- PTAB · Aug 31, 2022 · IPR2022-00661 · APJ Donna M Praiss · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable over the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). 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 “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any challenged claim on any asserted ground.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Because the “total amount of protein . . . on a dry weight basis” required by claim 1 and taught by the asserted prior art is disputed in the parties’ papers, we construe this claim term in order to determine whether or not to institute trial. As Petitioner indicates, the ’146 patent states “the term ‘total protein’ pertains to the total amount of true protein of a composition or product and disregards non-protein nitrogen (NPN).” Ex. 1001, 3:53–56; Pet. 11. The ’146 patent also specifies “the term ‘dry weight’ of a composition or product relates to the weight of the composition or product when it has been dried to a water content of 3% (w/w) water.” Ex. 1001, 11:26–29; Pet. 11. These portions of the ’146 patent support Petitioner’s proposed construction of “total amount of protein . . . on a dry weight basis” as the total weight of true protein disregarding non-protein nitrogen when the composition in question has been dried to 3% (w/w) water. Pet. 11. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s construction for purposes of the present decision.” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citations omitted); see PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1195–96 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (inherency “may not be established by probabilities or possibilities.”). The proper inquiry for inherent anticipation is whether the claimed limitations “necessarily result” from practicing V Powder. See, e.g., Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 754 F.3d 952, 960–61 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (affirming judgment that claims were not inherently anticipated where the prior art only showed that the limitation might occur, not that it inevitably occurred). Even if a theoretical value is appropriate to establish the claimed limitations “necessarily result” from practicing V Powder, Petitioner has not established that V Powder discloses a protein amount on a dry weight basis as construed herein. Petitioner argues that “[t]he V Powder Publication taught that ‘substantially denatured whey protein . . . is dried to a moisture content of less than 5%’” and that, “[t]hus, the protein content of Powder F was reported ‘on a dry weight basis.’” Pet. 28–29 (quoting Ex. 1004, 24:1– 2). V Powder does indeed teach that, “[i]n certain embodiments the heat treated, substantially denatured whey protein, for example the WPC or WPI, is dried to a moisture content of less than 5%.” Ex. 1004, 24:1–2. Petitioner, however, has not shown sufficiently that a dried to a moisture content of less than 5% necessarily discloses the required dried to a moisture content of 3%. Thus, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing V Powder anticipates claims 1–4, 6–9, and 22. slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Although the ’146 patent defines “dry weight basis” as requiring drying “to a water content of 3% (w/w) water,” V Powder teaches only drying “to a moisture content of less than 5%.” Ex. 1001, 11:26–29; Ex. 1004, 24:1–2. Petitioner does not explain why the obviousness of a claim requiring a specific water content of 3% is supported by a reference teaching a much broader range of water contents between 0% and 5%. Pet. 28–29. Nor is it clear to us why such an obviousness argument should prevail. It is true that “a prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). But the specific water content of the challenged claims (precisely “a water content of 3% (w/w) water”) is not a “somewhat narrower claimed range” that is encompassed by the broader range of V Powder. Id. It is not a range at all; rather, it is a single, discrete point. This distinguishes the present situation from that in Peterson, in which the claims at issue recited ranges formed from single values that were modified in each case by the term “about.” Id. at 1327 (reciting, e.g., “about 14 percent chromium,” “about 9.5 percent cobalt,” and “about 3.8 percent tungsten”). Instead, this case presents a situation more analogous to that in In re Baird, in which the prior art taught a wide range of chemical compounds and the claims at issue recited a single compound within that range. 16 F.3d 380, 382 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“the generic diphenol formula disclosed in [the reference] . . . encompasses more than 100 million different diphenols, only one of which is [the claimed] bisphenol A”). The teaching of a genus by a prior-art reference does not necessarily establish the obviousness of all possible species or subgenera that are encompassed by that genus. In re Baird, 16 F.3d at 382. Here, the challenged claims require a specific water content unmodified by “about” or any similar term. Ex. 1001, 13:18–21. There are numerous discrete points within the continuous range of 0% to 5% water content taught by V Powder. Under these facts, in the absence of some explanation from Petitioner as to why the conclusion would be warranted, we cannot conclude that the disclosure in V Powder supports the obviousness of the challenged claims. The present record provides no such explanation. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the prior art teaches or suggests the “dry weight basis” limitation present in all the challenged claims. Thus, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the combination of V” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,709,146 - PTAB · Aug 31, 2022 · IPR2022-00662 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that the prior art taught or suggested the dry-weight limitation incorporated into claims 1–20.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“drying “to a water content of 3% (w/w) water,” the V Powder Publication teaches only drying “to a moisture content of less than 5%.” Id.; Ex. 1004, 24:1–2. Petitioner does not explain why the obviousness of a claim requiring a specific water content of 3% is supported by a reference teaching a much broader range of water contents between 0% and 5%. Pet. 31–32. Nor is it clear to us why such an obviousness argument should prevail. It is true that “a prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). But the specific water content of the challenged claims (precisely “a water content of 3% (w/w) water”) is not a “somewhat narrower claimed range” that is encompassed by the broader range of the V Powder Publication. Id. It is not a range at all; rather, it is a single, discrete point. This distinguishes the present situation from that in Peterson, in which the claims at issue recited ranges formed from single values that were modified in each case by the term “about.” Id. at 1327 (reciting, e.g., “about 14 percent chromium,” “about 9.5 percent cobalt,” and “about 3.8 percent tungsten”). Instead, this case presents a situation more analogous to that in In re Baird, in which the prior art taught a wide range of chemical compounds and the claims at issue recited a single compound within that range. 16 F.3d 380, 382 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“[T]he generic diphenol formula disclosed in [the reference] . . . encompasses more than 100 million different diphenols, only one of which is [the claimed] bisphenol A.”). The teaching of a genus by a prior-art reference does not necessarily establish the obviousness of all possible species or subgenera that are encompassed by that genus. Baird, 16 F.3d at 382. Here, the challenged claims require a specific water content unmodified by “about” or any similar term. Ex. 1001, 13:18–21. There are an enormous, and potentially an infinite, number of such discrete points within the continuous range of 0% to 5% water content taught by the V Powder Publication. Under these facts, in the absence of some explanation from Petitioner as to why the conclusion would be warranted, we cannot conclude that the disclosure in the V Powder Publication supports the obviousness of the challenged claims. The present record provides no such explanation. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the prior art teaches or suggests the “dry weight basis” limitation present in all the challenged claims.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“drying “to a water content of 3% (w/w) water,” the V Powder Publication teaches only drying “to a moisture content of less than 5%.” Id.; Ex. 1004, 24:1–2. Petitioner does not explain why the obviousness of a claim requiring a specific water content of 3% is supported by a reference teaching a much broader range of water contents between 0% and 5%. Pet. 31–32. Nor is it clear to us why such an obviousness argument should prevail. It is true that “a prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). But the specific water content of the challenged claims (precisely “a water content of 3% (w/w) water”) is not a “somewhat narrower claimed range” that is encompassed by the broader range of the V Powder Publication. Id. It is not a range at all; rather, it is a single, discrete point. This distinguishes the present situation from that in Peterson, in which the claims at issue recited ranges formed from single values that were modified in each case by the term “about.” Id. at 1327 (reciting, e.g., “about 14 percent chromium,” “about 9.5 percent cobalt,” and “about 3.8 percent tungsten”). Instead, this case presents a situation more analogous to that in In re Baird, in which the prior art taught a wide range of chemical compounds and the claims at issue recited a single compound within that range. 16 F.3d 380, 382 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“[T]he generic diphenol formula disclosed in [the reference] . . . encompasses more than 100 million different diphenols, only one of which is [the claimed] bisphenol A.”). The teaching of a genus by a prior-art reference does not necessarily establish the obviousness of all possible species or subgenera that are encompassed by that genus. Baird, 16 F.3d at 382. Here, the challenged claims require a specific water content unmodified by “about” or any similar term. Ex. 1001, 13:18–21. There are an enormous, and potentially an infinite, number of such discrete points within the continuous range of 0% to 5% water content taught by the V Powder Publication. Under these facts, in the absence of some explanation from Petitioner as to why the conclusion would be warranted, we cannot conclude that the disclosure in the V Powder Publication supports the obviousness of the challenged claims. The present record provides no such explanation. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the prior art teaches or suggests the “dry weight basis” limitation present in all the challenged claims.” slip op. at 10
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,729,150 - Platform Science, Inc. v. Omnitracs, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 29, 2022 · IPR2020-01612 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6–9, 11, 12, and 15 were not shown unpatentable because Coffee did not disclose the claimed copying, and Coffee combined with Heijden did not cure that deficiency.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“In our Initial and Rehearing Decisions, we noted that Patent Owner did not contest Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art at that stage of the proceeding and we found “Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’308 patent and the prior art of record.” Initial Dec. 13 (citing Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978)); Rehearing Dec. 16 (same). Therefore, we adopted Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art. Initial Dec. 13; Rehearing Dec. 16. In its Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner states that “[f]or purposes of this proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s offered level of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 7. Accordingly, we maintain our preliminary finding by adopting Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, as set forth above.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“received message 7102 and the header of the response message 7202 are not the same. PO Resp. 25 (citations omitted); Pet. Reply 14. In the Petition, Petitioner argued that “header information” was the same in each message (received and response). Pet. 32 (citations omitted), 36–37. Petitioner relies on Tables 58 and 63, which show “Header.” Id. at 32–33, 37. Petitioner also relies on paragraphs 102 and 118 of Mr. Andrews’s Declaration. Neither the Petition nor Mr. Andrews’s Declaration, however, provide any sufficient basis to find that even a portion of the header or header information is copied from the received message to the response message. Mr. Andrews states his opinion as though it were fact without providing the underlying factual support for his opinion. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 102, 118; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). In cross-examination, Mr. Andrews provided additional information explaining which portion of the headers he believes are the same, but he still does not provide any explanation as to why he believes the information is copied. See, e.g., Ex. 2007 at 111:3–25. The same is true of Petitioner’s Reply, which reiterates Mr. Andrews’s deposition testimony, but still fails to provide any reason as to why Coffee’s charts or Mr. Andrews’ testimony necessarily means that Coffee copies a portion of the header from the received message to the response message. See Continental Can Co. U.S.A., Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“Inherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.”). And, despite Petitioner’s identification of a “Header” listed in Tables 58 and 63, Coffee does not expressly describe the header or part of the header as being copied from the received message to the response message. The Petition and Mr. Andrews also state that “if Coffee did not employ such copying, the response message would not automatically include information extracted from the received message.” Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 118). But, Coffee does not expressly describe the header as being “extracted from the received message” or describe automatically including the header in a response message to make the leap argued by Petitioner and Mr. Andrews. Accordingly, on the full record before us, we find that Petitioner has not established that Coffee explicitly or inherently discloses copying the header or header information and we do not credit Mr. Andrews’ testimony, discussed above, because he fails to provide the underlying factual basis for the opinions offered.” slip op. at 43
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“proceeding and on the full record before us, we do not find that Coffee’s silence is sufficient to support Petitioner’s argument. See Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc., 787 Fed. Appx. 731, 739 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“We do not find any error in the Board changing its understanding of the teachings of [a prior art reference] from the institution decision to the final written decision. ‘The Board is not bound by any findings made in its Institution Decision. At that point, the Board is considering the matter preliminarily without the benefit of a full record. The Board is free to change its view of the merits after further development of the record, and should do so if convinced that its inclinations were wrong.’” (quoting Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2016))). Coffee does not explain the process by which the IOD of the received message is included in the response message; rather, Coffee just states that the response message “contains the IOD of the message being answered.” See, e.g., Ex. 1005, 56:63–67 (see full text quoted above). In particular, although Coffee attributes certain actions to the operator, the lack of attribution to the operator does not necessitate that the only viable possibility remaining is that Coffee copies the IOD from the received message to the response message. Even if it may be said that Coffee probably (or possibly) copies the IOD, that probability is not sufficient to find that Coffee necessarily copies the IOD. See Continental Can, 948 F.2d at 1269 (“Inherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.”).7 Additionally, on the full record before us, we determine that Mr. Andrews’s testimony, as with his testimony as to copying of the header and selected response, fails to provide any factual or underlying support for his opinions expressed therein. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 100–102. In particular, the leap occurs in paragraph 102, where Mr. Andrews takes the fact that some information (at least the IOD) from the received formatted message is included with the response message to opine that this means the information is “copied over.” Id. ¶ 102. But, again, Coffee is silent. And because Mr. Andrews did not provide any underlying factual basis for his opinion, we do not credit his testimony as to copying the IOD. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 48
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“generally, including the alleged benefits of such and reasons why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to include field-mapping information in Coffee’s MDT. See id. at 62–70. None of Petitioner’s discussion, however, explains how the combination of Coffee and Heijden remedies the deficiencies that we identified regarding Petitioner’s challenge based on Coffee. In particular, Petitioner does not assert or explain how the teachings of Heijden would be applied to Coffee such that Coffee would then copy or fill in the specific information from Coffee’s received message to Coffee’s response message, particularly as pertains to the header, Response, and IOD fields (which Petitioner relied on in the first ground), or any other information field from Coffee. The same is true of Mr. Andrews’s testimony. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 214–231. Additionally, it appears that Petitioner’s analysis of the combination of Heijden and Coffee maintains the position that Coffee copies information fields. See Pet. 70 (“Given that Coffee’s system already implements field mapping to copy information fields . . . .”). And, Mr. Andrews’s testimony similarly maintains that Coffee copies information fields. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 229 (“Coffee also discloses (at least inherently) field mapping by describing that data is copied from fields in request messages into corresponding fields in response message.”). But, as we explain in detail in the context of Petitioner’s challenge based on Coffee, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Coffee copies or fills in information from a received message to a response message. Thus, we do not find and Petitioner does not allege that Ground “1B” fills the gaps identified in Petitioner’s Ground “1A.”10 Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the combination of Coffee and Heijden would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1–4, 7–9, and 12 unpatentable.” slip op. at 60
Patent outcomesUS 6,925,308 not shown unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,925,308 - Tennant Company v. Oxygenator Water Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 17, 2022 · IPR2021-00625 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Final written decision
The Board found that Tennant did not prove claims 13, 14, and 17–27 unpatentable because the asserted references did not establish the claimed microbubbles and nanobubbles, and the obviousness combinations were inadequately supported.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner states, for “purposes of this proceeding, PO does not challenge Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 53 n.6. 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. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s definition, because it is consistent with the cited prior art. We further note that the prior art itself demonstrates the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that “specific findings on the level of skill in the art . . . [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 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Because patentee has acted as its own lexicographer, and because Petitioner agrees that the definition provided in the specification is the preferred construction, we adopt the construction of “nanobubble” provided in the specification. Cont’l Cirs. LLC v. Intel Corp., 915 F.3d 788, 796 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316) (“When the patentee acts as its own lexicographer, that definition governs.”). Namely, we construe “nanobubble” as “a bubble with a diameter less than that necessary to break the surface tension of water.” Ex. 1101, 4:12–13. We decline to add any additional language to our construction, as proposed by Petitioner, because the additional quoted sentence in the specification appears to describe an effect of nanobubbles on the appearance of water when nanobubbles are present, rather than define the nanobubbles themselves. On this record, we determine that no other claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 14
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“We disagree that our Institution Decision established a prima facie case that Petitioner met its burden at the Final Written Decision stage. An affirmative decision on institution is a determination that Petitioner has shown, on the record at that stage in the proceeding, that Petitioner has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its arguments as to at least one challenged claim. Dec. 40; 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). To prevail in an instituted inter partes review, however, 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) requires Petitioner to meet “the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.” See TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]here is a significant difference between a petitioner’s burden to establish a ‘reasonable likelihood of success’ at institution, and actually proving invalidity by a preponderance of the evidence at trial . . . . The Board’s findings in its Final Written Decision were thus not inconsistent with those in its Institution Decision; they were made under a qualitatively different standard.”). To state that our Institution Decision established a prima facie case that Petitioner was correct would be erroneous, as such a position conflates different burdens required of Petitioner and, in doing so, would have us improperly give Petitioner an advantage in the actual trial culminating in a final written decision. Fan Duel, 966 F.3d at 1341–42.” slip op. at 25
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable
“On this complete record, we find that Petitioner’s testing does not sufficiently demonstrate that Wikey inherently discloses nanobubbles. Pet. 22–29. Petitioner apparently had the ability to test for the express disclosure of nanobubbles in its Wikey-based apparatus, but did not do so. Sur-Reply 2–3. Patent Owner points out that nanobubbles, which Petitioner’s expert indicated were on the order of 0.1 microns, are detectable using available technology that Petitioner knew of and had used in the past. Id. However, Petitioner’s expert acknowledged that he did not do any testing that would determine whether nanobubbles were formed. Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 2172, 70:1–4). Petitioner’s reliance on milkiness and supersaturation to demonstrate the presence of nanobubbles is also unsupported. Petitioner argues that milky appearance equals supersaturation (Reply 9 (citing Ex. 1101, 9:38– 50)), and also that milky appearance equals nanobubbles (id. (citing Ex. 1101, 4:14–15)); the inference Petitioner apparently wants us to draw is that supersaturation equals nanobubbles. Patent Owner, however, persuasively argues that dissolved oxygen content over 100% does not prove the water is milky. PO Resp. 25–26; Sur-Reply 6–7; see also Tr. 13:24–26 (Petitioner’s counsel agreeing that “you can have supersaturation without milkiness”). Patent Owner also demonstrates that supersaturation does not necessarily mean that nanobubbles are present. PO Resp. 26; Sur-Reply 7; Ex. 2172, 76:9–14, 77:23–78:21. Thus, Petitioner’s argument based on supersaturation equaling nanobubbles because milkiness equals both breaks down because milkiness does not necessarily equal either. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner’s arguments and testing fail to show that Wikey inherently discloses nanobubbles.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS RE45,415 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham - Hirsch Glass Corp., D/B/A Spectrum Quartz v. Cambria Company LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 8, 2022 · IPR2022-00583 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“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 not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim of the ’626 patent, and we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s rationale for combining Benito Lopez and Bigi is insufficient and fails to provide the necessary factual support. In making a determination of obviousness, it is not enough that each claimed limitation be found in one or more prior art references. In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (explaining that obviousness “cannot be predicated on the mere identification . . . of individual components of claimed limitations”). Instead, Petitioner must also show that the skilled artisan would have had a reason to combine each of the prior art references to achieve the claimed subject matter and a reasonable expectation of success in making the combination. PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWi Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2014). A generic reason to combine references fails to “explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined elements from specific references in the way the claimed invention does.” ActiveVideo, 694 F.3d at 1328; see also Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., 381 F.3d 1371, 1377 (2004) (explaining that “[r]ecognition of a need does not render obvious the achievement that meets that need” because “[t]here is an important distinction between the general motivation to cure an uncured disease . . . and the motivation to create a particular cure.”).” slip op. at 18
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“According to 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3), a petition for inter partes review must identify, “in writing and with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.” According to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4), a petition for inter partes review must identify how “the construed claim is unpatentable under the statutory grounds” on which the petitioner challenges the claims, and “must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” Rule 42.104(b)(5) adds that the Petition must identify “specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge.” Similarly, Rule 42.22(a)(2) states that each petition must include “[a] full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing law, rules, and precedent.” The Patent Trial Practice Guide suggests that “parties should avoid submitting a repository of all the information that a judge could possibly consider, and instead focus on concise, well-organized, easy-to-follow arguments supported by readily identifiable evidence of record.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 39, available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated (Nov. 14, 2019). Here, Petitioner’s approach of arguing that every limitation in claim 1 can be satisfied by both Benito Lopez and/or Bigi, or possibly the combination of the two, fails to identify with sufficient specificity the portions of Benito Lopez or Bigi or the combination that Petitioner relies on to meet each limitation of claim 1. Although arguing in the alternative is generally permissible, in this case, both the Petition and Mr. Tassone fail to explain in adequate detail which, why or how the identified elements of Benito Lopez or Bigi, or their prospective combination, meet the limitations of claim 1. In each subsection discussing limitations [1.a.]–[1.g.], Petitioner” slip op. at 20
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther
“Petitioner also relies on the testimony of Mr. Tassone, but Mr. Tassone’s testimony similarly falls short. See Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 140–143. Mr. Tassone’s testimony is entitled to little weight because it fails to explain how the alleged market pressures or commercial need would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to make the proposed combination, and it is not otherwise apparent that it does. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also Velander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“It is within the discretion of the trier of fact to give each item of evidence such weight as it feels appropriate.”); cf. Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“Lack of factual support for expert opinion going to factual determinations, however, may render the testimony of little probative value in a validity determination.”).” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,300,626 - Hirsch Glass Corp., D/B/A/ Spectrum Quartz v. Cambria Company LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 8, 2022 · IPR2022-00589 · APJ Avelyn M Ross · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–4 and 6–35 because the petition did not show a sufficient reason to combine the cited prior art.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (2012) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion 1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the ’942 patent has an effective filing date after the effective date of the applicable AIA amendments, we refer to the AIA version of § 103. 2 Benito Lopez et al., US 2015/0360507 A1, published December 17, 2015 (Ex. 1005, “Benito Lopez”). 3 Liu, CN 1718403 A, published January 11, 2006 (Ex. 1006). Petitioner provides a certified English-language translation of Liu (Ex. 1007). Any reference to Liu hereinafter will be to the English-language translation. 4 Toncelli, US 2004/0032044 A1, published February 19, 2004 (Ex. 1011, “Toncelli ’044”). never shifts to the patent owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). Furthermore, a petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have an educational background, such as a Bachelor of Science degree, in chemistry, chemical engineering and/or material science or a related field, as well as some understanding of mechanics or manufacturing” and “would have at least two to four years of practical experience in manufacturing or designing composite materials, such as engineered stone or ceramic tiles” but that “[a]dditional practical or work experience can result in a lower level of education being necessary, and vice versa.” Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 46). Patent Owner does not, at this time, dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition. See Prelim. Resp., passim. On this record, we determine that Petitioner’s proposed definition is consistent with the prior art of record, and apply it for this Decision, with the exception of the open-ended phrase “at least,” which expands the range of experience indefinitely without an upper bound. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings on ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner states that “no terms require express construction because the patent claims encompass the below prior-art mappings under any reasonable construction consistent with the Phillips standard.” Pet. 9. Patent Owner does not, at this time, seek construction of any terms. See Prelim. Resp. 28. For purposes of this Decision, we need not expressly construe any claim terms. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“In making a determination of obviousness, it is not enough that each claimed limitation be found in one or more prior art references. In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (explaining that obviousness “cannot be predicated on the mere identification . . . of individual components of claimed limitations”). Instead, Petitioner must also show that the skilled artisan would have had a reason to combine each of the prior art references to achieve the claimed subject matter and a reasonable expectation of success in making the combination. PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWi Pharm. Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2014). A generic reason to combine references fails to “explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined elements from specific references in the way the claimed invention does.” ActiveVideo, 694 F.3d at 1328; see also Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., 381 F.3d 1371, 1377 (2004) (explaining that “[r]ecognition of a need does not render obvious the achievement that meets that need” because “[t]here is an important distinction between the general motivation to cure an uncured disease . . . and the motivation to create a particular cure.”). Here, Petitioner combines Benito Lopez’s method—involving dispensing a particulate mineral mixture into a horizontally-oriented mold— with Liu’s method—dispensing into a vertically-oriented mold. Pet. 15. Petitioner reasons that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of these references as part of the “pervasive motivation to improve engineered stone and ceramic tile to look as close as possible to their natural stone counterparts.” Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 69, 74–80, 470–471), 20 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 479–481). According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to try alternative known methods for manufacturing engineered stone slabs that could better emulate natural stone at competitive costs.” Id. at 18–19 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 470). Petitioner’s proffered reason to modify Benito Lopez with Liu, however, merely addresses a generalized desire in the industry to improve the aesthetic quality of engineered stone slabs and does not provide a reason to adopt Liu’s vertically-oriented dispensing method. Cardiac Pacemakers, 381 F.3d at 1377. Petitioner fails to direct our attention to any record evidence that the specific dispensing method described in Liu improves the overall aesthetics of the engineered slab beyond that described in Benito Lopez. Rather, the record evidence shows that each of Benito Lopez and Liu product artificial stone products that mimic the veining patterns of natural stone. Pet. 10, 12–14; Prelim. Resp. 33 (explaining that the “Petition recognizes that Benito Lopez already achieves this goal”); see also Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 3 (Liu describing the goal to create “unburned imitation natural stone textured ceramic tiles”), 5 (“the present invention . . . produce[s] imitation natural stone textured ceramic tiles with color richness and good simulation effects”), 6, 12–13; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 4 (Benito Lopez stating that it achieves “an aesthetic look similar to natural stone . . . surpassing the existing technical limitation”), 26 (providing a method that produces slabs “with a similar design to that of natural stone, created by a tri-dimensional stratus”). The mere fact that Benito Lopez and Liu share a common goal of producing products that mimic natural stone fails to identify what would have prompted the skilled artisan to arrive at the combination in the first place. This is especially true where Petitioner seeks to add—not substitute—a process step, thereby introducing added complexity into Benito Lopez’s method. Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1329, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (affirming the Board’s decision that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have reason to make a modification that “introduce[s] additional complexity and inefficiencies” into a process). As Patent Owner aptly points out, “the Petition contains no analysis of the costs required to add machinery that rotates the mold from a vertical to horizontal orientation” and fails to “account for the additional time required for this step.” Prelim. Resp. 40. Petitioner also relies on the testimony of Mr. Tassone, but Mr. Tassone’s testimony similarly falls short. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 69, 74–80, 470–471, 479–481. Mr. Tassone’s testimony is entitled to little weight because it fails to explain how the alleged market pressures or commercial need would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to make the specific proposed modification, and it is not otherwise apparent that it does. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also Velander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“It is within the discretion of the trier of fact to give each item of evidence such weight as it feels appropriate.”); cf. Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“Lack of factual support for expert opinion going to factual determinations, however, may render the testimony of little probative value in a validity determination.”). As a result, Petitioner’s reason to combine is generic and untethered from the modification being made, and, therefore, is insufficient to support a determination of obviousness.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,993,942 - Hirsch Glass Corp., D/B/A/ Spectrum Quartz v. Cambria Company LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 8, 2022 · IPR2022-00582 · APJ Avelyn M Ross · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on either obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“At this preliminary stage, we determine whether the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one of the challenged claims would have been obvious over the proposed prior art.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“In making a determination of obviousness, it is not enough that each claimed limitation be found in on or more prior art references. In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (explaining that obviousness “cannot be predicated on the mere identification . . . of individual components of claimed limitations”). Instead, Petitioner must also show that the skilled artisan would have had a reason to combine each of the prior art references to achieve the claimed subject matter and a reasonable expectation of success in making the combination. PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWi Pharm. Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2014). A generic reason to combine references fails to “explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined elements from specific references in the way the claimed invention does.” ActiveVideo, 694 F.3d at 1328; see also Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., 381 F.3d 1371, 1377 (2004) (explaining that “[r]ecognition of a need does not render obvious the achievement that meets that need” because “[t]here is an important distinction between the general motivation to cure an uncured disease . . . and the motivation to create a particular cure.”).” slip op. at 22
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“According to 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3), a petition for inter partes review must identify, “in writing and with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.” According to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4), a petition for inter partes review “must identify how the construed claim is unpatentable under the statutory grounds on which the petitioner challenges the claims, and must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” Rule 42.104(b)(5) adds that the Petition must “identify[] specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge.” Similarly, Rule 42.22(a)(2) states that each petition must include “[a] full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing law, rules, and precedent.” The Patent Trial Practice Guide suggests that “parties should avoid submitting a repository of all the information that a judge could possibly consider, and instead focus on concise, well-organized, easy-to- follow arguments supported by readily identifiable evidence of record.”7 CTPG, 39. Here, Petitioner’s approach of arguing that every limitation in claim 1 can be satisfied by both Benito Lopez and/or Bigi, or possibly the combination of the two, fails to identify with sufficient specificity the portions of Benito Lopez or Bigi or the combination that Petitioner relies on to meet each limitation of claim 1. Although arguing in the alternative is generally permissible, in this case, both the Petition and Mr. Tassone fail to explain in adequate detail which, why, or how the identified elements of Benito Lopez or Bigi, or their prospective combination, meet the limitations of claim 1. In each subsection discussing discrete claim limitations, Petitioner relies on both Bigi and Benito Lopez, seemingly individually. Pet. 25–40, Section IX.B.2.a–g. At the beginning or the conclusion of the subsections discussing each claim limitation (Section IX.B.2.a–g), Petitioner asserts either that the limitation is “disclosed by both Benito Lopez and Bigi” or that “Bigi and Benito Lopez render obvious this limitation.” Id. at 25, 29, 31, 33, 35, 38, 40. This leaves it unclear whether Petitioner intends to rely on both Benito Lopez or Bigi individually or possibly the combination of the two.” slip op. at 25
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther
“Petitioner also relies on the testimony of Mr. Tassone, but Mr. Tassone’s testimony similarly falls short. See Ex. 1031 ¶¶138–143, 184. Mr. Tassone’s testimony is entitled to little weight because it fails to explain how the alleged market pressures or commercial need would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to make the proposed combination, and it is not otherwise apparent that it does. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also Velander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“It is within the discretion of the trier of fact to give each item of evidence such weight as it feels appropriate.”); cf. Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“Lack of factual support for expert opinion going to factual determinations, however, may render the testimony of little probative value in a validity determination.”).” slip op. at 24
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,718,303 - Airbus Americas, Inc. v. Harper Engineering CompanyInstitution deniedPTAB · May 20, 2022 · IPR2022-00195 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable on the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2021). An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Moreover, a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Reply, the Sur-reply, and the evidence of record, we conclude that the information does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ordinary skill in the art in light of the subject matter of the ’244 patent, which is not limited to “aeronautical” or “aerospace” applications, claims a “stowage bin assembly” and a “hinge assembly,” and expressly refers broadly to “transportation vehicles” as typically including “overhead storage compartments,” identifying “airplanes” only as an “example” of a “transportation vehicle.” Ex. 1001, code (57), 1:12–15, 7:31–8:64. Patent Owner’s argument appears to be no more than a transparent attempt to baselessly suggest that Dr. Codd should be excluded from testifying because he lacks “the proper background or sufficient experience in the field” under Patent Owner’s unreasonable proposed level of ordinary skill. See Prelim. Resp. 17–18. Dr. Dershowitz’s testimony in support of Patent Owner on the level of ordinary skill is not credible because it is inconsistent with the ’244 patent and the asserted art. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 58–63. For example, Dr. Dershowitz acknowledges that “[h]inges are common to many mechanical systems,” but then suggests “being familiar with hinges in general may not directly apply to the specifics of this invention” without identifying anything “specific” to the ’244 patent that requires the level of skill Dr. Dershowitz endorses. Id. ¶ 62. Dr. Dershowitz suggests “hinges used in storage solutions that are stationary have fewer requirements related to mass and volume and are not subject to the same forces and stresses that are experienced on an aircraft,” however, the challenged claims of the ’244 patent do not preclude “stationary” storage solutions, do not require anything pertaining to “mass and volume,” and are not required to withstand any “forces and stresses” experienced on an aircraft. Dr. Dershowitz’s opinion that “[d]ue to the unique environment and specialized nature of the technology at issue” a person of ordinary skill in the art would have needed “to have an educational background and experience that is specific to the aerospace field” is not supported by the ’244 patent or the asserted art. See id. ¶ 63; see also Ex. 1005 ¶ 2 (Rheaume stating it “relates to a hinge assembly and, more particularly to a hinge assembly for retaining a door of a storage bin”); Ex. 1006 ¶ 2 (Savian stating it “relates generally to overhead storage bin assemblies”); Ex. 1008, 3:24–27 (Frazier stating it discloses “improvements to standard luggage and storage bins commonly found in commercial aircraft as well as other aircraft, buses, passenger vans, and other vehicles”). Dr. Dershowitz’s misapprehension of the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art is a consideration we apply in weighing his opinion of how a” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Dr. Dershowitz’s testimony in support of Patent Owner on the level of ordinary skill is not credible because it is inconsistent with the ’244 patent and the asserted art. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 58–63. For example, Dr. Dershowitz acknowledges that “[h]inges are common to many mechanical systems,” but then suggests “being familiar with hinges in general may not directly apply to the specifics of this invention” without identifying anything “specific” to the ’244 patent that requires the level of skill Dr. Dershowitz endorses. Id. ¶ 62. Dr. Dershowitz suggests “hinges used in storage solutions that are stationary have fewer requirements related to mass and volume and are not subject to the same forces and stresses that are experienced on an aircraft,” however, the challenged claims of the ’244 patent do not preclude “stationary” storage solutions, do not require anything pertaining to “mass and volume,” and are not required to withstand any “forces and stresses” experienced on an aircraft. Dr. Dershowitz’s opinion that “[d]ue to the unique environment and specialized nature of the technology at issue” a person of ordinary skill in the art would have needed “to have an educational background and experience that is specific to the aerospace field” is not supported by the ’244 patent or the asserted art. See id. ¶ 63; see also Ex. 1005 ¶ 2 (Rheaume stating it “relates to a hinge assembly and, more particularly to a hinge assembly for retaining a door of a storage bin”); Ex. 1006 ¶ 2 (Savian stating it “relates generally to overhead storage bin assemblies”); Ex. 1008, 3:24–27 (Frazier stating it discloses “improvements to standard luggage and storage bins commonly found in commercial aircraft as well as other aircraft, buses, passenger vans, and other vehicles”). Dr. Dershowitz’s misapprehension of the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art is a consideration we apply in weighing his opinion of how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the prior art at issue.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that no claim terms require construction. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 64–66). Patent Owner proposes an express construction for “stowage bin door” and “self-opening mechanism.” Prelim. Resp. 13– 17. We find no claim term requires an express construction in reaching our decision for the reasons below to deny institution of inter partes review. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,801,244 - Airbus Americas, Inc. v. Harper Engineering CompanyInstitution deniedPTAB · May 20, 2022 · IPR2022-00192 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 2–6 or 12–17 were unpatentable; claims 1 and 7–11 had been disclaimed.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“obvious over Rheaume and Savian. Pet. 32–51. Each of claims 2–6 and 12–17 requires a “hinge assembly” that includes “a self-opening mechanism.” Ex. 1001, 7:47–8:8, 8:27–64. Petitioner relies only upon Savian as teaching a “self-opening mechanism.” Pet. 32–34, 45. We focus our discussion on the “self-opening mechanism” limitation because it is dispositive and, for the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Savian teaches this limitation.” slip op. at 21
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“More importantly, Petitioner provides no sufficient reasoning and cites no support for construing the required “self-opening mechanism” to be so broad as to include a mechanism that provides “only some damping against gravity to be ‘self-opening.’” Reply 2. We agree with Patent Owner that, contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, a component that only opposes opening is not a “self-opening mechanism.” See Sur-reply 2. In short, as shown by Patent Owner, the plain and ordinary meaning of “self-opening mechanism” in the context of the ’315 patent, as required by claims 2–6 and 12–17, is a mechanism that acts on its own accord to open the stowage bin door. See Prelim. Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2006). An express construction of any other claim term is not necessary for” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentable
“obvious over Rheaume and Savian. Pet. 32–51. Each of claims 2–6 and 12–17 requires a “hinge assembly” that includes “a self-opening mechanism.” Ex. 1001, 7:47–8:8, 8:27–64. Petitioner relies only upon Savian as teaching a “self-opening mechanism.” Pet. 32–34, 45. We focus our discussion on the “self-opening mechanism” limitation because it is dispositive and, for the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Savian teaches this limitation.” slip op. at 21
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached
“9 Patent Owner also argues that we should exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) to deny institution of inter partes review. Prelim. Resp. 36–46. We deny institution of inter partes review for the reasons provided above and, therefore, do not reach Patent Owner’s arguments regarding discretionary denial.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,760,315 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Nanoco Technologies Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · May 16, 2022 · IPR2021-00184 · APJ Erica A Franklin · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–16 and 21–25 were not shown unpatentable because Banin’s gold clusters were not shown to be molecular cluster compounds, and the Zaban combinations lacked motivation to combine.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least a Ph.D. in chemistry, physics, chemical engineering, material science, or equivalent technical degree or equivalent work experience, with knowledge regarding nanoparticles and methods of synthesizing them” and “[a]dditional education might supplement practical experience and vice-versa.” Pet. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 70). Patent Owner neither addresses Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art nor provides its own description. See PO Response. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s definition as we find it is unopposed and consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected by the prior art in this proceeding.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedMixed
“suggested formula” assigned to them is “based on a calculation that relied on the average of a wide distribution of particle sizes reported in the literature by Hutchison.” Ex. 2030 ¶ 103(citing Ex. 2017, 12891). We assign persuasive weight to her testimony because it is based upon the disclosures in Hutchison, which Banin explicitly identifies as the published procedures by which it synthesized its clusters. In particular, Dr. Cossairt’s testimony is supported by the following discussion in Hutchison: To calculate an average molecular formula for 1 it is necessary to know the number of gold atoms in the metal core. Given the average particle size (1.5 nm) this number is estimated to be ~101 by the method of Whetten et al. and leads to an estimated formula of Au101(PPh3)21Cl5. Ex. 2017, 12891. In other words, Hutchison explains that it calculated an average molecular formula for its synthesized nanoparticles by estimating the number of gold atoms in the metal core based upon the average particle size of 1.5 nm. Id. Indeed, as Dr. Cossairt has recognized, Banin’s “suggested formula” is exactly the same molecular formula that Hutchison discloses as the “average molecular formula” for its nanoparticles. Thus, we determine that the record as a whole supports finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Banin’s “suggested formula” represents an average molecular formula for a disperse mixture of gold clusters that are not identical and do not have sufficiently well-defined chemical structure such that all molecules of the cluster compound possess the same relative molecular formula, as required for MCCs. slip op. at 23
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Specification expressly defines the term “molecular cluster” in a manner that refers to the cluster compound. According to the Specification, “Molecular cluster” is a term which is widely understood in the relevant technical field but for the sake of clarity should be understood herein to relate to clusters of 3 or more metal or nonmetal atoms and their associated ligands of sufficiently well defined chemical structure such that all molecules of the cluster compound possess the same relative molecular mass. Ex. 1001, 5:3–9. We note that the District Court determined that “the term ‘molecular formula’ as opposed to ‘molecular mass’ is most appropriate. By necessity, a compound with the same molecular formula will necessarily have the same molecular mass.” Ex. 1091, 16. The District Court explained also, “it appears that the difference between a molecular formula and a molecular mass, at least for purposes of this claim construction, in inconsequential.” Id. We agree and do not find any dispute on the current record from the parties on this matter. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we agree with the District Court that the term “molecular cluster compound” means “clusters of 3 or more metal atoms and their associated ligands of sufficiently well-defined chemical structure such that all molecules of the cluster compound possess the same relative molecular formula.” Id. at 18.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“that Petitioner has not shown persuasively that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Banin’s small Au clusters to be MCCs. According to Petitioner and Dr. Green, Banin’s gold clusters are MCCs because they are clusters of three or more metal atoms with their associated ligands and “each cluster is ‘identical to one another.’” Ex. 1002 ¶ 90; Pet. 23. To begin, we do not find that the record supports Petitioner’s contention or Dr. Green’s opinion that “each cluster is ‘identical to one another.’” Ex. 1002 ¶ 90; Pet. 23. Petitioner and Dr. Green do not identify any disclosure in Banin describing the clusters as being identical. Instead, they refer to Banin’s disclosure that the Au clusters have “the suggested formula Au101(PPh3)21Cl5” and are “1.4 nm in mean diameter.” In doing so, Petitioner and Dr. Green do not meaningfully address or adequately explain how Banin derived its “suggested” molecular formula for the gold clusters or why Banin reported a “mean” diameter for those clusters. To that end, Petitioner and Dr. Green have failed to provide any reason why a skilled artisan would have understood Banin’s disclosures of a “suggested formula” and a “mean diameter” to convey that the Au clusters are identical.” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 7,803,423 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,803,423
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.