- PTAB · Apr 8, 2025 · IPR2024-01401 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–23 on all asserted obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on Burchia and Metabowerke for claims 9 and 17.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). 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. Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the record, for the reasons below, we determine that the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. We thus institute inter partes review on all challenged claims on all asserted grounds. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1354, 1359–60 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“Therefore, “if the petition includes the same or substantially the same claims, grounds, arguments, and evidence as presented in the parallel proceeding, this fact has favored denial.” Id. The Fintiv panel stated that “the degree of overlap is highly fact dependent” and encouraged the parties to “indicate whether all or some of the claims challenged in the petition are also at issue in district court.” Id. at 13. For the reasons below, we view this factor overall as weighing strongly against denial.” slip op. at 18
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“the Examiner erred in the evaluation of the prior art, for example, by showing that the Examiner misapprehended or overlooked specific teachings in the relevant prior art such that the error by the Office was material to the patentability of the challenged claims.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 21. “An example of a material error may include misapprehending or overlooking specific teachings of the relevant prior art where those teachings impact patentability of the challenged claims.” Id. at 8–9 n.9.” slip op. at 26
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposals as to the level of ordinary skill in the art overlap in certain aspects. For example, the first option presented by Petitioner (requiring a bachelor’s degree) largely aligns with the first sentence in Patent Owner’s proposal above (also requiring a bachelor’s degree). Compare Pet. 8, with Prelim. Resp. 4. The second and final sentence from Patent Owner provides other options but is imprecise as to how much “more” or “less” of either formal education or experience are sufficient. See Prelim. Resp. 4. At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not argue that Petitioner’s proposal for the level of ordinary skill in the art leads to an improper understanding of how a skilled artisan would understand either the challenged patent or the prior art. With that, and the lack of declaration testimony supporting Patent Owner’s proposal, we adopt, for purposes of this Decision, Petitioner’s proposal as to the level of ordinary skill in the art, which appears consistent with the record at this stage of the proceeding, including the prior art. See GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,794,952 - PTAB · Apr 8, 2025 · IPR2024-01400 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–11 on all asserted obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success based on Burchia and Metabowerke.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). 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. Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the record, for the reasons below, we determine that the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. We thus institute inter partes review on all challenged claims on all asserted grounds. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1354, 1359–60 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“patentability disputes between the parties, regardless of the stay.” Fintiv, Paper 11 at 9. We address that issue in the discussion of the fourth Fintiv factor below. Given the framing in Fintiv of this situation, the weight of the lack of a stay of the ITC Litigation depends, at least in part, on the fourth Fintiv factor. See POSCO, Paper 11 at 13; Fintiv, Paper 11 at 9. Thus, we determine that the first Fintiv factor, by itself, is neutral or bears little weight in the analysis, but it elevates the importance of the fourth Fintiv factor.” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“Decision, we find that it sufficiently implicates the concerns addressed by § 325(d) to find the first part of the framework in Advanced Bionics satisfied. We turn now to the second part of the framework: “whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8–9.” slip op. at 24
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposals as to the level of ordinary skill in the art overlap in certain aspects. For example, the first option presented by Petitioner (requiring a bachelor’s degree) largely aligns with the first sentence in Patent Owner’s proposal above (also requiring a bachelor’s degree). Compare Pet. 8, with Prelim. Resp. 4. The second and final sentence from Patent Owner provides other options but is imprecise as to how much “more” or “less” of either formal education or experience are sufficient. See Prelim. Resp. 4. At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not argue that Petitioner’s proposal for the level of ordinary skill in the art leads to an improper understanding of how a skilled artisan would understand either the challenged patent or the prior art. With that, and the lack of declaration testimony supporting Patent Owner’s proposal, we adopt, for purposes of this Decision, Petitioner’s proposal as to the level of ordinary skill in the art, which appears consistent with the record at this stage of the proceeding, including the prior art. See GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,365,026 - Precision Planting LLC v. Maschio Gaspardo S.P.A.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00008 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 7–14, and 16 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds failed to establish the claimed thrust-bearing element and its required location.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner
“We determine that the evidence of record overcomes the presumption that § 112, para. 6 does not apply because “thrust-bearing element” does not recite sufficiently definite structure in this case. See, e.g., Pet. 22 (the term is not used here according to its common meaning). First, the word “element” is a “[g]eneric term[]” or “verbal construct[]” often “used in a claim in a manner that is tantamount to using the word ‘means’” because it does not “connote sufficiently definite structure.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350. We find nothing in the ’121 patent or elsewhere in the record suggesting that “element” in the term “thrust-bearing element” should be considered other than a generic placeholder term. Second, although the term “thrust bearing” may connote certain structure, “thrust-bearing element” does not. A “thrust bearing” is “a well-known term of art in engineering and is ‘a bearing which sustains axial loads and prevents axial movement of a loaded shaft.’” Ex. 1003 ¶ 46 (citing Ex. 1017, 2147). “The balls of traditional thrust bearings are positioned inline with the axial force, as thrust bearings are designed specifically to transmit axial load.” Id. Here, however, “thrust-bearing” is hyphenated, and is therefore a phrasal adjective modifying “element” rather than the noun phrase “thrust bearing.”8 Further, there are “substantial differences”” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We largely agree with Petitioner. “[S]tructure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” B. Braun Med. Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed.Cir.1997). The Specification of the ’121 patent “clearly links or associates” two components with the function of bearing axial thrust from the sowing disc: shaft 27 with flanging 30, and thrust-bearing plate 31. Ex. 1001, 3:25–35. Thrust-bearing plate 31 is expressly described as “bear[ing] on that surface of the disc which faces seal 24 . . . in order to withstand at least some of the axial load produced by the disc 16 on the seal 24. Ex. 1001, 3:28–31. Rotatably-mounted shaft 27 with flanging 30 is “fixed” to thrust-bearing plate 31 and therefore bears the axial load from the disc via the thrust-bearing plate. Id. at 3:25–28.10 10 Drive element 32 is described as part of thrust-bearing element 26 and permits thrust-bearing element 26 to be driven in rotation with sowing disc 16. Ex. 1001, 3:36–40. It is not described as bearing any axial load, however. Further, it is not necessary for the thrust-bearing element to rotate with the sowing disc for that element to bear axial load from the sowing disc. See id. at 3:58–59 (“Provision is also made for the thrust-bearing element 26 to be made idle and not driven in rotation by the [drive] shaft 20.”). Ultimately, however, whether drive element 32 is properly considered as part of the corresponding structure is not relevant to the outcome of this case. We disagree with Patent Owner that bearings 28 and seat 29 should be considered corresponding structure. The Specification does not associate these structures with any axial load-bearing function. Instead, bearings 28 and seat 29 are described as the means by which, and the location in which, shaft 27 is rotatably mounted. Ex. 1001, 3:25–27. Regardless, whether or not bearings 28 and seat 29 are considered corresponding structure does not affect the outcome of this case. In summary, we construe “thrust-bearing element” as a means-plus- function claim term under 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 6. Its recited function is to bear thrust, or more specifically to “withstand at least some of the axial load produced by the disc on the seal.” The structure described in the Specification as corresponding to this function is shaft 27 with flanging 30, and thrust-bearing plate 31. We construe the limitation as directed to this structure, and equivalent structures.” slip op. at 21
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“The question is not whether the patentee disclaimed coverage over structures in which the thrust-bearing element is not located entirely in the movable portion of the housing. Instead, we must simply ascertain what the patentee meant by “supported rotatably in the movable portion.” To answer this question, we look to the Specification, which “is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315. “The construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.” Id. at 1316. Here, it is undisputed that in the sole embodiment described by the ’121 patent, the thrust-bearing element is supported by and entirely within the movable portion of the housing. Ex. 1001, Figs. 1, 2; Pet Post-Hearing Resp. 1; PO Post-Hearing Resp. 2. Construing “in the movable portion” to require the thrust-bearing element to be entirely within the movable portion both “stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns” with the sole disclosed embodiment. Such a construction does not import the word “entirely” from the sole embodiment into the claims because the construction “arises from the claim language itself.” See SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp., 2024 WL 1132219, *2–*3 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (construing “primary brush assembly disposed within the round housing perimeter” to require that the primary brush assembly be “entirely within” the round housing perimeter is not an improper incorporation of “entirely” from embodiments into the claims because the construction “arises from the claim language itself”). Accordingly, having reviewed the complete record and the parties’ pre- and post-hearing briefing, we determine that “supported rotatably in the movable portion” means supported rotatably entirely in the space defined by the movable portion.” slip op. at 25
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“b. When “Thrust-Bearing Element” is Construed as a Means-Plus-Function Claim Limitation, there is Insufficient Evidence in the Record to Support a Finding that VenHuizen Discloses a Thrust- Bearing Element that is Supported Rotatably in the Movable Portion As noted above, Petitioner contends that VenHuizen’s shaft 55, retaining hub 56, and handle 58 together constitute the claimed thrust-bearing element “under a proper means-plus-function definition.” Pet. Reply 18–19.12 We do not discern sufficient evidence of record or persuasive technical reasoning from Petitioner to support a finding that these elements together are “supported rotatably in the movable portion” of the housing, as claim 1 requires. Ex. 1001, 4:38–39. We construed this limitation to require the thrust-bearing element to be supported rotatably entirely in the space defined by the movable portion (the space defined by VenHuizen’s second housing member 90). Petitioner does not contend, much less show, that these components are supported rotatably entirely in the movable second housing member 90. On the contrary, of the three components constituting VenHuizen’s thrust-bearing element, all of retaining hub 56 and most of shaft 55 are located in the fixed portion of the housing (first housing member 50), not the movable portion 90. See Ex. 1001, Fig. 6. Only handle 58 is ever located in the movable portion (when the fixed and movable portions are joined together). See id. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that VenHuizen discloses a thrust-bearing element rotatably supported in the movable portion.” slip op. at 35
Patent outcomesUS 8,770,121 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 8,770,121 - Deere & Company v. David’S Dozer V-Loc System, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 18, 2025 · IPR2024-01442 · APJ Robert J Silverman · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–4 unpatentable under any asserted obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the Petition and the Preliminary Response (including any other authorized submissions) “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.”” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s proposal for the level of ordinary skill in the art differs from that of Petitioner, primarily because Patent Owner contends that such a person of ordinary skill would have a certain degree of experience relating specifically to skid steers, or similar machinery, and their hydraulic systems. See Prelim. Resp. 8–10 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 31). Insofar as we understand the significance of Patent Owner’s concerns about the differences between the parties’ proposals, these differences do not bear upon the issues addressed herein. Accordingly, for the purposes of the present Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the relevant level of ordinary skill in the art. Further, with regard to the issues addressed in this Decision, Petitioner’s proposed description of the level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the level of skill indicated by the ’300 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner argues that “Patent Owner made the deliberate choice to claim broadly,” eschewing “structural limitations that would have expressly or implicitly required the hydraulic of Element [1.4] to differ from the hydraulic of Element [1.5].” Reply 7. Further, Petitioner argues that “Patent Owner chose to generically recite ‘a hydraulic’ in each of Elements [1.4] and [1.5] without distinguishing labels, identifiers, or qualifiers.” Id. To the contrary, the two recited “hydraulic[s]” are distinguished by the language surrounding and modifying each instance in the method of claim 1. Indeed, the recitations of distinct operations performed by each “hydraulic,” in the claimed method, further support the understanding these are distinct and different structures. Additionally, as Patent Owner contends (see Prelim. Resp. 16), each instance of “hydraulic” is introduced with the indefinite article “a” — a signal that the two instances of “a hydraulic” do not refer to the same structure. See Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Where a claim lists elements separately, ‘the clear implication of the claim language’ is that those elements are ‘distinct components’ of the patented invention.”) (quoting Gaus v. Conair Corp., 363 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); see also CAE Screenplates, Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co., 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of . . . different terms in the claims connotes different meanings.”); Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 96 F.3d 1398, 1404–05 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (concluding that where a claim provides for two separate elements, a “second portion” and a “return portion,” these two elements “logically cannot be one and the same”).” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“As Patent Owner argues, Petitioner’s proposed combination of Funk and Lewis “would interfere with the intended operation of the Funk control system to move the lift arms up and down in response to inter alia changes in the height signal.” Prelim. Resp. 20. This scenario is similar to that in Tec Air, 192 F.3d at 1356, which involved a claimed injection-molding technique that used screw-threaded adjustable plugs accessed from the inner, cavity-facing, side of the mold. The proposed combination included a prior art reference disclosing adjustment members accessed from the opposite, outer, side of the mold, and having a non-threaded smooth tip that extended through the mold and into the cavity. Id. at 1360. The Federal Circuit held that the prior art reference was properly determined to teach away from the claimed invention, because “no screw driver would be able to turn the smooth-headed screws from the cavity-side of the mold,” hence the proposed “combination would be inoperable for its intended purpose.” Id. Likewise, the proposed combination in the present matter teaches away from the subject matter of claim 1, because it would “immobilize [Funk’s] main arm,” and its associated hydraulic cylinder 18, “leaving just ‘one’ of Funk’s two adjustment mechanisms — blade tilt — available for grade control” (Pet. 10), thereby decreasing the system’s accuracy (see Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 113– 14) and negating the very technique that Funk relies upon to achieve its stated goal. See Ex. 1004 ¶ 7 (“[O]ne object of the present invention is to provide an automatic leveling control system that is sufficiently accurate for preparing the ground prior to the construction of concrete floors and foundations.”)” slip op. at 28
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Markman · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,533,300 - PTAB · Mar 18, 2025 · IPR2024-01380 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–10 based on a reasonable likelihood that the Polinski and Piepho combination renders claims 1–8 obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art relating to the ’568 patent would have had “a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or a related field, and at least 2 years of experience with industrial equipment design and development.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 30). Petitioner also contends that one of ordinary skill “may also have a combination of more formal education and less work experience or a combination of less or different formal education and more work experience.” Id. We view Petitioner’s definition as consistent with the problems and solutions disclosed in the ’568 patent and prior art of record, and adopt it as our own for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579 (approving the determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art by appeal to the references of record).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under that standard, we give the words of a claim their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by one skilled in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Id. at 1312–13. Only terms in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See 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)). Petitioner argues that “[n]o terms need construction because the claims read on the prior art identified below under any construction consistent with Phillips.” Pet. 14–15. Based on the record before us, we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the issues presented at this stage of the proceeding.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Based on the current record, Petitioner sufficiently establishes for the purposes of institution that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Piepho and Polinski in the manner Petitioner proposes and further demonstrates that the combination discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. 3. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, Petitioner establishes a reasonable likelihood of proving that the combination of Piepho and Polinski renders claim 1 obvious. We have also reviewed Petitioner’s arguments addressing claims 2–8. See Pet. 31–40. Based on our review of the current record, Petitioner also establishes a reasonable likelihood of proving that claims 2–8 would have been obvious over Piepho and Polinski.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“and Piepho renders claim 1 obvious. For each limitation in claim 1, Petitioner points to specific portions of the references that support its position that the combination discloses the limitations in question. See Pet. 16–31. Petitioner also cites to declarant testimony addressing the limitations. Id. (citing Ex. 1002). In support of its combination of Polinski and Piepho, Petitioner argues that both references disclose “gyratory rock crusher[s],” “Piepho further teaches the interchangeability between a cylindrical joint and a tapered joint,” and one of ordinary skill in the art (a “POSITA”) would have been motivated to combine Piepho’s tapered joint with Polinski. Id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 80–81; Ex. 1015, 1010; Ex. 1016, 3:24–35). According to Petitioner, “Piepho teaches the interchangeability between a cylindrical joint and a tapered joint” and “a POSITA would understand the advantages afforded by the use of a tapered joint as compared with a cylindrical joint,” including the fact that “tapered interference joints, while more expensive to manufacture, provide[] advantages in assembly, alignment, and fit-up.” Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 80–81).” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,827,568 - PTAB · Mar 18, 2025 · IPR2024-01381 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–14 based on a reasonable likelihood that the Polinski, Piepho, and Harless combination renders claim 1 obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314. Under § 314, an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the challenged claims in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Because we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable, we institute an inter partes review of all claims as challenged in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) relating to the ’090 patent would have had “a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or a related field, and at least 2 years of experience with industrial equipment design and development.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 29). Petitioner also contends that one of ordinary skill “may also have a combination of more formal education and less work experience or a combination of less/different formal education and more work experience.” Id. Patent Owner states that, for purposes of its Preliminary Response, it “does not object to Petitioner’s position on the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 27). At this stage, and based on Petitioner’s undisputed contentions, we view Petitioner’s definition as consistent with the problems and solutions disclosed in the ’090 patent and prior art of record, and adopt it as our own for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579 (approving the determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art by appeal to the references of record).” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), we apply the claim construction standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under that standard, we give the words of a claim their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by one skilled in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Id. at 1312–13. Only terms in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See 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)). Petitioner argues that “[n]o terms need construction because the claims read on the prior art identified below under any construction consistent with Phillips.” Pet. 10–11. Patent Owner “submits that the Board need not construe any claim terms as the claims are patentable under any reasonable construction.” Prelim. Resp. 20. Based on the record before us, we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the issues presented at this stage of the proceeding.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s combination of Polinski and Piepho, but instead argues that no motivation to combine exists because Harless “would render both Polinski and Piepho inoperable for their intended purpose of preventing shaft failure.” Prelim. Resp. 22–31 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 48–59). When addressing intended purpose, Patent Owner argues that “Polinski mitigates shaft fatigue failure . . . specifically by omitting threads that are typically cut into gyratory shafts to attach a crusher mantle.” Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1017, 1:61–67). Patent Owner asserts that Polinski instead teaches that shaft stress can be reduced “by cutting threads into a bearing sleeve.” Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1017, 1:1–67). Piepho, according to Patent Owner, seeks a similar goal: “to prevent fretting wear and corresponding fatigue,” by “coating a portion of the shaft fit into a yoke bushing (which Petitioner alleges is a sleeve) with a ceramic coating.” Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1007, 2:15–25; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 42–43). Patent Owner argues that introducing Harless’s groove onto the main shaft would undermine the purposes of Piepho and Polinski because these would “introduce stress concentrations,” “lead to increased fretting wear,” and “increase the likelihood of fatigue failure.” Id. at 24–29. Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner’s approach relies on impermissible hindsight because one of ordinary skill would not seek to rely on Harless’s grooved shaft for use in “mounting of gears and similar components” rather than “for crushing applications, much less in a gyratory crusher, as claimed.” Id. at 30. According to Patent Owner, Harless fails to disclose “that its shaft is subjected to the same substantial stresses generated by the cyclic loading as the shafts disclosed by Polinski and Piepho.” Id. As to Petitioner’s argument that a POSITA would be motivated to make the combination to simplify the equipment and process for interference fits, Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner impermissibly picks and chooses aspects of the three references” and ignores what they teach to a POSITA, namely that “Polinski and Piepho are both directed to mitigating shaft fatigue” and adding Harless’s oil groove introduces several problems, as noted above. Id. at 31 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 48–59). Based on the current record, Petitioner sufficiently establishes for the purposes of institution that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Piepho, Polinski, and Harless in the manner Petitioner proposes. Notably, Patent Owner does not directly contest Petitioner’s stated reasons why a POSITA would be motivated to make the proposed combination, i.e., that the combination would save money and simplify the equipment and process for making and breaking interference fits. See Pet. 19–21; Prelim. Resp. 22–31. Patent Owner instead suggests that Petitioner improperly ignores disadvantages when adding Harless’s groove to Polinski and Piepho, which at best suggests a weighing between the advantages Petitioner contends the addition of Harless’s groove provides and the alleged disadvantages. See Prelim. Resp. 22–31. While Patent Owner’s arguments may ultimately prevail, given the highly factual nature of the competing expert testimony and the weighing necessary to resolve this issue, we view the issues as best resolved after further development during trial and after Petitioner has the opportunity to respond to Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence. On this record and at this stage of the proceeding, Petitioner’s arguments and supportive declarant testimony adequately establishes a motivation to combine the references.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,014,090 - Permian Global Inc. / Manticore Fuels, LLC v. Fuel Automation Station, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 26, 2025 · IPR2023-01236 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable as obvious; the Board did not reach the alternative Van Vliet, Shoap, and Hosecraft ground for claims 12–13.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Permian submits that one skilled in the art would have had either: (1) a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Petroleum Engineering or an equivalent field as well as at least 2 years of academic or industry experience in the oil and gas industry, including well drilling, completion, or production, or (2) at least four years of industry experience in the oil and gas industry including well drilling, completion, or production. Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 75–78). FAS responds that it “does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 11. Permian’s proposed definition appears consistent with the 1 US 2011/0197988 A1, published Aug. 18, 2011 (Ex. 1004, “Van Vliet”). 2 COXREELS, INC., Coxreels 1125 Series “Competitor” Hand Crank and Motorized Hose Reels, https://web.archive.org/web/20140408035634/ http://www.coxreels.com/products/hand-crank/1125-series, published Apr. 08, 2014 (Ex. 1005, “Coxreels”). 3 US 7,819,345 B2, issued Oct. 26, 2010 (Ex. 1006, “Shoap”). 4 HOSECRAFT USA, Clamps Accessories, https://web.archive.org/web/ 20130702084457/http:/www.hosecraftusa.com/accessory-category/ Hose_Clamps, published July 2, 2013 (Ex. 1007, “Hosecraft”). problems and solutions described in the challenged patent and the prior art of record. As such, we adopt the level of skill in the art as defined by Permian.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Here, the specification of the ’118 patent does not suggest that the tube and sleeve are anything but physically separate and distinct structures— [T]he tube 62 may be a flexible elastomeric tube and the sleeve 64 may be a flexible fabric sleeve. The sleeve 64 is generally loosely arranged around the tube 62, although the sleeve 64 may closely fit on the tube 62 to prevent substantial slipping of the sleeve 64 relative to the tube 62 during use and handling. * * * In this example, the [sensor communication] line 66 is routed 40 through the hose 40 between (radially) the tube 62 and the sleeve 64. The sleeve 64 thus serves to secure and protect the line 66, and the sleeve 64 may limit spill and spewing if there is a hose 40 rupture. Ex. 1001, 5:21–44. Those descriptions in the specification—(1) that the tube and sleeve are made of different materials, one being “elastomeric” and the other “fabric,” (2) that the sleeve is “arranged around” the tube, (3) that a sensor line is routed “between” the tube and sleeve, and (4) that the sleeve “limit[s]” spillage in the event a rupture in the tube—clearly support that the tube and sleeve are physically separate structures such that the sleeve serves as a protective cover for the tube. Nowhere do we discern, nor does Permian explain, where the specification indicates that the tube and sleeve might also be one and the same structure. Thus, in light of the specification, we maintain that the only reasonable construction is that the tube and sleeve, as recited in claims 5, 10, and 15, are separate and distinct structures.” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with FAS. Although indisputably the schematic of Van Vliet’s fuel delivery system shows the flow passage running through manifolds 36, 38 and hoses 24, nowhere do we discern that Van Vliet definitively discloses or otherwise suggests that the flow passage runs through reels 30, as required by claim 1. Indeed, even Permian’s expert acknowledges that Van Vliet’s schematic “is a high-level representation and is not intended to depict the physical appearance or form” of the various components. Ex. 1003 ¶ 112 n.146. At best, Van Vliet discloses that “hoses 24 are preferably stored on reels 30,” but is otherwise silent insofar as any flow stream or passage running through the reels. Ex. 1004 ¶ 15 (emphasis added). Indeed, in order for the reel to be a part of the system’s fluid stream, there would need to be some disclosure or suggestion in Van Vliet that hose 24 is actually connected to the reel as opposed to being merely stored on the reel. But there is no such disclosure. To the contrary, Van Vliet explains that “each hose 24 is connected to a fuel outlet 22 by a dry connection 60 and to a cap 26 by a dry connection 62.” Id. ¶ 22 (emphases added). In other words, the flow stream through Van Vliet’s hose 24 cannot be connected to reel 30 if the ends of the hose are connected to dry connections 60 and 62, which indisputably are not part of the reel. Thus, we reject the notion that Van Vliet’s reel 30 is “part of a single fluid stream that includes manifolds 36/38, fluid outlet 22, and hose 24,” as Permian surmises from simply looking at Van Vliet’s schematic. See Pet. Reply 3–4. As such, we find that Permian fails to demonstrate that Van Vliet’s discloses or otherwise suggests a flow passage “running through a respective one of the reels” or being connected “via a respective one of the reels,” as required by claim elements 1(e) and 1(f).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We disagree that one skilled in the art would have deemed Coxreels’s teachings to be unsuitable or unacceptable for Van Vliet’s fuel delivery system. In our view, FAS’s unsuitability argument focuses improperly on the physical incorporation into Van Vliet’s system of every component and material described in Coxreels. But the test for obviousness is whether “a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention,” not whether the physical features of one reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of another reference. See Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Indeed, whether one reference can be incorporated in another is “basically irrelevant” since the test for obviousness asks only “whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole.” In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). Here, rather than relying on every feature of Coxreels, Permian makes clear that it is relying on Coxreels’s teaching of “a reel for storing hoses that has a built-in ‘fluid path.’” Pet. 36–38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 149–152). More specifically, according to Permian, one skilled in the art “would have recognized advantages of the flow passage in Coxreels’ reels (e.g., ‘a non-crimping, flat smooth hose wrap’) to facilitate connection to the manifolds and hoses of Van Vliet’s system.” Pet. Reply 7. Thus, FAS’s argument of physical incorporation of an ancillary feature of Coxreels’s reel is irrelevant to Permian’s reliance on incorporating Coxreels’s teaching of a built-in flow passage running through a hose reel with Van Vliet’s system that already includes flow path connections suitable for diesel fuel. Moreover, “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 10,815,118 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 10,815,118 - Permian Global Inc. / Manticore Fuels, LLC v. Fuel Automation Station, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 26, 2025 · IPR2023-01237 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–22 are unpatentable as obvious over Van Vliet and Cable because the combination teaches the claimed arrangement, and the secondary-consideration evidence does not outweigh that showing.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Permian proposes that one skilled in the art would have had either: (1) a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Petroleum Engineering or an equivalent field and at least 2 years of academic or industry experience in the oil and gas industry, including well drilling, completion, or production, or (2) at least four years of industry experience in the oil and gas industry including well drilling, completion, or production. Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 105). FAS responds that it “does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 11. 1 US 2011/0197988 A1, published Aug. 18, 2011 (Ex. 1004, “Van Vliet”). 2 US 3,810,487, issued May 14, 1974 (Ex. 1005, “Cable”). 3 AFD PETROLEUM LTD., AFD Onsite Refueling Systems, http://web.archive.org/web/20150922012312/https://www.afdpetroleum.com /fuel/onsite_refuelling (Sept. 22, 2015), published Sep. 22, 2015 (Ex. 1007, “AFD”). 4 COXREELS, INC., Coxreels 1125 Series “Competitor” Hand Crank and Motorized Hose Reels, https://web.archive.org/web/20140408035634/ http://www.coxreels.com/products/hand-crank/1125-series, published Apr. 08, 2014 (Ex. 1008, “Coxreels”). 5 US 2018/0057348 A1, published Mar. 1, 2018 (Ex. 1006, “Lowrie”). Permian’s proposed definition appears consistent with the problems and solutions described in the challenged patent and the prior art of record. As such, we adopt the level of skill in the art as defined by Permian.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Permian applies “the ordinary and customary meanings of the claims terms,” and, thus, maintains that “[e]xpress constructions are not required here.” Pet. 20–21. FAS likewise submits that “no constructions are necessary in order to resolve the issues at hand and that the claim terms be given their ordinary and customary meanings.” PO Resp. 8. The specification and prosecution history of the ’805 patent, as well as the asserted prior art, adequately inform us as to the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim terms. Thus, we need not construe any claim terms expressly, as we can decide patentability without further construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (approving Board decision not to construe claim language where construction is not material to controversy).” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Though Cable and Van Vliet may have some different concerns and focuses, the mere existence of such differences does not alone negate Permian’s reason to combine Van Vliet and Cable. In fact, it is expected that different references would have different concerns and focuses. But, [w]hen a work is available in one field, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or in another. If a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement a predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so, § 103 likely bars its patentability. Moreover, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person’s skill. A court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. KSR, 550 U.S. at 401. Here, FAS does not contend that Van Vliet and Cable are in meaningfully different fields, but merely identifies several differences in focus and application. That is not enough to defeat Permian’s reason for the asserted combination. As Permian’s expert credibly testifies, one skilled in the art would consider that “[i]ncorporating Cable’s . . . reel configuration into Van Vliet’s mobile fuel delivery system would merely involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 140.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“focus and application. That is not enough to defeat Permian’s reason for the asserted combination. As Permian’s expert credibly testifies, one skilled in the art would consider that “[i]ncorporating Cable’s . . . reel configuration into Van Vliet’s mobile fuel delivery system would merely involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 140.” slip op. at 13
Patent outcomesUS 9,586,805 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,586,805 - Permian Global Inc. / Manticore Fuels, LLC v. Fuel Automation Station, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 26, 2025 · IPR2023-01238 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: claims 1–5, 11, and 12 as obvious over Van Vliet and Cable; claims 6–10 and 14–20 as obvious over combinations including LCR references; and claim 13 as obvious over Van Vliet, …
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner notes the discrepancies between these two levels of skill and argues for that of Petitioner’s declarant. PO Resp. 10–13. Petitioner does not respond to Patent Owner’s arguments. See generally, Reply. We are persuaded, on the present record, that Petitioner’s declarant’s proposal is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’955 patent and prior art of record. We adopt this definition of the level of skill for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“We construe “those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Here, though the parties dispute the construction of certain claim terms (see PO Resp. 13–16; Reply 1–4; Sur-reply 1–3), resolution of these disputes is unnecessary to resolve the present controversy.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“Differences in [Cable and Van Vliet’s] exemplary applications would not have discouraged a POSITA from combining their teachings. Reply 8. And: a POSITA is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” and would consider Cable’s arrangement of equipment and reel components potentially useful in Vliet. See EX1003, ¶¶172-175; KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (cannot assume “that a [POSITA] attempting to solve a problem will be led only to those elements of prior art designed to solve the same problem”). Id. at 9. We agree. Though the inventors of Cable and Van Vliet may have had different concerns and focuses, this does not negate Petitioner’s argument that the combination is a simple substitution with predictable results. In fact, it is expected that different references would have different concerns and focuses. But, this fact does not of itself render the combination non-obvious. The Supreme Court’s guidance in KSR is instructive as to why Petitioner has the better argument. When a work is available in one field, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or in another. If a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement a predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so, § 103 likely bars its patentability. Moreover, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person's skill. A court use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 10,974,955 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,974,955 - PTAB · Feb 25, 2025 · IPR2024-01294 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 12, 25, and 26 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is anticipated by Zwinkels.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“3. Conclusion Regarding Claim 1 Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to claim 1 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Zwinkels. D. Remaining Claims of Ground 1 and Grounds 2 and 3 The threshold for institution is a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing as to any single claim. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). “Once that single claim threshold is satisfied, it doesn’t matter whether the [P]etitioner is likely to prevail on any additional claims.” SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (2018). Thus, because we have decided to grant review of claim 1, we do the same for all claims challenged and all grounds raised. Id.; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”). III. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in establishing that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that the Petition is granted and inter partes review is hereby instituted as to claims 1, 12, 25, and 26 of U.S. Patent No. 10,434,394 B2 on the grounds presented; and” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“to move forwardly and rearwardly relative to the frame. Pet. 33–38. For example, paragraph 20, as cited by Petitioner, discloses that the rollers “are movably suspended in the frame in vertical direction, wherein the suspension of said roll or rollers is arranged to convert relative horizontal movements of the roll or rollers into vertical movements thereby compensating and/or attenuating said horizontal movements by gravity.” Ex. 1004 ¶20 (cited at Pet. 34). Further, Zwinkels attributes the forward and rearward movement to the use of the bicycle by the person exercising on it. See Ex. 1004 ¶27 (describing the “horizontal movements induced by the accelerations and decelerations of the training cyclist”) (cited at Pet. 35). Petitioner also cites multiple figures that illustrate forward and rearward movement. Pet. 35–37 (reproducing Ex. 1004, Figs. 3, 5, and 6). There is a reasonable likelihood Zwinkels teaches “wherein the movable interconnection of the upper member with the lower member is configured to enable the upper member to move forwardly and rearwardly in the fore-aft direction relative to the lower member in response to fore-aft forces that are transferred to the upper member from the item of exercise equipment in response to use of the item of exercise equipment,” as recited in claim 1. e) “wherein the movable interconnection of the upper member with the lower member is further configured to provide upward and downward movement of the upper member relative to the support surface during movement of the upper member forwardly and rearwardly in the fore-aft direction relative to the lower member.” Petitioner argues that Zwinkels’s pendulum arms 6 enable the rollers to move upward and downward relative to the frame while the rollers are also moving forwardly and rearwardly relative to the frame. Pet. 39–42. For example, paragraph 24, as cited by Petitioner, discloses that the pendulum arms connecting the rollers at fixed pivoting points on the frame “provides an easy and effective solution for absorbing and attenuating horizontal movements by converting these horizontal movements to vertical movements.” Ex. 1004 ¶24 (cited at Pet. 39). Petitioner also reproduces Figures 5 and 6, which illustrate the displacement of rollers in both the vertical and horizontal directions. Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1004, Figs. 5–6). Figure 5 is reproduced below. Figure 5, reproduced above, “shows the embodiment in which there are two rollers 4 for the bicycle back wheel.” Ex. 1004 ¶34. Figure 5 shows two configurations of the embodiment on left and right sides. Ex. 1004 ¶34, Fig. 5. The configuration “at the left of FIG. 5 shows the pendulum arms 6 in a resting position, whereas the [configuration] on the right shows the pendulum arms 6 after they have due to the connecting link 7 concertedly moved to the right due to a force FH, causing that the rollers 4 have moved vertically upwards.” Ex. 1004 ¶34. There is a reasonable likelihood Zwinkels teaches “wherein the movable interconnection of the upper member with the lower member is further configured to provide upward and downward movement of the upper member relative to the support surface during movement of the upper member forwardly and rearwardly in the fore-aft direction relative to the lower member,” as recited in claim 1. f) “wherein the upper member is oriented parallel to the support surface plane during movement of the upper member relative to the lower member in the fore-aft direction and during upward and downward movement of the upper member relative to the support surface” Petitioner argues that Zwinkels’s rollers are oriented parallel to the ground or floor at all times. Pet. 42–44. Petitioner argues that this is clearly shown in Figure 5, which we reproduced in the immediate section above. See Pet. 43 (citing and annotating Ex. 1004, Fig. 5). We agree. There is a reasonable likelihood Zwinkels teaches “wherein the upper member is oriented parallel to the support surface plane during movement of the upper member relative to the lower member in the fore-aft direction and during upward and downward movement of the upper member relative to the support surface,” as recited in claim 1. 3. Conclusion Regarding Claim 1 Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to claim 1 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Zwinkels.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“1. Zwinkels (Ex. 1004) Zwinkels was filed November 4, 2010, and published June 9, 2011. Ex. 1004, codes (22), (43). Petitioner argues that, based on its filing date, “Zwinkels is thus prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).” Pet. 15. On the record presented, we agree. In addition, the current record supports that, based on its publication date, Zwinkels is prior art also under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner does not propose an express construction of any term of claim 1. See Pet. 14 (“Petitioner submits that for the purposes of this proceeding, the terms of the challenged claims should be given their plain and ordinary meaning, and no terms require specific construction.”). At this stage of the proceeding, we discern no need to provide an express construction of any term of any claim.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 10,434,394
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.