- Resmed, Inc. v. New York UniversityAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 7, 2023 · IPR2022-00992 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–14 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 1–5 and 7–14 over Sullivan995 and Sullivan460, and claim 6 over those references and Matthews.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“A. “troubled wakefulness” Petitioner proposes that we construe “troubled wakefulness” to mean” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“not implicitly define the phrase “analyzes the data to determine the patient’s breathing patterns,” as proposed, because Patent Owner has failed to show any sufficient evidence that the ’024 patent clearly expresses an intent to redefine the phrase or define the phrase in terms other than its plain and ordinary meaning. In other words, implied lexicography does not apply here. Accordingly, after reviewing Patent Owner’s contentions in light of all the evidence of record, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction; instead, we apply the plain and ordinary meaning of “analyzes the data to determine the patient’s breathing patterns” in our consideration of the issues before us.” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Accordingly, for the reasons explained above, we find Petitioner has” slip op. at 53
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“because it too is based on Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “analyzes the data to determine the patient’s breathing patterns,” which we do not adopt for the reasons explained above. Patent Owner’s additional arguments in response to Ground 2 are directed to motivation to combine, reasonable expectation of success, and objective indicia of nonobviousness, which we address below. For the reasons discussed above, we find Petitioner’s arguments persuasive as to claim 6 and supported on the complete record before us. Accordingly, we find that the combination of Sullivan995, Sullivan460, and Matthews satisfies the subject matter of claim 6.” slip op. at 70
Patent outcomesUS 10,384,024 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,384,024 - Resmed, Inc. v. New York UniversityAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 6, 2023 · IPR2022-00994 · APJ Alyssa A Finamore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, and 13 are unpatentable as obvious over Sullivan995, Sullivan460, and Matthews; the Board did not reach the other grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“the specification . . . we do not read limitations from the embodiments in the specification into the claims.” Hill-Rom Servs., 755 F. 3d at 1371 (citing Liebel–Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 904 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). “We depart from the plain and ordinary meaning of claim terms based on the specification in only two instances: lexicography and disavowal.” Id. In order for a patentee to act as its own lexicographer, the “patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term other than its plain and ordinary meaning’” and “must ‘clearly express an intent’ to redefine the terms.” Bradium Tech., 923 F.3d at 1044.” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, or a similar technical field, with at least two years of relevant product design experience” and that “[a]dditional experience could substitute for less education, and additional education could likewise substitute for less experience.” Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 89). Petitioner further contends that the “Petition does not turn on this precise definition, and the challenged claim[s] would be unpatentable from the perspective of any reasonable person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 90). Patent Owner does not object to Petitioner’s definition for the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 11. Petitioner’s definition for the level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the problems addressed in the ’344 patent and the prior art. We, therefore, apply Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art in this Decision.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“At the outset, we agree with Petitioner that “enablement ‘is not a requirement to prove invalidity under § 103.’” Pet. Reply 23 (quoting Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). Moreover, we also agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood a preset level is established from previously-acquired data, such as an average level, as Sullivan995 discloses. Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1005, 17:3–27, Fig. 12; Ex. 2015, 38:2–16). Sullivan995 discloses the computing system may “calculate control values of patterns for each patient based on moving average values or such values or patterns will be pre-programmed into the computing system.” Ex. 1005, 17:14–18. According to Sullivan995, when “signals deviate from predetermined values or patterns the computer system generates a signal which is sent to the feedback speed controller on the blower motor.” Id. at 17:19–22.” slip op. at 48
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“The Board uses a two-step analysis in evaluating nexus between the claimed invention and objective evidence. Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-01129, Paper 33 at 32–33 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2020) (precedential), aff’d sub nom. Zaxcom, Inc. v. Lectrosonics, Inc., 2022 WL 499848 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 18, 2022). We first consider whether the patent owner has demonstrated “that its products are coextensive (or nearly coextensive) with the challenged claims,” resulting in a rebuttable presumption of nexus. Id. at 32. If not, that “does not end the inquiry into secondary considerations”; “the patent owner is still afforded an opportunity to prove nexus by showing that the evidence of secondary considerations is the ‘direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention.’” Id. at 33 (quoting Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1373–75). “Where the offered secondary consideration actually results from something other than what is both claimed and novel in the claim, there is no nexus to the merits of the claimed invention.” Id. (citing In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068–69 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). There is no requirement that the objective evidence of non-obviousness be tied exclusively to claim elements that are not disclosed in the prior art, and the claimed combination as a whole may serve as a nexus for the objective evidence. Id. (citing WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).” slip op. at 56
Patent outcomesUS 9,168,344 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,168,344 - Resmed, Inc. v. New York UniversityAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 4, 2023 · IPR2022-00989 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 5–11, 13, and 15–30 are unpatentable as obvious over Sullivan995 and Sullivan460; anticipation was not shown, and the other obviousness ground was not reached.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, or a similar technical field, with at least two years of relevant product design experience” and “[a]dditional experience could substitute for less education, and additional education could likewise substitute for less experience.” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 77). Petitioner further states that the “Petition does not turn on this precise definition, and the challenged claims would be unpatentable from the perspective of any reasonable person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 78). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 15–16. We find that the ’539 patent and the cited prior art references reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of appropriate skill reflected in these references and in the ’539 patent is consistent with the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“awake state” Claim 24 recites, in part, “to determine whether breathing patterns indicate an asleep state or an awake state.” Ex. 1001, 11:36–12:7; see also id. at 9:49–64 (claim 1 reciting “between an awake state and an asleep state”), 10:42–56 (claim 11 reciting “at least one of an awake state or an asleep state”). In regard to its allegations of obviousness, Petitioner’s arguments suggest an “awake state” ordinarily means when a patient is not asleep. Pet. 36–37, 42. By contrast, with regard to its allegations of anticipation, Petitioner argues that under Patent Owner’s “implied construction of ‘an awake state’ based on [Patent Owner’s] infringement allegations” in district court, “the patient is in an awake state when there is an absence of obstructions or other breathing patterns indicative of sleep.” Id. at 68–70 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 2, 158, 159). Petitioner provides no further support for this “implied construction” purportedly taken from Patent Owner’s district court allegations. Id. Dr. Kirkness, in support of Petitioner, applied the plain meaning of all terms and phrases. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 80. In regard to supporting Petitioner’s allegations of anticipation, Dr. Kirkness merely assumed Patent Owner’s purported district court claim construction “position to be true.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 253. In this proceeding Patent Owner does not propose an express meaning for “awake state.” See PO Resp. 29–33. More generally, Patent Owner states that the ’539 patent “teaches how to distinguish between an awake state and an asleep state.” Id. at 8. From the arguments of the Parties, we discern no dispute in this proceeding that a plain and ordinary meaning of an “awake state” is a state in which a patient is not asleep. See Ex. 1001, 3:1–5 (distinguishing between “a wake state” and “a sleep state”), 7:22–24 (describing an embodiment with a processing arrangement that “may determine whether the patient is in a sleep state or a wake state based on the breathing pattern”).8 We apply the plain and ordinary meaning of “awake state” in this proceeding and further determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that an awake state means “an absence of obstructions or other breathing patterns indicative of sleep.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Next, we turn to the Specification. “While we read claims in view of the specification . . . we do not read limitations from the embodiments in the specification into the claims.” Hill-Rom Servs., 755 F. 3d at 1371 (citation omitted). “We depart from the plain and ordinary meaning of claim terms based on the specification in only two instances: lexicography and disavowal.” Id. In order for a patentee to act as its own lexicographer, the “patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term other than its plain and ordinary meaning’” and “must ‘clearly express an intent’ to redefine the terms.” Bradium Tech., 923 F. 3d at 1044. In this case, Patent Owner does not argue that it disavowed the full scope of the plain and ordinary meaning of claim 24, nor does Patent Owner argue that it explicitly defined “analyzing the breathing patterns” in the Specification. See, e.g., PO Resp. 29–32. We determine that there is no disavowal nor any explicit lexicographic definition of “analyzing the breathing patterns” in the Specification. Patent Owner instead relies on an “implied lexicography” theory as to why we should construe the phrase as Patent Owner proposes. PO Sur-reply 2, 6–7 (citing, inter alia, AstraZeneca AB v. Mut. Pharm. Co., Inc., 384 F.3d 1333, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). We disagree.” slip op. at 27
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments—that Petitioner fails to show any motivation to combine and that Sullivan460 is not enabled— merely because Dr. Kirkness indicated in a deposition that he did not know how a preset level is calculated from a sentence in Sullivan460. As Petitioner explains, enablement “is not a requirement to prove invalidity under §103.” Amgen, 314 F.3d at 1357 (under §103, “a reference need not be enabled; it qualifies as a prior art, regardless, for whatever is disclosed therein”). Moreover, we agree with Petitioner that the Challenged Claims do not require any preset level for a flow rate, and a person of ordinary skill “would have understood that a preset level is established from previously-acquired data or data from a previous window of time, such as an average level, for example, as taught in Sullivan995.” Pet. Reply 15 (citing Ex. 2014, 38:2–16; Ex. 1005, 17:3–27, Fig. 12). Patent Owner responds that Petitioner’s assertion is unsupported, and that “Petitioner is obligated to address this challenge, and failed to do so.” PO Sur-reply 18–19 (citing In re Morsa, 713 F.3d 104, 110 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). We find Petitioner’s arguments persuasive because they are supported by the asserted references. Sullivan995 discloses that the computing system may “calculate control values of patterns for each patient based on moving average values or such values or patterns will be pre-programmed into the computing system.” Ex. 1005, 17:14–18. According to Sullivan995, when “signals deviate from predetermined values or patterns the computer system generates a signal which is sent to the feedback speed controller on the blower motor.” Id. at 17:19–22. Based on this disclosure, and given that Sullivan460 incorporates Sullivan995 by reference, we agree with Petitioner that Sullivan460’s disclosure of detecting that the flow rate has fallen below a preset level would have informed a person of ordinary skill that this level was predetermined, so that “the controller 100 activates the nCPAP apparatus 90 to supply air to the patient 30 at a pressure which ameliorates or eliminates the upper airway flow limitation.”16 Ex. 1006, 10:17–21.” slip op. at 50
Patent outcomesUS 9,427,539 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,427,539 - Resmed, Inc. v. New York UniversityAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 4, 2023 · IPR2022-00988 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1–30 unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence, based on the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“ORDER21 Upon consideration of the record before us, it is: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper 45) is denied; FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper 46) is denied;” slip op. at 82
- Skill levelOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“1. “troubled wakefulness” Dependent claims 12 and 22 each recite, “wherein the awake state is a” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“not implicitly define the phrase “analyzes the data to determine the patient’s breathing patterns,” as proposed, because Patent Owner has failed to show any sufficient evidence that the ’009 patent clearly expresses an intent to redefine the phrase or define the phrase in terms other than its plain and ordinary meaning. In other words, implied lexicography does not apply here. Accordingly, after reviewing Patent Owner’s contentions in light of all the evidence of record, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction; instead, we apply the plain and ordinary meaning of “analyzes the data to determine the patient’s breathing patterns” in our consideration of the issues before us.” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 9,108,009 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,108,009 - PTAB · Nov 21, 2023 · IPR2023-01165 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–20 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Peloton would show at least one claim obvious over Morris and Ray.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . 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) (2018). For the reasons given below, on this record, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of the Challenged Claims on all grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“G. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner, supported by Mr. Rawl’s testimony, proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “is a person having: (i) a bachelor’s degree in an exercise related field or mechanical or electrical engineering and (ii) three to five years of industry experience in designing cardiovascular exercise equipment (such as treadmills, bicycles, steppers, ellipticals) or in a similar field.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–34).6 Petitioner also asserts that a person could qualify as an ordinarily skilled artisan with less education but more experience or less experience but more education. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–34). Patent Owner has not taken a position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art at this stage of the proceeding. At this stage of the proceeding and on the present record, we find that Petitioner’s uncontested level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’340 patent and the prior art of record. See 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). Therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art, as articulated above, in our consideration of the issues presently before us.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Additionally, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. 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)). Petitioner “does not believe construction of any term is necessary to resolve the invalidity challenges in this Petition.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 29–30). Petitioner explains that, as of the filing of the Petition, none of the claim terms recited in the ’340 patent have been construed in a prior proceeding. Id. Patent Owner has not taken a position as to claim construction at this stage of the proceeding. On the present record, we need not construe any claim terms expressly because none are in dispute. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“3. Motivation to Combine and Reasonable Expectation of Success Petitioner contends Morris and Ray describe exercise equipment (e.g., treadmills) that detect a user’s presence while using the equipment and present the user’s exercise data on a display while a user is exercising to motivate the user to exercise and improve the user’s exercise experience. Pet. 12. Petitioner asserts one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the complementary teachings of Morris and Ray by incorporating Ray’s camera and software instructions for validating user exercise data in Morris’ treadmill apparatus with a reasonable expectation of success. Id. at 13. In particular, Petitioner contends Morris provides an express motivation to install and use Ray’s camera for user detection by teaching that “its exercise equipment could be fitted with optical sensor(s).” Id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 33). Additionally, Petitioner asserts Morris’ treadmill includes an information processing system that processes sensor signals and includes virtual reality content on a screen displayed to the user. Id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 32, 34–36, 50, 56–58, Figs. 6, 11–12C, claims 29–37). Thus, Petitioner contends “the signal processing and display system of Morris had the necessary capabilities to accommodate Ray’s user detection/validation software and implement, with a reasonable expectation of success, its functionalities that included producing and presenting the motivational image of the user exercising.” Id. at 13–14. Additionally, Petitioner contends one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Morris and Ray because of “Ray’s express teachings that its user validation/motivation technology could be ‘easily and affordably merged’ into a treadmill.” Pet. 14 (quoting Ex. 1004, 9:55–57). Petitioner asserts incorporating these features into Morris’ treadmill “would have been obvious and produced predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 142–143).” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,227,340 - PTAB · Nov 21, 2023 · IPR2023-01164 · APJ James P Calve · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 because Peloton showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1, 2–7, and 10–20 over Morris and Ray.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). 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). Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the record, we determine that the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. We therefore grant institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“degree in an exercise related field or mechanical or electrical engineering and (ii) three to five years of industry experience in designing cardiovascular exercise equipment (such as treadmills, bicycles, steppers, ellipticals) or in a similar field” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–34). Petitioner also asserts that a person could qualify as an ordinarily skilled artisan with less education but more experience or less experience but more education. Id. At this stage, Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. On the present record, we find that Petitioner’s uncontested level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the ’375 patent and the prior art of record. Therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art, as articulated above, in our consideration of the issues presently before us.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner does not propose any claim constructions and asserts that” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“such as treadmills that detect a user’s presence on the treadmill and present the user’s exercise data on a display while the user is exercising to provide a number of similar benefits including motivating a user to exercise. Pet. 16– 17 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 5, 26, 35, Abstr.; Ex. 1004, 5:41–48, 8:22–26, 11:56– 61, 13:20–30, Abstr.). Petitioner contends that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the complementary teachings of Morris and Ray that addressed these similar objectives to achieve predictable results. Id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 137–140). Petitioner asserts that a skilled artisan would have incorporated Ray’s camera and software instructions to validate a user’s exercise data into Morris’ treadmill with a reasonable expectation of success because Morris expressly taught that “its exercise equipment could be fitted with optical sensor(s).” Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 33).” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,796,375 - PTAB · Nov 21, 2023 · IPR2023-01163 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–20 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–9, 12, and 14–20 would have been obvious over Morris and Ray.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Morris and Ray, in combination, teach or suggest each element of independent claim 1. Petitioner has also sufficiently shown that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Morris and Ray as proposed and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Morris and Ray.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“have been motivated to combine Morris and Ray by adding several of Ray’s features to Morris’ treadmill, including Ray’s camera, its functionality of displaying a motivational image, and its ability to transmit exercise data to a remote location, and that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the combination proposed. Pet. 16–18. Petitioner asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Morris and Ray because they provide complementary teachings and address similar objectives. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1004, Abstr., 5:41–48, 8:22–26, 11:56–61, 13:20–30; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 6, 25, 33, 35, Abstr.; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 135–138). Petitioner also asserts that Morris contemplates use of an optical sensor, provides exercise data and “a human analog display that mimic[s] the user’s bouncing motion,” and includes a signal processing and display system with the necessary capabilities to implement the combination. Id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 139–143; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 32–36, 50, 56–58, claims 29–37, Figs. 6, 11–12C). Petitioner further asserts that Ray expressly teaches that “its user validation and motivation technology could be ‘easily and affordably merged’ into a treadmill.” Id. at 18 (quoting Ex. 1004, 9:55–57) (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 143–144). Finally, Petitioner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to make the proposed combination because it would have improved Morris’ the user as the intensity and duration of exercise increased” and Ray’s ability to share exercise data with a remote location. Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 7:11–22, 11:55–59, 13:50–57; Ex. 1006 ¶ 50; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 138, 145); see also id. at 16 (arguing user motivation would have motivated the combination) (citing Ex. 1004, 8:22–26, 11:56–61; Ex. 1006 ¶ 25). At this stage, we are persuaded that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Morris and Ray with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner does not propose any express claim constructions and states that the “claims . . . have not been construed by any courts as of the filing of th[e] Petition.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 29–30). At this stage, Patent Owner does not address the construction of any term or phrase. We determine that it is not necessary to expressly construe any claim terms or phrases for purposes of this Decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to 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
“steppers, ellipticals) or in a similar field.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31– 34). Petitioner also asserts that a person could qualify as an ordinarily skilled artisan with less education but more experience or less experience but more education. Id. At this stage, Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. At this stage of the proceeding and on this record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that it comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’227 patent.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,032,227 - PTAB · Nov 17, 2023 · IPR2023-00900 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 13–17 on all petitioned grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one obviousness challenge.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to claims 13–17 of the ’702 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“On this preliminary record, we agree with Petitioner that the intrinsic record does not support a construction of “stackable add-on layer” that encompasses formation of memory cells by sequential deposition on a plain language of the claim does not require merely a “layer” having a plurality of vertically oriented semiconductor memory cells, but rather “a stackable add-on layer” having a plurality of vertically oriented semiconductor memory cells that is bonded to the dielectric layer. Ex. 1001, 12:29–32. The written description of the ’702 patent strongly suggests that such “a stackable add-on layer” is formed separately from the substrate and then stacked on and bonded to the substrate. Id. at 1:47–50 (“Briefly, a plurality of vertically oriented semiconductor memory devices, or cells, may be added to a separately fabricated substrate that includes electrical devices and/or interconnect lines.” (emphasis added)). It is unclear how memory cells sequentially deposited on a substrate could be considered to be a plurality of memory devices “added to a separately fabricated substrate.”” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Petitioner contends one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Watanabe and Lee because Watanabe discloses an alternate method of forming a memory device that is applicable to the memory devices of Lee and Watanabe, and Watanabe discloses that its “stacking method” improves the accuracy of the wiring and provides “a semiconductor memory device with improved integration density” and “low interconnection wire resistance.” Id. at 72.” slip op. at 24
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“3. Factor 3 – Investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties Under the third Fintiv factor, we consider the “investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties.” Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6. Petitioner contends that, at the time of the filing of the Petition, the court had not yet held a case management conference or set a Markman or trial date, and that no hearings or substantive activities or hearings have occurred in the case. Pet. 75. “Because the investment in the trial has been minimal and Petitioner acted diligently” in filing the Petition, Petitioner contends “this factor weighs strongly against discretionary denial.” Id. Patent Owner contends the co-pending district court case has been moving forward, with infringement and invalidity contentions being exchanged and discovery and deposition underway. Prelim. Resp. 34. Patent Owner further contends that by the institution deadline of November 28, 2023, the parties will be in the “home stretch of discovery.” Id. at 34– 35. “Based on the considerable resources already expended on contentions and discovery in the district court,” Patent Owner argues that Fintiv factor 3 weighs in favor of denying institution. Id. at 35. directed to no substantive rulings by the district court to suggest that it has invested considerable resources in the case. Nor are we presented with evidence that the parties have expended significant resources in the district court litigation. Fact discovery is not scheduled to be completed until July 1, 2024, and expert discovery is to be completed by August 5, 2024, i.e., more than seven months after the institution deadline. Ex. 2001, 3. Accordingly, we determine that Fintiv factor 3 weighs against discretionary denial of institution. 4. Factor 4 – Overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding Under the fourth Fintiv factor, we consider the “overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding.” Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6. Petitioner contends that in the district court litigation Patent Owner asserts infringement under only claim 13, whereas the Petition challenges claims 13–17. Pet. 76. Petitioner argues that because it is challenging more claims than are asserted in the district court litigation, this proceeding “is the only venue in which the invalidity challenges against several claims in the ’702 Patent will be adjudicated,” and this proceeding will promote efficiency because it “will resolve disputes against future district court defendants.” Id. Patent Owner responds that Petitioner’s “invalidity contentions challenge the same Claims 13–16 based on the identical Watanabe, Lee, and Endoh references relied upon in the Petition.” Prelim. Resp. 35. Petitioner responds that it has signed and served a stipulation “not to pursue in the parallel district court proceeding any obviousness ground that includes the primary references in the Petition.” Prelim. Reply 2. According to Petitioner, “[t]his stipulation mitigates concerns of potentially the PTAB.” Id. Patent Owner argues in response that Petitioner’s “meager agreement” slip op. at 30
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,378,702 - Nespresso USA, Inc. v. K-Fee System GmbHInstitutedPTAB · Sep 13, 2023 · IPR2023-00485 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR of claims 1–10 on all petition grounds; Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood that the claims would have been obvious over Yoakim, Jarisch, Rossi, and Castellani.
RulingsInstitution decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“second German priority application do not disclose every limitation of independent claims 1 and 7 of the ’430 patent. Figure 1 does not depict a barcode under the flange, but rather the use of raised areas on the side of the capsule that act as an identifier. Ex. 1047, Fig. 1. Figure 2, coupled with its associated description, might suggest that the barcode could be on the portion of the base element facing away from the membrane,9 but this figure does not disclose many of the other elements of the claim, including holding arms, a drop box, annular convexity and concavity, and a pump to supply water to the single-serve capsule. Pet. 41; Ex. 1047, 9:21–24, Fig. 2. We also determine that Patent Owner does not sufficiently demonstrate that Figures 16–18 of the second German priority application provide adequate disclosures showing that the inventors were in possession 9 We question whether the second German priority application supports placing a barcode under the flange. The application states that the barcode could “be provided on that side of the peripheral region of the basic element which is directed away from the membrane.” Ex. 1047, 9:21–24. This statement is rather ambiguous as to where the “peripheral region” is that is “directed away from the membrane.” The text goes on to explain, however, that “[t]his barcode,” i.e., the barcode that is “directed away from the membrane,” “is read by a detector 13,” which in Figure 2 is oriented to read a barcode on the top surface of the flange. Id. at 9:25–26, Fig. 2. This suggests that the barcode is not on the bottom side of the flange and that arrow 15 is pointing to the outer portion of the peripheral region that is not covered by the membrane, and not necessarily the bottom of the flange. First, the second German priority application describes the use of “an identifier” that is read by a “sensor/detection means” and then compared to a stored identifier. Ex. 1047, 2:29–31. In Figure 2 the identifier may be a barcode and the detection means is detector 13. Id. at 9:11–26. In Figures 16–18, however, element 2.4.2 is not an identifier, but rather a “a form-fitting and/or friction-fitting means and/or a detection means.” Id. at 12:22– 24 (emphasis added). As such, it is unclear how this disclosure would demonstrate possession of the disputed claim limitation, when combined with the other limitations of claims 1 and 7 as a whole. Second, it is not evident that the toothed rings of Figures 16–18 are on the underside of the flange, as asserted by Patent Owner. Prelim. Resp. 42 (asserting that a barcode “could be located on the bottom side of the flange instead of the toothed ring”); Prelim. Sur-reply 4. The second German priority application states that the “form-fitting and/or friction-fitting means and/or detection means 2.4.2” is located in the “outer region” of the peripheral region 2.4. Ex. 1047, 12:22–24. We are directed to no evidence that this “outer region” is on the bottom of the flange, and Figures 16–18 each appear to depict means 2.4.2 on, or forming, the outer circumference of the flange.11 Id. at Figs. 16–18, 6:8–11 (noting that the toothed ring is provided “on the outer circumference of the periphery”). 10 The parties dispute whether Figure 16 of the second German priority application discloses annular convexity and concavity. Pet. 42–43; Prelim. Resp. 45–46; Prelim. Reply 4–5; Prelim. Sur-reply 4. At most, the parties identify a material issue of fact with respect to these two claim elements that is best resolved on a full trial record. 11 At first blush, Figure 17A appears to show means 2.4.2 under a portion of element 27 of the capsule. Ex. 1047, Fig. 17A; Prelim. Sur-reply 4 depicted in Figures 16–18, which rely on toothed rings physically interacting with either the chamber, retaining arms, or a pinion. Ex. 1047, 12:22–31, 13:8–18. The second German priority application explains that means 2.4.2 physically interacts with retaining arms 30 (embodiments of Figures 16 and 17) or a pinon (embodiment of Figure 18), and if means 2.4.2 were not present in these embodiments, the capsule would either “drop through into a waste container” or could not be inserted through the insertion shaft. Id. at 12:22–27, 13:9–12, 13:16–35 (noting that in the embodiment disclosed in Figure 18 a pinon interacts with means 2.4.2 and only when means 2.4.2 “is formed complementary to the teeth of the means” can the capsule be inserted). Patent Owner does not sufficiently explain how a barcode could replace means 2.4.2 in these embodiments and still retain the capsule within the device or allow the capsule to enter the insertion shaft.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“First, Yoakim expressly states that the capsule may use a “barcode,” and the plain and ordinary meaning of this term is a code that satisfies the construction adopted by the district court. To the extent Patent Owner has reason to believe that Yoakim does not apply the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “barcode,” and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood this fact, it is encouraged to present such evidence during trial. Second, in this obviousness inquiry the question is not whether a person of ordinary skill in the art is more likely to adopt a barcode or a bitcode, but whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have seen a benefit to applying the “barcode” of Yoakim under the flange of the capsule. See Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“Our case law is clear. It’s not necessary to show that a combination is ‘the best option, only that it is a suitable option.’”). On that point, Jarisch expressly discloses the benefits of doing so. Ex. 1005 ¶ 22 (noting that applying the code at the bottom of the rim lowers the risk of the code becoming unreadable). As such, we determine that Petitioner sufficiently identifies where Yoakim discloses a barcode and explains why one of ordinary skill in the art would have placed such a “barcode” on the bottom of the capsule’s flange.” slip op. at 27
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) during prosecution of the ’430 patent and that Rossi and Castellani were mentioned in the inter partes reviews that were cited on the IDS. Pet. 19; Prelim. Resp. 23. We need not determine whether Part 1 of the Advanced Bionics framework is satisfied based on these disclosures, however, as Part 2 of the analysis, which we address below, is dispositive. a) Factor (c)—the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for a rejection The Examiner did not issue any rejections during prosecution of the ’430 patent. Ex. 1002, 232–234. As the reasons for allowance, the Examiner stated: [A]llowance of claims 1 and 21–29 is indicated as none of the cited prior art discloses or suggests the flange comprising a top side and an opposing bottom side; a cover that is fastened to the top side of the flange to close the cavity; and an identifier provided on the bottom side of the flange, the identifier being a barcode, wherein the beverage machine, by reading or detecting the identifier with the sensor/detector, is configured to determine if the single-serve capsule belongs to a group of single serve capsules operable for use with the beverage machine, and only if the beverage machine determines that the single-serve capsule belongs to the group of single serve capsules operable for use with the beverage machine is the pump controlled to push the water into the single-serve capsule. Id. at 233. In arriving at this conclusion, the Examiner did not cite or discuss the disclosures of Yoakim, Jarisch, Rossi, or Castellani. Id. at 232–234. Yet, these references appear, based on the current record, to expressly teach or allowance, including a “flange comprising a top side and an opposing bottom side” (Ex. 1004 ¶ 197, Fig. 6); “a cover that is fastened to the top side of the flange to close the cavity” (Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 128–129, 197, 414); “an identifier provided on the bottom side of the flange” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 22) that is “a barcode” (Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 496, 525); and “reading or detecting the identifier with the sensor/detector . . . to determine if the single-serve capsule belongs to a group of single serve capsules operable for use with the beverage machine” (Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 25, 192, 477, 494–496, 525; Ex. 1005 ¶ 82; Ex. 1041, 3, 11). As such, to the extent the asserted combination of prior art references was evaluated during prosecution of the application that matured into the ’430 patent, we determine that such evaluation was minimal.” slip op. at 37
- Other 314aDecided for petitioner
“B. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) Patent Owner contends that “[t]he parties have been embroiled in disputes involving substantive claims for infringement for both the ’430 Patent and the Jarisch 929 reference,” and “it is unnecessary to open up yet another front in this dispute.” Prelim. Resp. 68–69. As such, Patent Owner requests that we deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Id. Patent Owner directs our attention to no case in which the Director has exercised discretion to deny a petition merely because the same patent was the subject of a co-pending district court infringement action. Indeed, 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) specifically contemplates such a scenario. Accordingly, we decline to exercise discretion to deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 40
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,230,430 - Nespresso USA, Inc. v. K-Fee System GmbHInstitutedPTAB · Sep 13, 2023 · IPR2023-00502 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 1–16 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood that the claims would have been obvious over Yoakim, Jarisch, and Rapparini.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least [one] of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to claims 1–16 of the ’923 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier application provides support for the claims of the later application, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112.” In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 297 (Fed. Cir. 1995). One may show support for the claims of a later application by showing that a single, earlier application provides written description support for the claims. PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Studiengesellschaft Kohle, MBH v. Shell Oil Co., 112 F.3d 1561, 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (noting that a patentee “cannot distinct previous applications”). Once Petitioner identifies a prior art reference with an effective filing date prior to that of the challenged patent, the burden of production to show entitlement to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application shifts to Patent Owner. See In re NTP, 654 F.3d 1268, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a patent’s claims are not entitled to an earlier priority date merely because the patentee claims priority . . . Rather, for a patent’s claims to be entitled to an earlier priority date, the patentee must demonstrate that the claims meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120”). Patent Owner may show possession of the invention through “such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “Although the exact terms need not be used in haec verba, . . . the specification must contain an equivalent description of the claimed subject matter. A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient.” Id.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artPriority date, deniedDecided for petitioner
“Once Petitioner identifies a prior art reference with an effective filing date prior to that of the challenged patent, the burden of production to show entitlement to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application shifts to Patent Owner. See In re NTP, 654 F.3d 1268, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a patent’s claims are not entitled to an earlier priority date merely because the patentee claims priority . . . Rather, for a patent’s claims to be entitled to an earlier priority date, the patentee must demonstrate that the claims meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120”). Patent Owner may show possession of the invention through “such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “Although the exact terms need not be used in haec verba, . . . the specification must contain an equivalent description of the claimed subject matter. A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient.” Id.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“7. Analysis: Reasons to Combine the References Petitioner shows sufficiently that Yoakim, Jarisch and Rapparini are “analogous art in the field of portion capsule beverage extraction, each disclosing an invention that may be applied in automatic coffee/espresso machines.” Pet. 43. “Yoakim and Jarisch both improve the optimization of beverage parameters in a single-serve brewing system, and use optical codes read by the machine to achieve this.” Id. “Rapparini further improves the the wall of the capsule body like those used in Yoakim and Jarisch.” Id. at 43–44; see id. at 50–51, 53–54 (Petitioner’s further argument that Rapparini discloses “an optimized capsule structure that is stiffer and more stable” by virtue of radially spaced and vertically oriented ribs and grooves, where the vertically oriented grooves are free from extending entirely to the bottom region of the capsule). Petitioner directs us to additional evidence tending to establish that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been prompted to modify Yoakim’s device, to include the code placement of Jarisch and the grooves and ribs of Rapparini, to arrive at the claimed invention with an expectation of success. Id. at 44–48.” slip op. at 27
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,994,923
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.