• Google LLC / Ecobee, Inc. v. Ecofactor, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 3, 2022 · IPR2020-01504 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable because the Wedekind and Ehlers combination did not teach the distinct inputs required to determine the claimed start time.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We are persuaded that Petitioner’s formulation, except for the qualifier “at least,” is correct.6 On the one hand, Patent Owner’s formulation is attorney argument without any supporting evidence. See PO Resp. 5–6. It is well settled that mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to no probative value. See Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“Attorney’s argument is no substitute for evidence.”); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (attorney argument is not evidence). On the other hand, Petitioner’s proposal is supported by Mr. Shah’s testimony. See Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 26–27). Because Mr. Shah’s testimony is based on his years of experience, we give it some weight. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 2–10.” slip op. at 14

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

    “After briefing, we issued an order inviting supplemental briefing of the preambles of the challenged claims. Paper 28. In the Order, we proposed that the preamble of each of the challenged claims was not limiting. Id. at 2–3. In supplemental briefing, both Petitioner and Patent Owner agreed with that construction. Paper 31, 1; Paper 32, 5. Because no express construction is needed for our decision, we do not construe any of the claim limitations. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 15

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “has more relevant experience. Pet. Reply 4–5; Pet. Supp. Br. 4–5. Petitioner further moves15 to exclude Dr. Palmer’s testimony. Pet. Supp. Br. 5. As our analysis does not rely on Dr. Palmer’s testimony, we dismiss Petitioner’s motion as moot.” slip op. at 30

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

    “But it is there that our agreement with Petitioner ends. The “determining a first time prior to said target time” limitation recites five distinct inputs upon which the time is based at least in part: “[i] said one or more thermal performance values of said structure, [ii] said performance characteristic of said climate control system, [iii] said first internal temperature, [iv] said first external temperature, and [v] the forecasted temperature.” By setting forth five inputs, claim 1 requires that each of those inputs be a distinct component of the calculation of the “first time prior to said target time.” “Where a claim lists elements separately, ‘the clear implication of the claim language’ is that those elements are ‘distinct component[s]’ of the patented invention.’” Becton Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Gaus v. Conair Corp., 363 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 96 F.3d 1398, 1404–05 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (concluding that where a claim provides for two separate elements, a “second portion” and a “return portion,” these two elements “logically cannot be one and the same”). There is nothing in the asserted claims to suggest that one piece of data can be used to satisfy multiple inputs. See CAE Screenplates, Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co., 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of . . . different terms in the claims connotes different meanings.”). However, Petitioner’s theory does not use each of the five distinct inputs. According to Petitioner, Wedekind bases t3—which Petitioner maps to the first time prior to said target time—on the first internal temperature because the first internal temperature is used to determine the thermal performance values of said structure. Pet. 54 (“Furthermore, in predicting t3, the thermal performance values of said structure (as explained under element [1k]) and characteristic of said climate control system (as explained above under element [1l]) are used in the non-linear efficiency model. (Ex. 1006, 19:50-20:2)(Ex. 1002, ¶120). The thermal performance values of said structure (as explained under element [1d]) are based on the first internal temperature and the first external temperature.”); see also Tr. 21:13–22:17 (Petitioner conceding that it is “using the first internal temperature because it’s used to create -- determine the thermal performance value”). Doing so effectively ignores a claim limitation by double counting the “one or more thermal performance values of said structure.” That is, Petitioner uses the “one or more thermal performance values of said structure” to satisfy both inputs [i] and [iii]. Although, as discussed above, claim 1 allows the indirect use of an input, it still must be used distinctly from the other listed input. Petitioner’s theory does not do that. See Pet. 54; Tr. 21:13–22:17. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown, based on the theory set forth in the Petition, that Wedekind teaches the disputed limitation.13 b) Conclusion Because Petitioner has not shown that one of the limitations was taught by the prior art, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to show by preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 8,498,753 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,498,753
• Medtronic, Inc. / Medtronic Vascular, Inc. v. Teleflex Innovations S.à.R.L.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 7, 2022 · IPR2020-01341 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7–14 were not proven unpatentable because Itou did not disclose the claimed ordered method, and Petitioner did not establish a sufficient reason to modify or combine the references.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Ex. 1001, 10:28–11:6; see also, supra, Section I.D. (reproducing claim 1 and labeling six steps [1.a] to [1.f]). Whether the steps recited in a method claim must be performed in a particular order is properly a part of claim construction. See, e.g., Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Steps in a method claim need not necessarily be performed in the order they are written, but if grammar, logic, the specification, or the prosecution history require the steps to be performed sequentially, then the claims are so limited. Id. at 1369; see also Loral Fairchild Corp. v. Sony Corp., 181 F.3d 1313, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Although not every process claim is limited to the performance of its steps in the order written, the language of the claim, the specification and the prosecution history support a limiting construction in this case.”). “Interactive Gift recites a two-part test for determining if the steps of a method claim that do not otherwise recite an order, must nonetheless be performed in the order in which they are written.” Altiris, 318 F.3d 1369 (citing Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342–43 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). “First, we look to the claim language to determine if, as a matter of logic or grammar, they must be performed in the order written.” Id. “If not, we next look to the rest of the specification to determine whether it directly or implicitly requires such a narrow construction.” Id. at 1370 (citation omitted).” slip op. at 18

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

    “We find an express construction of “interventional cardiology device” is not required for purposes of this Decision because, even if we assume Petitioner shows that the asserted art discloses an “interventional cardiology device,” Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence the unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims for the reasons detailed below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); 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”). 3. Other Claim Terms We find no other claim term requires an express construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 26

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been either: (1) a medical doctor who would have had “(a) a medical degree; (b) completed a coronary intervention training program, and (c) experience working as an interventional cardiologist;” or (2) an engineer who would have had (a) an undergraduate degree in engineering, such as mechanical or biomedical engineering; and (b) at least three years of experience designing medical devices, including catheters or catheter-deployable devices.” Pet. 11–12. Additionally, Petitioner contends “[e]xtensive experience and technical training might substitute for education, and advanced degrees might substitute for experience.” Id. at 12. Further, according to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the art “with a medical degree” and a person of ordinary skill in the art “with an engineering degree” may have had access to each other. Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 31; Ex. 1042 ¶¶ 18–19). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill. PO Resp. 6. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art as it is undisputed and consistent with the level of skill reflected in the prior art and the specification of the ’413 patent. 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 16

  • ExcludeDenied

    “II. MOTION TO EXCLUDE The party moving to exclude evidence bears the burden of proving that it is entitled to the relief requested—namely, that the material sought to be excluded is inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”). See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c), 42.62(a) (2019). In an inter partes review in which we both decide admissibility and serve as the fact-finder, we are wellpositioned to determine and assign appropriate weight to evidence presented, and we recognize that a complete record of the evidence is preferable to facilitate public access as well as appellate review. See, e.g., Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC v. Game Controller Tech. LLC, IPR2013-00634, Paper 32 at 31 (PTAB Apr. 14, 2015); see also Gnosis S.p.A. v. S. Alabama Med. Sci. Found., IPR2013-00118, Paper 64 at 43 (PTAB June 20, 2014) (citing Donnelly Garment Co. v. NLRB, 123 F.2d 215, 224 (8th Cir. 1941)” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 8,142,413 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,142,413
• Intel Corporation v. Parkervision, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 21, 2022 · IPR2020-01302 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9–11 were not determined unpatentable because the asserted Larson and Larson–Butler grounds did not teach sampling.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Neither party contends that the differences in proposals affect the outcome of this proceeding and we do not find that they do. Nonetheless, on the full record before us, we find that our identification of the level of ordinary skill in art from the Institution Decision as well as Patent Owner’s option (b) are supported by the prior art of record, the ’474 patent, and the opinions of Drs. Subramanian and Steer (which, as discussed above, recognize that additional work experience can compensate for the lack of a formal degree). Accordingly, we modify our preliminary finding to include the specifics from option (b) of Patent Owner’s proposal. Thus, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of RF circuit design, or at least five years of work experience and training in the design and development of RF circuits and/or systems. We also find that less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Because the parties agree that the claims remaining in the trial require “sampling” and also agree that the prior art asserted in this case does not teach “sampling” (as discussed further below), we need not construe these terms expressly to resolve the controversy before us. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803. sampling Although claim 1 does not recite “sampling” expressly, the post- institution briefs make clear that the parties agree that claim 1 and its dependent claims require sampling. In particular, Patent Owner contends, (1) “the ’474 patent pertains to a technique called sampling, which involves the use of a ‘switch’” (PO Resp. 2); (2) “all of the challenged claims are directed to a sampling system and, in particular, an energy sampling system (also known as an energy transfer system)” (id.); and (3) “[t]he challenged claims only cover energy sampling and the use of switches” (id. at 20). In its Reply, although Petitioner disagrees with Patent Owner’s interpretation of the claims as limited to energy sampling (i.e., energy transfer systems) (Pet. Reply 3–7), Petitioner contends that based on its “subsequent analysis of [Patent Owner’s] foundational ’551 patent—one of the multiple patents which the ’474 patent incorporates by reference—[Petitioner] now agrees with [Patent Owner] that the claims cover only systems that down-convert by sampling.” Pet. Reply 2. Thus, at a minimum, the parties agree that the claims at issue in this proceeding require sampling.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Discussion As discussed above, the parties now agree that (1) the claims at issue in this proceeding require “sampling” and (2) Larson alone or in combination with Butler do not disclose “sampling” and do not otherwise render the claims unpatentable. See Pet. Reply 2 (stating Petitioner agrees that “the claims cover only systems that down-convert by sampling”), 13 (stating that Larson and Butler do not disclose “down-conversion by sampling” and therefore agreeing that “Larson and Butler do not invalidate those claims”); see Ex. 2031, 6:20–22 (Patent Owner explaining, that “as the Board is aware, both parties agree that sampling is in the claims, and the claims are not invalid in view of all the cited prior art” (capitalization altered)). As such, based on Petitioner’s explicit admissions, Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) Larson anticipates claims 1, 3, 4, and 9–11 or (2) the combination of Larson and Butler would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9–11 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 19

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Discussion As discussed above, the parties now agree that (1) the claims at issue in this proceeding require “sampling” and (2) Larson alone or in combination with Butler do not disclose “sampling” and do not otherwise render the claims unpatentable. See Pet. Reply 2 (stating Petitioner agrees that “the claims cover only systems that down-convert by sampling”), 13 (stating that Larson and Butler do not disclose “down-conversion by sampling” and therefore agreeing that “Larson and Butler do not invalidate those claims”); see Ex. 2031, 6:20–22 (Patent Owner explaining, that “as the Board is aware, both parties agree that sampling is in the claims, and the claims are not invalid in view of all the cited prior art” (capitalization altered)). As such, based on Petitioner’s explicit admissions, Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) Larson anticipates claims 1, 3, 4, and 9–11 or (2) the combination of Larson and Butler would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9–11 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 7,539,474 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,539,474
• Eis GmbH v. Novoluto GmbHNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 23, 2021 · IPR2020-00007 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, and 17–26 were not shown unpatentable under the Taylor anticipation or Taylor-based obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDenied

    “disclosure of a suction cup “sealingly” receiving the vulva occurs when the vacuum is applied, not before. See Ex. 2034 ¶ 121. We disagree with Petitioner’s conclusion that “Taylor discloses that arm 26 ‘compresses . . . and then expands bellows 160’ after member 156 ‘sealingly’ engages the vulva.” Reply 9. The single statement in Taylor on which Petitioner relies states, with reference to Figure 3 set forth above in Section II.D.1, “[t]he first stimulator 154 includes a suction cup member 156 that conformingly and sealingly receives the upper portion of the vulva.” Ex. 1004, 5:29–31. We agree with Dr. Jensen that this does not support Petitioner’s conclusion that a seal is achieved before the vacuum is applied, and credit Dr. Jensen’s testimony that reads as follows as consistent with Taylor’s disclosure.” slip op. at 35

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “5. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, we deny the portion of Petitioner’s” slip op. at 73

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

    “7 Petitioner presents argument that the term “pressure field generator” should be construed as a means-plus-function term limited to the following structure: at least one first chamber, at least one second chamber, and at least one connection element. Reply 25–26. As we find that it is not necessary to construe this term to resolve the issues before us, we do not address these arguments presented by Petitioner.” slip op. at 17

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

    “disclosure of a suction cup “sealingly” receiving the vulva occurs when the vacuum is applied, not before. See Ex. 2034 ¶ 121. We disagree with Petitioner’s conclusion that “Taylor discloses that arm 26 ‘compresses . . . and then expands bellows 160’ after member 156 ‘sealingly’ engages the vulva.” Reply 9. The single statement in Taylor on which Petitioner relies states, with reference to Figure 3 set forth above in Section II.D.1, “[t]he first stimulator 154 includes a suction cup member 156 that conformingly and sealingly receives the upper portion of the vulva.” Ex. 1004, 5:29–31. We agree with Dr. Jensen that this does not support Petitioner’s conclusion that a seal is achieved before the vacuum is applied, and credit Dr. Jensen’s testimony that reads as follows as consistent with Taylor’s disclosure.” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 9,849,061 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,849,061
• Apple Inc. v. Parus Holdings, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 9, 2021 · IPR2020-00687 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 10, and 14 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not establish that Ladd’s speech-recognition device recognizes speech without predefined voice patterns.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The parties agree that this term at least requires a “speech recognition device that recognizes spoken words without . . . using predefined voice patterns,” but disagree as to whether it should require a device that recognizes spoken words “without adapting to individual speakers.” PO Resp. 21 (“The proper construction of ‘speaker-independent speech recognition device’ is consistent with the construction issued by the Western District of Texas, though it does not include all of that court’s construction, and requires at least ‘speech recognition device that recognizes spoken words without using predefined voice patterns.’”); Reply 2 (“For purposes of this IPR, Apple submits the Court’s construction should be applied.”). The dispute regarding whether the term should preclude adapting to individual speakers does not impact any issue in this proceeding, and Petitioner has agreed to Patent Owner’s construction in this proceeding, so long as we do not resolve the dispute over adapting to individual speakers. Tr. 12:24–13:4 (“JUDGE McKONE: So you’d be happy if we essentially adopted Parus’s construction with a footnote or some kind of note that we’re not resolving the issue of adapting to individual speakers? MS. BAILEY: That would be fine for purposes of this IPR, Your Honor.”). We adopt the parties’ agreed approach. For purposes of this proceeding, “speaker-independent speech recognition device” means “speech recognition device that recognizes spoken words without using predefined voice patterns.” This is consistent with the ’084 patent’s statement (relied on by both parties) that “[t]he voice browsing system recognizes naturally spoken voice commands and is speaker-independent; it does not have to be trained to recognize the” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “least a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or an equivalent degree, with at least two years of experience in interactive voice response systems, automated information retrieval systems, or related technologies. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 28). On the complete record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of one of ordinary skill in the art for essentially three reasons. First, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s assertion. See generally PO Resp. Also, neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.’”); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (finding that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not err in concluding that the level of ordinary skill in the art was best determined by the references of record). C. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 1–7, 10, and 14 (Grounds 1–3)” slip op. at 13

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

    “speech-recognition device” discussed supra, this limitation requires a “speech recognition device that recognizes spoken words without using predefined voice patterns.” A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). Obviousness is resolved based on underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). Petitioner bears the burden of proving unpatentability of the challenged claims, and the burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Petitioner must demonstrate obviousness by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d); see also Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to” slip op. at 25

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “A motion to exclude should be directed to the admissibility of evidence. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64; Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 79 (November 2019) (“TPG”) (“A motion to exclude must explain why the evidence is not admissible (e.g., relevance or hearsay) but may not be used to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to prove a particular fact.”). According to the Trial Practice Guide, a motion to exclude is not a vehicle to “address arguments or evidence that a party believes exceeds the proper scope of reply or sur-reply.” TPG 79. Rather, “[i]f a party believes that a brief filed by the opposing party raises new issues, is accompanied by belatedly presented evidence, or otherwise exceeds the proper scope of reply or sur-reply, it may request authorization to file a motion to strike.” Id. at 80. Patent Owner did not file a motion to strike. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude does not address the admissibility of Dr. Terveen’s testimony. Rather, it argues that the testimony exceeds the proper scope of reply evidence, either because it does not respond to the Patent Owner Response or because Petitioner did not follow our rules in seeking to submit supplemental information. See generally Mot. Excl. Thus, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude does not state a proper basis for excluding evidence and, therefore, we deny the motion for that reason.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 9,451,084 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,451,084
• Apple Inc. v. Parus Holdings, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 9, 2021 · IPR2020-00686 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18–21, and 25–30 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish the claimed speaker-independent speech recognition device.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “predefined voice patterns,” but disagree as to whether it should require a device that recognizes spoken words “without adapting to individual speakers.” PO Resp. 21 (“The proper construction of ‘speaker-independent speech recognition device’ is consistent with the construction issued by the Western District of Texas, though it does not include all of that court’s construction, and requires at least ‘speech recognition device that recognizes spoken words without using predefined voice patterns.’”); Reply 2 (“For purposes of this IPR, Apple submits the Court’s construction should be applied.”). The dispute as to whether the term should preclude adapting to individual speakers does not impact any issue in this proceeding, and Petitioner has agreed to Patent Owner’s construction in this proceeding, so long as we do not resolve the dispute over adapting to individual speakers. Tr. 12:24–13:4 (“JUDGE McKONE: So you’d be happy if we essentially adopted Parus’s construction with a footnote or some kind of note that we’re not resolving the issue of adapting to individual speakers? MS. BAILEY: That would be fine for purposes of this IPR, Your Honor.”). We adopt the parties’ agreed approach. For purposes of this proceeding, “speaker-independent speech recognition device” means “speech recognition device that recognizes spoken words without using predefined voice patterns.” This is consistent with the ’431 patent’s statement (relied on by both parties) that “[t]he voice browsing system recognizes naturally spoken voice commands and is speaker-independent; it does not have to be trained to recognize the voice patterns of each individual user. Such speech recognition systems use phonemes to recognize spoken words and not predefined voice patterns.” Ex. 1001, 4:38–43; see also PO Resp. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:34–43);” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner, relying on the testimony of Dr. Terveen, contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or equivalent degree, with at least two years of experience in interactive voice response systems, automated information retrieval systems, or related technologies, such as web-based information retrieval systems.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 28). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposal or offer an alternative. Also, neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of one of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the technology described in the Specification and the cited prior art. On the complete record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 12

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “A motion to exclude should be directed to the admissibility of evidence. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64; TPG 79 (“A motion to exclude must explain why the evidence is not admissible (e.g., relevance or hearsay) but may not be used to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to prove a particular fact.”). According to the Trial Practice Guide, a motion to exclude is not a vehicle to “address arguments or evidence that a party believes exceeds the proper scope of reply or sur-reply.” TPG 79. Rather, “[i]f a party believes that a brief filed by the opposing party raises new issues, is accompanied by belatedly presented evidence, or otherwise exceeds the” slip op. at 41

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “corresponding to an unclaimed second step not part of speech recognition would be an impermissible new argument presented for the first time in the Reply. As explained in the Board’s Trial Practice Guide, Petitioner’s change in direction exceeds the proper scope of a reply: Generally, a reply or sur-reply may only respond to arguments raised in the preceding brief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23, except as noted above. “Respond,” in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing. While replies and sur-replies can help crystalize issues for decision, a reply or sur-reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence may not be considered. The Board is not required to attempt to sort proper from improper portions of the reply or sur-reply. Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 74 (November 2019) (“TPG”).7 If Petitioner is arguing that Ladd’s description of voice patterns and speech patterns is not describing speaker-independent speech recognition, then Petitioner’s Reply does not simply respond to the Patent Owner Response or attempt to crystalize the issues in dispute. Rather, the Petition expressly relied on certain disclosure in Ladd to show the functionality claimed in limitation 1[c], while the Reply attempts to re-cast that same disclosure as describing functionality separate from that of limitation 1[c]. This would be a new theory.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 7,076,431 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,076,431
• Unified Patents Inc. v. Divx, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 8, 2021 · IPR2019-01379 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 17 were not shown unpatentable over Kim and Huang because Petitioner did not establish an adequate motivation to combine their teachings.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related subject, and two to three years of work experience in image and/or video processing.” Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 42). Patent Owner neither comments on that proposal, nor proposes an alternative level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. 5 The burden of showing something by a preponderance of the evidence requires the trier of fact to believe that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence. Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Tr. for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993). Because Petitioner’s proposed definition is consistent with the cited prior art, we apply it for purposes of this Decision. In our view, moreover, 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 prior art itself can reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art at the time of the invention).” slip op. at 9

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

    “00052, which also involves the ’651 patent, the Board construed the term “level of detail” as “level of change of visual elements across adjacent pixels,” and that the same construction should apply here. PO Resp. 58–60 (citing IPR2020-00052, Paper 42). Petitioner does not propose a construction for that term, but argues that “the combined Kim and Huang teachings would determine the level of detail for adjacent pixels under Patent Owner’s ‘adjacent pixels’ construction.” Pet. Reply 5–11. Because our ultimate decision does not rest on the construction of that claim term, we do not construe the term in this proceeding. See 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.”); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). As part of our obviousness analysis, we address additional claim construction arguments regarding the “determining” limitation. See infra § III.E.1.a.” slip op. at 10

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “We agree with Patent Owner that these exhibits represent expressions of opinion of unnamed users that Patent Owner relies on to show cotemporaneous praise existed. These exhibits are cited in the Hanson Declaration only as evidence of industry praise, i.e., to support testimony based on his personal knowledge. See Ex. 2045 ¶ 51. And although Mr. Hanson quotes statements from these exhibits in his declaration, their relevance lies in that they allegedly reflect praise for DivX’s deblocking method. For example, the statement by user “temperance”—that Petitioner objects to as being relied on for the truth of the matter asserted (Paper 46, 1– 2)—is offered to show that “[t]here was plenty of healthy debate on the boards about the quality of the new version of the codec,” and “many commenters specifically praised the deblocking.” See Ex. 2045 ¶ 46. Moreover, it is clear that these are merely opinions of online users, not factual assertions. See id. (quoting temperance: “IMHO, DivX 6 deblocking is better (for metrics and eyes) than xvid’s”) (emphasis added); see Sonos, slip op. at 7 (separating admissible expressions of opinions that constitute praise from bare factual assertions). Other statements that Petitioner objects to (Paper 46, 2) are similarly opinions of online users, not factual assertions that Patent Owner relies upon for the truth of the matter stated therein. We are therefore not persuaded that Exhibits 2018–2030 and 2032–2033 contain inadmissible hearsay.11 See Cisco Sys., Paper 41 at 50–51 (allowing exhibits cited only as evidence of industry praise); Quanergy Sys., Inc. v. Velodyne Lidar, Inc., IPR2018-00255, 2020 WL 2595492, at *2 (PTAB May 21, 2020) (citing Asetek Danmark A/S v. CMI USA, Inc., 13-CV-00457-JST, 2014 WL 12644295, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2014)).” slip op. at 55

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition does not detail Petitioner’s newly proposed interpretation of this claim limitation. See Pet. 29–36 (arguing only that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Kim determines the level of detail for a region comprising an 8 x 8 block of pixels of a reconstructed video frame). On the contrary, the Petition argued: [T]he prior art cited in this Petition teaches and suggests exactly what is claimed and what allegedly distinguished the claims from Kim II: determining the level of detail of a region that includes pixels from multiple rows and multiple columns that encompass pixels immediately adjacent to at least two sides of the block boundary, and selecting a filter to apply.” Pet. 18 (emphasis added).6 Under these circumstances, we consider Petitioner’s new argument waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); see also Intelligent Bio-Sys., 821 F.3d at 1369 (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ 6 Petitioner refers to a different prior art reference, U.S. Patent No. 6,983,079, cited by the examiner during the prosecution of the ’651 patent, as Kim II. the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’”) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)).” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,139,651 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,139,651
• Illumina, Inc. v. Natera, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 11, 2020 · IPR2019-01201 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–27 were not shown unpatentable: the single-cell Dhallan theories lacked a reasonable expectation of success, and Rabinowitz was not established as prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In sum, Petitioner’s evidence in the Petition establishes that single cells were used for genetic analysis, amplification techniques were known, and SNP arrays could be used to analyze chromosome imbalances. Petitioner’s evidence, however, does not persuasively address the interplay between the amount of DNA in a single cell and the amount of DNA or amplified DNA needed to carry out the claimed method using a SNP 22 genotyping array and Dhallan’s aneuploidy analysis. This is important because Patent Owner cites evidence demonstrating that at the relevant time, “various researchers had determined that very low amounts of DNA could not be reliably used for SNP genotyping arrays (even with intervening amplification).” PO Resp. 47.” slip op. at 22

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “On this record, we agree with Patent Owner and Dr. Quackenbush that the ’406 application and ’741 provisional together demonstrate to persons of 23 The ’741 provisional is incorporated by reference into the ’406 application. Ex. 1026, 1:5–13. 48 ordinary skill that the inventors understood pyrosequencing could be used for high-throughput sequencing, if expensive machines were purchased. In other words, the ’741 provisional gives context to the statement in the ’406 application, and we agree with Dr. Quackenbush that “‘[s]uitability’, as the provisional makes clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art, is a cost issue, rather than a technical one.” Ex. 2012 (Quackenbush Decl.) ¶ 277; see also id. ¶¶ 276–80 (opining on disclosures in the ’741 provisional).” slip op. at 48

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “As to Dr. Quackenbush’s qualifications, although Petitioner characterizes his expertise as relating to statistics, the record reflects that he also has adequate experience in the fields of genetics and biotechnology. For example, he is Professor of Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, the Chair of the Department of Biostatistics, and the Director of the Health Data Science Center at the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health. Ex. 2013, 1. He has almost three decades of experience in research and teaching in the fields of genetics and biotechnology (id. at 1–8, 12), has published hundreds of articles in these fields (id. at 13–52), was the Editor-in-Chief of the journal Genomics for over a decade (id. at 8), and has served as a peer reviewer, or on the editorial board, of a dozen other publications relating to genetics and biotechnology (id. at 7–8). Paper 49, 2. Given that experience in genetics and biotechnology, we find that Dr. Quackenbush has sufficient 54 specialized knowledge, experience, and education in the techniques of the ’592 Patent and prior art, such as DNA amplification, genotyping, and analysis of genetic data, for his testimony to be helpful to us. Moreover, even if Dr. Quackenbush did not personally work in fetal diagnostics at the relevant time, there is no requirement that a declarant must actually be a person of ordinary skill in the art to present testimony as to what such a person would have understood at the time of the invention. See, e.g., SEB S.A., 594 F.3d at 1373 (stating there is no requirement of a perfect match between an expert’s experience and the field of the art in question, provided the expert has “sufficient relevant technical experience” to testify). The remaining arguments raised in Petitioner’s motion relate to the sufficiency, rather than admissibility, of evidence. Such arguments are improperly advanced in a motion to exclude. See TPG 79 (stating that a motion to exclude may not be used to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to prove a particular fact); see also Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V., IPR2013-00053, Paper 66 at 19 (PTAB May 1, 2014) (“[T]he Board, sitting as a non-jury tribunal, is well-positioned to determine and assign appropriate weight to the evidence presented in this trial.”). Moreover, “there is a strong public policy for making all information filed in an administrative proceeding available to the public.” Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., CBM2012-00010, Paper 59 at 40 (PTAB February 24, 2014). Rather than excluding evidence that is allegedly 55 confusing, misleading, or incorrect, we simply give it the appropriate weight in our analysis.” slip op. at 54

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “success arguments focus solely on Dhallan’s single cell disclosure, while “ignor[ing] Dhallan’s disclosure that its methodology can be performed using 2–32 cells, which also falls within the claims.” Reply 18 (citing, e.g., Pet. 13–14). Patent Owner responds that this is an improper attempt to change the thrust of the obviousness theory presented in the Petition. Sur-reply 16–17. We agree with Patent Owner. Although the Petition references portions of Dhallan that address using sources of DNA other than a single cell (see, e.g., Pet. 13–14, citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 44, 74), this is by way of background only, falling within a section titled “Introduction to Dhallan.” See Pet. 11. Petitioner’s detailed obviousness arguments for claim 1 are limited to use of DNA from a single cell, and do not extend to DNA from multiple cells.15 See, e.g., id. at 19–20 (arguing that, because Dhallan’s preferred embodiment is one embryo cell, Dhallan teaches the claimed limitation reciting “wherein the small amount of genetic material from the individual is from fifty or fewer of the individual’s 15 As noted above, claim 1 recites several possible sources for the claimed “small amount of genetic data.” See supra n.9. Here we focus on Petitioner’s unpatentability arguments based on option [i], but note that Petitioner’s unpatentability arguments under options [ii] and [iii] also did not extend to use of DNA from multiple cells. See, e.g., Pet. 20 (cross-referencing arguments for claims 4, 5, and 17); id. at 34 (for claim 4, arguing option [ii] based on “a single human cell”); id. at 35 (for claim 5, arguing option [iii] based on “extracellular fetal DNA from maternal blood”); id. at 42 (for claim 17, arguing option [iii] based on a “single fetal cell”). 30 cells”); id. at 29 (“A POSA would have been motivated to use a single cell as the source of genetic material . . . .”); id. at 31 (“A POSA would have reasonably expected success in using Dhallan’s methodology, for example as described in Example 14, on one embryonic cell.”). Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner is impermissibly attempting to change the thrust of its obviousness theory on reply. Sur-reply 16–17. We will not consider Petitioner’s belated attempt to argue a reasonable expectation of success in using more than a single cell in the claimed method. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the . . . patent owner response.”).” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 8,682,592 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,682,592
• Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Corcept Therapeutics, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 18, 2020 · PGR2019-00048 · APJ David Cotta · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 were not shown unpatentable because the prior art did not establish a reasonable expectation that doses above 300 mg/day of mifepristone could be safely co-administered with a strong CYP3A inhibitor.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The definition of a POSA that best incorporates both experience with drug-drug interaction and experience treating patients is Petitioner’s proposed multidisciplinary team. Patent Owner does not object to defining the POSA as part of a multidisciplinary team, so long as that team includes a person with experience treating Cushing’s syndrome, which, as discussed above, is appropriate. Tr. 38. Accordingly, we define the POSA as: a multidisciplinary team that includes researchers and clinicians in the field and is able to draw upon not only the individual skills of each team member, but also the specialized skills of others to solve a given problem. The 6 Claim 5 and its dependents are directed to “[a] method of treating symptoms associated with elevated cortisol levels.” Cushing’s syndrome is “caused by excess levels of cortisol.” Ex. 1001, 1:31–33. Accordingly, claim 5 relates to Cushing’s syndrome even if it does not specifically recite that the patient has Cushing’s syndrome. All of the other claims expressly recite Cushing’s syndrome. researchers and clinicians would have an M.D., a Pharm. D., and/or a Ph.D. in pharmacology or a related discipline. The clinician would have at least four years of experience treating patients with Cushing’s syndrome using mifepristone and/or CYP3A inhibitors. The researcher would have at least four years of experience studying drug-drug interactions involving CYP3A inhibitors.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “Further, if we were to consider Petitioner’s new argument, we would find that the claims do require safety, as entirely consistent with what both parties unmistakably understood, as evidenced by their patentability arguments throughout the proceeding (until Petitioner’s new argument in its Reply). In this regard, we note that the preambles in the independent claims at issue, i.e., in claims 1, 5, and 10, are necessarily limiting and we consider the scope of the challenged claims as a whole, including preambles, in our patentability analysis. The preamble in claim 1, for example, recites a “method of treating Cushing’s syndrome in a patient who is taking an original once-daily dose of 1200 mg or 900 mg per day of mifepristone.” Ex. 1001, 68:2–16. Claims 5 and 10 contain similar language relating to a patient taking an “original once-daily dose” of 1200 mg or 900 mg per day of mifepristone, although claim 5 is directed to a “method of treating symptoms associated with elevated cortisol levels,” and claim 10 is directed” slip op. at 19

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

    “In addition, when considering the recited methods of treatment (or controlling hyperglycemia) in a patient in the context of the specification, we interpret the recited methods to require administration of drugs in a manner that is safe for a patient. The summary section in the specification of the ’214 patent, for example, states that: concomitant administration of a CYP3A inhibitor such as ketoconazole and a GRM such as mifepristone is believed to be safe for the subject, and to provide the therapeutic benefits of both drugs to the subject, and may allow the reduction in the amount of a GRM, or of a CYP3A inhibitor, administered to the subject; such reduction may reduce the risk of toxic effects of the CYP3A inhibitor concomitantly administered with the GRM. Ex. 1001, 3:50–58 (emphasis added); see id. at 4:4–21. That disclosure, along with many other statements in the specification, clarify that safety and efficiency are important aspects of the recited methods, especially in relation to toxic effects that might preclude treatment in patients. See also id. at 13:1–3 (stating “Applicant discloses herein methods for the safe concomitant administration of both a glucocorticoid receptor modulator (GRM) and steroidogenesis inhibitor to a subject.”), 13:10–23 (same).” slip op. at 20

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Our regulations require the Petition to identify “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed” and “[h]ow the construed claim is unpatentable.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3),(4). A reply is not an opportunity to start anew, to fill in gaps or to remedy omissions in a petition. See SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1357 (2018) (explaining that “petitioner’s contentions [in a petition] ... define the scope of the litigation all the way from institution through to conclusion.”); see also Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 73 (Nov. 2019), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/tpgnov.pdf. We therefore decline to consider Petitioner’s belatedly presented new argument in its Reply that the claims do not require safety. See Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 775 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider portions of a reply declaration “rais[ing] a new obviousness argument for [a claim] limitation that could have been made in the petition” but was not); Intelligent Bio-Sys., 821 F.3d at 1369–70 (concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider reply brief arguments advocating a “new theory” of unpatentability under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)). Even if we were to consider Petitioner’s new argument regarding claim construction, we would not find it persuasive because Petitioner’s obviousness rationale incorporates an expectation of safety. Irrespective of whether the claims require safety, Petitioner cannot carry its burden to establish that the claimed methods would have been obviousness without establishing that – as posited in the Petition – the POSA would have expected co-administration to be safe.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 10,195,214 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,195,214
• Oticon Medical AB / Oticon Medical LLC et al. v. Cochlear LimitedNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 14, 2020 · IPR2019-00975 · APJ James A Worth · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12, 14, 16, 17, 25, 28, 33–35, 37–41, and 45–47 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish a rationale to combine Westerkull ’794 and Choi.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “At the oral hearing, Petitioner acknowledged that the differences between the parties’ assertions regarding the level of skill in the art would not be dispositive. Tr. 25:12–26:11. In view of the lack of material dispute on this issue, we adopt Patent Owner’s asserted level of skill, which we find to be supported by the testimony of Dr. Rentschler. See Ex. 2037 ¶¶ 54–55; see also Tr. 26:10–11 (Counsel for Petitioner: “We agree that the issues really here are highly mechanical.”).” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “We now turn to the issue of whether the preamble of claim 1 is limiting. Petitioner argues that the preamble recites an intended use because the body of claim 1 recites the structural limitations but the preamble does not. Pet. Supp. Br. 3. Petitioner also argues that the preamble recites an intended use because, in another case between the same parties involving a different claim relating to the same subject matter, the court concluded that the preamble recited an intended use. Id. at 3 (citing Cochlear Bone Anchored Sols. AB v. Oticon Med. AB, 958 F.3d 1348, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2020)). Patent Owner argues that the preamble is limiting because the phrase “the bone” has its antecedent basis in the phrase “a skull bone” in the preamble. PO Supp. Br. 3 (citing Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). We determine, as a matter of reading the words of the claim, that the antecedent basis for “the bone” is “a skull bone” in the preamble of claim 1. See Ex. 1001, 5:56–57. Accordingly, we determine that the preamble is limiting. See Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 436 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“anode gel” was understood to be the antecedent basis for “said zinc anode”).9 In other words, it is a requirement that the prosthesis is structured so that it is appropriate for being anchored into the skull bone. See Catalina 9 Patent Owner also argues that the cases relied on in the Petition to argue that the preamble is not limiting stand for the opposite proposition because, in those cases, the preambles were limiting because they introduced or defined terms later used in the claims. PO Supp. Br. 4 n.1 (citing Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305–06 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). We agree with Patent Owner that the statement of law in the Petition, i.e., that a preamble may recite an intended use when the body of the claim recites all structural elements (see Pet. 19), is not dispositive of this case because the body of the claim refers back to the preamble. Marketing International, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“dependence on a particular disputed preamble phrase for antecedent basis may limit claim scope because it indicates a reliance on both the preamble and claim body to define the claimed invention.”). 2. the preamble: “bone fixture configured to anchor to bone” (claim 8) For similar reasons as for the preamble of claim 1, we determine that the preamble of claim 8 is limiting, i.e., because it provides antecedent basis for “the bone” in the body of the claim. However, the preamble of claim 8 only refers to “bone” and not to “a skull bone” and therefore does not itself impose a limitation of a “skull bone.” Compare Ex. 1001, 6:22, with id. at 5:56–57.” slip op. at 12

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

    “means “a channel, distinct from the screw thread and distinct from the flange, extending around the cylindrical portion of the main body of the anchor, having an inner diameter and an outer diameter.” Pet. 20. Petitioner also asserts that a person of ordinary skill would understand that a circumferential groove is provided to “exert a compressive radial force on the skull bone to improve stability of the anchoring fixture.” Id. (citing Ex. 1013, 3; Ex. 1002 ¶ 36). The District Court construed “circumferential groove” to mean “a narrow channel extending around the cylindrical periphery of the main body of the implant.” Ex. 3001, 33.10” slip op. at 13

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

    “In response to our question inviting further briefing, Petitioner submits that “periphery” refers to the widest portion of the fixture inserted into the skull and distinct from the flange. See Pet. Reply 2. Patent Owner does not comment on the question. See PO Resp. 15–17. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that it is not necessary to further construe the term “periphery.” See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claims are construed only to the extent necessary to resolve a dispute). 4. “wherein the anchoring fixture is configured for anchoring a hearing” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 9,838,807 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,838,807

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.