- Penumbra, Inc. v. Rapidpulse, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Feb 21, 2025 · IPR2024-01261 · APJ Jamie T Wisz · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR of claims 1–20 on all petitioned grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims would have been obvious over the cited combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Board “may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–20 of the ’402 patent, based on all of the grounds identified in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner, relying on the testimony of Mr. Brown, contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA” or “POSITA”) as of the relevant date would be either: (1) a person with a B.S. in engineering or an equivalent field, with two-four years of academic or industry experience in aspiration embolectomy and thrombectomy or comparable industry experience who would, where appropriate, work or consult with others, including a physician, to develop embolectomy or thrombectomy devices; or (2) an interventional neurosurgeon with at least three years of experience developing and/or using medical devices in embolectomy or thrombectomy procedures, and who would, where appropriate, work or consult with others, including an engineer, to develop such a medical device. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 48). Petitioner also contends that, “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience, or more relevant education but less practical experience, may also meet this standard.” Id. Patent Owner states that for purposes of its Preliminary Response, it accepts Petitioner’s proposed definition of POSA, but “reserves the right to propose its own description of a POSA if the Board institutes review.” Prelim. Resp. 8 n.3. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s characterization because it is consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected by the ’402 patent and the cited prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner provides a proposed construction for the term “[limited/limiting] to a positive amount of exit flow” recited in claims 3, 4, 13, and 15, as “the maximum permitted amount of positive exit flow in the distal direction, including no exit flow.” Pet. 15–16. Patent Owner asserts that “Petitioner’s proposed construction of ‘a positive amount of exit flow’ as ‘including no exit flow’ is plainly wrong.” Prelim. Resp. 9 (citing Pet. 15–16). Patent Owner also asserts that to the extent Petitioner “view[s] the claim term ‘flow in and out’ as encompassing only flow in or no flow at all, that would be plainly wrong too.” Id. Having evaluated the arguments and evidence before us on this record, we determine that construction of “[limited/limiting] to a positive amount of exit flow” is not necessary for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing 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.”)). Turning to a different claim term, we note that neither party provided an explicit construction for the limitation in claim 1 of “control[ling] fluid address the proper claim construction for this term and to specifically discuss what is encompassed by “flow . . . out from the distal end.” We note that in the related cases (IPR2021-01466 and IPR2022-00608), we construed the term, “forward flow” to mean “an amount of liquid in the lumen that exits the distal end in the distal direction that is greater than 6 microliters of fluid.” Ex. 2007, 15; Ex. 2011, 13–14. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and the evidence of record, we determine that no terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp, 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“c) Analysis On the current record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over the combined disclosures of Yang and Mullins. First, Patent Owner asserts that Yang does not disclose the limitation of “a controller . . . to control fluid flow in and out from the distal end.” Prelim. Resp. 21– 32. On the current record, we agree with Patent Owner that introducing a positive pressure pulse such as through the water hammer effect does not necessarily mean that there will be an overall distal end. See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 53–54; Ex. 2005 ¶ 60; Ex. 2007, 51 n.12. This is especially true if an overall vacuum state is maintained in the catheter. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 56; Ex. 2007, 43; Ex. 2010, 125:11–18. Further, on the current record, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Culbert, that to have flow out of the catheter’s distal end when it is in a patient, the pressure in the catheter needs to exceed mean arterial pressure. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 59; Ex. 2010, 126:15–21. Therefore, on the current record, we agree with Patent Owner that Yang may not explicitly disclose flow out from the distal end of the catheter. Whether Yang alone renders this limitation obvious may be explored further on a full trial record; however, because this limitation appears to be taught by Mullins and Petitioner has shown on this record that a POSA would have been motivated to combine the disclosures of Yang and Mullins, we are sufficiently persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden to show a reasonable likelihood that this limitation is rendered obvious by the combined disclosures of Yang and Mullins.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,406,402 - Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2023-01363 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, and 10–13 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of Holmberg, Battey, Blankenship, and Cowen.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least 1 year of experience related to communication networks or the equivalent.” Pet. 7. Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–31). Dr. Eldering agrees that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least one year of experience related to communication networks or the equivalent.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 24. According to Dr. Eldering, “[a] person with less relevant practical experience but with additional experience would also qualify.” Id. Patent Owner contends that” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Although Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s construction, it contends “the Board need not resolve this claim construction dispute because Petitioner’s proposed grounds 1-5 are all insufficient under either construction.” PO Resp. 19. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and the prior art of record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). For example, we discuss below in Section III.G why we do not reach the claim construction issue presented by Petitioner.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We find that Holmberg expressly contemplates using its wall box within multi-dwelling units, notes that multi-dwelling wall boxes in the prior art were “typically provided” on every floor, and discloses that the multi-dwelling wall boxes would contain optical couplings for each resident on a given floor. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 7, 34; Pet. Reply 8–10. In view of these disclosures, we credit the testimony of Dr. Kiaei that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to use Holmberg’s wall box in multi-dwelling units and would have seen a need to access the area behind spice tray 230 to connect and disconnect subscribers. Ex. 1003 ¶ 92; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 7–8. Moreover, even if Holmberg were limited to mid-span locations and distributing drop cables, as opposed to distribution cables for individual subscribers, as asserted by Patent Owner, Patent Owner does not dispute that a technician would still need periodic access to the area behind splice tray 230 in these mid-span devices. Tr. 38:3–39:1 (counsel agreeing that one would need to access the area behind splice tray 230 in Holmberg, albeit in “rare occasions”); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 90–92; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 7–8. Thus, whether used in the manner contemplated by Petitioner or Patent Owner, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that access to the space behind splice tray 230 in Holmberg would be necessary. With access behind splice tray 230 required, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would have seen a benefit to replacing Holmberg’s fasteners or screws with a hinged connection, such as that disclosed in Battey, to allow easier access to the area behind the splice tray. Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 39 (disclosing that a rotatable splice tray or shelf would “provide[] full and convenient access to the splice tray”)). First, Petitioner and Dr. Kiaei persuasively demonstrate that once the fibers of Holmberg are routed from behind splice tray 230 and the distribution cables spooled on this tray, a technician could not reasonably access fiber optic cables stored behind splice tray 230 without releasing or opening splice tray 230. Pet. Reply 14–15 (citing Ex. 1023, 60:20–61:15); Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 31–32. Second, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that without a hinged connection, the technician would have to either hold the splice tray of Holmberg with one hand while performing the necessary routing and splicing steps, two screws would need to remain in place (essentially replicating a hinge), or the tray would have to be left to dangle, supported only by the routed and spliced fibers. Pet. Reply 19–20.” slip op. at 22
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“Allegedly New Arguments on Reply Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s arguments regarding the benefits of a hinged connection when performing the splicing and routing steps should be dismissed or ignored because they were improperly raised for the first time on reply. Sur-reply 19–20. We disagree. The Petition asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to add a hinged connection, such as that disclosed in Battey, in Holmberg and would have seen a benefit to so doing. Pet. 40–44. Petitioner did not change its proposed combination or its stated rationale in its Reply. Rather, in response to Patent Owner’s counter-arguments, Petitioner expands upon the benefits of its proposed combination, i.e., the substitution of a hinged connection in place of fasteners. Pet. Reply 15–21. This is permissible, as a reply may properly expand on or extend previously raised arguments relating to the motivation to make the proposed changes to the prior art. See Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., 76 F.4th 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (explaining that the reply arguments properly relied on the same legal ground, the same prior art references, and same legal argument—the motivation to make the proposed changes to the prior art reference).” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 9,008,483 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,008,483 - Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01350 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 5–10 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 11–14 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish the claimed capacity retention after 400 cycles.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have held a Bachelor’s degree in chemistry or chemical engineering, with at least 4 years of experience in cell design, electrochemical techniques, and battery materials development.” Pet. 4. Petitioner further contends that a “Master’s Degree can substitute[] for some of the relevant experience,” and “[e]quivalent training with battery specific experience can accommodate other degreed fields.” Id. 9 The parties here do not address objective evidence of nonobviousness. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan. PO Resp. 20. We adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the ’641 patent, the prior art of record, and the parties’ arguments.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The parties agree that the term “charge cut-off voltage” is “the maximum voltage to which the battery is configured to be charged.” PO Resp 21–22; Pet. Reply 1. The parties dispute, however, whether the “charge cut-off voltage” is a “battery property” or “the voltage applied to the battery during charging.” PO Resp. 21–24; Pet. Reply 1–6. We need not resolve the precise meaning of “charge cut-off voltage” because there is no dispute that Yamaki discloses this limitation under either party’s interpretation of the claim term. Upon review of the prior art and the parties’ arguments, we determine that no terms of the ’641 patent require express construction. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))); Pet. Reply 1 (asserting that the challenged claims are unpatentable under either parties’ construction of “charge cut-off voltage”).” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Patent Owner’s arguments do not persuasively undermine Petitioner’s position. Sakamoto expressly discloses setting the ratio of negative to positive electrode active material in the range of 1.05 to 1.30. Ex. 1005 ¶ 8. Sakamoto also explains why this range is preferable, i.e., if the ratio is roughly equal “the charge-discharge cycle performance is insufficient due to significant deterioration from charging and discharging,” and if the ratio is 10 Citations to the prosecution history of Yamaki are to the page numbers added to the lower right corner of the document. too high “too much of the compound does not participate in charging and discharging.” Id. ¶¶ 6, 8. These disclosures are sufficient to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the ratios disclosed in Sakamoto in Yamaki. Id. ¶ 8 (providing a secondary battery with a capacity ratio between 1.05 and 1.30 and noting that by setting the ratio within this range the resulting secondary lithium battery is “safe due to low risk of heat being generated and an explosion occurring”). We also disagree that Sakamoto teaches away from elevated voltages or from increasing the amount of lithium in circulation. See PO Resp. 29. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, Sakamoto provides no general teaching against using a charge cut-off voltage above 4.2 V, or against increasing the level of lithium in circulation. Nor does Sakamoto “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” the claimed invention. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Rather, Sakamoto warns against setting the reversible capacities of the positive and negative electrode substantially equal as this may result in excess lithium plating on the surface of the electrode. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 8. We agree with Petitioner that this disclosure would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to design a battery with a higher capacity in the negative electrode active material than the positive electrode active material. Pet. 11–12.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“We also disagree that Sakamoto teaches away from elevated voltages or from increasing the amount of lithium in circulation. See PO Resp. 29. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, Sakamoto provides no general teaching against using a charge cut-off voltage above 4.2 V, or against increasing the level of lithium in circulation. Nor does Sakamoto “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” the claimed invention. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Rather, Sakamoto warns against setting the reversible capacities of the positive and negative electrode substantially equal as this may result in excess lithium plating on the surface of the electrode. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 8. We agree with Petitioner that this disclosure would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to design a battery with a higher capacity in the negative electrode active material than the positive electrode active material. Pet. 11–12.” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,749,641 - PTAB · Feb 6, 2025 · IPR2024-01212 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–27 on all petitioned grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would be obvious over Racz, Fitz, and Lee.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“§ 314. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Further, a decision to institute may not do so on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the Petition, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’664 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to all the challenged claims of the ’664 patent on all the grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“According to Petitioner, the relevant technical field is “‘thermal ablation systems and methods,’ which includes ‘methods for performing Radio Frequency (RF) neurotomy.”’ Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:24–27). Relying on the testimony of Dr. Tucker, Petitioner contends that the ordinarily skilled artisan in this field would have had at least (i) a bachelor’s degree in biomedical engineering, or a related field, such as mechanical engineering, biomechanical engineering, or bioengineering, who also has at least 3 years of experience with thermal ablation system and methods; or (ii) an advanced degree in the same areas of academic study with at least 1 years of experience with thermal ablation systems and methods. Id. (citing Ex. 1034 ¶ 105) (paragraphing added). Absent evidence or argument to the contrary, we apply Petitioner’s proposed definition, as it appears consistent with the prior art and is supported by the presently unopposed testimony of Dr. Tucker. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355, (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected in the prior art itself). We note, however, that Petitioner’s open-ended language “at least” expands the ranges of education and experience indefinitely with no upper bound, thereby encompassing those of extraordinary skill. Therefore, we do not adopt this aspect of Petitioner’s formulation. B.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Claim Construction The Board interprets claim terms in an inter partes review using the same claim construction standard that is used to construe claims in a civil action in federal district court. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)). In construing claims, district courts give claims their ordinary and customary meaning, which is “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). With respect to the challenged claims, Petitioner contends that no claim term requires express construction. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1034 ¶ 106 (Dr. Tucker’s testimony that “the terms in the Challenged Claims would be understood by a POSA to have their plain and ordinary meaning and do not require a special construction or definition”)). On the presents record, we agree with Petitioner that no term requires express construction. C.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“through [1e]. Pet. 28–30. Petitioner further relies on “Racz as modified in view of Fitz and Lee,” with respect to elements [1e] through [1h]. See generally, id. at 30–47. Supported by the testimony of Dr. Tucker, Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Racz, Fitz, and Lee with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. Id. at 1–6, 21–27; Ex. 1034 ¶¶ 132–149. In short, Petitioner contends that “[m]ost of the recited RF needle features—including an elongate cannula, a removable RF probe, a conductive tip, and a monopolar configuration—are conventional features disclosed in . . . Racz,” whereas Fitz discloses that a single-tip device, such as disclosed in Racz, “would produce limited ablation volumes and would have motivated a POSA to solve this problem by adding deployable filaments,” as recited in claim elements [1e] and [1f]. Id. at 4–5, 21–22. In addition to its reliance on the multiple electrode tips disclosed in Fitz, Petitioner contends that Lee would have “motivate[ed] a POSA to implement deployable filaments on the tip of Racz’s device using channels within the cannula,” and “also shows how the filaments can extend outwardly around the needle’s tip to advantageously expand and control the ablation volume.” Id. at 5–6. Accordingly, Petitioner contends, one of ordinary skill in the art “would have found it obvious to modify Racz’s device to include the well-known deployable filaments described in Fitz and Lee,” and would have implemented this combination as “a matter of routine engineering.” Id. at 6, 27.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,925,664 - PTAB · Feb 6, 2025 · IPR2024-01211 · APJ John G New · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 18–47 and 53–74 and all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 18–25, 27, and 29–33 are obvious over Racz, Fitz, and Lee.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“§ 314. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition … and any response … shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Further, a decision to institute may not do so on fewer than all of the claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a); see also PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (interpreting the statute to require “a simple yesor-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Absent evidence or argument to the contrary, we apply Petitioner’s proposed definition, as it appears to be consistent with the level of skill of the prior art and is supported by the presently unopposed testimony of Dr. Tucker. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected in the prior art itself). We note, however, that the open-ended language ‘at least’ expands the ranges of education and experience indefinitely with no upper bound, thereby also encompassing those of extraordinary skill as well. Therefore, we do not adopt this aspect of Petitioner’s formulation.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“With respect to the challenged claims, Petitioner contends that no claim term requires express construction. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1033 ¶ 120 (Dr. Tucker’s testimony that “the terms in the Challenged Claims would be understood by a POSA to have their plain and ordinary meaning and do not require a special construction or definition”)). We agree with Petitioner that, on the record presently before us, no claim term requires express construction.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Petitioner argues that, in view of these teachings in Racz and Lee, a skilled artisan would have found implementing Lee’s perimeter filaments (22/1622) on Racz’s distal tip (14/38) to be a routine engineering task. Pet. 39 (citing Ex. 1033 ¶ 179). According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the arts would have recognized that it would be appropriate to implement Lee’s perimeter filaments (22/1622) without including Lee’s central filament. Id. Petitioner asserts that Lee discloses that any number and arrangement of filaments may be implemented to provide a desired ablation volume. Id. at 38 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 103, 105, 106). Additionally, Petitioner argues, because Racz’s tip (14/38) is already active, a skilled artisan would have recognized that Lee’s central filament would not be necessary. Id. (citing Ex. 1009, col. 3, ll. 60–63, col. 4, ll. 18–23; Ex. 1033 ¶ 179). Petitioner therefore argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement Lee’s perimeter deployable filaments (22/1622) on the distal tip (14/38) of Racz’s cannula (10/33) for the purpose of expanding and controlling the energy coverage area of Racz’s device. Pet. 40. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to implement Lee’s perimeter filaments (22/1622) around Racz’s tip (14/38) to provide a desired ablation volume (e.g., in a full or partial “cone” shape) and omit Lee’s central filament. Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 179, 73–75, 79–83). Petitioner contends that, as both Lee and Fitz confirm, this would improve Racz’s device by providing an expanded and controlled energy coverage area. Id. (citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 9–10, Abstr.; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 12, 84, 123–131; Ex. 1033 ¶ 179). Petitioner argues further that, in implementing Lee’s perimeter filaments (22/1622) on Racz’s distal tip (14/38), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Racz’s tip (14/38) to include internal deflection surfaces (12/1612) (e.g., channels and ramps as disclosed in Lee) to guide the perimeter filaments (22/1622) outwardly around Racz’s tip (14/38). Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 16, 18, 92, 102, claims 8, 10; Ex. 1033 ¶ 180). Petitioner asserts that it would have been obvious to provide openings in Racz’s distal tip (14/38) (e.g., in communication the internal deflection surfaces as disclosed in Lee) such that Lee’s perimeter filaments (22/1622) can, when deployed, exit Racz’s distal tip (14/38). Id. (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 92, 102; Ex. 1033 ¶ 180). Furthermore, argues Petitioner, and to preserve the functionality of Racz’s removable electrical probe (22/52) and active tip (14/38) (and consistent with Lee’s teachings) a skilled artisan would have arranged the perimeter filaments, channels, and ramps around the internal perimeter of Racz’s cannula (10/33). Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 91, 92, 98, 102; Ex. 1033 ¶ 181). Petitioner recapitulates that Racz’s probe (22/52) is configured to extend the full length of the cannula’s shaft (12/34) to supply RF energy to the tip (14/38) and measure tissue temperature. Pet. 42. According to Petitioner, by omitting Lee’s central filament and arranging the perimeter filaments, channels, and ramps around the inner perimeter of Racz’s cannula (10/33), a skilled artisan could have implemented Lee’s perimeter filaments (22/1622) without obstructing Racz’s cannula (10/33). Id. at 40. Petitioner contends that this modification would preserve the functionality of Racz’s electrical probe (22/52), which is needed to transmit RF energy. Id. (citing Ex. 1033 ¶ 181–182).” slip op. at 29
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,736,688 - PTAB · Feb 6, 2025 · IPR2024-01210 · APJ John G New · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–17 and 48–52 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim was obvious over Racz, Fitz, and Lee.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“§ 314. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition … and any response … shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Further, a decision to institute may not do so on fewer than all of the claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a); see also PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (interpreting the statute to require “a simple yesor-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Absent evidence or argument to the contrary, we apply Petitioner’s proposed definition, as it appears to be consistent with the level of skill of the prior art and is supported by the presently unopposed testimony of Dr. Tucker. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected in the prior art itself). We note, however, that the open-ended language ‘at least’ expands the ranges of education and experience indefinitely with no upper bound, thereby also encompassing those of extraordinary skill as well. Therefore, we do not adopt this aspect of Petitioner’s formulation.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“With respect to the challenged claims, Petitioner contends that no claim term requires express construction. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1032 ¶ 120 (Dr. Tucker’s testimony that “the terms in the Challenged Claims would be understood by a POSA to have their plain and ordinary meaning and do not require a special construction or definition”)). We agree with Petitioner that, on the record presently before us, no claim term requires express construction.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement Lee’s perimeter deployable filaments (22/1622) on the distal tip (14/38) of Racz’s cannula (10/33) for the purpose of expanding and controlling the energy coverage area of Racz’s device. Pet. 35. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to implement Lee’s perimeter filaments (22/1622) around Racz’s tip (14/38) to provide a desired ablation volume (e.g., in a full or partial “cone” shape) and omit Lee’s central filament. Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 179, 73–75, 79–83). Petitioner contends that, as both Lee and Fitz confirm, this would improve Racz’s device by providing an expanded and controlled energy coverage area. Id. (citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 9–10, Abstr.; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 12, 84, 123–131; Ex. 1032 ¶ 179). Petitioner argues further that, in implementing Lee’s perimeter filaments (22/1622) on Racz’s distal tip (14/38), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Racz’s tip (14/38) to include internal deflection surfaces (12/1612) (e.g., channels and ramps as disclosed in Lee) to guide the perimeter filaments (22/1622) outwardly around Racz’s tip (14/38). Pet. 39 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 16, 18, 92, 102, claims 8, 10; Ex. 1032 ¶ 180). Petitioner asserts that it would have been obvious to provide openings in Racz’s distal tip (14/38) (e.g., in communication the internal deflection surfaces as disclosed in Lee) such that Lee’s perimeter filaments (22/1622) can, when deployed, exit Racz’s distal tip (14/38). Id. (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 92, 102; Ex. 1032 ¶ 180).” slip op. at 29
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,736,688 - PTAB · Feb 6, 2025 · IPR2024-01209 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–27 and all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is obvious over Racz, Fitz, and Lee.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“314. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Further, a decision to institute may not do so on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Absent evidence or argument to the contrary, we apply Petitioner’s proposed definition, as it appears consistent with the prior art and is supported by the presently unopposed testimony of Dr. Tucker. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355, (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected in the prior art itself). We note, however, that Petitioner’s open-ended language “at least” expands the ranges of education and experience indefinitely with no upper bound, thereby encompassing those of extraordinary skill. Therefore, we do not adopt this aspect of Petitioner’s formulation. B.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“With respect to the challenged claims, Petitioner contends that no claim term requires express construction. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1031 ¶ 106 (Dr. Tucker’s testimony that “the terms in the Challenged Claims would be understood by a POSA to have their plain and ordinary meaning and do not require a special construction or definition”)). On the presents record, we agree with Petitioner that no term requires express construction.” slip op. at 12
Claim constructioncites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,966,782 - Opticis Co., Ltd. v. Inneos LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 29, 2025 · IPR2023-01256 · APJ Terry J Owens · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 9 are unpatentable as obvious over Kurita and Lemoff, with the Board declining to reach the remaining grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“We accept the level of ordinary skill in the art stated by Petitioner and agreed with by Patent Owner with the exception of the open-ended language appears consistent with the ’416 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“describe elements that are not affirmatively recited in the claims, and in view of the “bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent define the invention,” we conclude that none of the unrecited limitations identified by Patent Owner are required by the claims. See Thorner v. Sony Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (explaining that the standard for disavowal is “exacting,” and the use of “the present invention” is not necessarily sufficient to meet this standard).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“art would not have modified Kurita in view of Lemoff because Lemoff positions the signal emitters near the fiber to emulate WDM without the need for an external optical multiplexer or a similar device and discourages using optical wavelength multiplexers for short distances because the complexity of the design is often cost prohibitive (PO Resp. 47–48), Lemoff does not appear to limit the usefulness of the fiber connector to any particular optical signal transmission distance. Petitioner relies upon Lemoff for a suggestion to combine Lemoff’s fiber connector configuration teachings with Kurita’s multiplexer teachings to enable fibers to be plugged Fig. 2) (Pet 29, 31; Reply 17–18). Regarding Patent Owner’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Lemoff’s receptacle and ferrule with discrete components in Kurita because the fiber would need to be manually fixed and aligned with or without a ferrule and, therefore, would serve no purpose (PO Resp. 48), Lemoff’s fiber connector appears to fix and align the fiber adequately for wavelength division multiplexing without manual fixation or alignment being required (Ex. 1006, 5:65–6:2, Fig. 2; Reply 18). The challenged claims do not require any greater degree of fixing and alignment than that provided by Lemoff’s fiber connector. Regarding Patent Owner argument that Lemoff’s device is not physically combinable with Kurita’s WDM multiplexer due to Lemoff’s device’s small size (PO Resp. 47–48; Reply 17–18), “[t]he 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” (In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument.” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“stopped single optical fiber because fixing it in place does not passively align it with the optical components (PO Resp. at 35–37) is not persuasive because fixing Kurita’s fiber (40) in place in accord with Lemoff’s teaching regarding the ferrule (255) inserted until being stopped by the receptacle (260) (Ex. 1006, 5:50–6:15, Fig. 2) would align Kurita’s optical array (20), and lens (30)) (Ex. 1004 Fig. 3) passively in the same manner that Lemoff’s ferrule (255), after being inserted until stopped by the receptacle (260), passively aligns the optical fiber (250) with the optical components (optical imaging element 220 and light emitters within emission apertures 120) (Ex. 1006, 5:50–6:15, Fig. 2; Reply 15–16). Regarding Patent Owner’s argument that the light from each of Kurita’s lasers (11) depicted in Figure 3 cannot pass through a separate focusing lens (30) pie shaped sector because the lasers (11) and collimating lenses (21) are arranged linearly rather than being arranged about a circular axis (PO Resp. at 37–42), we do not agree. Claim 1 requires “focusing means having n separate radial sectors on its surface, and each of said n collimated beams passes through a separate one of said n sectors of said focusing means” (Ex. 1001, 5:34–37), claim 2 requires “four lasers and four collimating lenses are each formed in a two-dimensional, two by two array [centered on the focal axis of lens 30], wherein said focusing means is a single focusing lens, and wherein each radial sector is a pie-shaped quadrant” (id. at 5:41–44), and claim 7 requires “focusing means having four separate quadrants on its surface, and each of said four collimated beams passes through a separate one of said quadrants of said focusing means” (id. at 6:35–38). Kurita meets those claim requirements. Kurita’s two by two array (10A) of lasers (11), collimating lens (21) array (20), and focusing lens (30) are shown in Kurita’s Figure 3 (cropped) as follows: The image is a portion of Kurita’s Figure 3 showing Kurita’s laser array, collimating lens array, and focusing lens (30). Relative to a point at the center of the laser array (10A) or the collimating lens array (20), each laser (11) and each collimating lens (21) is in a separate quadrant that can be a quadrant of a circle (pie-shape) on lens 30 (Reply 12– 13, Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85–91).” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 7,198,416 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,198,416 - PTAB · Jan 29, 2025 · PGR2024-00043 · APJ John G New · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on all challenged claims, finding a sufficient likelihood that claims are anticipated or obvious under Grounds 1–10; it found Ground 11’s enablement challenge insufficient.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 324, the Board “may not authorize a post-grant review to be instituted unless … the information presented in the petition … if such information is not rebutted would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” For the reasons we explain below, we institute post-grant review of the ’943 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“asserted reference qualifies as prior art is public accessibility. See In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 899 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “[A]t the institution stage, the petition must identify, with particularity, evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent and therefore that there is a reasonable likelihood that it qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29, 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential).” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner
“priority benefit of the ’720 provisional application (at top center). See Ex. 1001, code (60) (listing “provisional application No. 5,995,873, filed on Oct. 2, 2006”). However, simply to claim the priority benefit of an earlier application is not necessarily to receive it. See In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that “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.”). As the diagram shows (and as we have verified), the ’529 application was a continuation-in-part of the preceding ’329 application. See Ex. 1001, code (63). However, the ’529 application was abandoned on February 10, 2016 (See Ex. 1052), and the succeeding application, U.S. Patent Application Ser. No. 15,474,875 (the “’875 application”) which is listed in the ’943 patent as being a continuation-in-part of the ’529 application, was not filed until March 30, 2017. See Ex. 1001, code (63) (stating that “said application No. 15/474,875 is a continuation-in-part of application No. 12/508,529”). Put simply, the ’875 application was not filed until over a year after the ’529 application was abandoned. As 35 U.S.C. § 120 states, in relevant part: An application for patent for an invention disclosed in the manner provided by section 112(a) (other than the requirement to disclose the best mode) in an application previously filed in the United States, or as provided by section 363 or 385, which names an inventor or joint inventor in the previously filed application shall have the same effect, as to such invention, as though filed on the date of the prior application, if filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the first application or on an application similarly entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application and if it contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application. (emphasis added). In other words, if there is a “break in the chain” of priority caused by the abandonment or termination of an application claiming priority prior to filing of a subsequent application, the subsequent application loses the priority benefit of the abandoned or terminated application, as well as the priority benefit of all applications that antedate that abandoned or terminated application. Such is the case presently before us. Based on the current record, we are persuaded that the abandonment of the ’529 application prior to filing of the continuation-in-part ’875 application broke the priority chain leading to the ’720 provisional application, and the ’943 patent cannot, therefore, claim the priority benefit of the ’720 provisional application’s October 2, 2006 filing date. Consequently, the earliest date of which the ’943 patent could possibly claim the priority benefit is that of U.S. Patent Provisional Application Ser. No. 61/403,680 (the “’680 provisional application”) (located at the top of the left branch of the “family tree” depicted above), which has a filing date of September 20, 2010. See Ex. 1001, code (60). Burnett (i.e., the ’329 application) was filed on October 2, 2007 and thus antedates the ’680 provisional application. Consequently, Patent Owner’s argument fails based on the current record, and Burnett is prior art to the ’943 patent.” slip op. at 55
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“Patent Owner’s request that we exercise our discretion under § 325(d) is not tenable. In deciding whether to exercise our discretion under § 325(d) in situations where only some of the challenges fall within its scope, we evaluate the challenges and determine whether § 325(d) is sufficiently implicated that its statutory purpose would be undermined by instituting on all challenges. If so, the panel will evaluate whether the entire petition should be denied.” See USPTO, SAS Q&As (June 5, 2018) at D1, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/ sas_qas_20180605.pdf; see also Kansas State Univ. Res. Found., PGR2022- 00021, Paper 11 at 7–8 & n.3 (Vidal Feb. 24, 2023) (holding that “the Board will further evaluate … whether § 325(d) is sufficiently implicated that its statutory purpose would be undermined by instituting review on all challenges presented in the Petition”). We having instituted post grant review based at least upon claim 1 of Ground 1 of the Petition. Even if the panel agreed with Patent Owner that Grounds 5–8 present “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments” previously presented to the Office, § 325(d) would not be “sufficiently implicated” due to the 7 other asserted grounds. We therefore do not proceed with the § 325(d) analysis established in Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) and decline to exercise our discretion to deny the petition on that basis.” slip op. at 41
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 11,844,943 - PTAB · Jan 29, 2025 · IPR2024-01174 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–8 and 10–23, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 3, 4, and 8 are unpatentable, including over Lesniak-based grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“We determine that the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework is satisfied. Although the Examiner did not specifically apply Lesniak, Phinney, or Sturgis to the grounds of rejection for ’706 patent application, the Examiner considered these references as evidenced on the face of the ’706 patent indicating these were cited references, as well as by the Information Disclosure Statement that listed these three references. See Ex. 1001, code (56); Ex. 2001, 287, 297, 304. Various combinations of these references are asserted in six of the nine grounds before us in this proceeding. Therefore, we determine that same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office.” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“summarized above, we determine that the information presented in the Petition establishes that Petitioner has shown sufficiently a reasonable likelihood of succeeding with respect to at least claims 1, 3, 4, and 8 challenged in Grounds I through IV.2 We are persuaded, based on the current record, that persons of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the different combinations of Lesniak, Phinney, Lamb, Bianchi ’518, Bianchi ’254 and Anconi for Grounds I through IV to arrive at the deodorant stick of at least claims 1, 3, 4, and 8 with a reasonable expectation of success. Below, we discuss how Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of success that the teachings of Lesniak for claim 1 and the various combinations of Grounds II through IV would render obvious claims 3, 4, and 8, representative claims for these grounds.” slip op. at 30
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“rational motivation to combine, supported by Dr. Michniak-Kohn’s testimony, stating that Lesniak and Phinney are in the same field of endeavor as the ’706 patent—personal care compositions, including deodorant and/or antiperspirant sticks, that contain known antimicrobials and focus on the use of natural ingredients. Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1001, Abstract, 1:26–44, 14:32– 60; 17:58–12, 18:65–26:36; Ex. 1003, Abstract, Title, 1:16–35, 3:39, 4:22, 4:61–67; 5:5–31, 8:43–46, 9:45, 10:27–33; Ex. 1004, Abstract, Title, 1:5–9, 5:52–60, 6:1–34, 8:40–44; Ex. 1002 ¶ 80). Petitioner points to Phinney’s teaching that that “’a mixture of the hydroxides of zinc and magnesium could provide long lasting protection against odour due to perspiration,’” versus using zinc oxide alone, which was less effective “due to insolubility and low hydrolysis rate to a hydroxide form that could show some activity.” Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1004, 1:12–22, 2:33–37; 5:64–66, 5:48–49; Ex. 1002 ¶ 82); see Ex. 1002 ¶ 77.” slip op. at 32
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther
“Dr. Michniak-Kohn testifies that “a POSA would have been motivated to incorporate magnesium hydroxide into Lesniak’s composition following Phinney’s guidance, as this combination would improve odor protection while maintaining the ‘natural’ composition intended by Lesniak.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 77. Dr. Michniak-Kohn also testifies that “a POSA would have appreciated that deodorant compositions could be formed through various combinations of known ingredients, such as antimicrobials, as simple design choices.” Id. ¶ 79. We credit Dr. Michniak-Kohn’s testimony here as supported by the record before us at this stage of the proceeding. On the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has shown sufficiently a reason to combine the teachings of Lesniak and Phinney to arrive at claim 3.” slip op. at 33
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,497,706
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.