• Alcon Inc. / Alcon Vision, LLC et al. v. Amo Development, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 27, 2022 · IPR2021-00840 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1, 2, 8–16, and 22–35 not unpatentable because the proposed combinations failed to establish the claimed control system and reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “art appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’732 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 also including a medical doctor, such as an ophthalmic surgeon with experience working with medical optics and lasers, and that these people may collaborate. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (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 here, based on our review of the record. Thus, we find that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been someone with a PhD, MS, or BS degree in physics, biomedical engineering, or a related science such as nuclear engineering, having more or less experience in research, manufacturing, or designing medical optics or medical lasers (e.g., 5 years for a PhD or more to compensate for lesser degrees), or an ophthalmic surgeon, but that such persons would have worked in collaboration with one another to fill any necessary gaps in knowledge (e.g., the engineer would consult the medical doctor on clinical issues or physiology and the medical doctor would consult the engineer on technical issues). This definition marries the two proposed by the parties and is appropriate in view of the record.” slip op. at 18

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

    “[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and 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) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Neither party seeks an express interpretation of any claim language. Pet. 7–8; see generally Resp. Therefore, we need not and do not expressly construe any claim language here. However, in our analysis below, as required for the sake of clarity, to resolve ambiguity, and for consistency with our decisions in the related proceedings addressing similar claim language and similar prior art, we address the claim language and its meaning as argued by the parties. We do so in accordance with the above-noted standards of law. C. slip op. at 20

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

    “The presence or absence of a reasonable expectation of success is . . . a question of fact.” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “The reasonable expectation of success requirement refers to the likelihood of success in combining references to meet the limitations of the claimed invention.” Id. at 1367. The evidence of record suggests that the ordinarily skilled artisan would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed invention based solely on Swinger’s, Baikoff’s, and Li’s teachings. Further, as our reviewing court has explained, “references to ‘common sense’—” or an ordinarily skilled artisan’s ordinary creativity, “whether to supply a motivation to combine or a missing limitation—cannot be used as a wholesale substitute for reasoned analysis and evidentiary support, especially when dealing with a limitation missing from the prior art references specified.” DSS Tech. Mgm’t, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 855 F.3d 1367, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Perfect Web Techs. Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). Although here Petitioner has not wholly omitted any reasoned analysis or evidence regarding the claimed computer control system programmed to automatically plan a cutting region based on image data and then perform that planned laser-cutting of the lens capsule (and, for some claims, also the lens), this subject matter is not disclosed in any cited art and we find Petitioner’s evidence and reasoning as to why it would have been obvious without such disclosure to be largely conclusory and unpersuasive. slip op. at 44

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Inter partes review must proceed in accordance with the Petition and the arguments set forth therein. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (2018). “It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the ground for the challenge to each claim.’” Intelligent Bio-Sys., 821 F.3d at 1369. Arguments made in a different document, such as an expert’s declaration, may not be merely incorporated-by-reference in the Petition (Petitioner does not even do so much). 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3); see also General Access Solutions, Ltd. v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 811 F. App’x 654, 658 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (noting that the Board did not abuse its discretion in enforcing its rules under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3)) (non-precedential).” slip op. at 58

  Patent outcomesUS 9,107,732 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,107,732
• Alcon Inc. / Alcon Vision, LLC et al. v. Amo Development, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 26, 2022 · IPR2021-00835 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted obviousness combinations did not establish the claimed image-processing control system or a sufficient basis to adapt the cited systems for lens surgery.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “The parties present compelling evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would include those with experience in ophthalmology, as well as in the research, manufacture, and design of medical optics or medical lasers. Pet. 24; PO Resp. 10–11. The evidence of record also demonstrates that few individuals actually had such comprehensive experience. Rather, teams of individuals with different expertise and various academic degrees (Ph.D.s, B.S.s, and M.D.s) would work together to design laser surgery systems intended to make incisions in the lens of the eye. See, e.g., Ex. 1041 (several authors are MDs); Ex. 1042 (the authors’ degrees include Ph.D.s, an M.D., and a B.S.); see also Ex. 1053; Ex. 1054; Ex. 1055; Ex. 2010; Ex. 2019. Thus, we find that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been either an ophthalmic surgeon or someone with a Ph.D., M.S., or B.S. degree in physics, biomedical engineering, or a related science such as nuclear engineering, having experience in researching, manufacturing, or designing medical optics or medical lasers (e.g., 5 years of experience for a Ph.D. or more to compensate for lesser degrees), and that such persons would have worked in collaboration with one another to fill any necessary gaps in knowledge (e.g., the engineer would consult the medical doctor on clinical issues or physiology and the medical doctor would consult the engineer on technical issues). This definition marries the two proposed by the parties.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner does not assert that any claim term requires express construction. See Pet. 7 (stating that it “reserves the right to respond to any constructions that [Patent Owner] submits”). Patent Owner does not present any remarks regarding claim construction. See, generally, PO Resp. On this record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 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.”)). To the extent further discussion of the meaning of any claim term is necessary to our decision, we provide that discussion below in our analysis of the asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 13

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

    “We recognize Petitioner’s argument that the use of a controller for determining an anterior capsulotomy scanning pattern would have been “nothing more than automating a manual activity using well-known components (e.g., controllers and algorithms) in predictable ways, which would have been obvious to a [person of ordinary skill in the art]” because a controller would be programmed to determine automatically scanning patterns once the boundaries of the ocular tissue are identified. Pet 32 (citing Ex.1001 ¶ 181; MPEP 2144.04; In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95 (CCPA 1958)); Reply 5–6. We also recognize Petitioner’s argument that “[t]he prior art teaches that integrating diagnostic imaging and treatment functionalities in a single automated system is not only desirable, but also straightforward.” Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 150); see also Reply 7–8 (quoting Venner, 262 F.2d at 95 (“[I]t is well settled that it is not ‘invention’ to broadly provide a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result”); citing Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (updating mechanical invention with modern electronics is understood in the art)). Having considered the parties positions and evidence of record, however, we find that the evidence of record does not support a conclusion that it would have been simple, straightforward, or otherwise routine to convert Swinger’s manual HeNe aiming system and Swinger’s surgeon-identification-of-target-tissue step to an automated, OCT-guided laser system. We provide further analysis below.” slip op. at 28

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Inter partes review must proceed in accordance with the Petition and the arguments set forth therein. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (2018). “It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the ground for the challenge to each claim.’” Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Arguments made in a different document, such as an expert’s declaration, may not be incorporated-by-reference in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3); see also General Access Solutions, Ltd. v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 811 F. App’x 654, 658 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (noting that the Board did not abuse its discretion in enforcing its rules under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3)) (non-precedential).” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 9,095,415 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,095,415
• Corning Optical Communications LLC v. Dali Wireless, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 11, 2022 · IPR2021-00762 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–12 not unpatentable because Petitioner did not show that FlexWave Prism Manual was publicly accessible before the critical date.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Our determination regards obviousness to an ordinarily skilled person rather than “to the judge, or to a layman, or to those skilled in remote arts, or to geniuses in the art at hand.” Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). We therefore remove the open-ended term “a minimum of” from Petitioner’s proposal, and adopt for this decision the following definition: “a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have had: (1) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering; and (2) 3–4 years of industry experience in wireless communications networks and engineering. However, an individual with an advanced degree in electrical engineering would require less industry experience (e.g., 1–2 years).” This level of skill comports with the teachings of the ’508 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017 (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). No claim terms require construction to resolve the controversy before us. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 8

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable

    “c) Conclusion After considering this record evidence, Petitioner has not shown that one of ordinary skill would have performed the searches Mr. Stravitz performed on the EAS database. Mr. Stravitz’s searches appear to have been performed at the direction of counsel to discover whether and how FlexWave Prism Manual could be retrieved from the EAS database by someone who knew about FlexWave Prism Manual, without consideration of whether one of ordinary skill would have performed the searches absent a search directed towards FlexWave Prism Manual or would have known about the EAS database. Thus, Petitioner has not shown that one interested in and ordinarily skilled in the art relating to the ’508 patent would have found FlexWave Prism Manual using the EAS database.” slip op. at 25

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “For these reasons, our determination is that FlexWave Prism Manual has not been shown to be publicly available. E. Conclusion For the reasons given above, Petitioner has not met its burden to show that FlexWave Prism Manual was disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons of ordinary skill in the art, exercising reasonable diligence, could have located it. All instituted grounds of unpatentability rely on FlexWave Prism Manual. Pet. 23–77; see Dec. on Inst. 17–29. Therefore, Petitioner fails to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the challenged claims are unpatentable based on the instituted grounds.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 9,826,508 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,826,508
• Thorne Research, Inc v. Trustees Of Dartmouth CollegeNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 10, 2022 · IPR2021-00491 · APJ John E Schneider · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 were not shown unpatentable because the relied-upon portions of the Cell Article and PCT Publication were not shown to be the work of another and thus were not prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “Having considered the evidence submitted by Patent Owner, we find Patent Owner has satisfied its burden of production to show the Cell Article is not prior art. We find the testimony of Dr. Brenner—as corroborated by the testimony and disclaimer of Dr. Bieganowski—to be persuasive evidence that the relied-upon portions of the Cell Article represent the work of Dr. Brenner alone. See In re Mathews, 408 F.2d 1393, 1396 (CCPA 1969) (finding applicant’s declaration and prior art inventor’s disclaimer sufficient to overcome a § 102(e) rejection).” slip op. at 19

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner

    “Under § 120, a patent is entitled to the priority date of an earlier filed application if (1) the written description of the earlier filed application discloses the invention claimed in the later filed application sufficient to satisfy the requirements of § 112; (2) the applications have at least one common inventor; (3) the later application is filed before the issuance or abandonment of the earlier filed application; and (4) the later application contains a reference to the earlier filed application. In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also 35 U.S.C. § 120 (2018). As discussed above, the ’807 patent meets all four criteria set forth above for each application in the priority chain of the PCT application listed on the face of the ’807 patent. Since the claim of priority arises under Section 120, the provisions of the Paris Convention and PCT do not apply.” slip op. at 12

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Applicant-admitted prior artReference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “Having considered the evidence submitted by Patent Owner, we find Patent Owner has satisfied its burden of production to show the Cell Article is not prior art. We find the testimony of Dr. Brenner—as corroborated by the testimony and disclaimer of Dr. Bieganowski—to be persuasive evidence that the relied-upon portions of the Cell Article represent the work of Dr. Brenner alone. See In re Mathews, 408 F.2d 1393, 1396 (CCPA 1969) (finding applicant’s declaration and prior art inventor’s disclaimer sufficient to overcome a § 102(e) rejection).” slip op. at 19

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments. Although the laboratory techniques and starting materials used by Drs. Brenner and Bieganowski may have been known in the art, that is not the claimed invention. The invention as recited in claim 1 is directed a composition comprising isolated NR combined with one or more of tryptophan, nicotinic acid, or nicotinamide and one of the recited carriers, wherein the composition is formulated for oral administration and increases NAD+ biosynthesis upon oral administration. See Ex. 1001, col. 53. That the certain individual elements of the claimed composition may have been known elsewhere in the prior art does not lead to a conclusion that the relied-upon portions of the Cell Article are “by another.”” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 8,197,807 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,197,807
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Nanoco Technologies Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 16, 2022 · IPR2021-00184 · APJ Erica A Franklin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–16 and 21–25 were not shown unpatentable because Banin’s gold clusters were not shown to be molecular cluster compounds, and the Zaban combinations lacked motivation to combine.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least a Ph.D. in chemistry, physics, chemical engineering, material science, or equivalent technical degree or equivalent work experience, with knowledge regarding nanoparticles and methods of synthesizing them” and “[a]dditional education might supplement practical experience and vice-versa.” Pet. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 70). Patent Owner neither addresses Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art nor provides its own description. See PO Response. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s definition as we find it is unopposed and consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected by the prior art in this proceeding.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedMixed

    “suggested formula” assigned to them is “based on a calculation that relied on the average of a wide distribution of particle sizes reported in the literature by Hutchison.” Ex. 2030 ¶ 103(citing Ex. 2017, 12891). We assign persuasive weight to her testimony because it is based upon the disclosures in Hutchison, which Banin explicitly identifies as the published procedures by which it synthesized its clusters. In particular, Dr. Cossairt’s testimony is supported by the following discussion in Hutchison: To calculate an average molecular formula for 1 it is necessary to know the number of gold atoms in the metal core. Given the average particle size (1.5 nm) this number is estimated to be ~101 by the method of Whetten et al. and leads to an estimated formula of Au101(PPh3)21Cl5. Ex. 2017, 12891. In other words, Hutchison explains that it calculated an average molecular formula for its synthesized nanoparticles by estimating the number of gold atoms in the metal core based upon the average particle size of 1.5 nm. Id. Indeed, as Dr. Cossairt has recognized, Banin’s “suggested formula” is exactly the same molecular formula that Hutchison discloses as the “average molecular formula” for its nanoparticles. Thus, we determine that the record as a whole supports finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Banin’s “suggested formula” represents an average molecular formula for a disperse mixture of gold clusters that are not identical and do not have sufficiently well-defined chemical structure such that all molecules of the cluster compound possess the same relative molecular formula, as required for MCCs. slip op. at 23

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Specification expressly defines the term “molecular cluster” in a manner that refers to the cluster compound. According to the Specification, “Molecular cluster” is a term which is widely understood in the relevant technical field but for the sake of clarity should be understood herein to relate to clusters of 3 or more metal or nonmetal atoms and their associated ligands of sufficiently well defined chemical structure such that all molecules of the cluster compound possess the same relative molecular mass. Ex. 1001, 5:3–9. We note that the District Court determined that “the term ‘molecular formula’ as opposed to ‘molecular mass’ is most appropriate. By necessity, a compound with the same molecular formula will necessarily have the same molecular mass.” Ex. 1091, 16. The District Court explained also, “it appears that the difference between a molecular formula and a molecular mass, at least for purposes of this claim construction, in inconsequential.” Id. We agree and do not find any dispute on the current record from the parties on this matter. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we agree with the District Court that the term “molecular cluster compound” means “clusters of 3 or more metal atoms and their associated ligands of sufficiently well-defined chemical structure such that all molecules of the cluster compound possess the same relative molecular formula.” Id. at 18.” slip op. at 12

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “that Petitioner has not shown persuasively that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Banin’s small Au clusters to be MCCs. According to Petitioner and Dr. Green, Banin’s gold clusters are MCCs because they are clusters of three or more metal atoms with their associated ligands and “each cluster is ‘identical to one another.’” Ex. 1002 ¶ 90; Pet. 23. To begin, we do not find that the record supports Petitioner’s contention or Dr. Green’s opinion that “each cluster is ‘identical to one another.’” Ex. 1002 ¶ 90; Pet. 23. Petitioner and Dr. Green do not identify any disclosure in Banin describing the clusters as being identical. Instead, they refer to Banin’s disclosure that the Au clusters have “the suggested formula Au101(PPh3)21Cl5” and are “1.4 nm in mean diameter.” In doing so, Petitioner and Dr. Green do not meaningfully address or adequately explain how Banin derived its “suggested” molecular formula for the gold clusters or why Banin reported a “mean” diameter for those clusters. To that end, Petitioner and Dr. Green have failed to provide any reason why a skilled artisan would have understood Banin’s disclosures of a “suggested formula” and a “mean diameter” to convey that the Au clusters are identical.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 7,803,423 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,803,423
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Nanoco Technologies Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 16, 2022 · IPR2021-00183 · APJ Erica A Franklin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–6, and 8–14 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations failed to establish the claimed molecular cluster compounds or a reason to combine the references.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least a Ph.D. in chemistry, physics, chemical engineering, material science, or equivalent technical degree or equivalent work experience, with knowledge regarding nanoparticles and methods of synthesizing them” and “[a]dditional education might supplement practical experience and vice-versa.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 72–75). Patent Owner neither addresses Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art, nor provides its own description. See PO Resp. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s definition as we find it is unopposed and consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected by the prior art in this proceeding.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedMixed

    “on the average of a wide distribution of particle sizes reported in the literature by Hutchison.” Ex. 2030 ¶ 102 (citing Ex. 2017, 12891). We assign persuasive weight to her testimony because it is based upon the disclosures in Hutchison, which Banin explicitly identifies as the published procedures by which it synthesized its clusters. In particular, Dr. Cossairt’s testimony is supported by the following discussion in Hutchison: To calculate an average molecular formula for 1 it is necessary to know the number of gold atoms in the metal core. Given the average particle size (1.5 nm) this number is estimated to be ~101 by the method of Whetten et al. and leads to an estimated formula of Au101(PPh3)21Cl5. Ex. 2017, 12891. In other words, Hutchison explains that it calculated an average molecular formula for its synthesized nanoparticles by estimating the number of gold atoms in the metal core based upon the average particle size of 1.5 nm. Id. Indeed, as Dr. Cossairt has recognized, Banin’s “suggested formula” is exactly the same molecular formula that Hutchison discloses as the “average molecular formula” for its nanoparticles. Thus, we determine that the record as a whole supports finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Banin’s “suggested formula” represents an average molecular formula for a disperse mixture of gold clusters that are not identical and do not have sufficiently well-defined chemical structure such that all molecules of the cluster compound possess the same relative molecular formula, as required for MCCs.” slip op. at 24

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

    “Based on our consideration of the record as a whole, we find that the Specification expressly defines the term “molecular cluster” in a manner that refers to the cluster compound. According to the Specification, “Molecular cluster” is a term which is widely understood in the relevant technical field, but for the sake of clarity should be understood herein to relate to clusters of three or more metal atoms and their associated ligands of sufficiently well-defined chemical structure such that all molecules of the cluster compound possess approximately the same relative molecular formula. Ex. 1001, 3:28–34 (emphasis added). As there is no dispute that the term “molecular cluster compound” refers to “clusters of three or more metal atoms and their associated ligands of sufficiently well-defined chemical structure such that all molecules of the cluster compound possess approximately the same relative molecular formula,” we agree with the parties that no further construction of the claim is necessary for purposes of rendering this Decision. Additionally, we find that express construction of any remaining claim terms is unnecessary for purposes of rendering this Decision. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11

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

    “Moreover, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not demonstrated persuasively that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to replace Banin’s metal catalyst with Herron’s cluster compound. PO Resp. 44–49. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Green, does not dispute that Banin’s SLS process requires the use of a metal catalyst. Ex. 1002 ¶ 79; Ex. 1005, 4:3–9, 6:9–16. Nor does Dr. Green dispute that Herron’s Cd32S14(SC6H5)36 cluster is not a metal, but rather a cadmium sulfide semiconductor. Ex. 1002 ¶ 80; Ex. 1016, 1426. According to Patent Owner and Dr. Cossairt, there is no indication on the record that anyone has ever tried or succeeded in using a semiconductor as a catalyst in SLS nanorod synthesis. PO Resp. 53; Ex. 2030 ¶ 137. We agree and determine that Petitioner has not shown otherwise by referring to the use of a semiconductor in a different type of nanoparticle synthesis, i.e., a vapor-liquid-solid nanoparticle synthesis. See Pet. Reply 12. In any event, we find that the Petition fails to support a motivation to combine Herron’s cadmium sulfide semiconductor with Banin’s process because the Petition fails to address sufficiently (or at all) the differences between metal catalysts and Herron’s semiconductor material and to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have used such a semiconductor material in place of the metal as the catalyst in Banin’s process, despite Banin’s teachings that the catalyst must be a metal. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has failed to establish persuasively that a person of skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Banin’s nanoparticle synthesis by replacing its gold metal catalyst with Herron’s cadmium-based semiconductor.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 7,588,828 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,588,828
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Nanoco Technologies Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 16, 2022 · IPR2021-00185 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 16, and 17 were not proven unpatentable: Banin’s gold clusters were not shown to be MCCs, the Zaban combinations lacked adequate support, and the Lucey ground was withdrawn.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “primary guarantee of objectivity in an obviousness analysis. Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’l Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). In Petitioner’s view, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had “at least a Ph.D. in chemistry, physics, chemical engineering, material science, or equivalent technical degree or equivalent work experience, with knowledge regarding nanoparticles and methods of synthesizing them” and “[a]dditional education might supplement practical experience and vice-versa.” Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 76). Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s view or propose a counter definition. We determine that the level of ordinary skill is reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (specific findings on the ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). To the extent a more specific definition is required, we adopt Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision, because that definition is unopposed and consistent with the disclosures of the asserted prior art references.” slip op. at 9

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Based on our consideration of the record as a whole, we agree with the District Court that the molecular cluster compound of the claimed invention must have “sufficiently well-defined chemical structure such that all molecules of the cluster compound possess the same relative molecular formula.” Ex. 1091, 18. To the extent that this or any other claim term requires further discussion, we provide it in our analysis of the challenges. No further express claim construction is necessary for purposes of this Decision. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedMixed

    “opinion, with supporting citations to evidence, that Banin describes gold clusters that range in size and, further, why the reference indicates that the suggested formula assigned to those clusters is based on a calculation that relies on the average of a wide distribution of particle sizes reported in the literature by Hutchison. Ex. 2030 ¶¶ 102–125; Ex. 2017, 12891. We assign persuasive weight to her testimony because it is supported by clear disclosures in Hutchison, which Banin explicitly identifies as the source of the procedures by which Banin synthesizes its gold clusters. In particular, Dr. Cossairt’s testimony comports with this discussion in Hutchison: To calculate an average molecular formula for [gold nanoparticle] 1 it is necessary to know the number of gold atoms in the metal core. Given the average particle size (1.5 nm) this number is estimated to be ~101 by the method of Whetten et al. and leads to an estimated formula of Au101(PPh3)21Cl5. Ex. 2017, 12891. In other words, as this disclosure makes plain, Hutchison calculates an average molecular formula for its gold clusters by estimating the number of gold atoms in the metal core based upon the average particle size of 1.5 nm. Id. Indeed, as Dr. Cossairt recognizes, Banin’s suggested molecular formula is exactly the same formula that Hutchison calculates based on the average molecular formula for the variably-sized gold clusters produced according to its process. Ex. 2030 ¶¶ 102–105. Dr. Cossairt provides persuasive reasons why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Banin’s suggested formula represents an average molecular formula for a disperse mixture of gold clusters that are not identical in size and do not have sufficiently well-defined chemical structure such that all molecules of the cluster compound possess the same relative molecular formula, as required for MCCs. Id. ¶¶ 102–125.” slip op. at 26

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Our rules require a petitioner to explain with particularity, at the outset in the petition, why the patent it challenges is unpatentable. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “Unlike district court litigation — where parties have greater freedom to revise and develop their arguments over time and in response to newly discovered material — the expedited nature of” inter partes review proceedings “bring with it an obligation for petitioners to make their case in their petition to institute.” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, Petitioner carries a burden to “identify with particularity” at the outset, in the Petition, “the grounds on which the challenged to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). Although “the introduction of new evidence in the course of the trial is to be expected in inter partes review trial proceedings,” Genzyme Therapeutic Prods. LP v. Biomarin Pharm. Inc., 825 F.3d 1360, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the shifting of arguments is not, Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2017).” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 7,867,557 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,867,557
• Incyte Corporation v. Concert Pharmaceuticals, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 11, 2022 · PGR2021-00006 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · PGR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–7 and 9–21 not shown unpatentable over either obviousness ground because Petitioner did not establish motivation to select Compound (I) from Silverman’s genus.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “It is not necessary for an expert’s experience or expertise to precisely match the art at issue. SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594 F.3d 1360, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010). However, one offering expert testimony must at least have ordinary skill in the art to provide relevant and reliable testimony that is helpful to the factfinder. Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools, Inc. v. ITC, 22 F.4th 1369, 1376–77 (Fed. Cir. 2022). “The Board has broad discretion to assign weight to be accorded expert testimony.” Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 35 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ tpgnov.pdf?MURL=). Dr. Patterson has a Ph.D. in Chemistry and over 30 years of experience in drug design, drug administration, evaluation of drug effectiveness, and participated in drug design for over 20 years. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 4–10; Ex. 1008, 1–2. He is author or co-author on over eight peer-reviewed journal articles involving medicinal chemistry. Ex. 1007 ¶ 5. We find this level of skill to meet the qualifications for the level of skill in the art under the training and experience portion of the definition we have adopted for purposes of this opinion (see § II.B.), reproduced below: a Ph.D. in chemistry, pharmaceutical sciences, molecular biology, or a similar field, or an M.D. with similar background. A POSA would also have had at least several years of experience with drug design, drug development, clinical trials, or access to other individuals with that knowledge and experience. Likewise, a POSA would have had knowledge and experience in treating hair loss disorders, or access to a person with that knowledge and experience. We note that Dr. Patterson himself also proposes this definition. Id. ¶ 102. However, Dr. Patterson does not have “knowledge and experience in treating hair loss disorders” and did not opine that, in regards to his testimony, he had access to a person with that knowledge and experience, as is proposed in the definition. See generally, Ex. 1007. Accordingly, we find Dr. Patterson qualified to opine on the level of ordinary skill with regard to issues of drug design, evaluation of effectiveness, and drug administration, but we find he is not adequately qualified to opine on the level of ordinary skill with regard to issues of treating hair loss disorders.” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner proposes the same definition as Petitioner, but adds that the skilled artisan “would also have had experience in JAK inhibition, deuteration, and AA [alopecia areata] formulations, or access to a person with that knowledge and experience.” Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2059 ¶ 14). Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Ko critiques Petitioner’s proposed definition as “incomplete, because it lacks any requirement for experience, or access to individuals with experience, in JAK inhibition, deuteration, and AA formulations.” Ex. 2059 ¶ 16. However, neither Dr. Ko nor Patent Owner explains what difference this additional direct experience would have provided to an artisan with the skill level proposed by Petitioner, particularly when Petitioner’s definition includes “experience in treating hair loss disorders,” and for which the record contains evidence that existing JAK inhibitors such as ruxolitinib had been identified as causing reversal of hair loss caused by AA. Ex. 1003, 1043. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition as consistent with the level of skill apparent in the cited prior art. In any event, as Patent Owner does not explain why its alternative definition would have any bearing on the outcome of the present case, and as we discern no appreciable difference in the parties’ definitions, we note our findings and conclusions would be the same regardless of which definition were adopted. We further note that the prior art itself demonstrates the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. 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”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 11

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

    “C. Claim Construction We construe claims using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100. Therefore, we construe the challenged claims under the framework set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under this framework, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”), at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record. Id. Only those terms that are in controversy need be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 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)). We have considered Petitioner’s claim construction proposals (see Pet. 21–23), which are uncontested (see generally Resp., not addressing construction), and find that it is not necessary to expressly construe any claim term for purposes of rendering this Decision.” slip op. at 13

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Applicant-admitted prior artReference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “Section 102(b)(1) provides two exceptions to § 102(a)(1) for disclosures made within one year of the effective filing date. Specifically, 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1) provides that a disclosure made one year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) with respect to the claimed invention if: (A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or (B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1).” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 10,561,659 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,561,659
• Shenzhen Buxiang Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. Sun Pleasure Co. LimitedNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 11, 2022 · IPR2021-00080 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 were not shown unpatentable because Metzger lacked the claimed fluid passage, and Wu was not prior art based on the claims’ earlier reduction to practice.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Relying on the testimony of Mr. Kuchel, Petitioner submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have either (i) a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, or an equivalent field, or (ii) would have an associate degree in mechanical engineering, or an equivalent field, and two years of practical experience in inflatable product design.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 26). In the Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, stating it was “consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art.” Dec. Inst. 9. In its Response, Patent Owner makes arguments that rely on Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, but does not dispute Petitioner’s definition. See PO Resp. 35, 39–53 (citing Ex. 2014 ¶ 66). Based on our review of the complete record, we continue to apply the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted in the Decision on Institution.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Petitioner proposes claim constructions for the terms “substantially below” and “substantially inwardly” recited in claims 1 and 6. Pet. 40–41. In the Decision on Institution, we determined that it was not necessary to construe the terms at that stage of the proceeding. Dec. Inst. 9–10 (citing Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Patent Owner contends “the claim terms ‘substantially below’ and ‘substantially inwardly’ are sufficiently clear on their face to preclude any need for claim construction,” but proposes claim constructions that differ somewhat from Petitioner’s proposed constructions in the event the Board determines that these terms require claim construction. PO Resp. 13, 15–16. Patent Owner also proposes a claim construction for the term “upper tubular periphery” recited in claims 1 and 6 that Petitioner opposes. Id. at 17–19; Pet. Reply 7–10. Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017. Because the outcome of our decision does not depend on either parties’ construction of the terms “substantially below,” “substantially inwardly,” or “upper tubular periphery,” we need not construe these terms to resolve the issues in dispute in this proceeding.” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Metzger’s gaps define fluid passages located between adjacent side support beams 25 (i.e., “internal walls”) and are not formed in any of the side support beams. We are not directed to any written description in Metzger indicating that the gaps are formed in a side support beam.7 Instead, Figures 5 and 6 of Metzger depict the gaps as being defined between four distinct side support beams 25. Furthermore, as Patent Owner points out, Mr. Kuchel appears to agree that there are no passages formed through the side support beams 25 of Figures 5 and 6. Ex. 2003, 107:12–108:9, 108:17–108:21. For these reasons, we determine that Metzger’s gaps are not formed through an internal wall, as required by claim 1. In the Reply, Petitioner asserts that, even if Metzger discloses four discrete, spaced-apart beams or walls, “the gaps or slices between walls are apertures in a structure through which air can pass.” Pet. Reply 15 (emphasis added). This argument is not persuasive because claim 1 recites that the fluid passage is formed through the internal wall (which Petitioner asserts is met by Metzger’s side support beam 25), not just any structure. Petitioner’s general assertion that air passes through “a structure” fails to establish that the gaps are formed in a side support beam.” slip op. at 16

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

    “Specifically, Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from Metzger “that an air passage would be necessary to bypass the side support beam 25 and inflate the upper tubular periphery for the air mattress to function as intended.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 200). According to Petitioner, because Metzger discloses only a single air inlet valve, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that providing openings, or fluid passages, through the side support beam 25, in lieu of or in addition to the gaps between the side support beam 25, would have been a simple solution to adequately inflate the peripheral frame of the mattress defined by the side support beam(s) 25. Id. at 74–75 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 200). Petitioner thus presents two alternate theories for modifying Metzger: (1) providing fluid passages in at least one side support beam 25 in addition to the gaps, and (2) providing fluid passages in lieu of the gaps. In support of the first theory, Petitioner only argues that providing fluid passages in the side support beams, in addition to the gaps between the ends of the side support beams, would have allowed the peripheral frame to inflate more freely. Id. at 75 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 201). In its Response, Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner is just wrong.” PO Resp. 45 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 146–149). Dr. Letton testifies that pumps used to inflate air mattresses are low flow and low pressure and generally inflate an air mattress to a maximum pressure of around 1 psi. Ex. 2001 ¶ 147. Dr. Letton further testifies that, with Metzger’s design, the” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 7,353,555 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,353,555
• Amazon.Com, Inc. / Amazon.Com LLC et al. v. VB Assets, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 7, 2022 · IPR2020-01367 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–36 were not shown unpatentable because Kennewick did not teach the claimed ambiguity of words having different meanings in different contexts or the required context identification.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (a “POSITA”) “would have at least a Bachelor-level degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field in computing technology, and two years of experience with automatic speech recognition and natural language understanding, or equivalent education, research experience, or knowledge.” Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 28–31). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertion, and Patent Owner and its declarant, Dr. Gershman, both apply Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA. Resp. 3. On this record and given the absence of any dispute, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposed formulation regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, which we find is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the cited prior art references. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 8

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

    “[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and 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) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). In its Petition, Petitioner asks us to construe the “implicit hypothesis” term of claims 38, 40, and 42. Pet. 7–8. As discussed above, however, Patent Owner filed a disclaimer that eliminated these claims from this proceeding. Petitioner does not ask us to construe any terms in the remaining challenged claims. See id.; see generally Reply. Patent Owner also does not ask us to construe any claim terms. See generally Response. On this record, we decline to adopt constructions of any claims. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017. slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedMixed

    “Dr. Smyth’s declaration testimony about words having different meanings in different contexts is unpersuasive. Dr. Smyth testifies that the keyword “‘temperature’ could be interpreted as an outdoor temperature or as a body temperature depending on context.” See Ex. 1002 ¶ 69. This testimony is not persuasive because the word “temperature” refers to a measurement of warmth or coolness in both examples. That is, “temperature” has the same meaning in both contexts. Moreover, as Dr. Gershman points out, Kennewick does not teach or suggest a body temperature. Ex. 2001 ¶ 26. Dr. Smyth’s testimony is unpersuasive for this additional reason. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 69.” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “forth by both parties, we are not persuaded that Kennewick teaches or suggests that the word “temperature” has different meanings in different contexts, as required by independent claims 1, 13, and 25. See Resp. 4–6; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 23–27. As detailed above, Patent Owner’s arguments and the supporting testimony of Dr. Gershman are consistent with the ordinary and customary language of the claims, the specification of the ’681 patent, and the disclosure of Kennewick. See id. In contrast, Petitioner’s arguments are inconsistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim language and the specification of the ’681 patent, and are not adequately supported by the disclosure of Kennewick. On this record, and having considered the evidence and arguments put forth by both parties, we also are not persuaded that Kennewick teaches or suggests that the phrase “what about flight one hundred and twenty too?” has different meanings in different contexts, as required by independent claims 1, 13, and 25. See Resp. 6–7; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 28–30. Moreover, even if the “flight” example did describe two contexts (one in which “flight 122” exists, and one in which it does not), Petitioner’s argument would still fail because Petitioner has offered no persuasive evidence that Kennewick teaches or suggests identifying one of these two alleged contexts based on Kennewick’s short-term shared information (dialog history) and long-term shared information (user profiles) as required by independent claims 1, 13, and 25. For the reasons explained above, Patent Owner’s arguments and the supporting testimony of Dr. Gershman are consistent with and supported by the claims and specification of the ’681 patent and the disclosure of Kennewick. See Resp. 4–6; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 23–27. In contrast, Petitioner’s arguments are not consistent with or supported by the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim language, the specification of the ’681 patent, or the disclosure of Kennewick.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 8,073,681 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,073,681

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.