connected to the battery without holes in the porcelain tube. Ex. 1003 ¶ 244; Ex. 2003, 192–196. We find no contradiction in Dr. Deevi’s testimony, as Patent Owner asserts. Although Patent Owner asserts “Dr. Deevi conceded that Hammel does not describe any holes in the bottom half of the porcelain tube” (PO Resp. 60 (citing Ex. 2003, 193:7–11)), Dr. Deevi explained in his subsequent response that his opinion is based on the inference a person of ordinary skill would draw from Hammel’s disclosure. Ex. 2003, 193:13–16. We disagree with Patent Owner that Hammel’s disclosure provides insufficient evidence to support Dr. Deevi’s opinion, and we find Dr, Deevi’s explanation of Hammel supports a reasonable inference that it discloses a heating element fixed in the combustible material reservoir. For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that a preponderance of the evidence shows that Hammel discloses each of the limitations of claims 1 and 5.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 10,561,170 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,561,170
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.