- PTAB · May 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00222 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner on claims 1–3, 6–23, and 25–33 based on abandonment of the contest.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“Petition (Paper 2), requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–3, 6–23, and 25–33 of U.S. Patent No. 9,643,506 (Ex. 1001, “the ’506 patent”). Shenzhen Carku Technology Co. (“Patent Owner”) did not file mandatory notices despite its obligation to do so under our rules. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b). In addition, the Board emailed the attorney of record listed on the ’506 patent as well as the attorney listed in the Petition’s certificate of service, but has not received any response. See Ex. 1003. Pursuant to our rules, “[a]ctions construed to be a request for adverse judgment include . . . [a]bandonment of the contest.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4). Patent Owner’s failure to file mandatory notices and its failure to respond to the Board’s email is consistent with abandonment of the contest. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that adverse judgment is entered against Patent Owner as to claims 1–3, 6–23, and 25–33 of the ’506 patent; and” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 9,643,506 - Canon U.S.A., Inc. / Canon Inc. v. Slingshot Printing LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 20, 2024 · IPR2022-01541 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7, 9, 10, 20–22, and 24 are unpatentable as obvious over Hamafuku, Whitman, and Imanaka, with Cleland added for claim 5.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Upon review of the prior art of record, we determine that no claim terms require construction for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Upon review of the prior art of record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the prior art of record, but note that neither party contends the outcome of this case depends on whether a person of ordinary skill could include an individual with a degree in Materials Science.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“In this case, there was a known desire to increase nozzle pitch in inkjet printheads, Imanaka’s heater and nozzle configuration had been used in the art to achieve this goal, and there is no suggestion that combining the teachings of Hamafuku, Whitman, and Imanaka was beyond the skill of an ordinarily skilled artisan. See Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Thus, we credit the testimony of Mr. Curley that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to use Imanaka’s heater and nozzle pitch in Hamafuku in order to provide a more compact and higher density printhead. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 404–05. A conclusion of obviousness requires a reasonable expectation of success. Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This inquiry asks whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of combining the references to achieve what is claimed in the patent-at-issue. Id. at 1367. The inquiry does not look to whether unclaimed elements or functions would or would not also be achieved, or whether “one would reasonably expect the prior art reference to operate as those references intended once combined.” Id.” slip op. at 42
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“As noted by Patent Owner, the components of Imanaka are made of silicon-based materials, manufactured using thin film technology. PO Resp. 53–54 (citing Ex. 1008, 6:50–61). We are not persuaded, however, that Imanaka’s preference for silicon-based materials would teach away from, or otherwise discourage, one of ordinary skill in the art from combining Hamafuku, Whitman, and Imanaka. Imanaka does not suggest that failure to use silicon-based materials would result in an inoperable device. Rather, Imanaka states that use of silicon-based materials may “improve the mechanical characteristics” and “reliability” of “the liquid discharge head.” Ex. 1008, 6:50–61. Given the considerable increase in printhead nozzle pitch and print resolution provided by Imanaka’s heater and nozzle pitch configuration, we are not persuaded that a failure to capture the same improvement in mechanical characteristics and reliability from the use of silicon-based materials would prevent one of ordinary skill in the art from implementing Imanaka’s nozzle pitch in Hamafuku and Whitman or counsel against this modification.” slip op. at 41
Patent outcomesUS 7,152,951 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,152,951 - Micron Technology, Inc. v. Katana Silicon Technologies LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00071 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 3–5, 8, 11, 20–22, 27–29, 31, and 33 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of prior art and skilled-artisan knowledge.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“On the fully developed record, we find that Petitioner’s construction, “a layer that adheres,” is more strongly supported by the evidence than Patent Owner’s construction, “a pre-formed layer that is adhered.” Our analysis begins with the claim language. The term “adhesion layer” appears in each of the ’806 patent’s independent claims, which include both method and device claims. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 13:44–63 (claim 1 directed to a “semiconductor device”); id. at 17:58–18:17 (claim 30 directed to a “method of manufacturing a semiconductor device”). Claim 1 recites “a first semiconductor chip having a first adhesion layer adhered to its back surface” and “a second semiconductor chip having a second adhesion layer adhered to its back surface.” Id. at 13:49–51, 13:54–56 (emphasis added). Claim 30 recites the steps of “forming a first insulating adhesion layer on a back surface of a first wafer” and “forming a second insulating adhesion layer on a back surface of a second wafer.” Id. at 17:60–62, 18:3–5 (emphases added). In the absence of contrary evidence, we must assume that the term “adhesion layer” has the same meaning in all claims of the ’806 patent. In re Varma, 816 F.3d 1352, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“the principle that the same phrase in different claims of the same patent should have the same meaning is a strong one, overcome only if ‘it is clear’ that the same phrase has different meanings in different claims,” quoting Fin Control Sys. Pty, Ltd. v. OAM, Inc., 265 F.3d 1311, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). The language of claim 30 and similarly worded claims of the ’806 patent suggests strongly that an “adhesion layer” may be formed in situ on the back surface of a wafer and need not be pre-formed, as argued by Patent Owner. The testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Elenius, supports this interpretation. See Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 43, 50 (testifying that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would recognize that there are multiple methods of forming an ‘adhesion layer’ on the back surface of the semiconductor chip” and that “[p]astes and other adhesives, adhesive agents, adhesive layers or other material that are dispensed onto a substrate or chip back are formed into a layer over time as they harden through curing” (emphasis added)). Thus, the language of claims 30 and 31 does not support Patent Owner’s construction that the “adhesion layer” must be a pre-formed layer that is adhered. Cf. PO Resp. 22–25 (arguing for that construction).” slip op. at 17
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Citing testimony from Dr. Suhling, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the priority date of the ’806 patent would have had i) a bachelor-level degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, material science, or a related subject and five or more years of experience working in the field of semiconductor packaging; ii) a Master’s-level degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, material science, or a related field, and at least 1-3 years of experience in the design/development of semiconductor packages; or iii) a Ph.D.- level degree in mechanical engineering, material science, electrical engineering, or a related field, and at least some experience in the area of semiconductor packaging. Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 28–32). Petitioner further states that “[a]dditional education may substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience may substitute for formal education.” Pet. 18. Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Elenius, states that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical, mechanical or materials engineering and two to three years of experience in the design or development of semiconductor manufacturing, or the equivalent.” Ex. 2014 ¶ 32. Mr. Elenius further states that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. For purposes of this Decision, we find no meaningful differences” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“3. Reasons to Combine Petitioner contends that it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ball’s teachings of stacking chips with Mostafazadeh’s process for applying adhesive to create individual chips with adhesive backsides. Pet. 28–29. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Ball and Mostafazadeh for several reasons, including to provide a more efficient manufacturing process for multichip modules and to simplify the stacking process. Pet. 28–31. Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine Mostafazadeh with Ball because there would have been no reasonable expectation of success and the combination would not have resulted in a functioning semiconductor device. PO Resp. 39. Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner’s combination of Ball and Mostafazadeh would fail for multiple reasons and that Mostafazadeh does not describe multi-chip stacked mounting. Id. at 39–52. Having considered the evidence and arguments, we determine that the preponderance of the evidence favors Petitioner. Petitioner demonstrates persuasively that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasons to combine Ball’s stacked multichip module with Mostafazadeh’s process for applying adhesive at the wafer stage and then dicing to create individual chips with adhesive backsides. Pet. 28–31. In particular, Petitioner shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Mostafazadeh’s teaching of applying the adhesive to a wafer surface and then subsequently dicing the wafer in order to provide a more efficient manufacturing process for multichip modules and to simplify Ball’s process of stacking chips. Id.; see KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (stating that the “mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement” suggests obviousness). The teachings of both Ball and Mostafazadeh support Petitioner’s combination. Ball teaches a stacked multichip module using flip-chip and wire bond interconnections, where a lower chip is flip-chip connected to a substrate using metal bumps, and an upper chip is wire bond connected to the substrate. Ex. 1005, Abstract, 3:42–64, 4:58–59, 5:3–12, 5:18–20, 5:23– 27, Fig. 1. Ball teaches that the upper chip is attached to the lower chip in a back-to-back arrangement with a layer of adhesive applied over a back side of the lower chip. Id. Mostafazadeh teaches a method for applying integrated circuit dies to support surfaces. Ex. 1003, Abstract. In Mostafazadeh’s method, an adhesive coating is formed on a surface of a semiconductor wafer, the adhesive coating is dried, and the semiconductor wafer is diced to form integrated circuit dies, each having an adhesive layer on its mounting surface, i.e., its back surface. Id. at 3:5–11, 5:20–25, 7:9–11, 7:29–8:2, Fig. 2 (steps 104–110). A selected die is then attached to an associated support surface by placing the adhesive layer of the selected die in contact with the associated support surface. Id. at 3:11–13, 8:10–12, Fig. 2 (steps 112–118).” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that Petitioner meets its burden of proof for claim element [3d]. Our finding is supported by Figure 1 of Ball, which depicts a second chip mounted to a first chip in a back-to-back arrangement. Ex. 1002 ¶ 158; Ex. 1005, Fig. 1. More particularly, Ball’s Figure 1 shows that back side 32 of upper die 12 (the claimed “second semiconductor chip”) is mounted to back side 30 of lower die 14 (the claimed “first semiconductor chip”) by adhesion layer 28. Ex. 1005, 5:18–20. Relying on Dr. Suhling’s testimony, Petitioner shows persuasively that “a circuit is formed on the front surface 34 of upper die 12 . . . , as evidenced by bonding pads 36 and wires 38 connecting the upper die’s circuitry to the wiring layer on substrate 16.” Pet. 41; Ex. 1002 ¶ 159. We credit Dr. Suhling’s unrebutted testimony that, “[b]ecause the circuitry is on the front side of upper die 12, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would know that the back surface adhesive layer is ‘where a circuit is not formed.’” Ex. 1002 ¶ 159. Patent Owner argues that, to meet claim elements [3b] and [3d], “a reference must show that an adhesion layer extends to cover the entire back surface of the second semiconductor chip where a circuit is not formed.” PO Resp. 30. We find no support in the claim language or other intrinsic evidence for Patent Owner’s argument. In our view, the phrase “back surface where a circuit is not formed” identifies the back side of the chip as opposed to the front side, where a circuit is formed. Ex. 1001, 14:26–27 (claim element [3d]). Our interpretation is supported by the claim language as a whole. Claim element [3b], for example, recites “a first semiconductor chip having a circuit forming on its front surface and an adhesion layer adhered to its back surface.” Id. at 14:17–19 (emphasis added). In this” slip op. at 47
Patent outcomesUS RE38,806 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR - Micron Technology, Inc. v. Katana Silicon Technologies LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00072 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12–19, 23–26, 30, and 32 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations of prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Although the proposals for the level of skill in the art by the parties’ declarants have differences in wording, we find no meaningful differences between the parties’ respective definitions that would materially alter the outcome of this Decision. Nevertheless, based on our review of the ’806 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’806 patent, and cited prior art, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionGranted
“On the fully developed record, we find that Petitioner’s construction, “a layer that adheres,” is more strongly supported by the evidence than Patent Owner’s construction, “a pre-formed layer that is adhered.”” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner shows persuasively that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Mostafazadeh with Ball and Fogal. Pet. 32–33. The evidence discussed above concerning reasons to combine supports a reasonable expectation of success. We are also persuaded by Dr. Suhling’s testimony that the “combination of Ball, Fogal, and Mostafazadeh would require no modification of the multichip modules in Ball and Fogal: rather Mostafazadeh merely explains in more detail methods known in the art for creating chips with adhesive surfaces.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 239; see also id. ¶¶ 62– 69 (describing prior art methods for applying adhesive to the backside of a wafer). For the foregoing reasons, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully combining Ball, Fogal, and Mostafazadeh.” slip op. at 46
- ExcludeOther
“We do not discuss or cite any of these exhibits in this Decision, or rely on any of them in reaching our determination that all of the challenged claims are unpatentable. Because their presence in the record would not affect our analysis in this Decision, we dismiss as moot Petitioner’s motion with respect to these exhibits.” slip op. at 72
Patent outcomesUS RE38,806 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR - Micron Technology, Inc. v. Katana Silicon Technologies LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00073 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–15 are unpatentable under §103: the Board found the asserted combinations taught the limitations, with motivation to combine and a reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“The claim language, “forming” an “adhesion layer on a back surface,” suggests strongly that an “adhesion layer” may be formed in situ on the back surface of a wafer. The testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Elenius, supports this interpretation. See Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 43, 50 (testifying that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would recognize that there are multiple methods of forming an ‘adhesion layer’ on the back surface of the semiconductor chip” and that “[p]astes and other adhesives, adhesive agents, adhesive layers or other material that are dispensed onto a substrate or chip back are formed into a layer over time as they harden through curing” (emphasis added)). Thus, the language of the claims of the ʼ879 patent does not support Patent Owner’s construction that the “adhesion layer” must be a preformed layer that is adhered. Cf. PO Resp. 21–23 (arguing for that construction).” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“For purposes of this Decision, we find no meaningful differences between the parties’ respective definitions that would materially alter the outcome of this Decision. Nevertheless, based on our review of the ’879 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’879 patent, and cited prior art, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Mostafazadeh, could overflow.” PO Resp. 41, 42 (citing Ex. 2014 ¶ 121). According to Patent Owner, the downward pressure during mounting “could cause adhesive to squeeze out.” Id. at 41. We find that Patent Owner’s argument and the corresponding testimony of Mr. Elenius are speculative and do not outweigh Petitioner’s evidence of obviousness. The overflow issue was recognized and addressed by Mostafazadeh. Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, Mostafazadeh provides explicitly that its adhesive layer “covers an entire mounting surface 190 of the selected integrated circuit dies 182 and does not extend beyond a boundary of the mounting surface 190.” Ex. 1003, 10:6–9 (emphasis added). Additionally, Mostafazadeh teaches that when “the adhesive layer is rolled on, it is exactly the same size as the mounting surface and is quite even. Thus, when the die is attached to its supporting surface the adhesive does not extend beyond the mounting surface of the die.” Id. at 9:15–18. Further, Mostafazadeh teaches that its process avoids the adhesive jutting around the edges of the die. Id. at 2:26–28. These teachings support that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully applying Mostafazadeh’s die attachment method to Ball’s multichip device while avoiding adhesive overflow. Next, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s combination would fail” slip op. at 40
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“preponderance of the evidence favors Petitioner. Petitioner demonstrates persuasively that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasons to combine Ball’s stacked multichip module using flip-chip and wire bond connections with Mostafazadeh’s process for applying adhesive to create individual chips with adhesive backsides. Pet. 25–28. In particular, Petitioner shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Mostafazadeh’s teaching of applying the adhesive to a wafer surface and then subsequently dicing the wafer in order to provide a more efficient manufacturing process for multichip modules and to simplify Ball’s process of stacking chips. Id.; see KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (stating that the “mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement” suggests obviousness). The teachings of both Ball and Mostafazadeh support Petitioner’s” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 6,352,879 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 6,352,879 - PTAB · May 9, 2024 · IPR2024-00084 · APJ Donna M Praiss · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–3 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would have been shown obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“To institute inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons discussed below, after considering the parties’ submissions and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim of the ’484 patent, and we institute inter partes review of all claims and all grounds asserted in the Petition.1” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“Sotera Wireless, Inc., the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Guidance Memo 3 (footnote omitted) (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A)). The Guidance Memo explains that such a Sotera stipulation “mitigates concerns of potentially conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts between the district court and the PTAB. . . . and allows the PTAB to review grounds that the parallel district court litigation will not resolve.” Id. at 7–8. Here, in an email to Patent Owner, Petitioner “stipulates that if the PTAB institutes IPR, Structural Wrap will not pursue in [the Florida Litigation] the same grounds asserted in the petition, or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.” Ex. 1022, 1.” slip op. at 12
- Adverse judgmentDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive because the cited discussion in the prosecution history does not relate to the challenged claims in this proceeding. Pages 25–26 of Exhibit 2008 correspond to the Declaration of Christopher Mouriz (“Mouriz Declaration”). The Mouriz Declaration relates to claim language that “recites attaching the construction material to a specific component of a roof, namely, the vertical, outward facing [fascias] of the eaves of the roof.” Ex. 2008, 25 ¶ 7. The Mouriz Declaration explains that “the roof component to which a waterproofing membrane is attached is not recognized as a particular parameter that can be experimented with, in order to increase or optimize the waterproofing process in a structural waterproofing system.” Id. at 26 ¶ 8. Thus, the claim language discussed in the Mouriz Declaration relates to attaching construction material specifically to “vertical, outward facing facias of the eaves of the roof.” Id. at 25 ¶ 7. There is no discussion of wrapping battens. Pages 40–41 of Exhibit 2008 correspond to a Response to Office Action wherein the applicant distinguishes the ’554 application claims over prior art references cited by the Examiner, namely, Lennox and Wiki. Ex. 2008, 40–41. The applicant argues that “neither Lennox nor Wiki discloses attaching the construction material that was rolled in the end of the strip to the vertical, outward-facing fascia of the eaves of the roof, as claimed by Applicant.” Ex. 2008, 41 (emphasis original). Again, the claim limitation at issue, which Patent Owner directs us to, relates to the location for attaching construction material, namely, vertical outward-facing fascia. We see no similar limitation in the challenged claims. We also note that Petitioner does not rely on Lennox and Wiki in this proceeding. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner should be estopped from arguing that the challenged claims of the ’484 patent are obvious based on arguments presented to the Office concerning claims and references that are not involved in this proceeding.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We determine we need not explicitly construe any claim term at this stage of the proceeding. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375. We encourage the parties to further discuss an express construction for “sheet” during trial if they choose.” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,168,484 - Mara Renewables Corporation v. DSM IP Assets, B.V.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 18, 2024 · IPR2024-00070 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–15 were anticipated by Radianingtyas or obvious over either asserted combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons provided below, we determine Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, we deny institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under this standard, we construe the claim term “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id.; see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (holding that the words of a claim “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,” which is “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application”). Claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011). On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we see no need to construe any claim term.” slip op. at 6
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not provide a definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. 19. Patent Owner also states that any differences between the parties’ proposed definition of the skill level would not impact its arguments. Id. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the skill level because it is consistent with the prior art’s demonstration of the level of ordinary skill at the relevant time. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“triglyceride, DHA, and heptadecanoic acid content recited therein. In order to anticipate a claim, a prior art reference “must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements arranged as in the claim.” NetMoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quotation marks omitted). A reference, however, can anticipate a claim “even if it does not expressly spell out all the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would at once envisage the claimed arrangement or combination.” Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti, Inc., 878 F.3d 1052, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quotation marks and brackets omitted). As explained below, here, Petitioner has not shown Radianingtyas discloses a microbial oil comprising the required triglyceride, DHA and heptadecanoic acid content. Specifically, although the exemplified strain ONC-T18 produces oil that meets the claimed triglyceride fraction and heptadecanoic acid level, Petitioner has not shown the same oil contains the recited DHA level.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,207,363 - PTAB · Apr 17, 2024 · IPR2024-00005 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 9 and 19 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Gowanlock 2 combined with Swivelpole renders at least one challenged claim unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“District Court proceeding, and restate those positions here. See Pet. 20–21 (citing Ex. 1057, Ex. 1058); Prelim. Resp. 5. Both parties agree, however, that construction of “mounting pole” is not necessary in this proceeding. Pet. 21; Prelim. Resp. 5. Accordingly, we need not construe this term at this stage of the proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“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 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in petroleum engineering, mechanical engineering, civil engineering, construction, architecture, or a similar degree with a year or more experience working on or around rigs, such as a drilling rig, where one or more lighting systems were used to illuminate the wellsite.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 39–40). Petitioner further argues that “[a]dditional practical experience would substitute for lack of a formal degree.” Id. (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 41). Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the ’626 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“As to motivation to combine the references, we find that Petitioner sufficiently demonstrates a rational basis for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Gowanlock 2 and Swivelpole. See Pet. 43– 51; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 89–96. Patent Owner’s argument that the combination “goes against the fundamental teachings of both references, neither of which disclose a crown deck” (Prelim. Resp. 50) is not persuasive, because as discussed above, Petitioner has sufficiently shown that Gowanlock 2 discloses a crown deck. We do not agree that Swivelpole’s disclosure is limited to a lighting system for illuminating the area immediately beneath the light, and nothing beyond its adjacent walkway. See id. at 50–51. For example, Swivelpole’s description of its S3 system also states it is ideal for lighting roof tops. Ex. 1004, 9. Because Patent Owner’s argument does not reasonably credit the ability of a person of ordinary skill in the art to interpret Swivelpole’s disclosure as a whole, we do not find it persuasive.” slip op. at 23
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDecided for petitioner
“We find that Petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office in failing to consider the teachings of the prior art of record. Under the second prong of Advanced Bionics, we consider “the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection.” Becton, Dickinson, 17. Here, Petitioner has shown that during prosecution of the ’626 patent, the Examiner immediately allowed claims 21–33 and 35–39 of the application without rejection, in the first office action dated November 25, 2020. Ex. 1002, 34–35. The reasons for allowance set forth in the office action merely recite the limitations of claims 21 and 31, and state “the references of the Prior Art of record fail to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim [21 and 31].” Id. Upon issuance, claims 21 and 31 became claims 9 and 19 of the ’626 patent, respectively. In view of the Examiner’s statement in the reasons for allowance of claims 9 and 19, we determine the Examiner erred by failing to consider the prior art of record. As discussed above with regard to the patentability challenges to claims 9 and 19 (see Section II.D.4), we find that Petitioner has sufficiently shown a reasonable likelihood that the combination of Gowanlock 2 and Swivelpole discloses the subject matter found allowable by the Examiner. Accordingly, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in a manner material to patentability by overlooking the teachings of Gowanlock 2 and Swivelpole. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we decline to exercise discretion to deny institution under § 325(d). IV.” slip op. at 28
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,900,626 - Sma Solar Technology America, LLC v. Tigo Energy, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Apr 2, 2024 · IPR2023-01175 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied SMA’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1–20 because the request showed no overlooked matter, misapplication of law, or abuse of discretion.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Rule 42.71(d) states: The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, a reply, or a sur-reply. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to present new arguments or evidence or merely to disagree with the panel’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence. Moreover, “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“patent claim requires a finding that the claim at issue ‘reads on’ a prior art reference.”). Our Institution Decision analyzed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, and determined that Petitioner provided no persuasive argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Mieth’s load 20 is a micro-controller—i.e., that the claimed micro-controller reads onto Mieth’s load 20. Inst. Dec. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1014, 1180, Fig. 5; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 102–103). The Request, as did the Petition, misapplies the anticipation analysis by arguing that a micro-controller is a load, rather than persuasively arguing that Mieth’s load is the claimed micro-controller. Id. at 10–12; Req. 8. None of Petitioner’s evidence or arguments explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that load 20 disclosed in Mieth is a micro-controller. As such, Petitioner has not shown any material error in our decision that Petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of anticipation by Mieth.” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“reads on the micro-controller recited in the claims of the ’848 patent” (Req. 6), the test for anticipation is not whether the prior art reads on the claims, but rather whether the claims read on the prior art. See Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at issue ‘reads on’ a prior art reference.”). Our Institution Decision analyzed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, and determined that Petitioner provided no persuasive argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Mieth’s load 20 is a micro-controller—i.e., that the claimed micro-controller reads onto Mieth’s load 20. Inst. Dec. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1014, 1180, Fig. 5; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 102–103). The Request, as did the Petition, misapplies the anticipation analysis by arguing that a micro-controller is a load, rather than persuasively arguing that Mieth’s load is the claimed micro-controller. Id. at 10–12; Req. 8. None of Petitioner’s evidence or arguments explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that load 20 disclosed in Mieth is a micro-controller. As such, Petitioner has not shown any material error in our decision that Petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of anticipation by Mieth. slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“D. Petitioner’s Section 103 Argument Petitioner argues throughout the Request that Mieth also discloses the “micro-controller” limitation under 35 U.SC. § 103. See Req. 7, 9–11, 13– 15. As explained above, however, the Request does not identify any matters that the Board misapprehended or overlooked. We addressed Petitioner’s obviousness arguments in our Institution Decision, and determined that those arguments failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on its arguments that Mieth and Balogh, or Mieth, Balogh, and Liu, teach or suggest the claimed “micro-controller” limitation. Inst. Dec. 13–15.” slip op. at 8
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,966,848 - PTAB · Mar 26, 2024 · IPR2023-01382 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–3 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would be unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, we determine the information presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’347 patent on all grounds asserted in the Petition. See SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018); PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (stating that a decision to institute is “a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“had a “at least a four-year degree in electrical engineering, chemical engineering, physics, or material science or a closely related field, and at least two years of experience in semiconductor device design and/or fabrication, including the processing of semiconductor materials, analysis of device operation, or the development of new device topologies.” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 52–53). Petitioner also contends that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience and vice versa.” Pet. 19. Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s definition or offer its own. See generally Prelim. Resp. In light of the record before us, and for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on our review of the ’347 patent and the prior art of record, we determine that the definition offered by Petitioner comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’347 patent and the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”)” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“type gate material of independent claim 1 requires that the “bottom of the ptype gate material is more than 10% wider than the top of the material.” Pet. 19. We begin our analysis with the language of the claims themselves. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. Here, the claims do not recite any numerical degree of horizontal extension, let alone a requirement that the bottom of the p-type gate material must be more than 10% wider than the top of the material. Thus, the plain language of the claims themselves do not support Petitioner’s proposed construction. Of course, the claims do not stand alone, but rather, must be read in view of the specification, of which they are part. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. Petitioner relies on a numerical value for horizontal extension disclosed in Lidow, which is incorporated by reference in the ’347 patent. Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 41–42, Fig. 8; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 70–74). But Lidow’s disclosure of a numerical value (10%) is made in the context of discussing a single embodiment. Ex. 1011 ¶ 41. Lidow does not include a numerical value in its disclosure of other embodiments. See, e.g., Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 43–51.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Again, Patent Owner’s arguments raise issues that are best resolved on a full record. While we do have some concern’s regarding Petitioner’s asserted reasons to combine all of the prior art references, Petitioner has provided sufficient argument and evidence for purposes of institution that a POSITA would have had reason to manufacture the modified Figure 1A of Saxler by using Beach’s self-aligned technique with Shenoy’s isotropic etching process, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 60–62, 93; Ex. 1014 (Xu); Ex. 1021 (Sheppard); Ex. 1015 (Smith); Ex. 1018 (Hu); Ex. 1009 (Shenoy); Widmann (Ex. 1023); Ahn (Ex. 1010); see also Pet. 31–35. For example, Dr. Shealy testifies that a POSITA would have recognized that using Beach’s self-aligned techniques and Shenoy’s isotropic etching process to arrive at Saxler’s non-recessed gate structure would have been a simple and predictable combination in view of Smith’s use of self-alignment techniques to create its stacked gate structure and would have done so to reduce steps and costs while improving reproducibility. Ex. 1003 ¶ 93. We also note that we understand Petitioner’s proposed combination uses a single photomask when etching both the gate metal and the p-type gate material layer, including when etching the gate metal to form a pair of ledges on the p-type gate material below the gate metal. See, e.g., Pet. 48 (stating that it would have been obvious to use one mask to etch the gate metal and cap layer and further stating that using Shenoy’s method of isotropically etching the gate metal would form symmetric undercuts of the photomask). To the extent, the Board’s understanding of Petitioner’s argument is not correct, the parties are urged to address this issue. Finally, Patent Owner asserts that Shenoy is non-analogous art and may not be combined with Saxler or Beach because Shenoy involves electrochemical etching, a highly specialized etching method with little relevance to the process described in the ’347 patent or Saxler. Prelim. Resp. 27.” slip op. at 32
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,748,347
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.