- Palo Alto Networks, Inc. / Symantec Corp. v. Finjan, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 15, 2017 · IPR2016-01071 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8, 10, and 11 were not shown unpatentable over Ross because Ross does not teach or suggest content including a call to a first function.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“D. OBVIOUSNESS GROUND BASED ON ROSS The Petition relies on Ross as teaching or suggesting all the limitations of claims 18, 10, and 11. Pet. 1437. Having reviewed the arguments and evidence provided by Petitioner and the arguments and evidence presented by Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Ross teaches or suggests all the limitations of the challenged claims, and more particularly, “the content including a call to a first function.”” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“first function.” But the Specification uses the phrase “function call” in stating that “before the client computer invokes a function call that may potentially dynamically generate malicious code, the client computer passes the input to the function to the security computer for inspection.” Ex. 1001, 4:3842. The Specification also states that “the present invention operates by replacing original function calls with substitute function calls within the content, at a gateway computer, prior to the content being received at the client computer.” Id. at 4:5760. From such examples, we understand the Specification to use the phrase “function call” in the same sense that the claims recite in the phrase “call to a [] function.” That is, a “call” is part of the recited “content,” as a statement or instruction containing the function that, when executed, causes the function to provide a service. Thus, we find the dictionary definition of the term “function call” applicable here and indicative of the meaning of the term to a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“3. Conclusion Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by both parties, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims would have been obvious over Ross. Because we find that Ross does not teach or suggest “content including a call to a first function,” we need not consider whether Patent Owner succeeded in its attempt to prove the prior invention of the ’154 patent or whether a conclusion of nonobviousness is warranted because of evidence of secondary considerations of nonobviousness.” slip op. at 22
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“[w]hile replies can help crystalize issues for decision, a reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence will not be considered and may be returned. The Board will not attempt to sort proper from improper portions of the reply. Examples of indications that a new issue has been raised in a reply include new evidence necessary to make out a prima facie case for the patentability or unpatentability of an original or proposed substitute claim, and new evidence that could have been presented in a prior filing. Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48767; see also Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1080 (Fed. Cir., 2015) (discussing that a patent owner “is undoubtedly entitled to notice of and fair opportunity to meet the grounds of rejection.”). With these guidelines in mind, we are persuaded that the above-identified argument in the Reply should not be considered in deciding this matter. As stated above, the Petition relies on Ross’s “hook functions within a hook script” as teaching or suggesting the “call to a first function.” Pet. 1718. Although the Petition relies on the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art when explaining Ross’s handling of the hook function, Petitioner does not assert in any meaningful way that Ross’s use of hook functions in the hook script would be modified to include calls to additional hook functions that Ross does not describe. Nor does Petitioner explain in the Petition that Ross would be modified to replace the assignment instruction with a call to the hook function. The arguments in the Reply are not explanations of how Ross’s hook functions, as taught by Ross, may be understood to include the recited “call to a first function,” as asserted in the Petition. Rather, the argument that a “call” may be added to either the security check or the hook script is an alteration of Ross, necessitated because Patent Owner correctly argues that Ross fails to teach or suggest the limitation. The contention that Ross’s embodiments would be modified, altered, or imbued with details not present in Ross is a new contention, necessary to make a case for the unpatentability of the claims, and should have been presented in the Petition. To consider the argument would unfairly prejudice Patent Owner who, after having argued there is a significant gap in Petitioner’s case, would be left without an opportunity to respond substantively to the new arguments and support its rebuttal with additional evidence, if necessary. Accordingly, we do not consider the improper arguments identified above.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 8,141,154 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,141,154 - Palo Alto Networks, Inc. / Symantec Corp. v. Finjan, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 15, 2017 · IPR2016-00151 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8, 10, and 11 were not shown unpatentable over Ross because Ross does not teach or suggest content including a call to a first function.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“first function.” But the Specification uses the phrase “function call” in stating that “before the client computer invokes a function call that may potentially dynamically generate malicious code, the client computer passes the input to the function to the security computer for inspection.” Ex. 1001, 4:3842. The Specification also states that “the present invention operates by replacing original function calls with substitute function calls within the content, at a gateway computer, prior to the content being received at the client computer.” Id. at 4:5760. From such examples, we understand the Specification to use the phrase “function call” in the same sense that the claims recite in the phrase “call to a [] function.” That is, a “call” is part of the recited “content,” as a statement or instruction containing the function that, when executed, causes the function to provide a service. Thus, we find the dictionary definition of the term “function call” applicable here and indicative of the meaning of the term to a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“of ordinary skill that is different from Petitioner’s. Ex. 2035 ¶ 35. In Particular, Dr. Medvidovic opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a “bachelor’s degree in computer science or related field, and either (1) two or more years of industry experience and/or (2) an advanced degree in computer science or related field.” Id. In comparison, it appears that the minimum experience under Patent Owner’s proffered level of skill is one year less than Petitioner’s. Also, Patent Owner proffers an alternative to work experience, namely an advanced degree. There is no specific articulation regarding how the difference of one year’s experience or the proposed alternative of an advanced degree in lieu of experience tangibly affects our obviousness inquiry. Further, there is no evidence in this record that the differences noted above impact in any meaningful way the level of expertise of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Indeed, we note that Dr. Medvidovic’s opinions would not change if he had considered instead the level or ordinary skill in the art proffered by Dr. Rubin. Id. ¶ 39. Accordingly, we determine that in this case no express articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art is necessary and 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 10
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedOther
“Ross describes the combined hook script and the original script as using an “assignment,” not a “call” for invoking the first function. PO Resp. 2324 (citing Ex. 2035 ¶61). We credit this testimony. Ross illustrates in Figure 4, reproduced below, a combined script, which shows more detail regarding how Ross formulates the hook script and the included hook function. See Ex. 1003, Fig. 4. Figure 4 illustrates combined script 402 including hook script 404 and original script 302. Id. Dr. Medvidovic identifies the hook function in hook script 404 as “function HookedActiveXObject(objname).” Ex. 2035 ¶ 61. The combined script does not include a call to the function “HookedActiveXObject.” Instead, as Dr. Medvidovic explains, Ross’s hook script includes a call to the original function, not the hook function, as shown below in Patent Owner’s annotated Figure 4. The annotated Figure 4 of Ross, above, annotates Ross’s script by pointing out: (1) in brackets, that a group of instructions comprise the function “Hooked ActiveXObject(objname);” and (2) that the body of the function is the “Hook Function.” See PO Resp. 23. The annotations also show that the instruction “Req=new ActiveXObject(“Microsoft.XMLHTTP”)” is the “Call to Original Function.” Id. Dr. Medvidovic explains that the call to “new ActiveXObject(“Microsoft.XMLHTTP”) indirectly invokes “function HookedActiveXObject,” using Ross’s assignment technique. See Ex. 2035 ¶ 61. Ross’s description of the hook functions confirms this technique. For example, Ross states that “[t]he hook function corresponding to the data content original function is executed when the original function is called.” Ex. 1003, Abstract; see also ¶ 13 (“executing a hook function when a corresponding original function is called in the data content”). Ross further states that the “hook function is configured to supersede a corresponding original function.” Id. ¶¶ 1012.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“the first function, the issue is not simply whether Ross executes or processes the first function first, before the second function. The issue is whether the content in Ross includes a “call to a first function,” as claimed. We find that Ross does not. Patent Owner’s explanation of Ross is consistent with Ross’s description of how the hook script is generated and processed. Ross’s hook script generator creates new functions to replace the original functions, such as the JavaScript function embedded in a web page. Id. ¶ 26. When the web page is received, the script filter injects “the JavaScript that hooks the critical functions and methods before any other HTML in a loading page.” Id. ¶ 29. To implement these “hooks,” Ross states that it replaces the original function with a new replacement function or that it substitutes an original function with a filtered function by instantiating a “hooked” process. Id. ¶¶ 33, 34. These statements of “replacement” and “substitution,” however, refer to how the hook functions are implemented when the script executes. Neither of these statements explains whether a “call” to a hook function is included in the script. That is, the replacement or substitution may result in invoking the hook function, without the content actually including a call. And this indirect invocation—not using a call—of the hooked function is what Ross tends to show. For instance, Ross describes the method of processing the content as follows: (1) generating a hook script with a hook function; (2) loading the hook script; (3) loading the data content having the original function; and (4) executing a hook function when a corresponding original function is called in the data content. Id. ¶ 38. Thus, the hook function is loaded before anything else is loaded in order to define the hook function and to effectuate the replacement. The replacement, or the method of superseding, is accomplished by the assignment that results from the use of the instruction ActiveXObject=HookedActiveXObject. As Dr. Medvidovic explains, by way of assignment of ActiveXObject (original function) to HookedActiveXObject (substitute or first function), a call to the original function indirectly invokes the substitute or first function. See Ex. 1011, 10:2013:21. This understanding is further confirmed by Ross’s description of the hook functions, as stated above, and when it refers to them as “new objects that will be used as replacements when the appropriate constructor is invoked.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 35 (emphasis added). In sum, Ross’s content does not include a “call to a first function” because the hook function is not directly called. There is no instruction or statement in the hook script that requests the service of the hook function. See also Ex. 2043 at 88:1116 (Dr. Rubin, Petitioner’s expert, testifying that “in the pseudocode in figure 4 [of Ross] there’s no explicit call to a hooked function.”). The hook function is invoked only when the call to the original function in the data content, which has been assigned via the hook script to a hook function, is executed. See id. (“These hooks are installed before any other script on the web page loads, ensuring that any script provided as a part of the data content 602, such as a web page, will call the new hooked functions.”).” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 8,141,154 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,141,154 - TCL Corporation / TCL Communication Technology Holdings, Ltd. et al. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM EricssonNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 25, 2017 · IPR2015-01628 · APJ Stacy B Margolies · IPR · Final written decision
Petitioners did not show claim 11 unpatentable under either § 103 ground because they did not establish a persuasive motivation to combine Usui and Gong.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not challenge Dr. Malek’s testimony regarding the level of skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. However, Dr. Muftic, Patent Owner’s declarant, opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would probably have had a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, with at least two years’ experience in the field of software security.” Ex. 2010 ¶ 22. Dr. Muftic’s proposed level of ordinary skill differs slightly from Dr. Malek’s. Patent Owner, however, does not cite the above testimony in its Patent Owner Response. Nor does Patent Owner or Dr. Muftic quarrel with the definition proposed by Petitioner and Dr. Malek. See generally PO Resp. We determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioners’ declarant is consistent with the challenged patent and the asserted prior art, and we therefore adopt Dr. Malek’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below. However, our analysis would not differ if we were to adopt Dr. Muftic’s definition.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioners propose constructions for a number of terms, and asserts that “interface component,” “interception module,” “decision entity,” “security access manager,” and “access controller” are means-plus-function limitations. Pet. 16–20; Pet. Br. 5–15. Patent Owner disagrees that the foregoing terms are means-plus-function limitations and asserts that only “software services component” be explicitly construed. PO Br. 6–16; PO Resp. 8–9. As explained below, the dispositive issue in this case is whether Petitioners provide a persuasive articulated reason with rational underpinning to support their contention that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Usui and Gong. In reaching this issue, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Indeed, Patent Owner cites uncontroverted evidence that in designing the J2ME platform for mobile phones, Sun Microsystems did not use the full security of the Java 2 Standard Edition and its fine-grained protection domains like that described in Gong. See Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 210, 211, 223, 224. For example, the specification for the CLDC of J2ME, which defines a “standard, minimum-footprint Java platform for small, resource-constrained, connected devices,” states that “the J2SE security model is too memory-consuming to be included in a CLDC device that allows only a few hundred kilobytes of total memory budget.” Ex. 2014, 14, 25; see also PO Resp. 21– 26. In addition, a 2000 JavaOne presentation from a Sun Microsystems employee explains that the “J2SE platform security model is much larger than the entire CLDC implementation” and that the “full J2SE™ platform security model” cannot be supported in CLDC target devices. Ex. 2015, 48. In view of this context, Petitioners lack of explanation regarding purported design incentives that would have prompted a skilled artisan to make the proposed combination is significant. See, e.g., Ex. 1010, 5 (disclosing that the Usui team designed the user interface (UI) “so that the Java part was as small as possible” to “achieve good performance of the UI capability in the mobile phone” and noting that “[r]eleasing resources that are no longer used by Java applications is very important for resource-limited systems such as mobile phones”); Ex. 1001, 1:55–61 (disclosing that “drastically increased functionality” in cellular telecommunications systems “has placed substantial demands on the developers of mobile terminals” and this demand “is exacerbated by the fact that a mobile terminal is a ‘resource scarce’ environment that is limited in size, memory, and power”).” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 7,149,510 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,149,510 - TCL Corporation / TCL Communication Technology Holdings, Ltd. et al. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM EricssonNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 25, 2017 · IPR2015-01622 · APJ Stacy B Margolies · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5 and 7–10 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioners did not establish a persuasive motivation to combine Usui and Oaks, including for claim 4’s ground adding Spencer.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not challenge Dr. Malek’s testimony regarding the level of skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. However, Dr. Muftic, Patent Owner’s declarant, opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would probably have had a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, with at least two years’ experience in the field of software security.” Ex. 2009 ¶ 22. Dr. Muftic’s proposed level of ordinary skill differs slightly from Dr. Malek’s. Patent Owner, however, does not cite the above testimony in its Patent Owner Response. Nor does Patent Owner or Dr. Muftic quarrel with the definition proposed by Petitioner and Dr. Malek. See generally PO Resp. We determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioners’ declarant is consistent with the challenged patent and the asserted prior art, and we therefore adopt Dr. Malek’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below. However, our analysis would not differ if we were to adopt Dr. Muftic’s definition.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioners propose constructions for a number of terms, and asserts that “interface component,” “interception module,” “decision entity,” “security access manager,” and “access controller” are means-plus-function limitations. Pet. 16–22; Pet. Br. 5–15. Patent Owner disagrees that the foregoing terms are means-plus-function limitations and asserts that only “software services component” and “identification of requesting application domain software” be explicitly construed. PO Br. 6–17; PO Resp. 7–11. As explained below, the dispositive issue in this case is whether Petitioners provide a persuasive articulated reason with rational underpinning to support their contention that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Usui and Oaks. In reaching this issue, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“explanation for why, simply because the two references are in the same field of endeavor, a skilled artisan would have had reason to make the proposed combination. See Ex. 1301 ¶ 173. Nor do Petitioners or Dr. Malek elucidate what design incentives would have prompted a skilled artisan to use the finegrained security control of Oaks with the mobile phone platform of Usui, given the design constraints of less memory and resources of a mobile phone. See, e.g., Ex. 1010, 5; Ex. 2014, 14, 25; Ex. 2015, 8. Indeed, Patent Owner cites uncontroverted evidence that in designing the J2ME platform for mobile phones, Sun Microsystems did not use the full security of the Java 2 Standard Edition like that described in Oaks. See Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 90 (security manager does not exist in J2ME), 185. For example, the specification for the CLDC of J2ME, which defines a “standard, minimum-footprint Java platform for small, resource-constrained, connected devices,” states that “the J2SE security model is too memory-consuming to be included in a CLDC device that allows only a few hundred kilobytes of total memory budget.” Ex. 2014, 14, 25; see also PO Resp. 17. In addition, a 2000 JavaOne presentation from a Sun Microsystems employee explains that the “J2SE platform security model is much larger than the entire CLDC implementation” and that the “full J2SE™ platform security model” cannot be supported in CLDC target devices. Ex. 2015, 48. In view of this context, Petitioners lack of explanation regarding purported design incentives that would have prompted a skilled artisan to make the proposed combination is significant. See, e.g., Ex. 1010, 5 (disclosing that the Usui team designed the user interface (UI) “so that the Java part was as small as possible” to “achieve good performance of the UI capability in the mobile phone” and noting that “[r]eleasing resources that are no longer used by Java applications is very important for resource-limited systems such as mobile phones”); Ex. 1001, 1:55–61 (disclosing that “drastically increased functionality” in cellular telecommunications systems “has placed substantial demands on the developers of mobile terminals” and this demand “is exacerbated by the fact that a mobile terminal is a ‘resource scarce’ environment that is limited in size, memory, and power”).” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 7,149,510 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,149,510 - TCL Corporation / TCL Communication Technology Holdings, Ltd. et al. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM EricssonNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 25, 2017 · IPR2015-01605 · APJ Stacy B Margolies · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5 and 7–10 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioners failed to establish a persuasive motivation to combine Usui and Gong, including for claim 4’s ground with Spencer.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not challenge Dr. Malek’s testimony regarding the level of skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. However, Dr. Muftic, Patent Owner’s declarant, opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would probably have had a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, with at least two years’ experience in the field of software security.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 22. Dr. Muftic’s proposed level of ordinary skill differs slightly from Dr. Malek’s. Patent Owner, however, does not cite the above testimony in its Patent Owner Response. Nor does Patent Owner or Dr. Muftic quarrel with the definition proposed by Petitioner and Dr. Malek. See generally PO Resp. We determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioners’ declarant is consistent with the challenged patent and the asserted prior art, and we therefore adopt Dr. Malek’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below. However, our analysis would not differ if we were to adopt Dr. Muftic’s definition.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioners propose constructions for a number of terms, and asserts that “interface component,” “interception module,” “decision entity,” “security access manager,” and “access controller” are means-plus-function limitations. Pet. 16–22; Pet. Br. 5–15. Patent Owner disagrees that the foregoing terms are means-plus-function limitations and asserts that only “software services component” and “identification of requesting application domain software” be explicitly construed. PO Br. 6–17; PO Resp. 7–11. As explained below, the dispositive issue in this case is whether Petitioners provide a persuasive articulated reason with rational underpinning to support their contention that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Usui and Gong. In reaching this issue, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“general field of endeavor and, as recognized by the Supreme Court, known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Pet. 29–30 (citing Ex. 1201 ¶ 175) (emphasis omitted). Petitioners’ declarant, Dr. Malek, repeats this statement from the Petition but fails to provide any additional explanation for why, simply because the two references are in the same field of endeavor, a skilled artisan would have had reason to make the proposed combination. See Ex. 1201 ¶ 175. Nor do Petitioners or Dr. Malek elucidate what design incentives would have prompted a skilled artisan to use the fine-grained security control of Gong with the mobile phone platform of Usui, given the design constraints of less memory and resources of a mobile phone. See, e.g., Ex. 1010, 5; Ex. 2014, 14, 25; Ex. 2015, 8. Indeed, Patent Owner cites uncontroverted evidence that in designing the J2ME platform for mobile phones, Sun Microsystems did not use the full security of the Java 2 Standard Edition and its fine-grained protection domains like that described in Gong. See Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 187, 188, 200, 201. For example, the specification for the CLDC of J2ME, which defines a “standard, minimum-footprint Java platform for small, resource-constrained, connected devices,” states that “the J2SE security model is too memory-consuming to be included in a CLDC device that allows only a few hundred kilobytes of total memory budget.” Ex. 2014, 14, 25; see also PO Resp. 17– 18. In addition, a 2000 JavaOne presentation from a Sun Microsystems employee explains that the “J2SE platform security model is much larger than the entire CLDC implementation” and that the “full J2SE™ platform security model” cannot be supported in CLDC target devices. Ex. 2015, 48. In view of this context, Petitioners lack of explanation regarding purported design incentives that would have prompted a skilled artisan to make the proposed combination is significant. See, e.g., Ex. 1010, 5 (disclosing that the Usui team designed the user interface (UI) “so that the Java part was as small as possible” to “achieve good performance of the UI capability in the mobile phone” and noting that “[r]eleasing resources that are no longer used by Java applications is very important for resource-limited systems such as mobile phones”); Ex. 1001, 1:55–61 (disclosing that “drastically increased functionality” in cellular telecommunications systems “has placed substantial demands on the developers of mobile terminals” and this demand” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 7,149,510 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,149,510 - Broad Ocean Technologies, LLC v. Nidec Motor CorporationNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 21, 2016 · IPR2015-01617 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 7–13 were not shown unpatentable because Beifus did not disclose the claimed torque table with alternate torque settings.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Beifus states that Figure 6 “is a chart illustrating an induction motor speed-torque curve that is programmed into a memory of an ECM.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 11. Because “[a] claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference,” the dispositive issue in this proceeding is well defined: does Figure 6 (and related disclosure) of Beifus teach “selecting a torque table associated with the adjustment factor, the torque table including alternate torque settings,” as recited in independent claim 7? See Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).” slip op. at 9
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“reasoning of Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Petitioner contends that “[u]pon reading Beifus, a person of ordinary skill would immediately recognize that the ECM control circuit could handle the torque values in two ways – storing a set of torque values in a memory or by calculating the torque values ‘on the fly.’” Reply 18. Kennametal explains that “a reference can anticipate a claim even if it ‘do[es] not expressly spell out’ all the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination.” Kennametal at 1381 (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681 (CCPA 1962)). Petitioner did not raise the Kennametal theory of anticipation in its Petition, and the argument based on it in the Reply is, therefore, improper. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, or patent owner response.”) (emphasis added); CBS Interactive, Inc. v. Helferich Pat. Lic., LLC, Case IPR2013-00033, slip op. at 3 (PTAB Aug. 9, 2013) (Paper 79) (“Should there be improper arguments or evidence presented with a reply, the Board, exercising its discretion, may exclude the reply and related evidence in their entirety, or alternatively, decline to consider the improper arguments and/or related evidence.”). Although Patent Owner addressed this theory in its Response (PO Resp. 21–24), Patent Owner appears to have done so only prophylactically after the theory was raised by Petitioner in redirect examination of Dr. Sidman. See PO Resp. 21 (“During Dr. Sidman’s redirect examination by [Petitioner’s] counsel, he was asked the following leading question . . . .”) (“The Board should disregard any of this new evidence and argument if [Petitioner] intends to rely on it.”). Because this is a new argument, not raised in the Petition, we do not consider it.” slip op. at 18
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“the ambiguity when Figure 6 is actually described in detail in the specification.” Id. at 16. As Patent Owner asserts, “Beifus makes it clear that Figure 6 is a plot of values derived from key characteristics which are motor parameters of the emulated motor.” Id. (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 36; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 15–16, 31). This understanding of Beifus is confirmed by testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Mark N. Horenstein, Ph.D. Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 15–16. Dr. Horenstein explains that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the parameters stored in the ECM are key parameters used with the formula reproduced above to describe the torque-speed curve of the induction motor being emulated, namely the no-load speed, breakdown speed, and shape description number n. Id. ¶ 15. Dr. Horenstein further testifies that, “although square and diamond symbols appear along the curves in Figure 6, nowhere does Beifus describe the storing of these individual points.” Id. ¶ 16. Rather, Dr. Horenstein expresses his opinion that “a person of skill would understand these symbols to be included simply to identify which curve applies to Option 1 and which to Option 2 [i.e., different options for the induction motor breakdown speed], as indicated by the legend to the right of the plots.” Id. Petitioner challenged Dr. Horenstein’s opinion at his deposition, in part by comparing a drawing from one of Dr. Horenstein’s own patents that included a series of curves with data marked by different symbols: Q. So if a person of ordinary skill in the art looking at Figure 6 of the Beifus patent sees diamonds and squares, wouldn’t they come to an understanding that those are data points? A. I don’t think so. And the reason is that a formula is given that explains how the curves are computed. Figure 19 of [Dr. Horenstein’s patent], those are discretely measured points performed by experiment, and there really is no formula that applies to those curves per se, they’re just data points that have some scatter relative to each other and they happen to be connected by lines, but those lines do not represent a formula. Ex. 1013, 54:2–16. We disagree with Petitioner’s characterization of this testimony as explaining that “the reason a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the diamonds and squares appearing in Figure 19 of [Dr. Horenstein’s] patent are data points, as opposed to mere curve identifiers, is because the diamonds and squares are connected by lines.” Reply 15. Rather, Dr. Horenstein’s testimony makes clear that his opinion is grounded in Beifus’s disclosure of a formula that allows calculation of the illustrated points and that connection of data points measured by experiment with lines is incidental. Dr. Horenstein’s testimony is more persuasive than the testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Michael D. Sidman, Ph.D., on the identification of “key characteristic points” disclosed by Beifus. For example, Dr. Sidman appeared to suggest at his deposition that the entire speed-torque curve of Beifus’s Figure 6 is itself a “key characteristic point,” but qualified that position when challenged by Patent Owner. See Ex. 2001, 23:22–25:15. Nevertheless, Dr. Sidman agrees that (1) a curve can be generated from a mathematical formula and graphed (Ex. 2001, 30:8–11); (2) Beifus’s two formulas correspond to the formulas for “Option 1” and “Option 2” shown in Figure 6 (id. at 33:12–36:19); (3) operating speed, breakdown speed, no load speed, and shape-description number n are variables used in the formula disclosed by Beifus (id. at 22:23–23:10); (4) the calculation disclosed by Beifus could be performed on the fly in a motor controller (id. at 47:6–14); and (5) Beifus does not explicitly disclose that any precalculations are performed (id. at 43:1–23). These aspects of Dr. Sidman’s testimony are consistent with Patent Owner’s reading of Beifus.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“We see no compelling reason to modify these constructions based on the positions of the parties as developed during the trial, and adopt them for this Decision. With respect to the construction of “torque table,” Patent Owner asserts: If the Board’s construction means that the table need not be in any particular format in the memory, but the table must still store the alternative torque values required by the claim “in a memory connected to the motor,” then Patent Owner accepts this interpretation for the purposes of this proceeding. However, if the Board’s construction including reference to “a torque curve graphically representing a set of torque values” does not require the torque values shown on the curve to be stored in memory, it is erroneous. PO Resp. 9. We agree with Patent Owner’s position, namely that “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘table’ still must require the torque values to be stored in the table.” Id. As Patent Owner points out, “[t]he only intrinsic evidence available in this proceeding demonstrates a ‘torque table’ stores alternative torque settings.” Id. In particular, the ’092 patent consistently uses “table” to refer to discrete data that are stored in a memory, such as in the “speed tables” described as alternatives to “torque tables.” See Ex. 1001, col. 11, ll. 5–24, col. 16, ll. 63–66 (“Instead of adjusting the torque as described above, the motor controller 18 could store a plurality of different torque or speed tables and select one of the torque/speed tables based on an input provided by the torque adjustment mechanism.”). This aspect of the construction of “torque table” is reflected in its reference to including a graphical representation of “a set” of torque values in a memory connected to a motor.” slip op. at 7
Patent outcomesUS 7,990,092 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 7,990,092 - Hilti, Inc. / Snap-On Incorporated v. Milwaukee Electric Tool CorporationNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 14, 2016 · IPR2016-00343 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–11 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Takano and Yanai because the proposed combinations and calculations lacked adequate support and relied on hindsight.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Takano, however, discloses a battery having a plurality of cells connected in series. Ex. 1072 ¶¶ 4, 11, 26. Although we do not question that connecting battery cells in series and/or parallel is known generally in the art, Petitioner does not provide adequate specific reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify Takano to connect cells in parallel when Takano clearly discloses a series connection. Dr. Abraham’s testimony that the type of connection would be chosen “as needed to provide whatever target voltage and amperage is desired for a particular application,” by itself, does not provide a sufficient reason to modify Takano’s series connection. Petitioner does not explain how the prior art discloses a desired voltage or amperage that would cause one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Takano in the manner proposed. In this case, the only teaching of a desired amperage comes from the ’290 patent itself. Furthermore, Dr. Abraham’s reliance on the disclosure at column 5, lines 57–61, of the ’290 patent as supporting the alleged obviousness of combining two cells in parallel is improper. This passage of the ’290 patent describes alternative configurations of the patentees’ own invention; it is not describing prior art. Relying on knowledge gleaned only from the challenged patent’s disclosure is impermissible hindsight. Cf. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (As long as a judgment on obviousness “takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.”).” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Furthermore, Petitioner’s obviousness analysis relies on (1) selecting an 18650-size or 26650-size cell; (2) estimating the positive electrode surface area to be 540 cm2; (3) selecting a foil thickness of 15 micrometers; (4) selecting an average discharge voltage of 3.6 volts; and (5) for 18650-size cells, connecting two in parallel. Petitioner fails to point out how the prior art indicates that using all of these particular values in combination would be desirable for a lithium-based battery pack when several other possible values could have been selected. Where “‘the prior art gave either no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful,’ courts should reject ‘hindsight claims of obviousness.’” In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig., 676 F.3d 1063, 1070–71 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s obviousness analysis relies on impermissible hindsight.” slip op. at 20
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Third, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s argument that “three Yanai-based 18650 cells in parallel” would satisfy the 20 Amp Limitation is a new argument. Paper 60, 2. In our view, this argument does more than merely address Patent Owner’s argument regarding Dr. Abraham’s addition error. Rather, by relying on three cells instead of two, Petitioner attempts to provide a new theory as to why the combination of Takano and Yanai renders the challenged claims obvious that was not set forth clearly in the Petition. Because Petitioner waited until the Reply to make this argument, Patent Owner did not have an opportunity to respond to Petitioner’s new argument. We thus decline to consider Petitioner’s new argument as it is an improper reply. Furthermore, Petitioner’s assertion that Patent Owner made no attempt to explain why using three cells would have been just as obvious as using two cells is an improper attempt to shift the burden of proof with respect to obviousness to Patent Owner.” slip op. at 17
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
Patent outcomesUS 7,554,290 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,554,290 - Hilti, Inc. / Snap-On Incorporated v. Milwaukee Electric Tool CorporationNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 14, 2016 · IPR2016-00344 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–13 were not shown unpatentable over Takano and Yanai under §103 because Petitioner’s evidence did not establish the 20 Amp Limitation without unsupported assumptions and hindsight.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Takano, however, discloses a battery having a plurality of cells connected in series. Ex. 1072 ¶¶ 4, 11, 26. Although we do not question that connecting battery cells in series and/or parallel is known generally in the art, Petitioner does not provide adequate specific reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify Takano to connect cells in parallel when Takano clearly discloses a series connection. Dr. Abraham’s testimony that the type of connection would be chosen “as needed to provide whatever target voltage and amperage is desired for a particular application,” by itself, does not provide a sufficient reason to modify Takano’s series connection. Petitioner does not explain how the prior art discloses a desired voltage or amperage that would cause one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Takano in the manner proposed. In this case, the only teaching of a desired amperage comes from the ’173 patent itself. Furthermore, Dr. Abraham’s reliance on the disclosure at column 5, lines 59–63, of the ’173 patent as supporting the alleged obviousness of combining two cells in parallel is improper. This passage of the ’173 patent describes alternative configurations of the patentees’ own invention; it is not describing prior art. Relying on knowledge gleaned only from the challenged patent’s disclosure is impermissible hindsight. Cf. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (As long as a judgment on obviousness “takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.”).” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“18650-size and 26650-size cells is flawed and thus fails to support Petitioner’s assertion that claim 1 would have been obvious over the combination of Takano and Yanai. Furthermore, Petitioner’s obviousness analysis relies on (1) selecting an 18650-size or 26650-size cell; (2) estimating the positive electrode surface area to be 540 cm2; (3) selecting a foil thickness of 15 micrometers; (4) selecting an average discharge voltage of 3.6 volts; and (5) for 18650-size cells, connecting two in parallel. Petitioner fails to point out how the prior art indicates that using all of these particular values in combination would be desirable for a lithium-based battery pack when several other possible values could have been selected. Where “‘the prior art gave either no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful,’ courts should reject ‘hindsight claims of obviousness.’” In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig., 676 F.3d 1063, 1070–71 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s obviousness analysis relies on impermissible hindsight.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached
“e) Secondary Considerations Patent Owner argues that “[n]umerous secondary considerations strongly favor the patentability of the challenged claims.” PO Resp. 26–59. Because we are not persuaded Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently that the combination of Takano and Yanai render claim 1 obvious, we need not reach Patent Owner’s assertions regarding secondary considerations.” slip op. at 23
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Third, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s argument that “three Yanai-based 18650 cells in parallel” would satisfy the 20 Amp Limitation is a new argument. Paper 62, 2. In our view, this argument does more than merely address Patent Owner’s argument regarding Dr. Abraham’s addition error. Rather, by relying on three cells instead of two, Petitioner attempts to provide a new theory as to why the combination of Takano and Yanai renders the challenged claims obvious that was not set forth clearly in the Petition. Because Petitioner waited until the Reply to make this argument, Patent Owner did not have an opportunity to respond to Petitioner’s new argument. We thus decline to consider Petitioner’s new argument as it is an improper reply. Furthermore, Petitioner’s assertion that Patent Owner made no attempt to explain why using three cells would have been just as obvious as using two cells is an improper attempt to shift the burden of proof with respect to obviousness to Patent Owner.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 7,944,173 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,944,173 - Hilti, Inc. / Snap-On Incorporated v. Milwaukee Electric Tool CorporationNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 14, 2016 · IPR2016-00345 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Takano and Yanai because Petitioner’s evidence did not establish the 20 Amp Limitation without unsupported assumptions and hindsight.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“example 2 is described as having a positive electrode surface area of 6,700 cm2 (id. ¶ 40). This wide variance in the surface areas disclosed by Adachi suggests that the working examples are specific embodiments and not indicative of “common knowledge” in the field. Moreover, we are not persuaded that the range of 400– 680 cm2 is an industry standard surface area for 18650-size cells or that one of ordinary skill in the art necessarily would consider a value in this range to be a typical or likely choice of surface area for any 18650-size cell. Accordingly, the only basis to assert that it would have been obvious to select a positive electrode surface area of 540 cm2 for Yanai’s cell 1-4 would be to rely on the disclosure of Adachi; that is, to assert that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Takano and Yanai with the teaching of Adachi. Petitioner, however, has repeatedly argued that this is not what it proposes. Reply 3; Tr. 22:22–23:4. Furthermore, we agree with Patent Owner that the Petition does not provide an adequate reason to combine Adachi with Takano and Yanai.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Takano, however, discloses a battery having a plurality of cells connected in series. Ex. 1072 ¶¶ 4, 11, 26. Although we do not question that connecting battery cells in series and/or parallel is known generally in the art, Petitioner does not provide adequate specific reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify Takano to connect cells in parallel when Takano clearly discloses a series connection. Dr. Abraham’s testimony that the type of connection would be chosen “as needed to provide whatever target voltage and amperage is desired for a particular application,” by itself, does not provide a sufficient reason to modify Takano’s series connection. Petitioner does not explain how the prior art discloses a desired voltage or amperage that would cause one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Takano in the manner proposed. In this case, the only teaching of a desired amperage comes from the ’510 patent itself. Furthermore, Dr. Abraham’s reliance on the disclosure at column 5, lines 61–65, of the ’510 patent as supporting the alleged obviousness of combining two cells in parallel is improper. This passage of the ’510 patent describes alternative configurations of the patentees’ own invention; it is not describing prior art. Relying on knowledge gleaned only from the challenged patent’s disclosure is impermissible hindsight. Cf. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (As long as a judgment on obviousness “takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.”).” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Furthermore, Petitioner’s obviousness analysis relies on (1) selecting an 18650-size or 26650-size cell; (2) estimating the positive electrode surface area to be 540 cm2; (3) selecting a foil thickness of 15 micrometers; (4) selecting an average discharge voltage of 3.6 volts; and (5) for 18650-size cells, connecting two in parallel. Petitioner fails to point out how the prior art indicates that using all of these particular values in combination would be desirable for a lithium-based battery pack when several other possible values could have been selected. Where “‘the prior art gave either no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful,’ courts should reject ‘hindsight claims of obviousness.’” In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig., 676 F.3d 1063, 1070–71 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s obviousness analysis relies on impermissible hindsight.” slip op. at 20
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Third, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s argument that “three Yanai-based 18650 cells in parallel” would satisfy the 20 Amp Limitation is a new argument. Paper 59, 2. In our view, this argument does more than merely address Patent Owner’s argument regarding Dr. Abraham’s addition error. Rather, by relying on three cells instead of two, Petitioner attempts to provide a new theory as to why the combination of Takano and Yanai renders the challenged claims obvious that was not set forth clearly in the Petition. Because Petitioner waited until the Reply to make this argument, Patent Owner did not have an opportunity to respond to Petitioner’s new argument. We thus decline to consider Petitioner’s new argument as it is an improper reply. Furthermore, Petitioner’s assertion that Patent Owner made no attempt to explain why using three cells would have been just as obvious as using two cells is an improper attempt to shift the burden of proof with respect to obviousness to Patent Owner.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 7,999,510 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,999,510 - Hilti, Inc. / Snap-On Incorporated v. Milwaukee Electric Tool CorporationNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 14, 2016 · IPR2015-01166 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Takano and Yanai because the proposed combination relied on unsupported assumptions and impermissible hindsight.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“After institution, Snap-On Incorporated (“Snap-On”) filed a Petition and a Motion for Joinder to this proceeding. IPR2016-00345, Papers 2, 3. We granted the Motion for Joinder, and IPR2016-00345 was joined with IPR2015-01166 and terminated. Paper 24, 6. Consequently, Hilti and Snap-On (collectively, “Petitioner”) are joined in this proceeding.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“We construed three claim terms in our Decision to Institute: (1) “hand held power tool,” (2) “battery cells being capable of producing an average discharge current greater than or equal to approximately 20 amps,” and (3) “nominal voltage.” Inst. Dec. 6–12. Neither party has indicated that the interpretations for those phrases were improper, and we do not perceive any reason or evidence that now compels any deviation from our initial determinations. Accordingly, the following interpretations are not in dispute and apply to this Decision:” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“select a positive electrode surface area of 540 cm2 for Yanai’s cell 1-4 would be to rely on the disclosure of Adachi; that is, to assert that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Takano and Yanai with the teaching of Adachi. Petitioner, however, has repeatedly argued that this is not what it proposes. Reply 3; Tr. 22:22–23:4. Furthermore, we agree with Patent Owner that the Petition does not provide an adequate reason to combine Adachi with Takano and Yanai.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableDecided for patent owner
“Furthermore, Petitioner’s obviousness analysis relies on (1) selecting an 18650-size or 26650-size cell; (2) estimating the positive electrode surface area to be 540 cm2; (3) selecting a foil thickness of 15 micrometers; (4) selecting an average discharge voltage of 3.6 volts; and (5) for 18650-size cells, connecting two in parallel. Petitioner fails to point out how the prior art indicates that using all of these particular values in combination would be desirable for a lithium-based battery pack when several other possible values could have been selected. Where “‘the prior art gave either no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful,’ courts should reject ‘hindsight claims of obviousness.’” In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig., 676 F.3d 1063, 1070–71 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s obviousness analysis relies on impermissible hindsight.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 7,999,510 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,999,510
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.