• Rimfrost As v. Aker Biomarine Antarctic AsNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 18, 2022 · IPR2020-01534 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 because the petitioner did not establish that Bottino II taught the claimed free fatty acid limit.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel does not applyDecided for patent owner

    “have been fully and fairly tried in a previous action and adversely resolved against a party-opponent.” Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps S., LLC, 735 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. v. Mylan Pharm., Inc., 170 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). To prove collateral estoppel, a party must show the following: (1) that in the prior action the party against whom estoppel is sought had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue: (2) the issue was actually litigated; (3) the controlling facts and applicable legal rules were the same in both actions; (4) resolution of the particular issue was essential to the final judgment in the first action; and (5) the identical issue was decided in the first action. See Comair Rotron, Inc. v. Nippon Densan Corp., 49 F.3d 1535, 1537 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (emphasis added). In considering collateral estoppel of adjudicated patent claims, the patent claims do not have to be identical; rather, “it is the identity of the issues that were litigated that determines whether collateral estoppel should apply.” Ohio Willow Wood, 735 F.3d at 1342. Here, Petitioner provides us with an overview of the similarity of the art used in the previous cases before us involving related patents to the ’567 patent and a general overview of the various components of allegedly “virtually identical krill oil compositions” without addressing a comparison of specific unpatentable claims of these related patents as compared to the specific claims at issue here. See Pet. 42–44. Notably, this overview of similar components of claimed krill oil compositions in the related patents does not address free fatty acids that are at the center of the dispute in this case. Id. Most notably, Petitioner fails to address the five criteria that we have listed above to establish that collateral estoppel applies in this case. Id. We agree with Patent Owner that this is a fatal flaw. Nowhere in the Petition does Petitioner provide an analysis of a previous Board decision where the issue of whether Bottino II teaches an extract with less than 3% free fatty acids w/w of said krill oil (an issue central to resolution of the case here) was litigated, resolved by the Board, and essential to the judgment in that previous case. See Pet. 42–44. Therefore, Petitioner cannot show that the identical issue was decided in any previous case before us. Petitioner’s discussion of the similarity of art previously applied and a generalized overview of different components of various challenged claims of related patents is insufficient. Because Petitioner failed to apply the correct framework, we find that collateral estoppel does not preclude Patent Owner from addressing the issues raised in this inter partes review.” slip op. at 16

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner makes arguments for the first time at oral hearing concerning our alleged previous reliance on Table 2 of Bottino II in finding claims of related patents unpatentable and provides new evidence of Patent Owner’s alleged failure to challenge the reliability of Table 2 of Bottino II. See Tr. 8:7–9:3; Petitioner’s Demonstratives, slide 8. We find that these belated arguments and evidence are inappropriately raised for the first time at oral argument, and we need not consider them. See Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 73 (Nov. 2019) (“Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.”) (citing Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1077–78 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).” slip op. at 18

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Jaczynski, accepted Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA, see Ex. 2001 ¶ 8, and further commented that “[t]he relevant field for the ’567 patent includes extraction of lipids from natural sources,” see id. ¶ 7. Dr. Jaczynski further stated that he considers himself to be an expert in the relevant field. Id. We find that Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the Specification and the asserted prior art references, and apply it for purposes of this decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art). We also find that both Dr. Tallon and Dr. Jaczynski are qualified to opine about how one of skill in the art would view the teachings of the asserted combinations of art in Petitioner’s challenges to the claims. See Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 7–21, Appendix D (Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Tallon); Ex. 2002, Appendix A (Curriculum Vitae of Dr.Jaczynski).” slip op. at 11

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

    “At this final stage of the proceeding, we again determine that no construction of any claim term for which Petitioner has proposed a 13 Petitioner points out that Dr. Tallon testified that his constructions would be the same under the Phillips standard. Reply 6, n.2 (citing Ex. 1086 ¶ 6). definition is necessary to resolve the disputes between the parties here as the limitation upon which we resolve this case does not involve these claim terms.” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 10,010,567 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,010,567
• Rimfrost As v. Aker Biomarine Antarctic AsAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 6, 2022 · IPR2020-01532 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations of prior art, because the combined teachings establish every limitation and a reason to combine with a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel does not applyDecided for patent owner

    “Collateral estoppel protects a party from having to litigate issues that have been fully and fairly tried in a previous action and adversely resolved against a party-opponent.” Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps South, LLC, 735 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In the context of patent claims, collateral estoppel applies “[i]f the differences between the unadjudicated patent claims and adjudicated patent claims do not materially alter the question of invalidity.” Id. Petitioner points to no prior decision of the Board where the issue of whether it would have been obvious to denature a krill product and then store it for 1 to 24 months before extraction was at issue. Moreover, to demonstrate that the added limitation would have been obvious, Petitioner relies heavily on the disclosures of Budziński, which was not at issue or analyzed in the prior proceedings. Pet. 45; PO Resp. 13 (asserting that the prior art in the previous proceedings “did not include Budziński”). Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated that collateral estoppel applies in this proceeding. slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Neither Patent Owner nor Dr. Jaczynski dispute Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 2015 ¶ 8 (“For purposes of this proceeding, I will accept [Petitioner’s] definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art].”). Upon review of the ’169 patent and the prior art of record, we find Petitioner’s uncontested definition reasonable and supported by the evidence of record. Accordingly, we adopt this definition of one of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8

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

    “oil,” “denature lipases and phospholipases,” “polar solvent,” “astaxanthin esters,” “krill meal,” and “freshly harvested.” Pet. 32–39. With respect to “krill meal,” Petitioner contends this term should be construed to mean “processed krill with reduced water content from which krill oil can be extracted.” Id. at 38. Patent Owner provides proposed constructions for the terms “krill meal” and “denature lipases and phospholipases.” PO Resp. 7–12. With respect to “krill meal,” Patent Owner contends Petitioner’s proposed construction of “krill meal” is overbroad and ignores the ordinary and customary meaning of a meal, which is a “powder formed by particle size reduction of a starting material.” Id. at 8 (citing Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 14–16). Thus, Patent Owner construes “krill meal” to mean “a krill powder resulting from the processing of krill.” Id. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, we determine that no terms of the ’169 patent require construction in order to resolve the disputes in this proceeding. 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 9

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

    “As noted by Patent Owner, the evidence of record suggests that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that krill processing—both denaturation and krill oil extraction—could be successfully performed on board a ship. Ex. 1037, 3–4; Ex. 2019, 49:18–25 (Dr. Tallon testifying 12 Because Patent Owner relies on various disclosures of Breivik II as potentially counselling against combining the references to arrive at the claimed subject matter, we will consider these teachings in our Decision. We do not, however, consider Breivik II or Petitioner’s arguments with respect to this reference in determining whether the prior art teaches or suggests every limitation of the challenged claims. during cross-examination that flammable solvents can be successfully managed on a ship). At the same time, Petitioner and Dr. Tallon explain that the dangers of using flammable solvents on a vessel are still a relevant consideration. Ex. 1086 ¶¶ 97–99; Ex. 2019, 49:18–25 (Tallon Deposition). Moreover, Dr. Tallon also persuasively identifies several other benefits of land-based krill oil extraction, such as the reduced costs of outfitting each ship with its own processing equipment (which is often essentially identical to that used on land), the ability to extract krill oil to meet specific demand in the market, and cheaper access to fuel. Pet. 61 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 173, 443); see KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (noting that market forces and design needs can provide the reason to combine or modify prior art references). Patent Owner presents no argument or evidence to refute these additional benefits of land-based extractions, other than to note that Dr. Tallon does not cite any specific documents to support his assertions. PO Resp. 45 (Patent Owner noting the testimony of Dr. Tallon). Upon review of the evidence of record, we credit the testimony of Dr. Tallon that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that, in addition to avoiding the need to manage the use of flammable solvents at sea, there were a number of other benefits to land-based extractions of krill oil that would have motivated a skilled artisan to store the denatured krill products for between 1 and 24 months, as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 9,644,169 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,644,169
• Sealed Air Corporation v. Ranpak Corp.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 12, 2022 · IPR2020-01249 · APJ Wesley B Derrick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 13–15 are unpatentable as obvious over Kirkpatrick; the Board did not reach the alternative grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner fails to cite any authority to support its argument that we should, in effect, disregard Mr. Klass’ testimony as to the level of ordinary skill in the art because he is not a person of ordinary skill in what Patent Owner contends is the relevant field. See PO Resp.; PO Sur-Reply. Patent Owner’s counsel similarly was unable to identify any such authority at the hearing. Tr. 42:9–15. Further, Mr. Klass’ testimony was not that he is not a person of ordinary skill in the art, but rather that his opinions set forth in his earlier declaration would not be different under the level of ordinary skill as defined by Mr. May. Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 4–5. On this record, we find Mr. Klass’ testimony well-supported as it pertains to relevant issues and see no reason to summarily disregard it. See Exs. 1002, 1028. Complete overlap between a witness’ technical qualifications in the field of the invention is not necessary for the witness’ testimony to be admissible. See SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 594 F.3d 1360, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide November 2019 (“CTPG”)5 at 34 (“There is . . . no requirement of a perfect match between the expert’s experience and the relevant field.”). Nor must they themselves be a person of ordinary skill in the art, but only that they are “qualified in the pertinent art.” CTPG at 34 (citing Sundance, Inc. v. DelMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 136364 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Mr. Klass’ education includes a minor in Pulp & Paper Technology (Ex. 1006) and his lengthy experience in the pulp and paper industry includes work—as a process engineer—involving splicing and corrugators (Ex. 1002 ¶ 8). Mr. Klass has the “knowledge, skill, experience, training, [and] education” of a “specialized” nature that is likely to “assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. Accordingly, we find Mr. Klass has sufficient relevant technical expertise to consider and weigh his testimony as we have in this decision. See SEB S.A., 594 F.3d at 1373.” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “On this record, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have included those with a bachelor’s degree in mechanical or paper engineering with at least a year’s experience relating to producing cushioning materials, dunnage pads, and other protective packaging. As admitted by Patent Owner, production of such materials using kraft paper stock was known. PO Resp. 14. As to the use of double-sided adhesive, we do not agree with Patent Owner that it was unknown to the person of ordinary skill in the art because using double-sided tape to join rolls of sheet stock was known in the wider field of paper processing and we find that field reasonably includes producing paper cushioning products, and that such related knowledge reasonably would also have been within the knowledge of a skilled artisan in the “cushioning conversion machine” field as the same or similar paper cushioning products are produced. Moreover, regardless of whether double-sided tape was used in what Patent Owner contends is the “cushioning conversion machine” field, Mr. May’s testimony is limited to it not being used in that field, not that double-sided tape itself was not known to one of ordinary skill in the art in the field. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 53–57. It reasonably follows that a person having knowledge of double-sided tape would also have knowledge of joining together sheets of paper or other stock using double-sided tape. Further, to the extent that Patent Owner and Mr. May rely on “cushioning conversion machines” differing from paper processing machines that produce paper cushioning products, on this record, there is insufficient evidence of a meaningful difference in their complexity, size, or operation. For example, Patent Owner relies heavily on the paper processing machines including machinery to allow splicing on the fly, but the prior art also teaches that non-continuous roll-to-roll splicing can be used. See Ex. 1010, 1:13–16 (disclosing that a splicing tape system “is applicable both to systems in which the splice is made on the fly and to systems in which the splice is made while the running web is stationary”); Ex.1017, 1:15–19 (disclosing that “[t]he splicing operation can be performed in a static or a dynamic mode.”). As to size, similarly, Patent Owner relies on the machinery for paper making or producing corrugated cardboard being larger than “cushioning conversion machines,” but there is no clear distinction between the two as to size, as discussed below. Also, there is no evidence that paper processing machines forming paper cushioning products from paper itself do not do so in the same general manner as the ’096 patent. Accordingly, finding no meaningful distinction to “cushioning conversion machines,” we discern no meaningful difference in the knowledge of the skilled artisan as it relates to the challenged claims. Moreover, to the extent that there would be a narrower “cushioning conversion machine” field that did not include the use of double-sided tape, as Patent Owner contends, there would be no difference in the outcome of this case. As to obviousness, the scope of analogous prior art is not limited to the field of inventor’s endeavor, but also includes references that are “still reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As discussed below, we find Kirkpatrick reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner

    “On this record, we determine that the preamble’s recitation of “sheet stock material for use in a cushioning conversion machine” is a statement of intended use and does not constitute a limitation. In doing so, we must construe the meaning of the term “cushioning conversion machine.” In construing “cushioning conversion machine,” we note there is no guidance elsewhere in the remaining claim language as to its meaning, including in other claims, and so turn to the specification of the ’096 patent. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13, 1315. The ’096 patent states that “[c]ushioning conversion machines convert [paper] sheet stock material . . . into a cushioning dunnage product.” Ex. 1001, 1:23–25 (Background). The ’096 patent also identifies its “invention [as] relat[ing] to machines for converting sheet stock material into a dunnage product.” Id. at 1:15–16 (Field of the Invention). Figures 1 and 2 are identified as top plan and side elevational views of a cushioning conversion machine. Id. at 3:57–63. The ’096 patent discloses that the “operation of the [cushioning] conversion machine 10 may be controlled by a controller, also in a well-known manner” (emphasis added). Id. at 6:42–44. The ’096 patent provides no disclosure as to the size of the cushioning conversion machine or the sheet stock material that it converts into cushioning dunnage product. See Ex. 1001.” slip op. at 20

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “On this record, Mr. May’s testimony of what “cushioning conversion machine” means in the field of paper dunnage machines fails to bear the weight required to limit the term as Patent Owner proposes. The ’096 patent identifies “cushioning conversion machines” to be machines that “convert sheet stock material . . . into a cushioning dunnage product.” Ex. 1001, 1:23–25 (Background). This is in effect the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves identifying a machine that converts feedstock into cushioning. Further, we find it consistent with the ’096 patent as a whole. Mr. May’s contrary testimony, as discussed above, lacks sufficient evidentiary basis to support Patent Owner’s contended construction over the plain and ordinary meaning. In effect, the basis for Mr. May’s testimony is limited to a showing that the meaning of the term encompasses a machine such as shown in the ’096 patent’s Figure 1 and 2. Mr. May’s testimony as to the PadPak machine being a “popular cushioning conversion machine[]” only goes to establishing that “cushioning conversion machine” encompasses similar machines, not that the term would be understood to be limited to the PadPak machine. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 65–66. As to “cushioning conversion machines” being stop/start machines, the ’096 patent’s states that “the conversion machine 10 may be controlled by a controller” (emphasis 7 Elsewhere Patent Owner cites a number of its patents for using the term “cushioning conversion machine,” but this only supports that Patent Owner uses the term. See PO Resp. 27. added), not that it must be. Ex. 1001, 6:42–43. As to size, as discussed above, the ’096 patent provides no limitation as to the size of the apparatus or the sheet stock material. Petitioner highlights that another of Patent Owner’s patents, U.S. Patent No. 6,200,251 B1 (Ex. 1026, “the ’251 patent”), discloses “that in a ‘preferred cushioning conversion machine, the stock supply assembly is adapted to supply stock material which is between 25 to 35 inches wide’” (emphasis added). Pet. Reply 14 (citing Ex. 1026, 2:56–59). Petitioner also highlights that the ’251 patent was filed before the ’096 patent’s priority date and names the ’096 patent’s inventor among its inventors. Id.; compare Ex. 1026, codes (22), (75), with Ex. 1001, codes (22), (75). Such disclosure of a preferred embodiment in this circumstance is reasonable evidence that a skilled artisan would understand that a “cushioning conversion machine” included those “adapted to supply stock material . . . between 25 and 35 inches wide,” but not that such machines were limited to using such widths. The relevance of this is that the sheet stock material used is not manifestly distinct from the sheet stock material used for corrugators, ranging from 35 to 110 inches in width, where Patent Owner contends corrugators are distinct from “cushioning conversion machines.” See Ex. 2003, 95:22–96:6 (Mr. Klass testifying that the “width of commercial corrugators could be anywhere from 35 to 110 inches.”); PO Resp. 33–34 (relying on Mr. Klass’ testimony). Similarly, there is no persuasive evidence of a clear distinction in weight. Patent Owner and Mr. May rely on Mr. Klass’ testimony as to the weight of paper rolls for corrugators, focusing solely on testimony as to the weight of large rolls and ignoring that the testimony also set forth that “[s]ome corrugators use smaller rolls.” PO Resp. 34; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 77–79; Pet. Reply 14–15; see also Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 21–22 (Mr. Klass’ testimony that “web feed rolls at the lower end of that range would be especially well suited for use in a cushioning conversion machine, even under [Patent Owner’s] narrow definition of such a machine” and that “my testimony certainly was not that Kirkpatrick’s web feed rolls would weigh tons.”). In sum, on this record, we determine that “cushioning conversion” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 6,756,096 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,756,096
• Peag LLC (D/B/A Jlab Audio) / Audio Partnership LLC et al. v. Varta Microbattery GmbHAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 5, 2022 · IPR2020-01213 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 are unpatentable as obvious over Kobayashi and Kwon; substitute claims 10–14, 16, and 17 are allowed, while the motion to amend is denied as to claim 15.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “On this issue, we agree with Petitioner. Mr. Gardner explains that the skilled artisan “would further recognize that the output conductor can be comprised of various materials . . . . which could be metal or any various materials [and] the shape of the output conductor is not particularly limited.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 322. Mr. Gardner further testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would recognize, not only that metal foil conductors could be inserted into these grooves without difficulty, but also that the depth of the grooves can be altered in order to better accommodate metal foil output conductors.” Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 53, 70. We recognize Patent Owner’s argument that numerous factors must be considered and that conventional battery design does not necessarily translate to button cell designs (PO Resp. 20– 21), but as Mr. Gardner testifies, “this may be true in some cases, [but] the lessons and advantages of using techniques from conventional battery design and applying it to button cell would be obvious to a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Ex. 1041 ¶ 103. He continues to explain that “[n]aturally, such transposition of techniques would require some modification and adjustments. . . . [and that] each of these adjustments, . . . would be well within the skill of a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Id. ¶ 104 (describing, for example, “reducing the thickness of the conductor plates of Kobayashi”). We credit Mr. Gardner’s testimony. Moreover, Patent Owner does not allege that any proposed modification would be beyond the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art or explain how any of the “difficulties in manufacturing a button cell” (PO Resp. 52) are relevant to the proposed substitution of a metal foil for a metal terminal electrode plate. See generally id.; Sur-reply. Thus, based on the evidence and argument of record, we determine that the combination of Kobayashi and Kwon, and the general knowledge of those skilled in the art, would suggest the use of foil in place of Kobayashi’s terminal electrode plates, and that the foil would bear flat on one of the lateral ends of the electrode separator assembly.” slip op. at 24

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In the Decision on Institution, we determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’858 patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, or a similar field, such as materials engineering, chemical engineering, or physics with at least five years of experience in the field of battery design and manufacturing. A person with a master’s degree in one of the above fields could have less practical experience of approximately three years. A person with a PhD could have less practical experience, about two years. A person with less education but more relevant practical experience may also meet this standard. DI 20 (adopting Petitioner’s proposed definition). For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we maintain our determination from the Decision on Institution because neither party disputes that determination and because the level of skill is consistent with the record. See PO Resp. 7 (person of ordinary skill “would possess a Bachelor’s degree in electrical, mechanical or chemical engineering or equivalent [and] would also have two to three” slip op. at 12

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

    “We discern no material difference between the parties’ respective constructions. Additionally, Patent Owner, during the hearing, expressed a general view that claim construction was unlikely to affect the parties’ positions. In particular, Patent Owner states that “[o]ur position is that really nothing turns on claim construction. You don’t have to engage in claim construction in this case.” Tr. 56:18–20, 56:20–22 (explaining that limitations were submitted for construction “to gain some benefit in the co-pending litigations.”). Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) in the context of an inter partes review). Because the outcome of our decision does not depend on either parties’ claim construction position, we determine that none of the identified claim terms require construction to resolve the issues in dispute in this proceeding.” slip op. at 13

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “We are not persuaded that the identified portions of Mr. Gardner’s Supplemental Declaration are improper. In the Petition, Petitioner alleged that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to substitute known metal foils for the metal conductor plates of Kobayashi in order to reduce the size of inactive materials and improve performance. Pet. 69–70 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 323). In its Response, Patent Owner argued, among other things, that the metal foil lacks the requisite rigidity to support the remaining components of the winding axis core (PO Resp. 26–27, 31) and that because metal connecting plates 4a and 5b are positioned within recesses of insulating plates 8 and 9, replacing the metal connecting plates with metal foils would result in an unreliable connection because the metal foil would become embedded within the grooves of the insulating plates (id. at 28–29, 30). Mr. Gardner’s supplemental testimony specifically addresses Dr. Peckerar’s and Patent Owner’s concerns that metal foils would be unsuitable in Kobayashi due to their flexibility and thickness as compared to the insulating plates. Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 53 (“the depth of the grooves can be altered in order to better accommodate metal foil output conductors”), 70, 71 (explaining that it is the winding core that provides structure not the output conductor plates), 81, 86 (explaining that the person of ordinary skill in the art could either adjust the size of the output conductors or the depth of the cavities themselves), 87. Therefore, Mr. Gardner’s testimony that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood how to account for the technical challenges Patent Owner identified properly responds to arguments raised by Patent Owner in its Patent Owner response. Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude as to Mr. Gardner’s testimony on this issue.” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 9,799,858 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,799,858
• Alcon Inc. / Alcon Lensx, Inc. et al. v. Amo Development, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Dec 6, 2021 · IPR2021-00849 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–14, finding a reasonable likelihood that the claims would be unpatentable on the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for 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.” After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, and for the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one challenged claim of the ’548 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–14 of the ’548 patent. See SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “For purposes of this Decision, we generally accept Petitioner’s proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art (or ordinarily skilled artisan), which appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosures of the ’548 patent; however, we also agree with Patent Owner that such a definition should be flexible enough to include a person with a lesser academic degree and having experience working in the field, such as an engineer with clinical experience in ophthalmic surgery, as well as a medical doctor, such as an ophthalmic surgeon with experience working with medical optics and lasers. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected in “the prior art itself”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Such an expanded definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art, including aspects of both parties’ definitions, is appropriate based on our review of the record, which demonstrates individuals having a broad array of scientific degrees that collaborate as a team. We note, however, that our decision to institute trial in this proceeding would not change were we to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “Both parties provide a construction of the term “cataract incision.” Pet. 7–9; Prelim. Resp. 17–18. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, we determine that no claim 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 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityReference is prior artPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “and evidence supporting such grounds,” including “the prior art relied upon and evidence that it qualifies as such.” Hulu, Paper 29 at 13 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)). The Petition identifies the grounds for institution and the evidence supporting such grounds, and presents evidence that Weikert qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 5–6, 28–29. For example, Petitioner and Dr. Lubatschowski assert that CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY “is a quarterly review series comprising chapters written by well-known specialists,” and that Weikert was included in the 2005 edition of CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY as Chapter 14: Refractive Keratotomy: Does it Have a Future Role in Refractive Surgery? Ex. 1001 ¶ 73. Although minimal, given the type of document involved, and in the absence of any reason to question Petitioner’s and Dr. Lubatschowski’s assertions, Petitioner’s evidence is sufficient to present a reasonable likelihood that Weikert is prior art to the ’548 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,709,548
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Arbor Global Strategies LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 24, 2021 · IPR2021-00391 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 5–9, 11, 13–17, 19–22, 25, 26, 28, and 29 are unpatentable as anticipated by Alexander or obvious over the stated prior-art combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art as we did in the Institution Decision, which comports with the teachings of the ’035 patent and the asserted prior art. See Inst. Dec. 19. Patent Owner’s proposed level is slightly lower than Petitioner’s but it overlaps with Petitioner’s proposed level. Even if we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed level, the outcome would remain the same. C.” slip op. at 9

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

    “accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019). Under the same standard applied by district courts, claim terms acquire their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “There are only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Based on the current record, no terms require explicit construction. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’. . . .” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). D.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “does not support Patent Owner’s argument about “undue experimentation” with respect to how to combine the teachings of Koyanagi and Alexander to arrive at the claimed processor module. In the passage containing the quoted testimony that Patent Owner relies upon, Dr. Shanfield testifies as follows: You have obviously got to have a circuit in mind that you're wanting to create a system-level circuit, a module-level circuit; and so you’re going to need to consider which connections you want a TSV connecting to something below. So you don't just slap it together without worrying about what connects to what. On the other hand, the putting together of the -- in Bertin, he describes the putting together of these chips and how that can be done in detail. And that piece of it is -- I guess you could characterize that as something that comes with the process and in itself isn’t something you think specifically about every one of 50,000 connections. They’re all done by the process that he gives an example of. Ex. 2014, 82:4–19.13 Dr. Shanfield’s testimony indicates that artisans of ordinary skill readily would have been able to connect different die circuits together “obviously” with “a circuit in mind . . . to create a system-level circuit, [or] a module-level circuit . . . consider[ing] which [TSV] connections [she] 13 Bertin (Ex. 1009) is employed in the ground discussed below. See infra § II.G. want[s].” See id. As Petitioner similarly argues, “[n]othing in Dr. Shanfield’s testimony, however, suggests that Petitioner ‘slap[ped] together’ Koyanagi and Alexander.” Reply 14; Ex. 1030 ¶ 79 (testifying that Patent Owner quotes his testimony “out of context” and that “at the system or circuit design level, each TSV is an interconnection between specific circuits”).” slip op. at 34

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

    “Initially, Alexander, a prior art reference, carries a presumption of enablement. Antor Media, 689 F.3d at 1287–1288; Amgen, 314 F.3d at 1355. Patent Owner argues that the presumption does not apply because “for a non-patent publication, such as Alexander, to be presumptively enabling, it must have been “cited by an examiner . . . barring any showing to the contrary by a patent applicant or patentee.” PO Resp. 13 (quoting Antor Media, 689 F.3d at 1288. Patent Owner also argues that “[w]hile it is true that a ‘[e]nablement of an anticipatory reference may be demonstrated by a later reference,’ the Federal Circuit has made clear that the later reference ‘must show that the claimed subject matter was in possession of the public more than one year prior to the applicant’s filing date.’” Id. at 16 (quoting Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Labs., Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).8 Petitioner argues that Patent Owner “mispresents the law.” As Petitioner argues, ‘[a] prior art printed publication does not need to have been ‘cited by an examiner’ to be presumed enabling.” Reply 5. In Corephotonics, 2021 WL 2577597, at *4 (nonprecedential), in the context of AIA trial proceedings, the court held that “regardless of the forum, prior art patents and publications enjoy a presumption of enablement, and the patentee/applicant has the burden to prove nonenablement for such prior art” and that “[i]t was error for the Board to suggest otherwise.” The 1995 publication date of Alexander antedates the’035 patent’s effective filing date of December 5, 2001 by more than six years. See Ex. 1006, 1 (“0-7803-2702-1/95 $ 4.00 © IEEE-1995”); PO Resp. 4 (specifying “December 5, 2001” as “the earliest effective filing date of the ’035 Patent”); Inst Dec. 20–25 (finding the publication date of Alexander is 8 The “more than one year prior to the applicant’s filing date” requirement arises from “anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” See Bristol-Myers Squibb, 246 F.3d at 1379.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS RE42,035 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
• Ty Inc. v. Softbelly’S, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 10, 2021 · IPR2020-00689 · APJ John E Schneider · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 15 and 16 are unpatentable: claim 15 as anticipated by Ogawa and obvious over Ogawa and Masahiro; claim 16 as obvious over Ogawa with Cherk, and with Masahiro and Cherk.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We have considered the arguments presented by the parties and the evidence of record and are not persuaded that our original definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art was in error. While the claims at issue refer to an optical grade fabric, we note that the fabric is not the invention. Rather, as stated in the Specification, the field of the invention is “cleaning tools for electronic display screens, and more specifically to cleaning tools for computer display screens and the like.” Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 4–6. The claims further narrow the field of the invention to cleaning tools in the form of a doll-like structure. Id. at col. 6, l. 37. Based on the forgoing, we continue to apply the same definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art we used in our Decision on Institution. However, the findings and conclusions set forth below would have been the same had we instead adopted Patent Owner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “We have considered the arguments presented by the parties and the evidence of record and conclude that Petitioner has the better position. The term “display screen,” as used in the challenged claims, refers to an intended use of the cleaning tool. As such, it does limit the scope of the claims. We begin by noting that the challenged claims are directed to a device or apparatus. Ex. 1002, col. 2, ll. 8–13. As such, the claims “cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (1990). The preamble of both claims 6 and 11 read in part: “doll-like figure for cleaning or wiping the surface of a display screen.” Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 37–38; col. 7, ll. 1–2. Both claims end with the clause “providing a pliant cleaning tool for wiping a display screen.” Id. at col. 6, ll. 50–51; col. 7, ll. 13–14. These phrases are crafted in terms of a device for performing a specific function or use. This type of phrase has been found to recite an intended use and not a physical limitation. See Marrin v. Griffin, 599 F.3d 1290, 1294–96 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The recitation of the intended use in the body of the claim does not affect our analysis. The term for wiping a display screen still recites a use of the device that does not impart a structural limitation.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We have considered the testimony of both experts and the evidence of record and find Mrs. Ryan’s testimony to be more persuasive. Therefore, we agree with Petitioner that Ogawa discloses a wiping tool which has an inner chamber formed by a strip of optical grade fabric — the wipe portion — and a non-optical grade fabric — the gripping body. We give more weight to Mrs. Ryan’s testimony based on her extensive experience in designing plush toys. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3–5. Mrs. Ryan has worked in the area of plush toy design for over twenty-six years and has taught classes relating to plush toy design. Id. ¶¶ 3–4; page 40. In addition, Mrs. Ryan’s testimony regarding how one skilled in the art would envision the wiping tool of Ogawa is consistent with the evidence of record. For example, King4 teaches that teddy bears are formed by joining pieces of fabric creating an inner pocket into which stuffing is inserted. Ex. 1026, 7–12. Cockrill5 also teaches that teddy bears are traditionally made by cutting out the material, sewing the pieces together, and then stuffing the bears. Ex. 1025, 67.” slip op. at 17

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “We have considered the testimony of both experts and the evidence of record and find Mrs. Ryan’s testimony to be more persuasive. Therefore, we agree with Petitioner that Ogawa discloses a wiping tool which has an inner chamber formed by a strip of optical grade fabric — the wipe portion — and a non-optical grade fabric — the gripping body. We give more weight to Mrs. Ryan’s testimony based on her extensive experience in designing plush toys. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3–5. Mrs. Ryan has worked in the area of plush toy design for over twenty-six years and has taught classes relating to plush toy design. Id. ¶¶ 3–4; page 40. In addition, Mrs. Ryan’s testimony regarding how one skilled in the art would envision the wiping tool of Ogawa is consistent with the evidence of record. For example, King4 teaches that teddy bears are formed by joining pieces of fabric creating an inner pocket into which stuffing is inserted. Ex. 1026, 7–12. Cockrill5 also teaches that teddy bears are traditionally made by cutting out the material, sewing the pieces together, and then stuffing the bears. Ex. 1025, 67. Dr. Adanur’s experience and expertise appears to be primarily focused on textiles. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 8–24. While Dr. Adanur testified that he has some experience in the area of plush toys, that experience appears to be limited to selection of fabric that could be used to manufacture plush toys and making several puppets at home to earn extra money. Ex. 1027, 52, 57–59, 78–79. In addition, Dr. Adanur does not cite to any evidence other than Ogawa to support his opinions as to what one skilled in the art would envision upon reading Ogawa. See Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 84–87. Patent Owner, however, contends that Ogawa is silent as to whether the tool has an inner chamber made from a piece of optical grade fabric and a piece of non-optical grade fabric. PO Resp. 1, 22. 4 King, Make Your Own Teddy Bears, 1985 (Ex. 1026) (“King”). 5 Cockrill, The Teddy Bear Encyclopedia, 1993 (Ex. 1025) (“Cockrill”).” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 6,195,831 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,195,831
• Microsoft Corporation v. Uniloc 2017 LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 5, 2021 · IPR2020-00102 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 1 is unpatentable under § 103 over Lee and 802.3u; the Board did not reach the USB 1.1 and Morris ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed definition for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’541 patent as one who “would have had a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical Engineering or a related subject, and at least one year experience designing electronics devices for use in communications systems, including both hardware and software components.” Dec. on Inst. 9 (quoting Pet. 13– 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 50)). We also adopted Petitioner’s additions that “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a Master’s Degree, and vice versa,” and that one of ordinary skill in” slip op. at 8

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

    “Having reviewed the parties’ arguments, we disagree with Patent Owner that this limitation is limited to connecting and disconnecting stations at will or physically. Rather, we agree with Petitioner that presence or absence for a particular connection is best understood in terms of whether a reflected wave signal is detected for that connection. This conclusion best comports with the plain claim language, which recites that a connection is detected by transmitting a transmitted wave signal, splitting a return wave, and being operated dependent on whether there is a reflection of the transmitted wave signal. Ex. 1001, 5:59–6:5.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Having reviewed the parties’ arguments, we agree with Petitioner that the plain and ordinary meaning of “being operated in accordance with presence or absence” in the context of the limitation broadly covers operating consistently with the non-detection (presence) or detection (absence) of a reflection of a transmitted signal. The claim language does not limit the scope of the claim to require a particular operation, other than that it is in accordance with the further station’s presence or absence. Ex. 1001, 5:59–6:5. Moreover, we agree with Petitioner that the Specification provides examples of operations that each are in accordance with presence or absence, but does not limit the operations to any specific one. Id. at code (57) (“operate in different control modes”), 1:39–42 (“no messages commands etc. are transmitted”), 2:28–30 (“the upstream station takes the appropriate actions to remove the downstream station logically from the system”), 2:35–36 (“the upstream station takes the appropriate actions to incorporate the downstream station into the system”). We disagree with Patent Owner (PO Resp. Br. 4.) that the Specification defines “being operated in accordance with presence or absence.” Rather, we determine that the sentence Patent Owner relies on as a definition instead provides an example of a claimed operation. See Ex. 1001, 1:38–42 (“The system detects whether or not a downstream station is connected to or disconnected from the connector and operates accordingly: no messages commands etc. are transmitted via connectors to which no downstream station is connected.”). First, the sentence’s operation (no messages commands etc. are transmitted) pertains only to when a station is absent, and thus, would be an incomplete definition that does not account for when a station is present. Id. Second, we are not persuaded that the use of a colon in the sentence would have signified to an ordinarily skilled artisan that what follows is a definition. Patent Owner does not point to any evidence to support this argument, and thus, we afford it little weight. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (explaining that attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value). Third, an inventor must define specific terms with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision” in order to be his own lexicographer. See Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“The patentee’s lexicography must, of course, appear ‘with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision’ before it can affect the claim.”) (quoting In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). We find that this sentence lacks the necessary clarity, deliberateness, and precision to redefine the broad recital of “being operated in accordance with” so as to limit the term to a specific operation. Accordingly, we find that the cited sentence provides an example of “being operated in accordance with presence or absence,” rather than a definition. See Ex. 1001, 1:38–42. In addition, we disagree with Patent Owner that logically incorporating and disincorporating a further station is a necessary part of “being operated in accordance with presence or absence.” As we discuss above, although logical incorporation or disincorporation is an example operation that falls within the scope of claim 1, there is no basis in the claim language or Specification (which provides multiple example operations) to require any particular operation, such as logically incorporating and disincorporating a station. See supra; Ex. 1001, 1:39–42, 2:28–30, 2:35–36, 5:59–6:5. Nor are we persuaded that the Specification, by describing that “automatic incorporation and disincorporation is an important feature to make the system easy to use for non-specialist consumers,” acts to limit the claim language. Ex. 1001, 1:14–23. First, this passage relates to the background description of USB systems, and does not specifically address the invention of the ’541 patent. See id. Second, we do not view describing an operation as “an important feature” for a specific class of users (“non-specialist consumers”) as a sufficient basis to limit claim language that has broader effect. See Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc., 579 F.3d 1363, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[C]laims will not be read restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope”); cf. Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (“[P]articular embodiments appearing in the written description will not be used to limit claim language that has broader effect.”). Nor do we view the Specification’s teaching that “[a]ccording to the invention this effect [of wave reflection] is used to control the incorporation and especially disincorporation of downstream stations into and from the system” as sufficient to limit the broader claim language of “being operated in accordance with presence or absence.” Ex. 1001, 2:16–18; Martek, 579 F.3d at 1381. Again, this teaching of incorporation and disincorporation, instead provides an example of an operation performed in accordance with the presence or absence of a station, but the claim is not limited so as to require this particular operation. Ex. 1001, 2:16–18. In summary, we conclude that “being operated in accordance with presence or absence” broadly covers being operated consistently with the non-detection (presence) or detection (absence) of a reflection of a transmitted signal, rather than requiring a specific operation.” slip op. at 16

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Not reached

    “C. Or The parties dispute whether the “or” in the phrase “presence or absence” means that both presence and absence need to be shown in the prior art, or only one. Because we find below that Petitioner has demonstrated that the prior art teaches being operated in accordance with both presence and absence of the further station, we need not, and thus do not, reach or resolve this dispute. See, e.g., Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017. V.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 6,498,541 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,498,541
• U.S. Venture, Inc. v. Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Dec 17, 2020 · IPR2020-00728 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place its denial of institution for claims 16–17 based on the Fintiv factors and its § 314(a) discretion.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “When rehearing a decision on institution, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if an unreasonable judgment is made in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The burdens and requirements of a request for rehearing are stated in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d): The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Thus, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity to present new arguments or evidence or merely to disagree with the panel’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence.” slip op. at 3

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for patent owner

    “the evidence laid out an approximate time frame for when the trial would likely be held. Dec. 9 (citing Ex. 2003); see also id. at 8–9 (citing PO Resp. 35; Ex. 1026) (Discussing the Court’s Procedures and timeline for trial after the docket call). Thus, we determined that this factor favored denying institution under our analysis of the factors under Fintiv. Id. at 9.” slip op. at 4

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “Petitioner acknowledges that the proposed combination of the references relies on “us[ing] the cumulative totals of the flow rates of the unblended components in the Hoffman compensation process” (id.), however Patent Owner identifies that Hoffman appears to teach away from using the flow rates of the unblended components in its calculations because of the uncertainty in the flow rate of the blended line. Prelim. Resp. 19, 21– 22. Contrary to Petitioner’s position, it is not Patent Owner’s burden to show why “a person of ordinary skill in the art would be discouraged from measuring flow rates upstream for use in the Hoffman compensation process” (Reh. Req. 9), but rather, Petitioner bears the burden to show why a person of ordinary skill in the art would measure flow rates upstream for use in the Hoffman compensation process in view of the all of the teachings of the references (35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (Institution only authorized if “the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”)). Petitioner’s arguments do not show that we misapprehended or” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageNot reached

    “argument concerning the construction of the term “in-line blending.” Id. at 13.” slip op. at 6

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 9,207,686
• Nof Corporation v. Nektar TherapeuticsRehearing denied
  PTAB · Apr 21, 2020 · IPR2019-01395 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied NOF’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1–6 because Bentley did not sufficiently teach or suggest the claimed conjugations.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. STANDARD FOR REHEARING Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d): A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion exists where a “decision [i]s based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988).” slip op. at 2

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “these conjugates would be useful for all possible purposes. Dec. 11–12. Nor does it describe how to determine which conjugates will be useful for any particular desired application. At most, Bentley discloses a tool that can be used to conjugate a broad variety of polymers to nearly any amine-containing substance or surface. Petitioner does not persuasively explain why a disclosure that a particular tool may be used to conjugate polymers to amine-containing materials is a teaching or suggestion to conjugate any particular PEG polymer to any particular type of amine-containing substance.” slip op. at 4

  • Expert testimonyDecided for patent owner

    “We need not credit expert testimony that does not adequately address the disclosures of a reference as a whole or adequately provide the justification for certain conclusions. See TQ Delta, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 942 F.3d 1352, 1359–60 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, 776 F.2d 281, 294–95 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As discussed above, Petitioner and Dr. Yamamoto did not adequately explain why Bentley’s disclosure of being able to conjugate nearly any polymer to nearly any amine-containing material is a teaching or suggestion that nearly any polymer, or the specific polymer identified at column 7, lines 14–20, would be useful when conjugated to any amine-containing substance identified in Bentley, including biologically active molecules. Moreover, Bentley generally discloses that activated PEG polymers can be conjugated to molecules or surfaces and specifically incorporates by reference Merrill, which discloses conjugating “star” molecules to the support surface of an affinity column. Ex. 1015, 6:12–13; Ex. 2020, 2:5–8. Dr. Yamamoto does not address these disclosures or explain adequately why one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to conjugate the specific activated PEG molecule disclosed in Bentley (Ex. 1015, 7:14–20) to a biologically active molecule, as opposed to the support surface of an affinity column. Ex. 2020, 2:5–8. Indeed, Dr. Yamamoto does not persuasively identify any actual properties of the specific activated PEG molecule of Bentley relied upon in the Petition.” slip op. at 6

  • Skill levelDecided for patent owner

    “A high level of skill in the art tends to favor an obviousness conclusion. See Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“A less sophisticated level of skill generally favors a determination of nonobviousness, and thus the patentee, while a higher level of skill favors the reverse.”). Even when the level of skill is high, to meet its burden for institution, Petitioner must still adequately explain why the art and such high skill would have led to the claimed invention. As noted above, we do not find that Petitioner and Dr. Yamamoto did so. Thus, Petitioner has not established that we overlooked its argument as to this issue.” slip op. at 7

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,872,072

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.