• Alcon Inc. / Alcon Vision, LLC et al. v. Amo Development, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 14, 2022 · IPR2021-00841 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations failed to establish obviousness, including a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner’s proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’648 patent; however, we also agree with Patent Owner that such a definition should be flexible enough to include a person with a lesser academic degree and having experience working in the field, such as an engineer with clinical experience in ophthalmic surgery, as well as also including a medical doctor, such as an ophthalmic surgeon with experience working with medical optics and lasers, and that these people may collaborate. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Such an expanded definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art, including aspects of both parties’ definitions, is appropriate here, based on our review of the record. Thus, we find that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been someone with a PhD, MS, or BS degree in physics, biomedical engineering, or a related science such as nuclear engineering, having more or less experience in research, manufacturing, or designing medical optics or medical lasers (e.g., 5 years for a PhD or more to compensate for lesser degrees), or an ophthalmic surgeon, but that such persons would have worked in collaboration with one another to fill any necessary gaps in knowledge (e.g., the engineer would consult the medical doctor on clinical issues or physiology and the medical doctor would consult the engineer on technical issues). This definition marries the two proposed by the parties and is appropriate in view of the record. B.” slip op. at 17

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

    “Petitioner asserts that, although dependent claim 12 is indefinite, its language, “to determine one or more axial locations of the anterior capsule of the lens; and or more anterior capsule axial locations,” (emphasis added) should be construed to mean “to determine one or more axial locations of the anterior capsule of the lens (i.e., one or more anterior capsule axial locations).” Pet. 7–8; see also Ex. 1030, 18:46–50 (claim 12). Petitioner’s position is that, as it reads in the ’648 patent, claim 12’s language is “a nonsense phrase,” rendering it indefinite, but that for the purposes of this proceeding it may be understood by the definition set forth above. Pet. 7–8.” slip op. at 19

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “is . . . a question of fact,” and this “requirement refers to the likelihood of success in combining references to meet the limitations of the claimed invention.” Intelligent Bio-Sys., 821 F.3d at 1366–67. Based on the record, we conclude that, even if it would have been potentially advantageous to in some way incorporate the use of Baikoff’s and Li’s OCT imaging and measuring into Swinger’s system and method for cataract surgery (for example, to replace the use of ultrasound imaging with OCT), we agree with Patent Owner that, other than the (ultimately) conclusory testimony of its witness Dr. Izatt (see, e.g., Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 132, 135, 145, 149, 152–159, 459– 462), there is no persuasive evidence that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these references with the result being a control system configured to (automatically or not) image cataractous eye tissue, identify the regions thereof (capsule and lens) to be cut with a laser, and then operate that laser to actually make those cuts based is some part on that imaging. See Resp. 17–28. We credit Dr. Kang’s testimony that, as of the invention, the person of ordinary skill in the art would not have relieved the surgeon of responsibility for identifying cutting regions for laser capsulotomy and cataract surgery (as taught by Swinger), and relegated such task to a computer, which subsequently performs the procedure. Ex. 2087 ¶¶ 61–65. Dr. Kang takes issue with Petitioner’s positions that Baikoff and Li teach or suggest such reliance on a computer because, according to Dr. Kang, neither Baikoff nor Li (and indisputably not Swinger) teaches using a computer to identify laser cutting regions or to control laser surgery, and, in fact, they suggest reliance on a surgeon to interpret their OCT images to plan a subsequent surgery. Id.” slip op. at 45

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “We find Petitioner’s case unpersuasive based on Patent Owner’s arguments and the evidence of record. We find that the evidence of record does not support that Swinger, Baikoff, and Li would have been combined by the person of ordinary skill in the art to achieve the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. Specifically, we find that the claimed elements of the invention directed to a control system configured to (1) operate an imaging device to generate image data of a patient’s lens, (2) process that image data to determine an anterior capsule incision scanning pattern, and (3) operate a laser to scan in the scanning pattern and perform an anterior capsule incision as determined in part by the control system based on the image data, are not taught by the cited prior art and would not have been obvious. Ex. 1030, 17:30–51 (claim 1). We address Patent Owner’s respective arguments and our analysis below. “The presence or absence of a reasonable expectation of success is . . . a question of fact.” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “The reasonable expectation of success requirement refers to the likelihood of success in combining references to meet the limitations of the claimed invention.” Id. at 1367. The evidence of record suggests that the ordinarily skilled artisan would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed invention based on Swinger’s, Baikoff’s, and Li’s teachings. Further, as our reviewing court has explained, “references to ‘common sense’—” or an ordinarily skilled artisan’s ordinary creativity, “whether to supply a motivation to combine or a missing limitation—cannot be used as a wholesale substitute for reasoned analysis and evidentiary support, especially when dealing with a limitation missing from the prior art references specified.” DSS Tech. Mgm’t, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 855 F.3d 1367, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Perfect Web Techs. Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). Although here Petitioner has not wholly omitted any reasoned analysis or evidence regarding the claimed computer control system programmed to automatically plan a cutting region based on image data and then perform that planned laser-cutting of the lens capsule (and, for some claims, also the lens), this subject matter is not disclosed in any cited art and we find Petitioner’s evidence and reasoning as to why it would have been obvious without such disclosure to be largely conclusory and unpersuasive.” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 9,474,648 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,474,648
• Alcon Inc. / Alcon Vision, LLC et al. v. Amo Development, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 7, 2022 · IPR2021-00839 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not determined unpatentable because the cited combinations did not establish the claimed image guided, computer planned cataract surgery.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “The parties present compelling argument and evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would include those with experience in ophthalmology, as well as in the research, manufacture, and design of medical optics or medical lasers. Pet. 24; PO Resp. 10–11. The evidence of record also demonstrates that few individuals actually had such comprehensive experience. Rather, teams of individuals with different expertise and various academic degrees (Ph.D.s, B.S.s, and M.D.s) would work together to design laser surgery systems intended to make incisions in the lens of the eye. See, e.g., Ex. 1041 (several authors are M.D.s); Ex. 1042 (the authors’ degrees include Ph.D.s, an M.D., and a B.S.); see also Ex. 1053; Ex. 1054; Ex. 1055; Ex. 2010; Ex. 2019. Thus, we find that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been either an ophthalmic surgeon or someone with a Ph.D., M.S., or B.S. degree in physics, biomedical engineering, or a related science such as nuclear engineering, having experience in researching, manufacturing, or designing medical optics or medical lasers (e.g., five years of experience for a Ph.D. or more to compensate for lesser degrees), and that such persons would have worked in collaboration with one another to fill any necessary gaps in knowledge (e.g., the engineer would consult the medical doctor on clinical issues or physiology and the medical doctor would consult the engineer on technical issues). This definition marries the two proposed by the parties.” slip op. at 11

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

    “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) (2019). Under this standard, we construe the claim “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id. Furthermore, we need only construe the claims to the extent necessary resolve the dispute between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe 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))). Petitioner does not assert that any claim term requires express construction. See Pet. 7 (stating that it “reserves the right to respond to any constructions that [Patent Owner] submits”). Patent Owner does not present any remarks regarding claim construction. See generally PO Resp. On this record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction. See Nidec Motor., 868 F.3d at 1017 (quoting Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803 (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)). To the extent further discussion of the meaning of any claim term is necessary to our” slip op. at 12

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “We have considered Petitioner’s assertions and evidence, summarized above, and agree with Patent Owner that the combination of Swinger, Baikoff, and Li fails to disclose or render obvious a control system configured to generate an anterior capsulotomy scanning pattern based on image data. PO Resp. 18–23. Petitioner relies on Li for this limitation, however, while Li discloses the use of OCT imaging to measure certain dimensions of the anterior chamber of the eye, Li suggests that a person of ordinary skill in the art manually use the measurement data collected by the system. (Ex. 1044, 1; Ex. 2087 ¶¶ 44–46). More specifically, as summarized by Patent Owner: Li does not suggest configuring the control system to do anything at all with the measurements that it makes, much less determine an anterior capsulotomy scanning pattern. Kang [Ex. 2087] ¶¶ 80, 128. To the contrary, Li’s suggestion of using measurements to “improve the fitting of AC-IOL” teaches a [skilled artisan] to manually use the measurement data. Id. Dr. Izatt testified that “in Li, the controller, so to speak, is a human.” Ex. 2057, 207:17–208:7; see also id., 207:20–21 (in Li, “the one who identifies the treatment region is the surgeon”). PO Resp. 19–20 (emphasis removed, alteration in original). That is, Li discloses a system capable of identifying boundaries of certain eye tissue structures, but fails to disclose a controller configured to determine an anterior capsulotomy scanning pattern. Id. at 17 (“Li teaches using its OCT images as a diagnostic tool.”). Thus, while Li discloses the use of OCT to identifying certain boundaries of tissue structures, Li does not disclose any controller configured to process image data for the purposes of determining a scanning pattern for scanning a focal zone of the laser beam for performing anterior capsulotomy as required by the claims.” slip op. at 26

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “The problem with Petitioner’s argument based on Leapfrog and the like is that Petitioner’s obviousness challenge does not simply require automating a manual step using commonplace modern electronics, but requires the conversion of one cataract surgery treatment region identification system into another. That conversion involves the incorporation of OCT imaging technology as the basis for a computer-controlled system to plan and implement eye surgery, two technological leaps that the record fails to show was known or suggested. In particular, the evidence of record does not support a conclusion that OCT was a well-known system used routinely, if at all, in the identification of treatment regions in the lens or lens capsule for cataract surgery, and further does not support a conclusion that a computer-controlled system to plan and implement cataract surgery in the lens was commonplace. We recognize that Petitioner directs us to the testimony of Dr. Izatt who opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to, for example, use a controller to determine the claimed scanning pattern. Pet. 32–33; Reply 3–5; see also Ex. 1123 ¶ 31 (“Once the anterior capsule is identified, it is a relatively simple process to determine the location to place the capsulotomy.”). Here, however, we agree with Patent Owner that the Petition and supporting testimony fails to provide the requisite reasoned analysis with sufficient evidence to support Petitioner’s position on obviousness. In particular, absent some evidentiary support beyond Dr. Izatt’s and Dr. Tipperman’s opinions that it would have been obvious to program a controller to bridge the gap between the functionality disclosed in Swinger and the required functionality of the challenged claims, we are unwilling to accept this line of reasoning. PO Resp. 27; Sur-Reply 4–7; see also DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc. v. Apple Inc., 885 F.3d 1367, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (A skilled artisan’s “common sense” or “common knowledge” can potentially “fill in a missing limitation only when ‘the limitation in question was unusually simple and the technology particularly straightforward.’” (emphasis omitted)).” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 9,101,448 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,101,448
• Alcon Inc. / Alcon Vision, LLC et al. v. Amo Development, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 27, 2022 · IPR2021-00840 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1, 2, 8–16, and 22–35 not unpatentable because the proposed combinations failed to establish the claimed control system and reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “art appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’732 patent; however, we also agree with Patent Owner that such a definition should be flexible enough to include a person with a lesser academic degree and having experience working in the field, such as an engineer with clinical experience in ophthalmic surgery, as well as also including a medical doctor, such as an ophthalmic surgeon with experience working with medical optics and lasers, and that these people may collaborate. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Such an expanded definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art, including aspects of both parties’ definitions, is appropriate here, based on our review of the record. Thus, we find that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been someone with a PhD, MS, or BS degree in physics, biomedical engineering, or a related science such as nuclear engineering, having more or less experience in research, manufacturing, or designing medical optics or medical lasers (e.g., 5 years for a PhD or more to compensate for lesser degrees), or an ophthalmic surgeon, but that such persons would have worked in collaboration with one another to fill any necessary gaps in knowledge (e.g., the engineer would consult the medical doctor on clinical issues or physiology and the medical doctor would consult the engineer on technical issues). This definition marries the two proposed by the parties and is appropriate in view of the record.” slip op. at 18

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

    “[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Neither party seeks an express interpretation of any claim language. Pet. 7–8; see generally Resp. Therefore, we need not and do not expressly construe any claim language here. However, in our analysis below, as required for the sake of clarity, to resolve ambiguity, and for consistency with our decisions in the related proceedings addressing similar claim language and similar prior art, we address the claim language and its meaning as argued by the parties. We do so in accordance with the above-noted standards of law. C. slip op. at 20

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “The presence or absence of a reasonable expectation of success is . . . a question of fact.” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “The reasonable expectation of success requirement refers to the likelihood of success in combining references to meet the limitations of the claimed invention.” Id. at 1367. The evidence of record suggests that the ordinarily skilled artisan would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed invention based solely on Swinger’s, Baikoff’s, and Li’s teachings. Further, as our reviewing court has explained, “references to ‘common sense’—” or an ordinarily skilled artisan’s ordinary creativity, “whether to supply a motivation to combine or a missing limitation—cannot be used as a wholesale substitute for reasoned analysis and evidentiary support, especially when dealing with a limitation missing from the prior art references specified.” DSS Tech. Mgm’t, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 855 F.3d 1367, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Perfect Web Techs. Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). Although here Petitioner has not wholly omitted any reasoned analysis or evidence regarding the claimed computer control system programmed to automatically plan a cutting region based on image data and then perform that planned laser-cutting of the lens capsule (and, for some claims, also the lens), this subject matter is not disclosed in any cited art and we find Petitioner’s evidence and reasoning as to why it would have been obvious without such disclosure to be largely conclusory and unpersuasive. slip op. at 44

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Inter partes review must proceed in accordance with the Petition and the arguments set forth therein. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (2018). “It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the ground for the challenge to each claim.’” Intelligent Bio-Sys., 821 F.3d at 1369. Arguments made in a different document, such as an expert’s declaration, may not be merely incorporated-by-reference in the Petition (Petitioner does not even do so much). 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3); see also General Access Solutions, Ltd. v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 811 F. App’x 654, 658 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (noting that the Board did not abuse its discretion in enforcing its rules under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3)) (non-precedential).” slip op. at 58

  Patent outcomesUS 9,107,732 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,107,732
• Alcon Inc. / Alcon Vision, LLC et al. v. Amo Development, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 26, 2022 · IPR2021-00835 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted obviousness combinations did not establish the claimed image-processing control system or a sufficient basis to adapt the cited systems for lens surgery.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “The parties present compelling evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would include those with experience in ophthalmology, as well as in the research, manufacture, and design of medical optics or medical lasers. Pet. 24; PO Resp. 10–11. The evidence of record also demonstrates that few individuals actually had such comprehensive experience. Rather, teams of individuals with different expertise and various academic degrees (Ph.D.s, B.S.s, and M.D.s) would work together to design laser surgery systems intended to make incisions in the lens of the eye. See, e.g., Ex. 1041 (several authors are MDs); Ex. 1042 (the authors’ degrees include Ph.D.s, an M.D., and a B.S.); see also Ex. 1053; Ex. 1054; Ex. 1055; Ex. 2010; Ex. 2019. Thus, we find that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been either an ophthalmic surgeon or someone with a Ph.D., M.S., or B.S. degree in physics, biomedical engineering, or a related science such as nuclear engineering, having experience in researching, manufacturing, or designing medical optics or medical lasers (e.g., 5 years of experience for a Ph.D. or more to compensate for lesser degrees), and that such persons would have worked in collaboration with one another to fill any necessary gaps in knowledge (e.g., the engineer would consult the medical doctor on clinical issues or physiology and the medical doctor would consult the engineer on technical issues). This definition marries the two proposed by the parties.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner does not assert that any claim term requires express construction. See Pet. 7 (stating that it “reserves the right to respond to any constructions that [Patent Owner] submits”). Patent Owner does not present any remarks regarding claim construction. See, generally, PO Resp. On this record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)). To the extent further discussion of the meaning of any claim term is necessary to our decision, we provide that discussion below in our analysis of the asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “We recognize Petitioner’s argument that the use of a controller for determining an anterior capsulotomy scanning pattern would have been “nothing more than automating a manual activity using well-known components (e.g., controllers and algorithms) in predictable ways, which would have been obvious to a [person of ordinary skill in the art]” because a controller would be programmed to determine automatically scanning patterns once the boundaries of the ocular tissue are identified. Pet 32 (citing Ex.1001 ¶ 181; MPEP 2144.04; In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95 (CCPA 1958)); Reply 5–6. We also recognize Petitioner’s argument that “[t]he prior art teaches that integrating diagnostic imaging and treatment functionalities in a single automated system is not only desirable, but also straightforward.” Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 150); see also Reply 7–8 (quoting Venner, 262 F.2d at 95 (“[I]t is well settled that it is not ‘invention’ to broadly provide a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result”); citing Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (updating mechanical invention with modern electronics is understood in the art)). Having considered the parties positions and evidence of record, however, we find that the evidence of record does not support a conclusion that it would have been simple, straightforward, or otherwise routine to convert Swinger’s manual HeNe aiming system and Swinger’s surgeon-identification-of-target-tissue step to an automated, OCT-guided laser system. We provide further analysis below.” slip op. at 28

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Inter partes review must proceed in accordance with the Petition and the arguments set forth therein. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (2018). “It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the ground for the challenge to each claim.’” Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Arguments made in a different document, such as an expert’s declaration, may not be incorporated-by-reference in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3); see also General Access Solutions, Ltd. v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 811 F. App’x 654, 658 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (noting that the Board did not abuse its discretion in enforcing its rules under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3)) (non-precedential).” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 9,095,415 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,095,415
• Axalta Coating Systems, LLC v. PPG Industries Ohio, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 12, 2022 · IPR2022-00676 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–19 obvious over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . and any 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). After considering the information presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that the reasonable likelihood standard is not met. Accordingly, we deny institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “would have had “at least a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree in the field of polymer chemistry, polymer coatings, materials science and/or a related field and at least two years of practical experience in the development of coating systems for consumer products.” Pet. 11. For purposes of the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of a POSA. Prelim. Resp. 8. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of a POSA, which is consistent with the scope and content of the ’505 Patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 7

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

    “standard as would be used by a district court to construe a claim in a civil action involving the validity or infringement of a patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, claim terms are 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, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record. Id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We do not need to resolve any claim construction disputes for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 7

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNon analogous artNot shown unpatentable

    “sufficiently that a POSA looking to improve a three-layer coating for automobiles as disclosed in Kasari or Hall would have looked to Kondo, which teaches laminated glass for windshields. Although Petitioner asserts that “[Kasari] and Kondo each teach multi-layer systems with a transparent colored middle layer that can be used in the automobile industry” (Pet. 20) and makes a similar assertion about Hall and Kondo (Pet. 48), such high-level similarity is not a sufficient obviousness rationale. See Securus Techs., Inc. v. Glob. Tel*Link Corp., 701 F. App’x 971, 977 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“We agree with the Board that a broad characterization of [asserted references] as both falling within the same alleged field . . . without more, is not enough for [petitioner] to meet its burden of presenting a sufficient rationale to support an obviousness conclusion.”). Petitioner fails to show that Kondo’s interlayer for bonding two glass plates is sufficiently relevant to the intermediate coating layer of Kasari or Hall that a POSA would have applied Kondo’s teachings to the organic pigments that may be used in the intermediate coating layer. Kondo teaches a glass-bonding interlayer containing ultra-fine inorganic particles for providing colorlessness or a color tone, heat insulation, and ultraviolet ray insulation, without adversely affecting the bond strength of the interlayer or the haze, radio transmittance, transparency, and durability of the glass laminate. Ex. 1006, 2:25–31, 2:39–47, 3:2–9. In contrast, Kasari and Hall both teach an intermediate coating layer that may contain an organic or inorganic pigment. Ex. 1009, 9:50–64; Ex. 1010 ¶ 32. Petitioner does not provide a sufficient reason why a POSA would consider Kondo’s teaching about ultra-fine inorganic particles for providing colorlessness or a color tone, heat insulation, and ultraviolet ray insulation in a glass-bonding layer, when selecting organic pigments for use in the intermediate coating layer of Kasari or Hall. Petitioner also does not explain why a POSA would rely on the particle size of Kondo’s particles in isolation from Kondo’s teaching of inorganic pigments as the ultra-fine particles. See In re Wesslau, 353 F.2d 238, 241 (CCPA 1965) (“It is impermissible within the framework of section 103 to pick and choose from any one reference only so much of it as will support a given position, to the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference fairly suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art.”).” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,981,505
• Platform Science, Inc. v. Omnitracs, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 29, 2022 · IPR2020-01612 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–9, 11, 12, and 15 were not shown unpatentable because Coffee did not disclose the claimed copying, and Coffee combined with Heijden did not cure that deficiency.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “In our Initial and Rehearing Decisions, we noted that Patent Owner did not contest Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art at that stage of the proceeding and we found “Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’308 patent and the prior art of record.” Initial Dec. 13 (citing 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)); Rehearing Dec. 16 (same). Therefore, we adopted Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art. Initial Dec. 13; Rehearing Dec. 16. In its Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner states that “[f]or purposes of this proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s offered level of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 7. Accordingly, we maintain our preliminary finding by adopting Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, as set forth above.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “received message 7102 and the header of the response message 7202 are not the same. PO Resp. 25 (citations omitted); Pet. Reply 14. In the Petition, Petitioner argued that “header information” was the same in each message (received and response). Pet. 32 (citations omitted), 36–37. Petitioner relies on Tables 58 and 63, which show “Header.” Id. at 32–33, 37. Petitioner also relies on paragraphs 102 and 118 of Mr. Andrews’s Declaration. Neither the Petition nor Mr. Andrews’s Declaration, however, provide any sufficient basis to find that even a portion of the header or header information is copied from the received message to the response message. Mr. Andrews states his opinion as though it were fact without providing the underlying factual support for his opinion. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 102, 118; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). In cross-examination, Mr. Andrews provided additional information explaining which portion of the headers he believes are the same, but he still does not provide any explanation as to why he believes the information is copied. See, e.g., Ex. 2007 at 111:3–25. The same is true of Petitioner’s Reply, which reiterates Mr. Andrews’s deposition testimony, but still fails to provide any reason as to why Coffee’s charts or Mr. Andrews’ testimony necessarily means that Coffee copies a portion of the header from the received message to the response message. See Continental Can Co. U.S.A., Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“Inherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.”). And, despite Petitioner’s identification of a “Header” listed in Tables 58 and 63, Coffee does not expressly describe the header or part of the header as being copied from the received message to the response message. The Petition and Mr. Andrews also state that “if Coffee did not employ such copying, the response message would not automatically include information extracted from the received message.” Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 118). But, Coffee does not expressly describe the header as being “extracted from the received message” or describe automatically including the header in a response message to make the leap argued by Petitioner and Mr. Andrews. Accordingly, on the full record before us, we find that Petitioner has not established that Coffee explicitly or inherently discloses copying the header or header information and we do not credit Mr. Andrews’ testimony, discussed above, because he fails to provide the underlying factual basis for the opinions offered.” slip op. at 43

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

    “proceeding and on the full record before us, we do not find that Coffee’s silence is sufficient to support Petitioner’s argument. See Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc., 787 Fed. Appx. 731, 739 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“We do not find any error in the Board changing its understanding of the teachings of [a prior art reference] from the institution decision to the final written decision. ‘The Board is not bound by any findings made in its Institution Decision. At that point, the Board is considering the matter preliminarily without the benefit of a full record. The Board is free to change its view of the merits after further development of the record, and should do so if convinced that its inclinations were wrong.’” (quoting Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2016))). Coffee does not explain the process by which the IOD of the received message is included in the response message; rather, Coffee just states that the response message “contains the IOD of the message being answered.” See, e.g., Ex. 1005, 56:63–67 (see full text quoted above). In particular, although Coffee attributes certain actions to the operator, the lack of attribution to the operator does not necessitate that the only viable possibility remaining is that Coffee copies the IOD from the received message to the response message. Even if it may be said that Coffee probably (or possibly) copies the IOD, that probability is not sufficient to find that Coffee necessarily copies the IOD. See Continental Can, 948 F.2d at 1269 (“Inherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.”).7 Additionally, on the full record before us, we determine that Mr. Andrews’s testimony, as with his testimony as to copying of the header and selected response, fails to provide any factual or underlying support for his opinions expressed therein. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 100–102. In particular, the leap occurs in paragraph 102, where Mr. Andrews takes the fact that some information (at least the IOD) from the received formatted message is included with the response message to opine that this means the information is “copied over.” Id. ¶ 102. But, again, Coffee is silent. And because Mr. Andrews did not provide any underlying factual basis for his opinion, we do not credit his testimony as to copying the IOD. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 48

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “generally, including the alleged benefits of such and reasons why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to include field-mapping information in Coffee’s MDT. See id. at 62–70. None of Petitioner’s discussion, however, explains how the combination of Coffee and Heijden remedies the deficiencies that we identified regarding Petitioner’s challenge based on Coffee. In particular, Petitioner does not assert or explain how the teachings of Heijden would be applied to Coffee such that Coffee would then copy or fill in the specific information from Coffee’s received message to Coffee’s response message, particularly as pertains to the header, Response, and IOD fields (which Petitioner relied on in the first ground), or any other information field from Coffee. The same is true of Mr. Andrews’s testimony. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 214–231. Additionally, it appears that Petitioner’s analysis of the combination of Heijden and Coffee maintains the position that Coffee copies information fields. See Pet. 70 (“Given that Coffee’s system already implements field mapping to copy information fields . . . .”). And, Mr. Andrews’s testimony similarly maintains that Coffee copies information fields. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 229 (“Coffee also discloses (at least inherently) field mapping by describing that data is copied from fields in request messages into corresponding fields in response message.”). But, as we explain in detail in the context of Petitioner’s challenge based on Coffee, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Coffee copies or fills in information from a received message to a response message. Thus, we do not find and Petitioner does not allege that Ground “1B” fills the gaps identified in Petitioner’s Ground “1A.”10 Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the combination of Coffee and Heijden would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1–4, 7–9, and 12 unpatentable.” slip op. at 60

  Patent outcomesUS 6,925,308 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,925,308
• Airbus Americas, Inc. v. Harper Engineering CompanyInstitution denied
  PTAB · May 20, 2022 · IPR2022-00195 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable on the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2021). 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). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Reply, the Sur-reply, and the evidence of record, we conclude that the information does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “ordinary skill in the art in light of the subject matter of the ’244 patent, which is not limited to “aeronautical” or “aerospace” applications, claims a “stowage bin assembly” and a “hinge assembly,” and expressly refers broadly to “transportation vehicles” as typically including “overhead storage compartments,” identifying “airplanes” only as an “example” of a “transportation vehicle.” Ex. 1001, code (57), 1:12–15, 7:31–8:64. Patent Owner’s argument appears to be no more than a transparent attempt to baselessly suggest that Dr. Codd should be excluded from testifying because he lacks “the proper background or sufficient experience in the field” under Patent Owner’s unreasonable proposed level of ordinary skill. See Prelim. Resp. 17–18. Dr. Dershowitz’s testimony in support of Patent Owner on the level of ordinary skill is not credible because it is inconsistent with the ’244 patent and the asserted art. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 58–63. For example, Dr. Dershowitz acknowledges that “[h]inges are common to many mechanical systems,” but then suggests “being familiar with hinges in general may not directly apply to the specifics of this invention” without identifying anything “specific” to the ’244 patent that requires the level of skill Dr. Dershowitz endorses. Id. ¶ 62. Dr. Dershowitz suggests “hinges used in storage solutions that are stationary have fewer requirements related to mass and volume and are not subject to the same forces and stresses that are experienced on an aircraft,” however, the challenged claims of the ’244 patent do not preclude “stationary” storage solutions, do not require anything pertaining to “mass and volume,” and are not required to withstand any “forces and stresses” experienced on an aircraft. Dr. Dershowitz’s opinion that “[d]ue to the unique environment and specialized nature of the technology at issue” a person of ordinary skill in the art would have needed “to have an educational background and experience that is specific to the aerospace field” is not supported by the ’244 patent or the asserted art. See id. ¶ 63; see also Ex. 1005 ¶ 2 (Rheaume stating it “relates to a hinge assembly and, more particularly to a hinge assembly for retaining a door of a storage bin”); Ex. 1006 ¶ 2 (Savian stating it “relates generally to overhead storage bin assemblies”); Ex. 1008, 3:24–27 (Frazier stating it discloses “improvements to standard luggage and storage bins commonly found in commercial aircraft as well as other aircraft, buses, passenger vans, and other vehicles”). Dr. Dershowitz’s misapprehension of the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art is a consideration we apply in weighing his opinion of how a” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Dr. Dershowitz’s testimony in support of Patent Owner on the level of ordinary skill is not credible because it is inconsistent with the ’244 patent and the asserted art. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 58–63. For example, Dr. Dershowitz acknowledges that “[h]inges are common to many mechanical systems,” but then suggests “being familiar with hinges in general may not directly apply to the specifics of this invention” without identifying anything “specific” to the ’244 patent that requires the level of skill Dr. Dershowitz endorses. Id. ¶ 62. Dr. Dershowitz suggests “hinges used in storage solutions that are stationary have fewer requirements related to mass and volume and are not subject to the same forces and stresses that are experienced on an aircraft,” however, the challenged claims of the ’244 patent do not preclude “stationary” storage solutions, do not require anything pertaining to “mass and volume,” and are not required to withstand any “forces and stresses” experienced on an aircraft. Dr. Dershowitz’s opinion that “[d]ue to the unique environment and specialized nature of the technology at issue” a person of ordinary skill in the art would have needed “to have an educational background and experience that is specific to the aerospace field” is not supported by the ’244 patent or the asserted art. See id. ¶ 63; see also Ex. 1005 ¶ 2 (Rheaume stating it “relates to a hinge assembly and, more particularly to a hinge assembly for retaining a door of a storage bin”); Ex. 1006 ¶ 2 (Savian stating it “relates generally to overhead storage bin assemblies”); Ex. 1008, 3:24–27 (Frazier stating it discloses “improvements to standard luggage and storage bins commonly found in commercial aircraft as well as other aircraft, buses, passenger vans, and other vehicles”). Dr. Dershowitz’s misapprehension of the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art is a consideration we apply in weighing his opinion of how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the prior art at issue.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner contends that no claim terms require construction. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 64–66). Patent Owner proposes an express construction for “stowage bin door” and “self-opening mechanism.” Prelim. Resp. 13– 17. We find no claim term requires an express construction in reaching our decision for the reasons below to deny institution of inter partes review. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803.” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,801,244
• Airbus Americas, Inc. v. Harper Engineering CompanyInstitution denied
  PTAB · May 20, 2022 · IPR2022-00192 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 2–6 or 12–17 were unpatentable; claims 1 and 7–11 had been disclaimed.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “obvious over Rheaume and Savian. Pet. 32–51. Each of claims 2–6 and 12–17 requires a “hinge assembly” that includes “a self-opening mechanism.” Ex. 1001, 7:47–8:8, 8:27–64. Petitioner relies only upon Savian as teaching a “self-opening mechanism.” Pet. 32–34, 45. We focus our discussion on the “self-opening mechanism” limitation because it is dispositive and, for the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Savian teaches this limitation.” slip op. at 21

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

    “More importantly, Petitioner provides no sufficient reasoning and cites no support for construing the required “self-opening mechanism” to be so broad as to include a mechanism that provides “only some damping against gravity to be ‘self-opening.’” Reply 2. We agree with Patent Owner that, contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, a component that only opposes opening is not a “self-opening mechanism.” See Sur-reply 2. In short, as shown by Patent Owner, the plain and ordinary meaning of “self-opening mechanism” in the context of the ’315 patent, as required by claims 2–6 and 12–17, is a mechanism that acts on its own accord to open the stowage bin door. See Prelim. Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2006). An express construction of any other claim term is not necessary for” slip op. at 15

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

    “obvious over Rheaume and Savian. Pet. 32–51. Each of claims 2–6 and 12–17 requires a “hinge assembly” that includes “a self-opening mechanism.” Ex. 1001, 7:47–8:8, 8:27–64. Petitioner relies only upon Savian as teaching a “self-opening mechanism.” Pet. 32–34, 45. We focus our discussion on the “self-opening mechanism” limitation because it is dispositive and, for the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Savian teaches this limitation.” slip op. at 21

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached

    “9 Patent Owner also argues that we should exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) to deny institution of inter partes review. Prelim. Resp. 36–46. We deny institution of inter partes review for the reasons provided above and, therefore, do not reach Patent Owner’s arguments regarding discretionary denial.” slip op. at 24

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,760,315
• Hulu, LLC v. Divx, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Mar 15, 2022 · IPR2021-01418 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable; each ground relied on file-relative Candelore-II pointers disclaimed during prosecution.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “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 not established a reasonable 1 This Petition is Petitioner’s first petition challenging claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 13–16 of the ’443 patent. As noted below, Petitioner also filed a second petition challenging the same claims of the ’443 patent in IPR2021- 01419. Petitioner filed a Ranking and Explanation of Material Differences Between Petitions (Paper 3), where Petitioner discusses the two petitions. Because of the determination we reach on the merits, we do not address the parties’ arguments as to whether two petitions are necessary. likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the Challenged Claims.” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer foundDecided for patent owner

    “based on Candelore-II, the applicants raised two primary arguments. First, the applicants argued that Candelore-II “does not . . . appear to disclose partial encryption of encoded frames of video by encrypting at least one block of data within the partially encrypted frame so that only a portion of the encoded frame is encrypted.” Ex. 1003, 250. Second, and importantly, the applicants argued that Candelore-II’s failure to disclose partial encryption of encoded frames of video “is highlighted by the Candelore patent’s failure to disclose DRM information including ‘an offset value that points to the start of an encrypted block within an encoded frame as recited in claim 1.” Id. at 251 (first emphasis added). Critically, the very next sentence begins with the word instead, and states, “[i]nstead, the Candelore patent discloses pointers that point to the location of encrypted portions of the video data relative to the file.” Id. (emphases added). These two sentences from the applicants’ argument directly contrast the recited “offset value” language with Candelore-II’s disclosure. Specifically, the applicants sought to distinguish Candelore-II because its pointers are relative to the file. We find that by contrasting Candelore-II’s pointers, the applicants “ma[d]e clear that the invention does not include a particular feature”— pointers that are relative to the file. GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014). And, we also find that the applicants’ arguments constitute a “clear and unmistakable disclaimer” of an offset value that points to the start of an encrypted block within an encoded frame, where the offset value is relative to the file. Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366–67 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Although we agree with Petitioner that the applicants “never raised a distinction between offset values ‘relative to a file’ and offset values ‘relative to a frame’ at any point during prosecution,” we do not agree with Petitioner that the applicants “never said that offset values relative to a file are excluded from the scope of the claim.” Prelim. Reply 10. Rather, we find no other way to interpret the applicants’ arguments. As noted above, the applicants specifically stated that Candelore-II fails to disclose “DRM information including ‘an offset value that points to the start of an encrypted block within an encoded frame’” and then stated that “[i]nstead,” Candelore-II “discloses pointers that point to the location of encrypted portions of the video data relative to the file.” The applicants’ argument specifically identifies the claim language at issue here and specifically says that it is not disclosed because Candelore-II discloses something else instead.11 Accordingly, for these reasons, we find that the applicants disclaimed “pointers that point to the location of encrypted portions of the video data relative to the file.”” slip op. at 23

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “regarding the meaning of “an offset value that points to the start of an encrypted block within an encoded frame,” we determine that the applicants disclaimed an offset value that is relative to the file. See supra § II.A.2. On the present record, we find Patent Owner’s argument and evidence persuasive regarding Candelore-II’s disclosure. In particular, Patent Owner identifies the teachings of Candelore-II directed to its pointers, and Candelore-II’s description and Figure 3 support Patent Owner’s argument that Candelore-II’s pointers are relative to the file. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 33 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 31, Fig. 3). Additionally, Petitioner does not contest Patent Owner’s position that Candelore-II teaches pointers that are relative to the file. See generally Pet.; Prelim. Reply. Further, as applied to the combination, Petitioner does not propose modifying Candelore-II’s pointers such that they are not relative to the file. See, e.g., Pet. 22–27 (discussing motivation and reasonable expectation of success), 30–40 (discussing, inter alia, limitations [1f], [1h], [1i], and [1j]). Accordingly, because Petitioner relies on the same teaching of Candelore-II that was disclaimed from the scope of the claims during prosecution of the ’443 patent, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently on the present record that the combination of Toma, Candelore-I, and Candelore-II teaches or suggests the subject matter of limitation [1j] and, hence, claim 1.” slip op. at 42

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,257,443
• Hulu, LLC v. Divx, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Mar 15, 2022 · IPR2021-01419 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 13–16 were unpatentable over either asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “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 not established a reasonable 1 This Petition is Petitioner’s second petition challenging claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 13–16 of the ’443 patent. As noted below, Petitioner also filed a petition challenging the same claims of the ’443 patent in IPR2021-01418. Petitioner filed a Ranking and Explanation of Material Differences Between Petitions (Paper 3), where Petitioner discusses the two petitions. Because of the determination we reach on the merits, we do not address the parties’ arguments as to whether two petitions are necessary. likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the Challenged Claims.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Bajaj, however, testifies that he disagrees with Dr. Storer’s definition of the level of ordinary skill because the definition “exceeds the qualifications of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Ex. 2002 ¶ 25. Nonetheless, Dr. Bajaj does not propose a specific level of ordinary skill in the art and states that, for purposes of his declaration, he applies Dr. Storer’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id. At this stage of the proceeding, we find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’443 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 and apply Petitioner’s position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art in our consideration of the issues presently before us.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer foundDecided for patent owner

    “prosecution history sheds substantial light on how the applicants understood the disputed claim language. As set forth above, in response to rejections based on Candelore-II, the applicants raised two primary arguments. First, the applicants argued that Candelore-II “does not . . . appear to disclose partial encryption of encoded frames of video by encrypting at least one block of data within the partially encrypted frame so that only a portion of the encoded frame is encrypted.” Ex. 1103, 250. Second, and importantly, the applicants argued that Candelore-II’s failure to disclose partial encryption of encoded frames of video “is highlighted by the Candelore patent’s failure to disclose DRM information including ‘an offset value that points to the start of an encrypted block within an encoded frame as recited in claim 1.” Id. at 251 (first emphasis added). Critically, the very next sentence begins with the word instead, and states, “[i]nstead, the Candelore patent discloses pointers that point to the location of encrypted portions of the video data relative to the file.” Id. (emphases added). These two sentences from the applicants’ argument directly contrast the recited “offset value” language with Candelore-II’s disclosure. Specifically, the applicants sought to distinguish Candelore-II because its pointers are relative to the file. We find that by contrasting Candelore-II’s pointers, the applicants “ma[d]e clear that the invention does not include a particular feature”— pointers that are relative to the file. GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014). And, we also find that the applicants’ arguments constitute a “clear and unmistakable disclaimer” of an offset value that points to the start of an encrypted block within an encoded frame, where the offset value is relative to the file. Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366–67 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Although we agree with Petitioner that the applicants “never raised a distinction between offset values ‘relative to a file’ and offset values ‘relative to a frame’ at any point during prosecution,” we do not agree with Petitioner that the applicants “never said that offset values relative to a file are excluded from the scope of the claim.” Prelim. Reply 10. Rather, we find no other way to interpret the applicants’ arguments. As noted above, the applicants specifically stated that Candelore-II fails to disclose “DRM information including ‘an offset value that points to the start of an encrypted block within an encoded frame’” and then stated that “[i]nstead,” Candelore-II “discloses pointers that point to the location of encrypted portions of the video data relative to the file.” The applicants’ argument specifically identifies the claim language at issue here and specifically says that it is not disclosed because Candelore-II discloses something else instead.11 Accordingly, for these reasons, we find that the applicants disclaimed “pointers that point to the location of encrypted portions of the video data relative to the file.”” slip op. at 23

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “regarding the meaning of “an offset value that points to the start of an encrypted block within an encoded frame,” we determine that the applicants disclaimed an offset value that is relative to the file. See supra § II.A.2. On the present record, we find Patent Owner’s argument and evidence persuasive regarding Candelore-II’s disclosure. In particular, Patent Owner identifies the teachings of Candelore-II directed to its pointers, and Candelore-II’s description and Figure 3 support Patent Owner’s argument that Candelore-II’s pointers are relative to the file. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 42 (citing Ex. 1106 ¶ 31, Fig. 3). Additionally, Petitioner does not contest Patent Owner’s position that Candelore-II teaches pointers that are relative to the file. See generally Pet.; Prelim. Reply. Further, as applied to the combination, Petitioner does not propose modifying Candelore-II’s pointers such that they are not relative to the file. See, e.g., Pet. 30–36 (discussing motivation and reasonable expectation of success), 41–53 (discussing, inter alia, limitations [1f], [1h], [1i], and [1j]). Accordingly, because Petitioner relies on the same teaching of Candelore-II that was disclaimed from the scope of the claims during prosecution of the ’443 patent, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently on the present record that the combination of Notoya, Matsui, Candelore-I, and Candelore-II teaches or suggests the subject matter of limitation [1j] and, hence, claim 1. d. Independent Claim 7 and Dependent Claims 2, 4, 8, 10, 14, and 16 As noted above, limitation [7j] of independent claim 7 recites the same “offset value” language as limitation [1j] and Petitioner relies on its arguments and evidence directed to limitation [1j] in its discussion of limitation [7j]. See Pet. 72–73 (limitation [7j]). For the same reasons discussed above, we find that the same deficiency regarding claim 1 applies equally to claim 7 and the claims that depend from claim 1 or claim 7— claims 2, 4, 8, 10, 14, and 16. Accordingly, because Petitioner relies on the same teaching of Candelore-II that was disclaimed from the scope of the claims during prosecution, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently on the present record that the combination of Notoya, Matsui, Candelore-I, and Candelore-II teaches or suggests the subject matter of limitation [7j] and, via their dependency from claim 1 or claim 7, the subject matter of dependent claims 2, 4, 8, 10, 14, and 16.” slip op. at 44

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,257,443

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.