• Nespresso USA, Inc. v. K-Fee System GmbHInstituted
  PTAB · Sep 13, 2023 · IPR2023-00485 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution

  Instituted IPR of claims 1–10 on all petition grounds; Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood that the claims would have been obvious over Yoakim, Jarisch, Rossi, and Castellani.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “second German priority application do not disclose every limitation of independent claims 1 and 7 of the ’430 patent. Figure 1 does not depict a barcode under the flange, but rather the use of raised areas on the side of the capsule that act as an identifier. Ex. 1047, Fig. 1. Figure 2, coupled with its associated description, might suggest that the barcode could be on the portion of the base element facing away from the membrane,9 but this figure does not disclose many of the other elements of the claim, including holding arms, a drop box, annular convexity and concavity, and a pump to supply water to the single-serve capsule. Pet. 41; Ex. 1047, 9:21–24, Fig. 2. We also determine that Patent Owner does not sufficiently demonstrate that Figures 16–18 of the second German priority application provide adequate disclosures showing that the inventors were in possession 9 We question whether the second German priority application supports placing a barcode under the flange. The application states that the barcode could “be provided on that side of the peripheral region of the basic element which is directed away from the membrane.” Ex. 1047, 9:21–24. This statement is rather ambiguous as to where the “peripheral region” is that is “directed away from the membrane.” The text goes on to explain, however, that “[t]his barcode,” i.e., the barcode that is “directed away from the membrane,” “is read by a detector 13,” which in Figure 2 is oriented to read a barcode on the top surface of the flange. Id. at 9:25–26, Fig. 2. This suggests that the barcode is not on the bottom side of the flange and that arrow 15 is pointing to the outer portion of the peripheral region that is not covered by the membrane, and not necessarily the bottom of the flange. First, the second German priority application describes the use of “an identifier” that is read by a “sensor/detection means” and then compared to a stored identifier. Ex. 1047, 2:29–31. In Figure 2 the identifier may be a barcode and the detection means is detector 13. Id. at 9:11–26. In Figures 16–18, however, element 2.4.2 is not an identifier, but rather a “a form-fitting and/or friction-fitting means and/or a detection means.” Id. at 12:22– 24 (emphasis added). As such, it is unclear how this disclosure would demonstrate possession of the disputed claim limitation, when combined with the other limitations of claims 1 and 7 as a whole. Second, it is not evident that the toothed rings of Figures 16–18 are on the underside of the flange, as asserted by Patent Owner. Prelim. Resp. 42 (asserting that a barcode “could be located on the bottom side of the flange instead of the toothed ring”); Prelim. Sur-reply 4. The second German priority application states that the “form-fitting and/or friction-fitting means and/or detection means 2.4.2” is located in the “outer region” of the peripheral region 2.4. Ex. 1047, 12:22–24. We are directed to no evidence that this “outer region” is on the bottom of the flange, and Figures 16–18 each appear to depict means 2.4.2 on, or forming, the outer circumference of the flange.11 Id. at Figs. 16–18, 6:8–11 (noting that the toothed ring is provided “on the outer circumference of the periphery”). 10 The parties dispute whether Figure 16 of the second German priority application discloses annular convexity and concavity. Pet. 42–43; Prelim. Resp. 45–46; Prelim. Reply 4–5; Prelim. Sur-reply 4. At most, the parties identify a material issue of fact with respect to these two claim elements that is best resolved on a full trial record. 11 At first blush, Figure 17A appears to show means 2.4.2 under a portion of element 27 of the capsule. Ex. 1047, Fig. 17A; Prelim. Sur-reply 4 depicted in Figures 16–18, which rely on toothed rings physically interacting with either the chamber, retaining arms, or a pinion. Ex. 1047, 12:22–31, 13:8–18. The second German priority application explains that means 2.4.2 physically interacts with retaining arms 30 (embodiments of Figures 16 and 17) or a pinon (embodiment of Figure 18), and if means 2.4.2 were not present in these embodiments, the capsule would either “drop through into a waste container” or could not be inserted through the insertion shaft. Id. at 12:22–27, 13:9–12, 13:16–35 (noting that in the embodiment disclosed in Figure 18 a pinon interacts with means 2.4.2 and only when means 2.4.2 “is formed complementary to the teeth of the means” can the capsule be inserted). Patent Owner does not sufficiently explain how a barcode could replace means 2.4.2 in these embodiments and still retain the capsule within the device or allow the capsule to enter the insertion shaft.” slip op. at 14

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

    “First, Yoakim expressly states that the capsule may use a “barcode,” and the plain and ordinary meaning of this term is a code that satisfies the construction adopted by the district court. To the extent Patent Owner has reason to believe that Yoakim does not apply the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “barcode,” and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood this fact, it is encouraged to present such evidence during trial. Second, in this obviousness inquiry the question is not whether a person of ordinary skill in the art is more likely to adopt a barcode or a bitcode, but whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have seen a benefit to applying the “barcode” of Yoakim under the flange of the capsule. See Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“Our case law is clear. It’s not necessary to show that a combination is ‘the best option, only that it is a suitable option.’”). On that point, Jarisch expressly discloses the benefits of doing so. Ex. 1005 ¶ 22 (noting that applying the code at the bottom of the rim lowers the risk of the code becoming unreadable). As such, we determine that Petitioner sufficiently identifies where Yoakim discloses a barcode and explains why one of ordinary skill in the art would have placed such a “barcode” on the bottom of the capsule’s flange.” slip op. at 27

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner

    “Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) during prosecution of the ’430 patent and that Rossi and Castellani were mentioned in the inter partes reviews that were cited on the IDS. Pet. 19; Prelim. Resp. 23. We need not determine whether Part 1 of the Advanced Bionics framework is satisfied based on these disclosures, however, as Part 2 of the analysis, which we address below, is dispositive. a) Factor (c)—the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for a rejection The Examiner did not issue any rejections during prosecution of the ’430 patent. Ex. 1002, 232–234. As the reasons for allowance, the Examiner stated: [A]llowance of claims 1 and 21–29 is indicated as none of the cited prior art discloses or suggests the flange comprising a top side and an opposing bottom side; a cover that is fastened to the top side of the flange to close the cavity; and an identifier provided on the bottom side of the flange, the identifier being a barcode, wherein the beverage machine, by reading or detecting the identifier with the sensor/detector, is configured to determine if the single-serve capsule belongs to a group of single serve capsules operable for use with the beverage machine, and only if the beverage machine determines that the single-serve capsule belongs to the group of single serve capsules operable for use with the beverage machine is the pump controlled to push the water into the single-serve capsule. Id. at 233. In arriving at this conclusion, the Examiner did not cite or discuss the disclosures of Yoakim, Jarisch, Rossi, or Castellani. Id. at 232–234. Yet, these references appear, based on the current record, to expressly teach or allowance, including a “flange comprising a top side and an opposing bottom side” (Ex. 1004 ¶ 197, Fig. 6); “a cover that is fastened to the top side of the flange to close the cavity” (Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 128–129, 197, 414); “an identifier provided on the bottom side of the flange” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 22) that is “a barcode” (Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 496, 525); and “reading or detecting the identifier with the sensor/detector . . . to determine if the single-serve capsule belongs to a group of single serve capsules operable for use with the beverage machine” (Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 25, 192, 477, 494–496, 525; Ex. 1005 ¶ 82; Ex. 1041, 3, 11). As such, to the extent the asserted combination of prior art references was evaluated during prosecution of the application that matured into the ’430 patent, we determine that such evaluation was minimal.” slip op. at 37

  • Other 314aDecided for petitioner

    “B. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) Patent Owner contends that “[t]he parties have been embroiled in disputes involving substantive claims for infringement for both the ’430 Patent and the Jarisch 929 reference,” and “it is unnecessary to open up yet another front in this dispute.” Prelim. Resp. 68–69. As such, Patent Owner requests that we deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Id. Patent Owner directs our attention to no case in which the Director has exercised discretion to deny a petition merely because the same patent was the subject of a co-pending district court infringement action. Indeed, 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) specifically contemplates such a scenario. Accordingly, we decline to exercise discretion to deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 40

  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 11,230,430
• Nespresso USA, Inc. v. K-Fee System GmbHInstituted
  PTAB · Sep 13, 2023 · IPR2023-00502 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Institution

  Instituted IPR on claims 1–16 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood that the claims would have been obvious over Yoakim, Jarisch, and Rapparini.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “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 [one] of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to claims 1–16 of the ’923 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier application provides support for the claims of the later application, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112.” In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 297 (Fed. Cir. 1995). One may show support for the claims of a later application by showing that a single, earlier application provides written description support for the claims. PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Studiengesellschaft Kohle, MBH v. Shell Oil Co., 112 F.3d 1561, 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (noting that a patentee “cannot distinct previous applications”). Once Petitioner identifies a prior art reference with an effective filing date prior to that of the challenged patent, the burden of production to show entitlement to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application shifts to Patent Owner. See In re NTP, 654 F.3d 1268, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a patent’s claims are not entitled to an earlier priority date merely because the patentee claims priority . . . Rather, for a patent’s claims to be entitled to an earlier priority date, the patentee must demonstrate that the claims meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120”). Patent Owner may show possession of the invention through “such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “Although the exact terms need not be used in haec verba, . . . the specification must contain an equivalent description of the claimed subject matter. A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient.” Id.” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artPriority date, deniedDecided for petitioner

    “Once Petitioner identifies a prior art reference with an effective filing date prior to that of the challenged patent, the burden of production to show entitlement to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application shifts to Patent Owner. See In re NTP, 654 F.3d 1268, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a patent’s claims are not entitled to an earlier priority date merely because the patentee claims priority . . . Rather, for a patent’s claims to be entitled to an earlier priority date, the patentee must demonstrate that the claims meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120”). Patent Owner may show possession of the invention through “such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “Although the exact terms need not be used in haec verba, . . . the specification must contain an equivalent description of the claimed subject matter. A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient.” Id.” slip op. at 10

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

    “7. Analysis: Reasons to Combine the References Petitioner shows sufficiently that Yoakim, Jarisch and Rapparini are “analogous art in the field of portion capsule beverage extraction, each disclosing an invention that may be applied in automatic coffee/espresso machines.” Pet. 43. “Yoakim and Jarisch both improve the optimization of beverage parameters in a single-serve brewing system, and use optical codes read by the machine to achieve this.” Id. “Rapparini further improves the the wall of the capsule body like those used in Yoakim and Jarisch.” Id. at 43–44; see id. at 50–51, 53–54 (Petitioner’s further argument that Rapparini discloses “an optimized capsule structure that is stiffer and more stable” by virtue of radially spaced and vertically oriented ribs and grooves, where the vertically oriented grooves are free from extending entirely to the bottom region of the capsule). Petitioner directs us to additional evidence tending to establish that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been prompted to modify Yoakim’s device, to include the code placement of Jarisch and the grooves and ribs of Rapparini, to arrive at the claimed invention with an expectation of success. Id. at 44–48.” slip op. at 27

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,994,923
• Chongqing Yanmei Technology Co., Ltd. v. Terves, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Aug 30, 2023 · IPR2023-00521 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 19–61 and 63–81 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Doud anticipates claims 19–61 and 63–75.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “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, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim of the ’740 patent. Accordingly, we grant institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateOther

    “the application describe the claim limitations exactly,” the application must demonstrate to persons of ordinary skill in the art that the applicants invented a composition including those limitations. Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262. On its face, the range of “at least 0.01 wt. %” encompasses a range that is broader than 0.01–35 wt. %, and Patent Owner does not sufficiently explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand from merely a disclosure of 35 wt.% that the inventors were in possession of the entire claimed range for copper, cobalt, or nickel in the magnesium composition.” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedOther

    “On this record, the term “at least 0.01 wt. %” in the ’740 patent encompasses values for nickel, copper, and cobalt that are higher than the 35 wt. % (nickel and copper) and 20 wt. % (cobalt) limits outlined in the parent and grandparent applications. Accordingly, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that claim 19 of the ’740 patent is not entitled to the benefit of the filing dates of its priority applications. Challenged claims 20–61 and 63–75 depend from claim 19 and there is no argument presented that these claims have independent written description support in Doud. For example, there is no evidence presented that any of these dependent claims narrow the ranges for each of copper, nickel, and cobalt recited in in the ’295 application for these claims.7 Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we apply Doud as prior art to challenged claims 19–61 and 63–75.” slip op. at 12

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted

    “as the ’740 patent. For example, Doud and the ’740 patent both disclose a method of forming a novel magnesium composite that includes melting an AZ91D magnesium alloy containing 90 wt. % magnesium, 9 wt. % aluminum, and 1 wt. % zinc. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 45, 47; Ex. 1001, 21:43–51, 22:48–53, 33:32–43, 34:9–12. To this alloy is added either 7 wt. % nickel or 10 wt. % copper. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 45, 47, 53, 57; Ex. 1001, 21:48–51, 22:53–56, 33:35–36, 34:12–13. These additives are mixed in the magnesium alloy at a temperature that is less than the melting point of copper or nickel, and the casting is then cooled. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 45, 47, 53, 57; Ex. 1001, 21:51–54, 22:56–58, 33:35, 34:12-13. Doud reports that nickel and copper, when added to molten magnesium, will form Mg2Ni and CuMg2 intermetallic, galvanically-active, in situ precipitates. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 12–13. Doud discloses that the dissolution rate of the resulting casting material is either 325 mg/cm2-hr (nickel) or 50 mg/cm2-hr (copper) in a 3% KCl solution at 90° C. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 45, 47, 53, 57; Ex. 1001, 21:60–62, 22:61–63, 33:41–43, 34:15–17. Doud also discloses that the average particle diameter of the additives used in the invention is generally “at least about 0.1 microns” and “typically no more than about 500 microns.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 6. Petitioner explains how the identified disclosures of Doud anticipate independent claim 19. Pet. 39–40. Petitioner also identifies where the limitations of dependent claims 20–61 and 63–75 are disclosed in Doud. Id. at 41–45. Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s anticipation arguments with respect to claims 19–61 and 63–75, apart from arguing that Doud is not prior art to these claims. Prelim. Resp. 27–39. demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that claims 19–61 and 63–75 are anticipated by Doud.” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,689,740
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 7, 2023 · IPR2022-00100 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 8–10 and 15–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Piepgras, Michael, and Butler, with Schultz or Naskali added for claims 16 and 17.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner contends that there is “no meaningful dispute over [the definition of] a POSITA.” Reply 1. We agree. However, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of skill because we are persuaded that it is more consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’583 patent. In particular, Patent Owner’s definition requires experience with LED devices, whereas Petitioner’s definition makes LED experience optional (“experience with LED devices and/or related circuit design”). We note that 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. 7; PO Resp 8–9; Reply 1. At institution, we discussed the meaning of the term “array.” Dec. 16 n.12. Patent Owner traverses this construction and submits that “no special construction for ‘LED array’ is needed,” as it does not dispute any limitation reciting an “LED circuit array.” See PO Resp. 9. We agree. Based on our review of the record, no terms need to be construed. 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

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

    “fails to identify any deficiencies or drawbacks of Piepgras’s two-button remote control because the law does not require Petitioner to identify problems with a reference in order to establish obviousness. See PO Resp. 28–30; In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.”). What the Petition must demonstrate is that there was some reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to combine the elements of the prior art in the manner proposed. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. The Petition provides multiple, persuasive reasons (discussed above) as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to use a touch screen, as disclosed in Butler, to permit user control of a remote control, as disclosed in Piepgras.” slip op. at 21

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues, and we agree, that the Piepgras-Michael-Butler combination discloses that the portable telecommunications device can detect a human touch. Pet. 43. Further, Dr. Baker testifies, and we agree, that a POSITA would have understood that the modified device “would use an LED touch display and thus when touched, the LED(s) of the display would change (e.g., turning on and/or changing interface content).” Ex. 1002 ¶ 141. We credit this testimony by Dr. Baker because it is well-supported by evidence. See, e.g., Exs. 1009 (Hack), 1022 (Gillespie); Pet. 43 (citing same).13 Patent Owner does not offer any contrary evidence that would undermine Dr. Baker’s persuasive testimony that a POSITA would have understood that the modified device would use an LED touch display and that when touched, the LED(s) of the display would change (and thus provide light). See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 105–16 (attacking the sufficiency of Petitioner’s evidence but not disputing Dr. Baker’s core assertion regarding the understanding of a POSITA). It is somewhat ironic that Patent Owner asserts that Dr. Baker’s testimony is “conclusory and not tied to supporting evidence.” Sur-reply 26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 141). In reality, Petitioner supplies ample supporting evidence (e.g., Hack and Gillespie), but Patent Owner denies that we can consider it. See, e.g., Pet. 43 (citing, e.g., Exs. 1009, 1022); PO Resp. 44. Petitioner’s reliance on evidence to show the understanding of a skilled artisan is appropriate because “the obviousness ‘analysis requires an assessment of the . . . background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art.’” Koninklijke Philips, 948 F.3d at 1337. Petitioner does not rely upon references such as Hack and Gillespie to supply a missing claim limitation.14 Rather, Petitioner relies on Butler’s disclosure of a touch screen for this limitation and points to Hack and Gillespie to show that prior art touch screens often included LED displays and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a touch screen would have provided 13 As we explain below, we need not rely on Swartz. 14 For this reason, Petitioner need not have included Swartz, Hack, or Gillespie in its ground listing, and Petitioner need not show a motivation to combine Swartz, Hack, or Gillespie with Piepgras, Michael, and Butler. light based upon detection of human touch. Reply 20; see also Pet. 43. Arendi is therefore inapposite because Petitioner’s detailed explanations and supporting evidence are the opposite of relying on “common sense” as a “wholesale substitute for reasoned analysis and evidentiary support.” See 832 F.3d at 1362.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 10,750,583 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,750,583
• Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 22, 2023 · PGR2022-00009 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 7–12, and 14–19 are unpatentable based on lack of written description, anticipation by Bruning, or obviousness over Bruning and Kabel.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “lighting device.” Accordingly, we determine that the level of ordinary skill in the art is “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,” as Petitioner proposes and that “the field of design and/or development” would be “in the context of lighting devices” as Patent Owner proposes, in which “[a]n increase in experience could compensate for less education.” Id.; Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 46).” slip op. at 15

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

    “theoretically fall under the “or greater” portion of the amended claim limitation “forward voltage of 6V or greater,” Applicant distinguished Colby on the basis that the 120V AC voltage from a wall outlet is not “the minimum voltage difference required between the anode and cathode of the LEDs in the claimed circuit to allow current to flow through the LEDs.” See Ex. 1023, 9 (emphasis added). Applicant’s argument specifically identifies the claim language at issue––“forward voltage of 6V or greater”––and specifically states that it is not disclosed because Colby does not disclose the minimum voltage and instead, discloses something else, something larger–– 120V AC voltage. Accordingly, we conclude that Applicant disclaimed any voltage that is more than “the minimum voltage difference required between the anode and cathode of the LEDs in the claimed circuit to allow current to flow through the LEDs” from the scope of “forward voltage.”” slip op. at 25

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable

    “4. 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) With respect to the written description requirement, we are persuaded” slip op. at 32

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not enabledUnpatentable

    “Basis § Unpatentable Unpatentable Lack of written description, 3, 10, 17 112(a) 3, 10, 17 Lack of enablement 3, 10, 17 112(b) Indefiniteness 3, 10, 17 Lack of written description, 4, 11, 18 112(a) 4, 11, 18 Lack of enablement 4, 11, 18 112(b) indefiniteness 4, 11, 18” slip op. at 77

  Patent outcomesUS 10,932,341 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,932,341
• Canon U.S.A., Inc. / Canon Inc. v. Slingshot Printing LLCInstituted
  PTAB · May 22, 2023 · IPR2022-01541 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–7, 9, 10, 20–22, and 24 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would have been obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “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 demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to claims 1–7, 9, 10, 20–22, and 24 of the ’951 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review with respect to all grounds asserted in the Petition. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S.Ct. 1348, 1355 (2018).” slip op. at 2

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

    “the same 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 that standard, the words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would have had to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, in the context of the entire patent including the specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Neither party asserts that any claim terms of the ’951 patent require construction. See Pet. 7; Prelim. Resp. 18–19. And, upon review of the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, we find that no terms require construction for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 6

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “arrangement,” allowing for an increased density of dots to be formed on the recording paper. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 10–12, 17. One aspect of the “ink ejection parts” is the row of nozzles 22. Id. ¶¶ 17–18, 43, Fig. 1. In light of these disclosures, Mr. Curley testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the nozzles of Hamafuku are arranged in a row at “high density,” which was considered to be 600 dpi or higher in the relevant time period. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 321–323. We find this testimony sufficient to present, at a minimum, a material issue of fact as to whether Hamafuku teaches or suggests nozzles that are spaced apart with a pitch ranging from about 600 to about 2400 dpi, as recited in claim 1. declaration are not persuasive. The Petition clearly details why Petitioner contends one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Hamafuku to teach or suggest a nozzle pitch of between about 600 and 2400 dpi. Pet. 67– 69. The Petition supports this conclusion with citation to prior art references and Mr. Curley’s declaration testimony. Id. In his declaration, Mr. Curley supports his conclusions with respect to the “high density” disclosure of Hamafuku with specific references to the same prior art disclosures that are cited in the Petition. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 318–323; Pet. 68 (both citing to disclosures in Exhibit 1008 and Exhibit 1025). We find this approach is appropriate. As noted by Patent Owner, Mr. Curley’s declaration spans over two hundred pages and contains a more extensive discussion of the prior art and the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art in the relevant time period. A declaration containing an in-depth discussion of the background of the relevant art, as well as a more complete analysis of the relevant prior art disclosures, is often more persuasive than a declaration that merely parrots the Petition, or vice versa, as it not only assists the panel in understanding the relevant technology, but also tends to demonstrate the declarant’s knowledge in the relevant field and his or her depth of analysis pertaining to the issues at hand. Of course, this extended analysis may not be incorporated-by-reference wholesale into a petition, but we discern no attempt to do so here, at least with respect to the nozzle pitch limitation disputed by the parties at this stage of the proceeding.” slip op. at 21

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,152,951
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 5, 2023 · IPR2022-00098 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, and 4 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations; claim 2 was not shown unpatentable because the driver was not shown configured to receive the rectifier’s forward voltages.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had experience in LED devices. For this reason, we apply Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it comports with the level of skill reflected in the ’149 patent and the prior art of record. However, if we were to apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, our Decision would not be affected.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Upon review of the entire record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed

    “Dr. Ducharme’s testimony that “the spacing of the chips in Zhang would not likely be so close as to create overheating issues” (Ex. 2002 ¶ 111) is unsupported by any disclosure of the actual spacing of Zhang’s chips. Consequently, his testimony that there would be no overheating concerns in Zhang due to the spacing of the chips is entitled to little, if any, weight. Dr. Ducharme further testifies that the components of Zhang’s driver “could easily increase the temperature of the LED 19 chips on the circuit board, which can cause LEDs to generate less illumination, burn out and otherwise adversely affect their performance.” Ex. 2002 ¶ 126. Dr. Ducharme further testifies that “[i]t is well-known that excessive operational temperatures can reduce the illumination provided by the LEDs, can decrease the operational lifetime of the LEDs, and if the temperature is sufficiently high, it can cause LED junction failure and a burnt-out LED.” Id. We agree with this testimony, which as discussed below, is consistent with Salam. Dr. Ducharme’s testimony concerning overheating issues caused by the driver components contradicts Patent Owner’s ’s contention that there would not be “an overheating issue with Zhang’s LED exit sign circuit in Figure 2.1.” PO Resp. 30. Regardless of whether Zhang’s LEDs in Figure 2.1 have a heat problem or not, Salam teaches the advantages of using a heat sink. Salam teaches that a heat sink will result in a higher efficiency of the LEDs and improved life. Ex. 1006, 16:38–43. The Federal Circuit, in DyStar Textilfarben GmBH & Co v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal–and even common-sensical . . . the proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses the knowledge and skills rendering him capable of combining the prior art references.” Id. at 1368. Dr. Ducharme testified that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have an understanding of the generation of heat and using a heat sink to remove unwanted heat from electronics and LED lighting devices.” Ex. 1102, 23:18–24:3. Dr. Ducharme’s testimony is consistent with Petitioner’s contention that the combination of Zhang and Salam “would have been a straightforward combination of known components and technologies, according to known methods, to produce the predictable result of reducing/ mitigating heat effects in a circuit.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 106). Patent Owner next contends it would be extremely burdensome and costly to modify Zhang to add a heat sink layer because “each of the multiple chips mounted and epoxied to Zhang’s circuit board in the exit sign would have to be modified.” PO Resp. 30 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 112). Dr. Ducharme’s testimony repeats the Patent Owner Response verbatim and is entitled to little, if any, weight. Ex. 2002 ¶ 112. Nonetheless, this contention is unavailing because it is based on Patent Owner’s bodily incorporation of Zhang and Salam. Patent Owner next contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art” slip op. at 27

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

    “Regardless of whether Zhang’s LEDs in Figure 2.1 have a heat problem or not, Salam teaches the advantages of using a heat sink. Salam teaches that a heat sink will result in a higher efficiency of the LEDs and improved life. Ex. 1006, 16:38–43. The Federal Circuit, in DyStar Textilfarben GmBH & Co v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal–and even common-sensical . . . the proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses the knowledge and skills rendering him capable of combining the prior art references.” Id. at 1368. Dr. Ducharme testified that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have an understanding of the generation of heat and using a heat sink to remove unwanted heat from electronics and LED lighting devices.” Ex. 1102, 23:18–24:3. Dr. Ducharme’s testimony is consistent with Petitioner’s contention that the combination of Zhang and Salam “would have been a straightforward combination of known components and technologies, according to known methods, to produce the predictable result of reducing/ mitigating heat effects in a circuit.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 106).” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 10,517,149 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,517,149
• Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 5, 2023 · IPR2022-00023 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 4 are unpatentable over the stated § 103 combinations; Petitioner did not show claim 2 unpatentable because it did not explain how the LED array’s forward voltage is received by the driver.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “degree in electrical engineering, or similar technical field, with two years of experience in the field of design and/or development of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) and circuits in the context of lighting control systems.” Pet. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 34). Petitioner further contends that “[a]n increase in experience could compensate for less education.” Id. at 12. Patent Owner proposes the same level of skill in the art. See PO Resp. 6. We apply the parties’ undisputed level of ordinary skill in the art because it comports with the level of skill reflected in the ’149 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We credit Dr. Lebby’s testimony over Dr. Ducharme for the following reasons. First, in Deese, power cable 28 is inserted into an opening in rubber housing 21. Ex. 1008, Fig. 2A. [R]ubber housing 21 forms a water-tight seal around the power cable 28.” Id. at 4:63–65. Dr. Ducharme does not explain why Hochstein’s protruding heat sink shell could not similarly be inserted through rubber housing 21 with a water-tight seal. Further, Dr. Lebby relies on the similarity between the structures of Deese and Hochstein. Hochstein uses gasket 45 and weather seal 48 to seal housing 10 with electrical lead 49 and heat sink shell 38 extending therethrough. Ex. 1010, 5: 39–40, 5:63:65, Fig. 8.” slip op. at 47

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionOther

    “Our analysis starts with the claim language. Claim 1 recites “a driver, wherein the driver includes at least one transistor and at least one capacitor” and “the driver is configured to receive an AC voltage from a mains power source and provide a voltage and current to the at least one LED circuit.” Ex. 1001, 23:16–17, 26:22–24. Dr. Ducharme testifies that power is determined by multiplying voltage and current. Ex. 2008 ¶ 63. The language of claim 1, thus, supports Patent Owner’s construction which is also consistent with the dictionary definition offered by Petitioner which also defines “driver” as [a] program, circuit or device used to power or control other programs, circuits or devices.” Ex. 1007, 4 (emphasis added). The Specification provides “the driver providing an AC voltage and current to one or more LED circuits.” Ex. 1001, 3:65–67. Thus, the Specification also provides support for Patent Owner’s construction. For the foregoing reasons, we apply Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “driver” because it is consistent with the language of claim 1 and the description of driver in the Specification. We note that the adjective “LED” prior to circuits or devices in Patent Owner’s construction is not necessary because that it essentially repeats limitation 1.e.” slip op. at 12

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

    “We begin with the claim language itself which is “the package is a heat sinking reflective material.” Ex. 1001, 23:18–19 (emphasis added). In its analysis, Patent Owner parses “heat sinking reflective material” out of context by omitting the italicized language “the package is” preceding “heat sinking reflective material.” PO Resp. 29. The deposition testimony of Dr. Lebby and Dr. Ducharme’s declaration testimony cited by Patent Owner are also out of context. The Specification of the ’149 patent defines “package” as an integrated unit that “in certain applications may preferably include a heat sink, a reflective material, a lens for directing light, phosphor nano-crystals or light changing or enhancing substances.” Ex. 1001, 5:30–33. Because heat sink and reflective material are listed separately in the Specification, this disclosure suggests that, at least in certain embodiments, a package with a heat sink separate from a reflective material would fall within the scope of limitation 1.c. This is further confirmed by comparing the packages illustrated in Figures 25 and 26 of the ’149 patent which are reproduced above. Figure 25 is described as illustrating “heat sinking material 198 . . . integrated into the package 30.” Id. at 17:34–35. Figure 26 is described as illustrating reflector 202 “integrated into the package 30 for optimized light dispersion.” Id. at 17:47–49. As can be seen from a visual comparison of Figures 25 and 26, reflector 202 is separate from heat sinking material 198. Given the disclosure in the ’149 patent of a package with a heat sink” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 10,517,149 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,517,149
• 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
• 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

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.