- Nespresso USA, Inc. v. K-Fee System GmbHInstitutedPTAB · Jun 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00299 · APJ James J Mayberry · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–8 based on a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Yoakim, Jarisch ’929, Rossi, and Rapparini.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“institute review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023) (permitting the Board to institute trial on behalf of the Director). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least [one] of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the Petition, Preliminary Response, and evidence of record, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in engineering plus five years of experience in design of mechanical beverage systems, or similar products, and experience with sensors for recognizing an identifier.” Pet. 16 (referencing Ex. 1003 ¶ 40; IPR2022-01574, Paper 12, 15). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s characterization of the level of ordinary skill in the art of the ’910 patent. For purposes of this Decision, based on the prior art, the sophistication of the technology at issue, and Mr. Jobin’s Declaration testimony, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the level of ordinary skill. The ’901 patent, as well as the prior art of record, includes systems that use identifiers on a capsule to control the operation of a beverage machine. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:28–34 (“[T]he present invention . . . has an identifier, which allows to individualize the respective portion capsule.”); Ex. 1004 ¶ 25 (discussing the system’s “identification means”); Ex. 1006 ¶ 1 (“The present invention relates in particular to coding supports adapted to store information related to a capsule, capsules associated with/for embedding coding supports, reading and processing arrangements for reading and using such information for preparing a beverage.”); Ex. 1041, code (57) (“The process for controlling the operation of an edible-product making machine [includes] . . . recogni[zing] an” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under this standard, claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“We have frequently stated that the words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.’” (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artOther
“a) Petitioner’s contentions Petitioner contends that Yoakim, Jarisch ’929, Rossi, and Rapparini are “analogous art in the field of portion capsule beverage extraction, each disclosing an invention that may be applied in automatic coffee/expresso machines.” Pet. 37 (referencing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 2, 3; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 1, 2; Ex. 1008 ¶ 1; Ex. 1041, 3; Ex. 1003 ¶ 220); cf. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“References within the statutory terms of 35 U.S.C. § 102 qualify as prior art for an obviousness determination only when analogous to the claimed invention.”). Patent Owner does not dispute this contention at this stage of the proceeding.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,554,910 - PTAB · Jun 24, 2024 · IPR2024-00380 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–5, 7, and 9–14 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDecided for petitioner
“because they are premised on a misapplication of our precedent. Providing a document to the Office in an Information Disclosure Statement is sufficient to satisfy AB prong one as long as that “previously presented” art is “the same or substantially the same” as that presented in the Petition. See Advanced Bionics, 7–8 (holding that “[p]reviously presented art includes . . . art provided to the Office by an applicant, such as on an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), in the prosecution history of the challenged patent”). As we have already found, there are no material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination under BD factor (a). Petitioner provides no authority that requires us to interpret “involved during examination” under BD factor (a) as “used in a rejection” or “mentioned by the examiner” (Pet. 60), and we are aware of none. Patent Owner’s position, in that regard, appears to conflate the first AB prong (whether the art previously was presented to the Office) with an aspect of the second AB prong (the extent to which the Examiner considered that art).” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“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). The findings and conclusions set forth in this Decision are provided for the exclusive purpose of explaining our determination that Petitioner has met that standard on this record. slip op. at 6
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in a field such as chemistry, physics, or chemical engineering, as well as at least two years of experience with plasma-polymerization techniques.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 22–29). Patent Owner does not propose a different level of skill in the art at this stage of the proceeding. See Prelim. Resp., generally. On this record, we determine that the level of ordinary skill is reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (specific findings on the ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163–64 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). A more specific definition is not necessary for purposes of deciding whether to institute review. To the extent a more specific definition is required, however, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed unchallenged definition because, on this record, it is consistent with the disclosures of the asserted prior art references.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner asserts that the claimed term “aryl” should be construed to mean “an aromatic ring system.” See Pet. 20–23. Patent Owner does not propose a different claim construction at this stage of the proceeding. See Prelim. Resp., generally. After review of the preliminary record, we determine that no claim terms need to be construed for purposes of institution. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,041,087 - Nespresso USA, Inc. v. K-Fee System GmbHInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00239 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–20 would have been obvious over either asserted combination.
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). The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any of claims 1–20 of the ’094 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“The express language of the claim, however, does not support using the “central axis” as the measuring point for determining if one object is laterally offset from another. For example, the term “central axis” is not used in the relevant claim phrase and the dictionary definitions of “lateral” relied upon by Petitioner and Mr. Jobin to show the ordinary meaning of the claim term do not suggest that the “central axis” is the reference point for determining whether a first object is “laterally offset” from a second object. As such, we determine that the claim language supports Patent Owner’s construction requiring that the “groove” be “off to the side” of the entire mandrel, and not merely the “central axis” of the mandrel. Prelim. Resp. 54. We must also resolve whether the entire groove is required to be laterally offset from the chamfered mandrel, or only a portion of it. On this point, the claims do not use the term “portion,” but rather specify that the “groove” is “laterally offset from the chamfered mandrel.” Ex. 1001, 14:4– 5, 15:19–20. This suggests that the entire “groove” must be offset from the “chamfered mandrel.”” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“That argument, however, does not explain why it would have been obvious to laterally offset the groove of Yoakim from the chamfered mandrel. Rather, as demonstrated by Mr. Jobin’s testimony, this argument relates to the general use of a sealing member in a groove, to the extent it was ultimately determined that such a configuration is not expressly disclosed in Yoakim. Id.; Ex. 1003 ¶ 296 (“It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to position a sealing member in a groove to solidify the between counter-force portion 161 and engaging portion 157 in Figure 35 of Yoakim is more appropriately identified as the claimed “groove.” Prelim. Resp. 60–61. We need not resolve this issue, however, as Petitioner does not persuasively demonstrate that either potential “groove” is “laterally offset” from the chamfered mandrel. placement of the seal and improve its sealing stability and strength. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize a groove and seal configuration in the brewing head . . . .”) (emphasis added). Even if we interpret the recited portion of the Petition as an argument for placing the groove entirely to the side of the mandrel in Yoakim, the Petition does not persuasively explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to do so. In Figure 35 of Yoakim, the seal and groove, as well as an elastic loading means, act as a valve means to control the level of pressure exerted in the capsule and “optimize interaction of water and the ground coffee particles to obtain a good extraction of the coffee and aroma compounds.” Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 370–372, 382, 396–398, 434–436, 445; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 286–290; Pet. 63. These are the same beneficial properties relied upon by Petitioner to support the proposed combination, and Petitioner does not persuasively explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Yoakim in order to achieve results that are already obtained in the identified embodiment. Pet. 63. In view of the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 12 would have been obvious over the combined disclosures of Yoakim, Jarisch 929, and Rossi.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,542,094 - PTAB · May 24, 2024 · IPR2023-00861 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Remand
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable under any asserted ground.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“Accordingly, the Director instructed us to “determine whether Petitioner has demonstrated that Figure 1 of Godefroy ‘is clear on its face’ or would have reasonably suggested the placement of Godefroy’s sacrificial anode ‘within 10 inches’ of the hot liquid inlet.” Id. at 9. “In making this determination,” the Director instructed us to “consider whether the expert testimony provides sufficient ‘technical detail, explanation, or statements supporting why the expert determines that the feature in question was required or would have been obvious based on the prior art disclosure.’” Id. In addition, although the Director’s decision “is limited to [our] application of Hockerson to the grounds in the Petition involving Godefroy,” the Director instructed us also to “consider what effect, if any, this decision has on the other asserted grounds.” Id. Finally, the Director instructed us to “set forth [our] interpretation” of “the limitation ‘within 10 inches of a hot liquid inlet to the radiator.’” Id. at 8 n.4.” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“original decision, the Director’s decision, and the evidence currently of record, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any challenged claim based on any ground asserted in the Petition. IV. ORDER For the reasons given, it is: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, the Petition is denied, and no inter partes review is instituted.” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“evidence. The challenged claims require that a sacrificial anode be placed within a certain distance—10 inches—of the hot liquid inlet, and, because the inlet has some non-zero size, it might be possible for an anode to be within that distance from some parts, but not from all parts, of the inlet. Accordingly, specifying the center axis of the inlet as the point from which to measure the distance to the anode improves on the plain words of the claim in terms of achieving the claim’s objective of placing the anode within a specified distance of the inlet. Moreover, when discussing the distance from the inlet to the anode, the specification of the ’494 patent uses the language “within 10 inches in any direction of the center axis of the inlet connection.” Ex. 1001, 7:61–64. Thus, the intrinsic evidence supports adopting Petitioner’s claim construction. Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Medlin, relies on Petitioner’s proposed construction. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 20 (noting that the construction “within 10 inches of the center axis of [a] hot liquid inlet” “ha[s] been adopted by Petitioner”), 96 (“the sacrificial anodes contained in each of the turbulators 2 would be placed within 10 inches of a center axis of a hot liquid inlet to the radiator of Tomosada”), 144 (“A POSITA would understand from Figure 1 that the sacrificial anode 14 is within 10 inches of a center axis of a hot liquid inlet”), 267 (“These teachings would further motivate a POSITA to located the sacrificial anode 12 within 10 inches of a center axis of the hot liquid inlet.”). This support for Petitioner’s proposed construction provides further reason for us to adopt it. Because it is supported by the intrinsic evidence of record, because Patent Owner proposes no alternative construction, and because Petitioner’s expert supports it, we adopt the construction of “within 10 inches of a hot liquid inlet to the radiator” that Petitioner proposes. Thus, we construe this term as “within 10 inches of the center axis of a hot liquid inlet to the radiator.” In other words, when discussing the distance between a hot liquid inlet and a sacrificial anode, we interpret “hot liquid inlet” as “center axis of the hot liquid inlet.”” slip op. at 5
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Inherency may be relied upon in arguing either anticipation or obviousness. Schering, 339 F.3d at 1377 (applying inherency in an anticipation context); Par Pharma. Inc. v. TWI Pharma., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1195–96 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (applying inherency in an obviousness context). In both cases, however, “[t]he mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Instead, “the limitation at issue necessarily must be present, or the natural result of the combination of elements expressly disclosed by the prior art.” Par Pharma., 773 F.3d at 1195–96. Here, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that, in Godefroy, the sacrificial anode necessarily is placed within 10 inches of the center axis of the hot liquid inlet. Dr. Medlin testifies that Figure 1 of Godefroy shows that “an entirety . . . or at least a significant portion of the sacrificial anode 14, is within 10 inches of a center axis of the inlet.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 144. But we cannot say that Figure 1 of Godefroy is clear on its face, or reasonably suggests, that this is necessarily the case. There are no dimensions shown on Figure 1, so it is unclear from the figure what the diameter of pipe 12 is. If that diameter is larger than 20 inches, then it simply is untrue that “sacrificial anode 14 is . . . necessarily placed within 10 inches of a center axis of a hot liquid inlet to the radiator,” as Dr. Medlin testifies. Id. ¶ 361. As noted above, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Medlin relies on the hot liquid inlet of Godefroy having any particular diameter, and Godefroy is silent as to the diameter of its inlet. Pet. 69–70; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 144, 359–361, 381–382, 406–408; Ex. 1008, 1–15. Moreover, as Patent Owner notes, there is a wide range of sizes of radiators, including automobile radiators, available. Prelim. Resp. 3–5; Exs. 2001–2003. In the absence of any testimony or other evidence that tends to show that radiator inlet pipes necessarily have diameters less than 20 inches, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the diameter of Godefroy’s inlet pipe is small enough to ensure that any portion of the anode necessarily is within 10 inches of the center axis of the inlet.” slip op. at 11
Claim constructioncites Phillips - Canon U.S.A., Inc. / Canon Inc. v. Slingshot Printing LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 20, 2024 · IPR2022-01541 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7, 9, 10, 20–22, and 24 are unpatentable as obvious over Hamafuku, Whitman, and Imanaka, with Cleland added for claim 5.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Upon review of the prior art of record, we determine that no claim terms require construction for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Upon review of the prior art of record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the prior art of record, but note that neither party contends the outcome of this case depends on whether a person of ordinary skill could include an individual with a degree in Materials Science.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“In this case, there was a known desire to increase nozzle pitch in inkjet printheads, Imanaka’s heater and nozzle configuration had been used in the art to achieve this goal, and there is no suggestion that combining the teachings of Hamafuku, Whitman, and Imanaka was beyond the skill of an ordinarily skilled artisan. See Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Thus, we credit the testimony of Mr. Curley that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to use Imanaka’s heater and nozzle pitch in Hamafuku in order to provide a more compact and higher density printhead. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 404–05. A conclusion of obviousness requires a reasonable expectation of success. Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This inquiry asks whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of combining the references to achieve what is claimed in the patent-at-issue. Id. at 1367. The inquiry does not look to whether unclaimed elements or functions would or would not also be achieved, or whether “one would reasonably expect the prior art reference to operate as those references intended once combined.” Id.” slip op. at 42
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“As noted by Patent Owner, the components of Imanaka are made of silicon-based materials, manufactured using thin film technology. PO Resp. 53–54 (citing Ex. 1008, 6:50–61). We are not persuaded, however, that Imanaka’s preference for silicon-based materials would teach away from, or otherwise discourage, one of ordinary skill in the art from combining Hamafuku, Whitman, and Imanaka. Imanaka does not suggest that failure to use silicon-based materials would result in an inoperable device. Rather, Imanaka states that use of silicon-based materials may “improve the mechanical characteristics” and “reliability” of “the liquid discharge head.” Ex. 1008, 6:50–61. Given the considerable increase in printhead nozzle pitch and print resolution provided by Imanaka’s heater and nozzle pitch configuration, we are not persuaded that a failure to capture the same improvement in mechanical characteristics and reliability from the use of silicon-based materials would prevent one of ordinary skill in the art from implementing Imanaka’s nozzle pitch in Hamafuku and Whitman or counsel against this modification.” slip op. at 41
Patent outcomesUS 7,152,951 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,152,951 - Micron Technology, Inc. v. Katana Silicon Technologies LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00071 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 3–5, 8, 11, 20–22, 27–29, 31, and 33 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of prior art and skilled-artisan knowledge.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“On the fully developed record, we find that Petitioner’s construction, “a layer that adheres,” is more strongly supported by the evidence than Patent Owner’s construction, “a pre-formed layer that is adhered.” Our analysis begins with the claim language. The term “adhesion layer” appears in each of the ’806 patent’s independent claims, which include both method and device claims. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 13:44–63 (claim 1 directed to a “semiconductor device”); id. at 17:58–18:17 (claim 30 directed to a “method of manufacturing a semiconductor device”). Claim 1 recites “a first semiconductor chip having a first adhesion layer adhered to its back surface” and “a second semiconductor chip having a second adhesion layer adhered to its back surface.” Id. at 13:49–51, 13:54–56 (emphasis added). Claim 30 recites the steps of “forming a first insulating adhesion layer on a back surface of a first wafer” and “forming a second insulating adhesion layer on a back surface of a second wafer.” Id. at 17:60–62, 18:3–5 (emphases added). In the absence of contrary evidence, we must assume that the term “adhesion layer” has the same meaning in all claims of the ’806 patent. In re Varma, 816 F.3d 1352, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“the principle that the same phrase in different claims of the same patent should have the same meaning is a strong one, overcome only if ‘it is clear’ that the same phrase has different meanings in different claims,” quoting Fin Control Sys. Pty, Ltd. v. OAM, Inc., 265 F.3d 1311, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). The language of claim 30 and similarly worded claims of the ’806 patent suggests strongly that an “adhesion layer” may be formed in situ on the back surface of a wafer and need not be pre-formed, as argued by Patent Owner. The testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Elenius, supports this interpretation. See Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 43, 50 (testifying that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would recognize that there are multiple methods of forming an ‘adhesion layer’ on the back surface of the semiconductor chip” and that “[p]astes and other adhesives, adhesive agents, adhesive layers or other material that are dispensed onto a substrate or chip back are formed into a layer over time as they harden through curing” (emphasis added)). Thus, the language of claims 30 and 31 does not support Patent Owner’s construction that the “adhesion layer” must be a pre-formed layer that is adhered. Cf. PO Resp. 22–25 (arguing for that construction).” slip op. at 17
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Citing testimony from Dr. Suhling, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the priority date of the ’806 patent would have had i) a bachelor-level degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, material science, or a related subject and five or more years of experience working in the field of semiconductor packaging; ii) a Master’s-level degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, material science, or a related field, and at least 1-3 years of experience in the design/development of semiconductor packages; or iii) a Ph.D.- level degree in mechanical engineering, material science, electrical engineering, or a related field, and at least some experience in the area of semiconductor packaging. Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 28–32). Petitioner further states that “[a]dditional education may substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience may substitute for formal education.” Pet. 18. Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Elenius, states that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical, mechanical or materials engineering and two to three years of experience in the design or development of semiconductor manufacturing, or the equivalent.” Ex. 2014 ¶ 32. Mr. Elenius further states that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. For purposes of this Decision, we find no meaningful differences” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“3. Reasons to Combine Petitioner contends that it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ball’s teachings of stacking chips with Mostafazadeh’s process for applying adhesive to create individual chips with adhesive backsides. Pet. 28–29. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Ball and Mostafazadeh for several reasons, including to provide a more efficient manufacturing process for multichip modules and to simplify the stacking process. Pet. 28–31. Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine Mostafazadeh with Ball because there would have been no reasonable expectation of success and the combination would not have resulted in a functioning semiconductor device. PO Resp. 39. Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner’s combination of Ball and Mostafazadeh would fail for multiple reasons and that Mostafazadeh does not describe multi-chip stacked mounting. Id. at 39–52. Having considered the evidence and arguments, we determine that the preponderance of the evidence favors Petitioner. Petitioner demonstrates persuasively that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasons to combine Ball’s stacked multichip module with Mostafazadeh’s process for applying adhesive at the wafer stage and then dicing to create individual chips with adhesive backsides. Pet. 28–31. In particular, Petitioner shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Mostafazadeh’s teaching of applying the adhesive to a wafer surface and then subsequently dicing the wafer in order to provide a more efficient manufacturing process for multichip modules and to simplify Ball’s process of stacking chips. Id.; see KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (stating that the “mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement” suggests obviousness). The teachings of both Ball and Mostafazadeh support Petitioner’s combination. Ball teaches a stacked multichip module using flip-chip and wire bond interconnections, where a lower chip is flip-chip connected to a substrate using metal bumps, and an upper chip is wire bond connected to the substrate. Ex. 1005, Abstract, 3:42–64, 4:58–59, 5:3–12, 5:18–20, 5:23– 27, Fig. 1. Ball teaches that the upper chip is attached to the lower chip in a back-to-back arrangement with a layer of adhesive applied over a back side of the lower chip. Id. Mostafazadeh teaches a method for applying integrated circuit dies to support surfaces. Ex. 1003, Abstract. In Mostafazadeh’s method, an adhesive coating is formed on a surface of a semiconductor wafer, the adhesive coating is dried, and the semiconductor wafer is diced to form integrated circuit dies, each having an adhesive layer on its mounting surface, i.e., its back surface. Id. at 3:5–11, 5:20–25, 7:9–11, 7:29–8:2, Fig. 2 (steps 104–110). A selected die is then attached to an associated support surface by placing the adhesive layer of the selected die in contact with the associated support surface. Id. at 3:11–13, 8:10–12, Fig. 2 (steps 112–118).” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that Petitioner meets its burden of proof for claim element [3d]. Our finding is supported by Figure 1 of Ball, which depicts a second chip mounted to a first chip in a back-to-back arrangement. Ex. 1002 ¶ 158; Ex. 1005, Fig. 1. More particularly, Ball’s Figure 1 shows that back side 32 of upper die 12 (the claimed “second semiconductor chip”) is mounted to back side 30 of lower die 14 (the claimed “first semiconductor chip”) by adhesion layer 28. Ex. 1005, 5:18–20. Relying on Dr. Suhling’s testimony, Petitioner shows persuasively that “a circuit is formed on the front surface 34 of upper die 12 . . . , as evidenced by bonding pads 36 and wires 38 connecting the upper die’s circuitry to the wiring layer on substrate 16.” Pet. 41; Ex. 1002 ¶ 159. We credit Dr. Suhling’s unrebutted testimony that, “[b]ecause the circuitry is on the front side of upper die 12, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would know that the back surface adhesive layer is ‘where a circuit is not formed.’” Ex. 1002 ¶ 159. Patent Owner argues that, to meet claim elements [3b] and [3d], “a reference must show that an adhesion layer extends to cover the entire back surface of the second semiconductor chip where a circuit is not formed.” PO Resp. 30. We find no support in the claim language or other intrinsic evidence for Patent Owner’s argument. In our view, the phrase “back surface where a circuit is not formed” identifies the back side of the chip as opposed to the front side, where a circuit is formed. Ex. 1001, 14:26–27 (claim element [3d]). Our interpretation is supported by the claim language as a whole. Claim element [3b], for example, recites “a first semiconductor chip having a circuit forming on its front surface and an adhesion layer adhered to its back surface.” Id. at 14:17–19 (emphasis added). In this” slip op. at 47
Patent outcomesUS RE38,806 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR - Micron Technology, Inc. v. Katana Silicon Technologies LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00072 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12–19, 23–26, 30, and 32 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations of prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Although the proposals for the level of skill in the art by the parties’ declarants have differences in wording, we find no meaningful differences between the parties’ respective definitions that would materially alter the outcome of this Decision. Nevertheless, based on our review of the ’806 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’806 patent, and cited prior art, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionGranted
“On the fully developed record, we find that Petitioner’s construction, “a layer that adheres,” is more strongly supported by the evidence than Patent Owner’s construction, “a pre-formed layer that is adhered.”” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner shows persuasively that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Mostafazadeh with Ball and Fogal. Pet. 32–33. The evidence discussed above concerning reasons to combine supports a reasonable expectation of success. We are also persuaded by Dr. Suhling’s testimony that the “combination of Ball, Fogal, and Mostafazadeh would require no modification of the multichip modules in Ball and Fogal: rather Mostafazadeh merely explains in more detail methods known in the art for creating chips with adhesive surfaces.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 239; see also id. ¶¶ 62– 69 (describing prior art methods for applying adhesive to the backside of a wafer). For the foregoing reasons, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully combining Ball, Fogal, and Mostafazadeh.” slip op. at 46
- ExcludeOther
“We do not discuss or cite any of these exhibits in this Decision, or rely on any of them in reaching our determination that all of the challenged claims are unpatentable. Because their presence in the record would not affect our analysis in this Decision, we dismiss as moot Petitioner’s motion with respect to these exhibits.” slip op. at 72
Patent outcomesUS RE38,806 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR - Micron Technology, Inc. v. Katana Silicon Technologies LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00073 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–15 are unpatentable under §103: the Board found the asserted combinations taught the limitations, with motivation to combine and a reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“The claim language, “forming” an “adhesion layer on a back surface,” suggests strongly that an “adhesion layer” may be formed in situ on the back surface of a wafer. The testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Elenius, supports this interpretation. See Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 43, 50 (testifying that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would recognize that there are multiple methods of forming an ‘adhesion layer’ on the back surface of the semiconductor chip” and that “[p]astes and other adhesives, adhesive agents, adhesive layers or other material that are dispensed onto a substrate or chip back are formed into a layer over time as they harden through curing” (emphasis added)). Thus, the language of the claims of the ʼ879 patent does not support Patent Owner’s construction that the “adhesion layer” must be a preformed layer that is adhered. Cf. PO Resp. 21–23 (arguing for that construction).” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“For purposes of this Decision, we find no meaningful differences between the parties’ respective definitions that would materially alter the outcome of this Decision. Nevertheless, based on our review of the ’879 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’879 patent, and cited prior art, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Mostafazadeh, could overflow.” PO Resp. 41, 42 (citing Ex. 2014 ¶ 121). According to Patent Owner, the downward pressure during mounting “could cause adhesive to squeeze out.” Id. at 41. We find that Patent Owner’s argument and the corresponding testimony of Mr. Elenius are speculative and do not outweigh Petitioner’s evidence of obviousness. The overflow issue was recognized and addressed by Mostafazadeh. Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, Mostafazadeh provides explicitly that its adhesive layer “covers an entire mounting surface 190 of the selected integrated circuit dies 182 and does not extend beyond a boundary of the mounting surface 190.” Ex. 1003, 10:6–9 (emphasis added). Additionally, Mostafazadeh teaches that when “the adhesive layer is rolled on, it is exactly the same size as the mounting surface and is quite even. Thus, when the die is attached to its supporting surface the adhesive does not extend beyond the mounting surface of the die.” Id. at 9:15–18. Further, Mostafazadeh teaches that its process avoids the adhesive jutting around the edges of the die. Id. at 2:26–28. These teachings support that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully applying Mostafazadeh’s die attachment method to Ball’s multichip device while avoiding adhesive overflow. Next, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s combination would fail” slip op. at 40
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“preponderance of the evidence favors Petitioner. Petitioner demonstrates persuasively that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasons to combine Ball’s stacked multichip module using flip-chip and wire bond connections with Mostafazadeh’s process for applying adhesive to create individual chips with adhesive backsides. Pet. 25–28. In particular, Petitioner shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Mostafazadeh’s teaching of applying the adhesive to a wafer surface and then subsequently dicing the wafer in order to provide a more efficient manufacturing process for multichip modules and to simplify Ball’s process of stacking chips. Id.; see KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (stating that the “mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement” suggests obviousness). The teachings of both Ball and Mostafazadeh support Petitioner’s” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 6,352,879 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 6,352,879 - Mara Renewables Corporation v. DSM IP Assets, B.V.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 18, 2024 · IPR2024-00070 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–15 were anticipated by Radianingtyas or obvious over either asserted combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that 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 claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons provided below, we determine Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, we deny institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under this standard, we construe the claim term “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.; see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (holding that the words of a claim “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,” which is “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application”). Claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011). On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we see no need to construe any claim term.” slip op. at 6
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not provide a definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. 19. Patent Owner also states that any differences between the parties’ proposed definition of the skill level would not impact its arguments. Id. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the skill level because it is consistent with the prior art’s demonstration of the level of ordinary skill at the relevant time. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“triglyceride, DHA, and heptadecanoic acid content recited therein. In order to anticipate a claim, a prior art reference “must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements arranged as in the claim.” NetMoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quotation marks omitted). A reference, however, can anticipate a claim “even if it does not expressly spell out all the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would at once envisage the claimed arrangement or combination.” Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti, Inc., 878 F.3d 1052, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quotation marks and brackets omitted). As explained below, here, Petitioner has not shown Radianingtyas discloses a microbial oil comprising the required triglyceride, DHA and heptadecanoic acid content. Specifically, although the exemplified strain ONC-T18 produces oil that meets the claimed triglyceride fraction and heptadecanoic acid level, Petitioner has not shown the same oil contains the recited DHA level.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,207,363 - PTAB · Mar 26, 2024 · IPR2023-01382 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–3 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would be unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, we determine the information presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’347 patent on all grounds asserted in the Petition. See SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018); PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (stating that a decision to institute is “a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“had a “at least a four-year degree in electrical engineering, chemical engineering, physics, or material science or a closely related field, and at least two years of experience in semiconductor device design and/or fabrication, including the processing of semiconductor materials, analysis of device operation, or the development of new device topologies.” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 52–53). Petitioner also contends that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience and vice versa.” Pet. 19. Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s definition or offer its own. See generally Prelim. Resp. In light of the record before us, and for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on our review of the ’347 patent and the prior art of record, we determine that the definition offered by Petitioner comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’347 patent and the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”)” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“type gate material of independent claim 1 requires that the “bottom of the ptype gate material is more than 10% wider than the top of the material.” Pet. 19. We begin our analysis with the language of the claims themselves. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. Here, the claims do not recite any numerical degree of horizontal extension, let alone a requirement that the bottom of the p-type gate material must be more than 10% wider than the top of the material. Thus, the plain language of the claims themselves do not support Petitioner’s proposed construction. Of course, the claims do not stand alone, but rather, must be read in view of the specification, of which they are part. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. Petitioner relies on a numerical value for horizontal extension disclosed in Lidow, which is incorporated by reference in the ’347 patent. Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 41–42, Fig. 8; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 70–74). But Lidow’s disclosure of a numerical value (10%) is made in the context of discussing a single embodiment. Ex. 1011 ¶ 41. Lidow does not include a numerical value in its disclosure of other embodiments. See, e.g., Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 43–51.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Again, Patent Owner’s arguments raise issues that are best resolved on a full record. While we do have some concern’s regarding Petitioner’s asserted reasons to combine all of the prior art references, Petitioner has provided sufficient argument and evidence for purposes of institution that a POSITA would have had reason to manufacture the modified Figure 1A of Saxler by using Beach’s self-aligned technique with Shenoy’s isotropic etching process, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 60–62, 93; Ex. 1014 (Xu); Ex. 1021 (Sheppard); Ex. 1015 (Smith); Ex. 1018 (Hu); Ex. 1009 (Shenoy); Widmann (Ex. 1023); Ahn (Ex. 1010); see also Pet. 31–35. For example, Dr. Shealy testifies that a POSITA would have recognized that using Beach’s self-aligned techniques and Shenoy’s isotropic etching process to arrive at Saxler’s non-recessed gate structure would have been a simple and predictable combination in view of Smith’s use of self-alignment techniques to create its stacked gate structure and would have done so to reduce steps and costs while improving reproducibility. Ex. 1003 ¶ 93. We also note that we understand Petitioner’s proposed combination uses a single photomask when etching both the gate metal and the p-type gate material layer, including when etching the gate metal to form a pair of ledges on the p-type gate material below the gate metal. See, e.g., Pet. 48 (stating that it would have been obvious to use one mask to etch the gate metal and cap layer and further stating that using Shenoy’s method of isotropically etching the gate metal would form symmetric undercuts of the photomask). To the extent, the Board’s understanding of Petitioner’s argument is not correct, the parties are urged to address this issue. Finally, Patent Owner asserts that Shenoy is non-analogous art and may not be combined with Saxler or Beach because Shenoy involves electrochemical etching, a highly specialized etching method with little relevance to the process described in the ’347 patent or Saxler. Prelim. Resp. 27.” slip op. at 32
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,748,347
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.