• Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 29, 2023 · IPR2021-01540 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 33, 34, 38, 39, and 43 are unpatentable as obvious over Teshima and SISE, or over Teshima, Butterworth, and SISE.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) . . . would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or similar technical field, with two years of relevant experience in the field of design and/or development of LEDs and circuits in the context of lighting control and networking systems. An increase in experience could compensate for less education. Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 34). Patent Owner states that it “adopts this definition of level of ordinary skill for purposes of this proceeding only.” PO Resp. 5. We are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’842 patent and prior art of record. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill.” slip op. at 6

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

    “We determine that no other terms require construction. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368 (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 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “We find Petitioner’s arguments more persuasive. As a threshold matter, we disagree with Patent Owner that “coated” requires a “thin layer.” We note that Patent Owner did not construe “coated” in its Patent Owner Response, relying only on a single citation to its expert declaration for the proposition that “coated” refers to a “thin layer.” PO Resp. 27 (citing Ex. 2007 ¶ 80). There, Dr. Bretschneider merely cites a dictionary definition without analysis or discussion in support of his testimony that “[c]oating an LED is adding a thin layer or covering to something.” Ex. 2007 ¶ 79. When questioned about this, he testified, “I didn’t equate that [statement in the declaration] to an opinion equivalent to claim construction.” Ex. 1038, 132:2–14. Patent Owner also does not discuss the intrinsic record in support of its implicit claim construction position. Based on our review of the intrinsic record, we can find no special definition or disavowal associated with the term “coated.” We also find Patent Owner’s dictionary definition unhelpful, as the meaning of “thin” layer is unclear. See Ex. 2007 ¶ 79. Moreover, Leung refers to “coating an LED with a phosphor layer” and that “it is often difficult to control the phosphor layer’s geometry and thickness,” which undercuts Patent Owner’s position that a coated layer must be thin. See Ex. 1037 ¶ 8.” slip op. at 26

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner that SISE is analogous art to the ’842 patent. The field of endeavor of the ’842 patent is LED lighting systems. The ’842 patent explains that “LED based lighting may be used for general lighting, specialty lighting, signs, and decoration such as for Christmas tree lighting.” Ex. 1001, 1:66–2:2; see also id. at code (54) (“AC Light Emitting Diode and AC LED Drive Methods and Apparatus”). This is a broad field of endeavor, and we discern no relevant distinction between LED lighting systems that are used to illuminate an area or object and those used to signal information, such as traffic signals. Further, Patent Owner’s arguments here are inconsistent with its arguments in a related proceeding, IPR2021-01369. There, Patent Owner argued that the field of endeavor in a continuation patent of the ’842 patent was “LED lighting systems.” Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Lynk Labs, Inc., IPR2021-01369, Paper 45 at 17 (PTAB Feb. 14, 2023). Here, Patent Owner contends that the ’842 patent’s field of endeavor is “LED lighting systems and specifically circuits for driving LED lighting systems.” PO Resp. 42. As both patents share a common specification and Patent Owner does not explain why it proposes a different field of endeavor, we determine that the field of endeavor here is also “LED lighting systems.”” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 10,091,842 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,091,842
• Salem Fabrication Technologies Group, Inc. v. Uniglass Engineering OYInstitution denied
  PTAB · Mar 22, 2023 · IPR2022-01516 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–5 were obvious over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Pursuant to our delegated authority, we may not institute an inter partes review “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). After considering the information presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that the reasonable likelihood standard is not met. Accordingly, we deny institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • 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 that separate structures are required. The strongest evidence for this requirement is the claim language itself, which plainly recites two different elements: “a pressurization unit” for inside air and “a compressor” for outside air. The separate naming of two elements in the claim strongly implies that they are not one and the same structure. Becton, Dickinson & 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.” (punctuation omitted) (quoting Gaus v. Conair Corp., 363 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2004))).” slip op. at 8

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

    “At most, the similarities between each pair of references establish, as a threshold matter, that they would have been considered by a POSITA. See K-Tec, Inc. v. Vita-Mix, Corp., 696 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (to qualify as prior art in an obviousness analysis, references must be analogous art—either in the same field of endeavor, or reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor is involved). But the asserted similarities alone are not sufficient to show that a POSITA would have had a reason to combine the teachings in the manner described in the challenged claims. Personal Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (It is not enough that a skilled artisan, once presented with two references, would have understood that they could be combined; Petitioner needs to establish a motivation to pick out the two references and combine them to arrive at the claimed invention.). Next, Petitioner asserts that a POSITA would have been motivated to modify the glass tempering furnace of each base reference “to temper low-E glass more quickly and efficiently.” Pet. 24, 27, 30 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 82, 90, 98). As discussed below, Petitioner fails to show a sufficient logical connection between the asserted motivation and the proposed modification(s) of the base references. Stated differently, Petitioner fails to show a sufficient reason why a POSITA would have made the modifications necessary to bridge the gap between the prior art and the claimed subject matter. We discuss each pair of references more specifically below.” slip op. at 18

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had “at least a two-year technical degree in engineering or science (materials, chemistry, etc.), or at least two years of work experience in the field of materials processing and/or fabrication (such as glass or ceramics), and/or the industrial processes and machinery used for materials processing and/or fabrication.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 27). For purposes of the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA. Prelim. Resp. 27. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA, which is consistent with the scope and content of the ’911 Patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 7

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,650,911
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 15, 2023 · IPR2021-01346 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 3–16 are unpatentable as obvious under §103 over the seven combinations of prior art listed in the decision.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “These definitions are very similar, but we are persuaded that Patent Owner’s proposal is more consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’466 patent and prior art of record. Petitioner’s use of the term “and/or” is problematic because it makes experience with LED devices optional. In contrast, Patent Owner’s definition requires two or more years of experience with LED devices and related LED circuit design. We therefore adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of skill. Had we adopted Petitioner’s level of skill, however, the outcome here would not have changed.” slip op. at 6

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

    “Neither party proposes any claim constructions. Pet. 6; PO Resp. 8–9; Reply 1. We determine that no terms require construction. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368 (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 7

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “We agree with Petitioner. Patent Owner indeed relies on an improper bodily incorporation argument. Petitioner does not propose bodily incorporating Siwinski and Srivastava together, but rather taking certain teachings from these references and applying them to Hack. Reply 11, 14. For example, Petitioner argues that a POSITA would have relied on Siwinski’s teachings “to configure Hack’s device to implement a circuit configured to detect touch via capacitive sensing.” Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 124). And Petitioner relies on Srivastava for the teaching that a POSITA would have configured Hack’s device with a lens doped with particles configured to receive and transmit light from a plurality of LEDs. Id. at 29– 30 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 126–32). Patent Owner’s argument that Srivastava’s shell is not combinable with Siwinski’s touch screen misdirects our attention to a combination that Petitioner did not propose, and is a bodily incorporation that fundamentally misapplies the law of obviousness. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 812 F.3d 1284, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). Regardless, Petitioner’s arguments are not conclusory. The Reply persuasively argues that “Srivastava’s express applicability to OLEDs and display backlights is consistent with Hack’s OLED backlight features.” Reply 11 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1052, 1:10–12, 5:29–38). We are further persuaded by Petitioner’s evidence supporting that “the use of a lens with LED backlight configurations was known,” which undercuts Mr. Credelle’s testimony that Srivastava’s lens would be incompatible with a touch screen backlight. Id. (citing, e.g., Ex. 1090 (depicting a lens over multiple OLED color elements), Fig. 13; Ex. 1098, code (57) (“display back lighting system” with an “entrance lens” and a “reflecting lens”); Ex. 1099, code (57) (“backlight assembly” with “a closely packed array of hemispherical or spherical lenses”)); see Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 96–97. And contrary to Mr. Credelle’s testimony that “[i]t would be illogical to form Srivastava’s shell over Siwinski’s touch screen because the shell would prevent touching the touch screen, which is the function of the touch screen,” Petitioner persuasively argues that “Srivastava explains that it was known that LEDs are used as a backlight in liquid crystal displays.” Reply 11. In other words, Petitioner’s reliance on Srivastava’s backlight teachings would not prevent a user from touching a screen (in front of the backlight) in the modified device. Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Hack, Siwinski, and Srivastava to achieve this limitation.” slip op. at 16

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for petitioner

    “We start our analysis with the Sur-reply because it exposes several weaknesses in Patent Owner’s arguments. First, contrary to what the Sur-reply contends, the Patent Owner response did not argue that “Srivastava’s LED shell is incompatible with Hack’s touch screen because the hard shell would interfere with the functionality of the touchscreen.” Id. This is a new argument first made in the Sur-reply, and we do not consider it. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). What Patent Owner actually argued in its Response was that “[a] POSITA would not combine Srivastava’s LED shell for a single LED with Hack’s flexible display.” PO Resp. 24. There is no mention of a “hard shell” interfering with the functionality of the touch screen in the Patent Owner Response. See id. At most, Patent Owner contends that the shell would “prevent touching the screen,” and that the “curvature of the shell” would be incompatible, not that any hardness of the shell would present a problem. Id. at 25–26 (quoting Ex. 2001 ¶ 97). Regardless, even if we consider this argument, it is inapposite because as the Reply correctly notes, “Srivastava explains that it was known that LEDs are used as a backlight in liquid crystal displays,” and we accordingly find that a backlight with a hard shell would not interfere with a user touching a display. See Reply 11 (citing Pet. 30–33; Ex. 1052, 1:10–12).” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 10,499,466 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,499,466
• Eve Energy Co., Ltd. v. Varta Microbattery GmbHInstitution denied
  PTAB · Mar 14, 2023 · IPR2022-01487 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 9–16 were obvious over either asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). 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 “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 2

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “crimping or beading-over process of closing a battery casing, Petitioner offers only attorney argument for the proposition that such a process creates a battery casing that is “held together by a force-fitting connection.” Id. But “[a]ttorney argument is not evidence.” Elbit Sys. of Am., LLC v. Thales Visionix, Inc., 881 F.3d 1354, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).” slip op. at 15

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

    “27–28. Patent Owner responds that no term requires construction at this stage of the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 20. For the reasons discussed below, we are able to determine whether to institute trial without construing “insulating means,” so we do not construe this term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 9

  Claim construction
  Patents in suitUS 9,799,913
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 7, 2023 · IPR2021-01299 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations of Oba, Gillespie, and the respective additional references.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree that there is little or no material difference between these definitions. We are persuaded, on the present record, that Patent Owner’s proposal is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’674 patent and prior art of record. We adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of skill. However, the outcome of this decision would not have changed had we adopted Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 7

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

    “The parties propose no constructions. Pet. 5; PO Resp 9–10; Reply 3. Based on our review of the full record, we determine that no terms require construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”) (internal quotation omitted).” slip op. at 7

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “We find that the Reply does not present improper new arguments. The Reply does not change the challenged ground; Petitioner maintains the obviousness of claims 1, 3–5, 8–14, 16–18, and 20 over Oba and Gillespie. Reply 3; Pet. 6. Petitioner also still proposes modifying Oba with the same touchscreen in Gillespie that it relies on in the Petition. Reply 4; Pet. 10. Rather than setting forth a new position, the Reply responds directly to Patent Owner’s argument that “Oba already provides robust user input capabilities and therefore would not introduce Gillespie’s complicated and expensive touchscreen.” PO Resp. 27; Reply 5–7. Specifically, the Reply provides responsive reasons why one of ordinary skill in the art would have introduced Gillespie’s touchscreen into Oba despite Oba already possessing other input capabilities. Reply 5–7. For example, Petitioner highlights Gillespie’s touchscreen functionality in Oba’s notebook, including displaying additional content to avoid obstructing or cluttering the main display, such as with auxiliary information and pop-ups. Id. at 7 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1071 ¶¶ 49, 53, 59, 77, 80–83, 85, 89, 91, 99–103; Ex. 1106 ¶¶ 5, 11). In so arguing, Petitioner’s Reply argument permissibly elaborates on the contention in the Petition that Gillespie’s touch screen “would have expanded Oba’s computer 51’s user input capabilities.” Pet. 11; see Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. One World Techs., Inc., 944 F. 3d, 919, 925 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Parties are not barred from elaborating on their arguments on issues previously raised.”). As explained in the Petition, the combination “would have allowed the touch pad/panel to display information and provide mechanisms for a user of computer 51 to provide touch input to control functionalities of computer 51 and/or display 66.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 86). The Reply’s references to Gillespie’s touch pad functionality merely provide further examples of the “touch input to control functionalities of computer 51” discussed in the Petition. Reply 6. “It is unreasonable to hold petitioners to such a high standard that, if they choose to rely on one example . . ., they must either discuss all potential permutations . . . or risk waiving the opportunity to further discuss other relevant examples in their reply.” Apple Inc. v. Andrea Elec’s. Corp., 949 F.3d 697, 706 (Fed. Cir. 2020).” slip op. at 20

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “We have two general concerns with Patent Owner’s arguments. First, Patent Owner’s assertions are speculative. Although Patent Owner presents testimony that “implementing Gillespie’s touch screen 106 into Oba would (1) increase power consumption, (2) unnecessarily introduce complexity to Oba’s computer 51, (3) increase weight, (4) decrease reliability, and (5) would be very costly,” PO Resp. 32 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 104), Patent Owner does not quantify how much power consumption would increase, does not quantify vague qualities of increased “complexity” and “reliability,” does not quantify how much weight might increase, and presents no figures that would allow us to determine whether costs would increase. Such speculative arguments are therefore unpersuasive. Secondly, even if Patent Owner were correct that there are some disadvantages to adding Gillespie’s touch screen to Oba’ computer, we agree with Petitioner that there are tradeoffs or advantages in the proposed combination that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to make it. Reply 10–14. We have discussed these advantages of adding Gillespie’s touchscreen to Oba at length above, including the ability to display additional content to avoid cluttering the main display, enhancing game controls, and including applications such as a calculator, magnification tool, and debugging tool. Ex. 1071 ¶¶ 89, 83, 85, 91, 99–100, 101–103; Ex. 1106 ¶¶ 5, 11. At the end of the day, Patent Owner does not argue that Gillespie teaches away from combining with Oba or that the combination would have rendered Oba inoperable. Patent Owner merely argues that Oba would be worse with Gillespie and disagrees that Gillespie provides any benefits. But weighing the benefits of the combination, both lost and gained, we determine that the advantages explained by Gillespie and Dr. Baker would have outweighed the (speculative) disadvantages described by Patent Owner and Mr. Credelle. See Winner Int’l Royalty, 202 F.3d at 1349 n.8; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 20, 83–90, 99, 103; Ex. 1106 ¶¶ 5–10. Dr. Baker testifies that the advantages of having a second touchscreen display are numerous, such as providing an additional mechanism for a user to control computer functionalities, eliminating special dedicated LED status displays, displaying additional content to avoid obstructing or cluttering the main display, enhancing game controls, and including applications such as a calculator, magnification tool, and debugging tool. Ex. 1002 ¶ 86; Ex. 1106 ¶¶ 5, 11; Ex. 1071 ¶¶ 49, 53, 59, 77, 80–83, 85, 89, 91, 99–103. Weighing these advantages against the possible (but speculative) disadvantages of increased power consumption, increased complexity, increased weight, decreased reliability, and cost, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have viewed the advantages as motivating making the combination. Ultimately, we agree with Dr. Baker’s opinion that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware and had the skills and capabilities to design and implement a capacitive touchscreen for Oba’s touchpad using known and conventional configurations with form factors that minimized weight, power consumption, costs, complexity, and reliability issues.” Ex. 1106 ¶ 8. Dr. Baker testifies further testifies, and we agree, that these are “common design issues,” and one of ordinary skill in the art “certainly was capable of addressing them in the design when striving to achieve the benefits that would have been provided through enhanced functionalities like those Gillespie taught to such a person at the time.” Id.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 10,506,674 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,506,674
• Markforged Inc. v. Continuous Composites, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 18, 2023 · IPR2022-01431 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–4 were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “III. ANALYSIS We have authority to institute an inter partes review only where “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). Our findings and conclusions set forth in this Decision are provided for the exclusive purpose of explaining our determination that Petitioner has not met that standard on this record.” slip op. at 5

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

    “The question of whether the prior art references are in the same field of endeavor is merely a threshold issue that must be satisfied before an obviousness determination can be made. See K-Tec, Inc. v. Vita-Mix, Corp., 696 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (to qualify as prior art in an obviousness analysis, references must be analogous art—either in the same field of endeavor, or reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor is involved). In other words, once it is determined that the prior art is analogous to the claimed invention, it is then necessary to show that it would have been obvious for the skilled artisan to select and combine the teachings of the prior art in the manner claimed. Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that the Petition needs to set forth specific reasoning as to why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine these references even if they are in the same or similar fields. Prelim. Resp. 31. Petitioner fails to do so on this record. The absence of such reasoning is particularly noteworthy here in view of Ma’s numerous teachings which appear to discredit the “passive” method of pulling the composite strand from the extruder as recited in claim 4, which is challenged in each of Grounds 2 and 3. Patent Owner identifies no fewer than eight disclosures within Ma that seemingly disparage the passive “pulling” method and discuss benefits of the active “pushing” method. Prelim. Resp. 16–19 (citing Ex. 1007, 53, 95–96, 98–107, 143–147, 149, 167–168). In the absence of any explanation from Petitioner on this point, we are not persuaded that the skilled artisan would have ignored those teachings and selected Ma’s pulling method.” slip op. at 19

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “explained why the ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined the non-precoating embodiment of Lipsker’s Figure 2 and the precoating embodiment of Lipsker’s Figure 5, much less with a reasonable expectation of successfully arriving at the subject matter of challenged claims 1–3. Prelim. Resp. 22–23. As Patent Owner correctly observes (id.), Petitioner’s general assertion that “Lipsker discloses that combinations of disclosed embodiments and features are possible and proper” (Pet. 20) does not constitute a reasoned explanation regarding why the skilled artisan would have combined Lipsker’s precoating and non-precoating actuator embodiments to arrive at the claimed subject matter. Moreover, Dr. Rosen’s declaration testimony on this point is entitled to little to no weight as it merely parrots the Petition. Compare Pet. 20, with Ex. 1002 ¶ 69. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “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 (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 definition because, on this record, it is consistent with the disclosures of the asserted prior art references. In any event, for the reasons explained below, even under Petitioner’s definition, Petitioner fails to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing at trial with respect to any challenged claim based on the grounds of unpatentability advanced in the Petition.” slip op. at 9

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,173,660
• Markforged Inc. v. Continuous Composites, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 11, 2023 · IPR2022-01220 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 13, 14, and 17–20 unpatentable on the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4 (2021). For the reasons discussed below, we deny the Petition and do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “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 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). A more specific definition is not necessary for purposes of deciding whether to institute review.” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “means of the precuring device 15, causing the surface to dry and stick.”). In light of these disclosures in Wohrl, Petitioner does not adequately explain why a POSITA would have understood that using a nip roller to press the path onto the core, then precuring the path as it is laid, creates an anchor as the ’798 patent teaches. Nor does Petitioner sufficiently address why a POSITA would have understood Wohrl to be teaching the use of an anchor when Wohrl uses a core to support the formation of the part. Moreover, Dr. Rosen’s declaration testimony on this point is entitled to little to no weight as it merely parrots the Petition. Compare Pet. 101–102, with Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 414–416; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 34

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

    “teachings of multiple references, an articulated reason with some rational underpinning to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed must be provided. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); see also In re Magnum Oil Tools, Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (It is the petitioner’s “burden to demonstrate both that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention[s], and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and evidence of record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner provides sufficient articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Ma and Lipsker in the manner recited in the challenged claims.” slip op. at 14

  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,987,798
• Markforged Inc. v. Continuous Composites, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 11, 2023 · IPR2022-01218 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim, including because Ma taught against pulling, combinations lacked adequate motivation, and Wohrl did not disclose the claimed …

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4 (2021). For the reasons discussed below, we deny the Petition and do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had “a master’s degree in mechanical engineering, materials science, or a related degree, and at least 3–5 years of experience in composite materials or additive manufacturing,” or a bachelor’s degree in the same fields and at least 5–6 years of experience. Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 36). Patent Owner states that it “does not agree that Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art accurately reflects the level of ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date . . . . Regardless of what level of skill is applied, however, the Petition does not show a reasonable likelihood to prevail.” Prelim. Resp. 3. Patent Owner does not propose a different level of skill in the art at this stage of the proceeding. See id. at 3–4 (“Patent Owner reserves the right to propose a level of ordinary skill in the art in this proceeding should it be instituted, or in other proceedings.”). 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 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). A more specific definition is not necessary for purposes of deciding whether to institute review.” slip op. at 6

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

    “Petitioner asserts that the “claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning because, to the extent certain claim terms are subject to multiple interpretations, those questions do not affect the grounds advanced here.” Pet. 13 (footnote omitted). Patent Owner does not address claim construction at this stage of the proceeding. See generally Prelim. Resp. We determine that no claim term requires express construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Ma distinguishes between these two methods, noting that with the “active” method, “the forming quality of a previous layer does not influence the forming of the current layer,” while with the “passive” method, “the quality of a previous layer has a profound effect on the forming quality of the current layer.” Ex. 1007, 53. Ma sets forth other problems with using the “passive” method. See, e.g., id. at 95–96, 98–107, 143, 145–147, 149. For example, Ma teaches that during deposition using the “passive” method, “it is possible to make a big error, especially when the nozzle makes a big-angle turn” (id. at 98), and that “[a] toolpath error could be generated if an anchoring point is not formed properly” when using the “passive” method (id. at 143). Ma also discloses that forming speed is an issue with the “passive” method, (id. at 146), but discloses “[o]ne of the advantages [of the ‘active’ method] is that the forming speed is not limited by the solidification condition of the towpreg during the forming process” (id. at 168). 2. Analysis Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “moving the nozzle away from the anchor during discharging to pull the path of the composite material out of the nozzle.” Ex. 1001, 10:61–63. Petitioner contends that Ma teaches this limitation because “Ma discloses that ‘when the object moves relative to the nozzle during the forming process, the towpreg is pulled out by the object instead of being pushed out by nozzle pressure” and “the anchor points are used to pull the towpreg (‘the path of the composite material’) out of the nozzle during discharging.” Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1007, 38, 72)(emphasis omitted). controlled layer manufacturing: an “active” method that pushes the composite material from an extruder’s orifice, and a self-anchoring or “passive” method, wherein the composite material is pulled out by the object. Ex. 1007, 7–8, 52–54. Here, Petitioner relies on Ma’s disclosures relating to the passive method. Petitioner, however, fails to provide a persuasive explanation as to why a POSITA would have selected Ma’s passive pulling method over Ma’s active pushing method for further development or improvement. Petitioner’s failure to do so is particularly noteworthy here, because Ma includes numerous teachings against the passive method of pulling the composite material through the nozzle. Indeed, Patent Owner identifies no fewer than eight disclosures within Ma that seemingly disparage the passive pulling method and discuss the benefits of the active pushing method. Prelim. Resp. 7–10 (citing Ex. 1007, 53, 95– 96, 98–107, 143–147, 149, 167–168). We also agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not sufficiently explained why the ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined Ma’s active and passive methods, much less with a reasonable expectation of successfully arriving at the subject matter of claim 1. Id. at 11–14. In the absence of any explanation from Petitioner, we are not persuaded that a POSITA would have ignored Ma’s teachings against the passive pulling method and selected Ma’s pulling method over Ma’s active pushing method for further development and improvement. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Ma.” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,987,798
• Beckman Coulter, Inc. v. Sirigen II LimitedInstituted
  PTAB · Jan 6, 2023 · IPR2022-01205 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted review of claims 1–10, 18, and 20 based on the asserted § 102 and § 103 grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther

    “Here, Patent Owner filed a statutory disclaimer of claims 11–17 of the ’417 patent. Prelim. Resp. 1–2; Ex. 2019. Based on our review of Exhibit 2019, we determine that a disclaimer of claims 11–17 of the ’417 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) has been filed with the Office as of October 5, 2022. Based on the information in the public record, we find that the disclaimer complies with the above-listed requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a). Because claims 11–17 have been disclaimed under 35 U.S.C. § 253(a), in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a), we do not reach challenges to claims 11–17. As a result, the remaining challenged claims are claims 1–10, 18, and 20 (“the challenged claims”).” slip op. at 5

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “in situations where a district court trial date is set to occur before the issuance of the Board’s final written decision. The facts and reasoning of Fintiv are, at a minimum, only applicable to cases in which the district court has actually set a trial date in a copending litigation. But here, as will be discussed below, the parties agree that no trial date has been set, and the 14 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ interim_proc_discretionary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_ memo_20220621_.pdf. District Court has stayed the litigation. Prelim. Reply 8; Prelim. Sur-Reply 6 (“There has never been a trial date). Furthermore, that stay will continue until our final determination should we decide to institute trial. Without a trial date, we see no need to engage in a full analysis of the Fintiv factors,15 as there is no basis for Patent Owner’s argument for discretionary denial.” slip op. at 16

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

    “IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons above, we determine that the information presented in the Petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to challenged claims 1–10, 18, and 20 of the ’417 patent. At this juncture in the proceeding, we have not made a final determination with respect to the patentability of the challenged claims, or with respect to claim construction. V. ORDER For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review of claims 1–10, 18, and 20 of the ’417 patent is hereby instituted with respect to the ground of unpatentability set forth in the Petition; and FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial; the trial will commence on the entry date of this Decision.” slip op. at 44

  • Skill levelOther

    “would have at least a Ph.D. degree in chemistry, or a bachelor’s or master’s degree plus experience involving the use and design of fluorescent probes or dyes.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 14–18). Patent Owner agrees that a POSITA may have a Ph.D. degree or master’s degree in chemistry, but asserts that a POSITA would also have “some experience with fluorescence” in addition to a Ph.D. degree in chemistry and that the experience of a POSITA with a master’s degree in chemistry is alternatively “industry experience in the field of biological detection systems.” Prelim. Resp. 5–6 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 7). For purposes of this Decision, we need not resolve these differences between the parties’ definitions, because any differences do not affect our analysis.13 If either party believes that adopting its preferred definition of the level of ordinary skill would have a material effect on the outcome of this proceeding, the party should address this issue during the instituted trial. slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,955,417
• Beckman Coulter, Inc. v. Sirigen II LimitedInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jan 6, 2023 · IPR2022-01208 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims and grounds because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner does not establish a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim of the ’303 patent. Thus, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialNot reached

    “1 Because we deny the Petition on the merits, we do not address the parties’ arguments related to discretionary denial.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelOther

    “Petitioner asserts that a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) “would have at least a Ph.D. degree in chemistry, or a bachelor’s or master’s degree plus experience involving the use and design of fluorescent probes or dyes.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 14–18). Patent Owner agrees that a POSITA may have a Ph.D. degree or master’s degree in chemistry, but asserts that a POSITA would also have “some experience with fluorescence” in addition to a Ph.D. degree in chemistry and that the experience of a POSITA with a master’s degree in chemistry is alternatively “industry experience in the field of biological detection systems.” Prelim. Resp. 9–10 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 7). For purposes of this Decision, we need not choose between the parties’ proposed levels of one of ordinary skill in the art, which are quite similar, as neither party asserts that the anticipation or obviousness analyses in this case would turn on which definition is adopted. See, e.g., id. at 10 (noting that the arguments and conclusions reached in the Preliminary Response “would not change” if Petitioner’s definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan were applied).” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “structure of Formula (Ia),” including specific MU, L1 and L2, G1 and G2, n, and a, b, c, and d (which define the mol % of each unit within the structure) constituents, wherein each R group must be a “[n]on-ionic side group capable of imparting solubility in water in excess of 10 mg/mL.” Ex. 1006, 239:29–240:56. The ’303 patent expressly defines the phrase “[n]on-ionic side groups capable of imparting solubility in water” to refer to “side groups which are not charged and allow the resulting polymer to be soluble in water or aqueous solutions with no visible particulates.” Id. at 54:31–34. In view of structure of claim 1 and the express definition provided in the ’303 patent, we agree with Patent Owner that claim 1 requires that the non-ionic side group R must be capable of imparting solubility to the claimed conjugated polymer (having constituents that satisfy the claimed variables noted above) in excess of 10 mg/mL. Prelim. Resp. 13. On this record, it is not sufficient to show that a particular R group is capable of” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,575,303

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.