• Ty Inc. v. Softbelly’S, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 10, 2021 · IPR2020-00689 · APJ John E Schneider · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 15 and 16 are unpatentable: claim 15 as anticipated by Ogawa and obvious over Ogawa and Masahiro; claim 16 as obvious over Ogawa with Cherk, and with Masahiro and Cherk.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We have considered the arguments presented by the parties and the evidence of record and are not persuaded that our original definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art was in error. While the claims at issue refer to an optical grade fabric, we note that the fabric is not the invention. Rather, as stated in the Specification, the field of the invention is “cleaning tools for electronic display screens, and more specifically to cleaning tools for computer display screens and the like.” Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 4–6. The claims further narrow the field of the invention to cleaning tools in the form of a doll-like structure. Id. at col. 6, l. 37. Based on the forgoing, we continue to apply the same definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art we used in our Decision on Institution. However, the findings and conclusions set forth below would have been the same had we instead adopted Patent Owner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “We have considered the arguments presented by the parties and the evidence of record and conclude that Petitioner has the better position. The term “display screen,” as used in the challenged claims, refers to an intended use of the cleaning tool. As such, it does limit the scope of the claims. We begin by noting that the challenged claims are directed to a device or apparatus. Ex. 1002, col. 2, ll. 8–13. As such, the claims “cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (1990). The preamble of both claims 6 and 11 read in part: “doll-like figure for cleaning or wiping the surface of a display screen.” Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 37–38; col. 7, ll. 1–2. Both claims end with the clause “providing a pliant cleaning tool for wiping a display screen.” Id. at col. 6, ll. 50–51; col. 7, ll. 13–14. These phrases are crafted in terms of a device for performing a specific function or use. This type of phrase has been found to recite an intended use and not a physical limitation. See Marrin v. Griffin, 599 F.3d 1290, 1294–96 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The recitation of the intended use in the body of the claim does not affect our analysis. The term for wiping a display screen still recites a use of the device that does not impart a structural limitation.” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “We have considered the testimony of both experts and the evidence of record and find Mrs. Ryan’s testimony to be more persuasive. Therefore, we agree with Petitioner that Ogawa discloses a wiping tool which has an inner chamber formed by a strip of optical grade fabric — the wipe portion — and a non-optical grade fabric — the gripping body. We give more weight to Mrs. Ryan’s testimony based on her extensive experience in designing plush toys. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3–5. Mrs. Ryan has worked in the area of plush toy design for over twenty-six years and has taught classes relating to plush toy design. Id. ¶¶ 3–4; page 40. In addition, Mrs. Ryan’s testimony regarding how one skilled in the art would envision the wiping tool of Ogawa is consistent with the evidence of record. For example, King4 teaches that teddy bears are formed by joining pieces of fabric creating an inner pocket into which stuffing is inserted. Ex. 1026, 7–12. Cockrill5 also teaches that teddy bears are traditionally made by cutting out the material, sewing the pieces together, and then stuffing the bears. Ex. 1025, 67.” slip op. at 17

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “We have considered the testimony of both experts and the evidence of record and find Mrs. Ryan’s testimony to be more persuasive. Therefore, we agree with Petitioner that Ogawa discloses a wiping tool which has an inner chamber formed by a strip of optical grade fabric — the wipe portion — and a non-optical grade fabric — the gripping body. We give more weight to Mrs. Ryan’s testimony based on her extensive experience in designing plush toys. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3–5. Mrs. Ryan has worked in the area of plush toy design for over twenty-six years and has taught classes relating to plush toy design. Id. ¶¶ 3–4; page 40. In addition, Mrs. Ryan’s testimony regarding how one skilled in the art would envision the wiping tool of Ogawa is consistent with the evidence of record. For example, King4 teaches that teddy bears are formed by joining pieces of fabric creating an inner pocket into which stuffing is inserted. Ex. 1026, 7–12. Cockrill5 also teaches that teddy bears are traditionally made by cutting out the material, sewing the pieces together, and then stuffing the bears. Ex. 1025, 67. Dr. Adanur’s experience and expertise appears to be primarily focused on textiles. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 8–24. While Dr. Adanur testified that he has some experience in the area of plush toys, that experience appears to be limited to selection of fabric that could be used to manufacture plush toys and making several puppets at home to earn extra money. Ex. 1027, 52, 57–59, 78–79. In addition, Dr. Adanur does not cite to any evidence other than Ogawa to support his opinions as to what one skilled in the art would envision upon reading Ogawa. See Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 84–87. Patent Owner, however, contends that Ogawa is silent as to whether the tool has an inner chamber made from a piece of optical grade fabric and a piece of non-optical grade fabric. PO Resp. 1, 22. 4 King, Make Your Own Teddy Bears, 1985 (Ex. 1026) (“King”). 5 Cockrill, The Teddy Bear Encyclopedia, 1993 (Ex. 1025) (“Cockrill”).” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 6,195,831 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,195,831
• Microsoft Corporation v. Uniloc 2017 LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 5, 2021 · IPR2020-00102 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 1 is unpatentable under § 103 over Lee and 802.3u; the Board did not reach the USB 1.1 and Morris ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed definition for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’541 patent as one who “would have had a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical Engineering or a related subject, and at least one year experience designing electronics devices for use in communications systems, including both hardware and software components.” Dec. on Inst. 9 (quoting Pet. 13– 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 50)). We also adopted Petitioner’s additions that “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a Master’s Degree, and vice versa,” and that one of ordinary skill in” slip op. at 8

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

    “Having reviewed the parties’ arguments, we disagree with Patent Owner that this limitation is limited to connecting and disconnecting stations at will or physically. Rather, we agree with Petitioner that presence or absence for a particular connection is best understood in terms of whether a reflected wave signal is detected for that connection. This conclusion best comports with the plain claim language, which recites that a connection is detected by transmitting a transmitted wave signal, splitting a return wave, and being operated dependent on whether there is a reflection of the transmitted wave signal. Ex. 1001, 5:59–6:5.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “Having reviewed the parties’ arguments, we agree with Petitioner that the plain and ordinary meaning of “being operated in accordance with presence or absence” in the context of the limitation broadly covers operating consistently with the non-detection (presence) or detection (absence) of a reflection of a transmitted signal. The claim language does not limit the scope of the claim to require a particular operation, other than that it is in accordance with the further station’s presence or absence. Ex. 1001, 5:59–6:5. Moreover, we agree with Petitioner that the Specification provides examples of operations that each are in accordance with presence or absence, but does not limit the operations to any specific one. Id. at code (57) (“operate in different control modes”), 1:39–42 (“no messages commands etc. are transmitted”), 2:28–30 (“the upstream station takes the appropriate actions to remove the downstream station logically from the system”), 2:35–36 (“the upstream station takes the appropriate actions to incorporate the downstream station into the system”). We disagree with Patent Owner (PO Resp. Br. 4.) that the Specification defines “being operated in accordance with presence or absence.” Rather, we determine that the sentence Patent Owner relies on as a definition instead provides an example of a claimed operation. See Ex. 1001, 1:38–42 (“The system detects whether or not a downstream station is connected to or disconnected from the connector and operates accordingly: no messages commands etc. are transmitted via connectors to which no downstream station is connected.”). First, the sentence’s operation (no messages commands etc. are transmitted) pertains only to when a station is absent, and thus, would be an incomplete definition that does not account for when a station is present. Id. Second, we are not persuaded that the use of a colon in the sentence would have signified to an ordinarily skilled artisan that what follows is a definition. Patent Owner does not point to any evidence to support this argument, and thus, we afford it little weight. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (explaining that attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value). Third, an inventor must define specific terms with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision” in order to be his own lexicographer. See Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“The patentee’s lexicography must, of course, appear ‘with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision’ before it can affect the claim.”) (quoting In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). We find that this sentence lacks the necessary clarity, deliberateness, and precision to redefine the broad recital of “being operated in accordance with” so as to limit the term to a specific operation. Accordingly, we find that the cited sentence provides an example of “being operated in accordance with presence or absence,” rather than a definition. See Ex. 1001, 1:38–42. In addition, we disagree with Patent Owner that logically incorporating and disincorporating a further station is a necessary part of “being operated in accordance with presence or absence.” As we discuss above, although logical incorporation or disincorporation is an example operation that falls within the scope of claim 1, there is no basis in the claim language or Specification (which provides multiple example operations) to require any particular operation, such as logically incorporating and disincorporating a station. See supra; Ex. 1001, 1:39–42, 2:28–30, 2:35–36, 5:59–6:5. Nor are we persuaded that the Specification, by describing that “automatic incorporation and disincorporation is an important feature to make the system easy to use for non-specialist consumers,” acts to limit the claim language. Ex. 1001, 1:14–23. First, this passage relates to the background description of USB systems, and does not specifically address the invention of the ’541 patent. See id. Second, we do not view describing an operation as “an important feature” for a specific class of users (“non-specialist consumers”) as a sufficient basis to limit claim language that has broader effect. See Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc., 579 F.3d 1363, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[C]laims will not be read restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope”); cf. Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (“[P]articular embodiments appearing in the written description will not be used to limit claim language that has broader effect.”). Nor do we view the Specification’s teaching that “[a]ccording to the invention this effect [of wave reflection] is used to control the incorporation and especially disincorporation of downstream stations into and from the system” as sufficient to limit the broader claim language of “being operated in accordance with presence or absence.” Ex. 1001, 2:16–18; Martek, 579 F.3d at 1381. Again, this teaching of incorporation and disincorporation, instead provides an example of an operation performed in accordance with the presence or absence of a station, but the claim is not limited so as to require this particular operation. Ex. 1001, 2:16–18. In summary, we conclude that “being operated in accordance with presence or absence” broadly covers being operated consistently with the non-detection (presence) or detection (absence) of a reflection of a transmitted signal, rather than requiring a specific operation.” slip op. at 16

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Not reached

    “C. Or The parties dispute whether the “or” in the phrase “presence or absence” means that both presence and absence need to be shown in the prior art, or only one. Because we find below that Petitioner has demonstrated that the prior art teaches being operated in accordance with both presence and absence of the further station, we need not, and thus do not, reach or resolve this dispute. See, e.g., Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017. V.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 6,498,541 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,498,541
• Volvo Cars Of North America / Volvo Car Corporation A/K/A Volvo Personvagnar AB v. Watlow Electric Manufacturing CompanyAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 22, 2020 · IPR2019-01100 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 8–11 are unpatentable under § 103 over the decided Toyota-based grounds; the Board did not reach the Brook-Levinson-based grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “the ’869 patent “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, materials science, electrical engineering, or a similar discipline, as well as two or more years of relevant industry or research experience.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 13–15). Alternatively, according to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Master’s degree in mechanical engineering, materials science, electrical engineering, or a similar discipline, as well as one year of industry experience.” Id. Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been familiar with layered heating systems and/or the components and underlying technology used therein.” Id. at 8. Patent Owner does not address the level of skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the prior art of record and the ’869 patent.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “Patent Owner, in turn, argues that a complex contour pattern “requires a structure having an outer shape that combines parts of multiple simple shapes such that it is complex.” PO Resp. 14 (citing Ex. 2011, 371; Ex. 2012, 465; Ex. 2013). Patent Owner agrees “that Figs. 2 and 3 of the ’869 Patent each illustrate an example of a ‘complex contour pattern.’” Id. at 17 n.4. We note that Figures 2 and 3 illustrate a spiral pattern on a cylindrical substrate. Ex. 1001, Figs. 2, 3. Patent Owner also contends that Figure 4 of the ’869 Patent discloses a “complex contour pattern . . . in the form[] of a meandering electrically conductive resistive material layer.” PO Resp. 5. Although Patent Owner contends its proposed construction is supported by the Specification of the ’869 patent (id. at 15), Patent Owner does not persuasively explain how either a spiral pattern or meandering pattern as shown in Figures 2–4 of the ’869 patent have outer shapes that “combine parts of multiple simple shapes,” as would be required by its proposed construction. See generally PO Resp. Consequently, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s construction. For the purposes of resolving the dispute between the parties, we determine that a “complex contour pattern” encompasses at least a spiral pattern on a cylinder and a meandering pattern.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITANo construction neededOther

    “With respect to Patent Owner’s proposed constructions, Patent Owner contends and Petitioner agrees that these limitations are written in product-by-process format. See PO Resp. 8–18; Sur-reply 4–5; Pet. Reply 2–7. We do not need to construe these limitations to resolve this dispute but, due to the nature of the product-by-process limitations, we address Patent Owner’s claim construction arguments below in the context of analyzing the patentability of these claims. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 9

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “exceed the proper scope of a Reply. Our Trial Practice Guide provides that “Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g., to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability. A party also may submit rebuttal evidence in support of its reply.” Consol. TPG,9 73 (Nov. 2019) (citing Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1077–78 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). The Federal Circuit has explained that “[a]s we have regularly held, ‘the petitioner in an inter partes review proceeding may introduce new evidence after the petition stage if the evidence is a legitimate reply to evidence introduced by the patent owner.” Apple, Inc. v. Andrea Elec. Corp., 949 F.3d 697, 706–707 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). In the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner refers to the testimony of Dr. McDonald and Mr. Selvy to support its argument that a skilled artisan “would not have been led by Toyota’s reference to ‘metallizing’ to use a thermal spray process to create the resistive layer of Toyota’s heater.” PO Resp. 31. Patent Owner further argues a skilled artisan “would not have considered Toyota’s reference to ‘metallizing’ to suggest the use of a thermal spray process to create an active resistive heating element, because such processes were understood at that time to be primarily, and nearly exclusively, used for passive protection against surface degradation.” Id. at 31–32. In the Reply, Petitioner contends that “Toyota cites prior art disclosing thermal spray processes in describing how ‘a 9 Available at www.uspto.gov/trialpracticeguideconsolidated. conventional heating roller’ was made.” Pet. Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1008, 2:34–48; Ex. 1078, 3). Petitioner does not rely on this evidence to establish its prima facie case but rather to rebut Patent Owner’s argument that Toyota’s reference to metallizing does not suggest thermal spraying as contended in the Petition. Consequently, Exhibit 1078 and 1079 constitute legitimate reply evidence in response to evidence introduced by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 7,361,869 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,361,869
• Cxloyalty, Inc. v. Maritz Holdings Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 19, 2019 · CBM2018-00037 · APJ Justin T Arbes · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable under § 101; the motion to amend is granted for proposed substitute claims 16–23, which were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable

    “does not remove the claim from the realm of abstract ideas. See Pet. 52–53; Reply 12; SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that it “does not matter to [the conclusion that the claim is directed to an abstract idea] whether the information here is information about real investments,” as “even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract” (citation omitted)). Further, the last two clauses of claim 1 that recite how the transaction is viewed from the perspectives of the participant and vendor system, respectively, merely express the “non-physical result” of the information transfers and confirm the abstract nature of the claimed subject matter. See Pet. 57. In fact, as to the vendor system clause, the Specification indicates that the vendor system transfers information no differently than it would for any other transaction. See Ex. 1001, col. 7, ll. 15–18 (disclosing that vendor system 208 responds to purchase request 216 “in the same way that it would respond to any other purchase request from a consumer that presents a credit card”).” slip op. at 35

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable

    “Our conclusion also is supported by the ’087 patent’s description of” slip op. at 41

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted

    “transaction, . . . display[ing] an order message indicating the completion of the purchase transaction to the respective participant.” Mot., App’x A, 4. An example in which a judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application is when “an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; Flook, 437 U.S. at 590 (holding that a step of adjusting an alarm limit variable was “post-solution activity”). Displaying an order message after the facilitated transaction has been completed amounts to insignificant post-solution activity, and does not support a conclusion that the abstract idea of claim 16 is integrated into a practical application.” slip op. at 75

  • 101 substituteMixed

    “transaction, . . . display[ing] an order message indicating the completion of the purchase transaction to the respective participant.” Mot., App’x A, 4. An example in which a judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application is when “an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; Flook, 437 U.S. at 590 (holding that a step of adjusting an alarm limit variable was “post-solution activity”). Displaying an order message after the facilitated transaction has been completed amounts to insignificant post-solution activity, and does not support a conclusion that the abstract idea of claim 16 is integrated into a practical application.” slip op. at 75

  Patent outcomesUS 7,134,087 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Berkheimer · Enfish
  Patents in suitUS 7,134,087
• Saudi Arabian Oil Company v. SK Innovation Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 9, 2019 · IPR2018-00159 · APJ Monté T Squire · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 2 was held unpatentable as anticipated by Novomer 1; the contingent motion to amend was granted, substituting claim 5.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which requires demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, we granted Petitioner’s request and instituted an inter partes review for challenged claim 2. Paper 9 (“Institution Dec.”).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s assessment regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Mot. Amend 7. We determine the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner is consistent with the ’979 patent and the asserted prior art, and we adopt that level in construing and deciding the patentability of claim 2.” slip op. at 9

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

    “In the Institution Decision, we determined that the phrase “A poly(alkylene carbonate) represented by Formula 10” did not require construction at that stage. Institution Dec. 9; see also id. at 7 (citing Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only terms which are in controversy need be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy)). Neither party has argued post-institution that this phrase of claim 2 needs be construed. See PO Resp. 2; Pet. Reply 1–3. We conclude that no further construction of this phrase is necessary.” slip op. at 10

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

    “In the Institution Decision, we agreed with Petitioner that the variable construction of the phrase “each independently” is the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, and construed the phrase to mean that “each variable R81, R82, R83, and R84 is independent from one instance to another throughout the polymer.” Institution Dec. 13–14. Based on that construction, we also determined in the Institution Decision that claim 2 encompasses the following genera: (1) “Genus A,” which includes a poly(ethylene glycol) chain transfer agent flanked by poly(ethylene carbonate) chains (Pet. 24); (2) “Genus B,” which includes a poly(propylene glycol) chain transfer agent flanked by poly(propylene carbonate) chains (id. at 25–26); (3) “Genus C,” which includes a poly(propylene glycol) chain transfer agent flanked by poly(ethylene carbonate) chains (id. at 26); and (4) “Genus D,” which includes a poly(ethylene glycol) chain transfer agent flanked by poly(propylene carbonate) chains (id. at 27). Institution Dec. 12–13. Neither party opposes adopting the variable construction of the phrase “each independently” and the determination that, under the variable construction, claim 2 encompasses Genus A, Genus B, Genus C, and Genus D. PO Resp. 2; Pet. Reply 1–3. We maintain the variable construction of the phrase “each independently” on the complete record.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 9,023,979 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,023,979
• Renesas Electronics Corporation / Renesas Electronics America, Inc. v. Lone Star Silicon Innovations, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 25, 2019 · IPR2017-01869 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4–6, 9, and 10 are unpatentable as obvious over Igarashi and Tanaka (1999); claims 2 and 7 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “For purposes of our Institution Decision, we accepted the definition of a POSA provided by Dr. Bottoms. Dec. 10–11 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 31). Dr. Bottoms provides a “clarification” of the Board’s description, testifying that “[t]he specific industry experience would require process design experience—which is experience beyond managing fabrication equipment.” Ex. 2011 ¶ 36. Dr. Bottoms’ clarification is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’330 patent, which discloses process design options for making a low dielectric constant silicon nitride etch stop. Ex. 1001, 5:66-6:24. Dr. Neikirk testifies that, under Dr. Bottoms’ definition, a POSA has a higher degree of skill than under Dr. Neikirk’s definition, and the Board’s adoption of Dr. Bottoms’ definition would not change his opinions regarding obviousness. Ex. 1028 ¶ 14. We find there is little difference between the declarants’ definitions of a POSA, and the outcome of our patentability determinations would be the same, regardless of which definition we accept. For the sake of clarity, we adopt Dr. Bottoms’ definition of a POSA, including the recent clarification. Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 35, 36. We also rely on the cited prior art references as reflecting the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert creditedOther

    “After reviewing the qualifications of Dr. Neikirk and Dr. Bottoms, as set forth in each witness’s declaration and curriculum vitae, we find that each of these declarants has sufficient education and experience related to the subject matter of the ’330 patent to testify regarding the perspective of a POSA at the time of the invention. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 2, 3; Ex. 1012; Ex. 2002; Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 8–20. See Trial Practice Guide Update, 83 Fed. Reg. 39,989 (Aug. 13, 2018), available at https://go.usa.gov/xU7GP (“TPG Update”), 3 (“A person may not need to be a person of ordinary skill in the art in order to testify as an expert under Rule 702, but rather must be ‘qualified in the pertinent art.’” (quoting Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1363–64 (Fed. Cir. 2008))). D.” slip op. at 12

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

    “In the Institution Decision, we determined that it was not necessary to resolve the parties’ claim construction dispute. Dec. 9–10. Neither party challenges that determination. Petitioner contends that the asserted grounds of unpatentability apply under either party’s construction for the phrase “etch stop layer of silicon nitride.” Pet. 25 n.3. Patent Owner argues that this phrase is not limited to a layer of pure silicon nitride and allows for the presence of dopants and/or impurities. PO Resp. 8–10. Patent Owner does not, however, rely on its proposed claim construction for any patentability argument. In fact, Patent Owner acknowledges that the silicon nitride materials disclosed in the Low-K References satisfy Patent Owner’s proposed construction. PO Resp. 10. Under these circumstances, we agree with Petitioner that we do not need to resolve the parties’ claim construction dispute. Pet. Reply 2. Accordingly, consistent with the Institution Decision, we determine that we do not need to provide an express construction for any claim term for purposes of resolving the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). B.” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “copper interconnects need silicon nitride films as an etch stop, but that such films have a high dielectric constant, which causes an undesirable increase in the effective dielectric constant of the interconnect structure and increased parasitic capacitance, as compared with aluminum interconnects. Ex. 1021, 829-1, 829-2; see Pet. 18; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 92, 93. As Petitioner correctly points out (Pet. 53–54), Tanaka (1999) cites Igarashi as an example of a copper interconnect system that is degraded by parasitic capacitance due to the high permittivity (dielectric constant) of silicon nitride etch stop films. Ex. 1017, 47-1 n.1. Tanaka (1999) discloses a low dielectric constant silicon nitride etch stop film as a solution to the problem of parasitic capacitance in copper damascene interconnect structures, such as Igarashi’s. Id. at 47-1, 47-2 (“New low-k SiN film, with a permittivity of 5.4 . . . should be the solution to realize Cu damascene interconnects . . . .”). Consistent with these express disclosures, Dr. Neikirk persuasively testifies that “Igarashi identifies a need for a low-k dielectric etch stop layer” and “Tanaka (1999) meets this need.” Ex. 1011 ¶ 94; see Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1011, § VIII.C., which contains paragraph 94 of Dr. Neikirk’s testimony). Accordingly, we find Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that a POSA would have been motivated to use the low dielectric constant silicon nitride etch stop film of Tanaka (1999) as the etch stop layer in the interconnect system of Igarashi. Patent Owner disputes whether Petitioner has established a reasonable expectation of success for the combination of Tanaka (1999)’s low dielectric constant silicon nitride etch stop film and Igarashi’s interconnect structure. PO Resp. 65. Although the Petition does not expressly discuss whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Tanaka and Igarashi to arrive at the claimed invention, Petitioner shows a very close relationship between the teachings of Tanaka (1999) and Igarashi. Pet. 12–13, 17–18, 53–62. As discussed above and argued by Petitioner, Tanaka (1999): (1) cites Igarashi as an example of a copper interconnect system that suffers from parasitic capacitance due to the high dielectric constant of silicon nitride etch stop films, and (2) discloses a low dielectric constant silicon nitride etch stop film as a solution to the parasitic capacitance problem exemplified by Igarashi. Pet. 13, 18, 53–54; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 74–79, 88–94; Ex. 1017, 47-1 & n.1; Ex. 1021, 829-1, 829-2. Petitioner establishes a reasonable expectation of success for the combination of Tanaka (1999) and Igarashi by demonstrating a strong correlation between the problem discussed by Igarashi—the high dielectric constant of silicon nitride films when used as etch stops for copper interconnects—and the solution disclosed by Tanaka (1999)—a low dielectric constant silicon nitride film for use as an etch stop layer in copper damascene interconnect structures. In re Inland Steel Co., 265 F.3d 1354, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he strength of the correlation between the references gives rise to a reasonable expectation of success from combining them.”).” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 6,388,330 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,388,330
• Fujifilm Corporation v. Sony CorporationSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 7, 2018 · IPR2017-01268 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 15 and 17 are unpatentable as anticipated by Ishikawa; the petitioner did not show claims 1–11, 16, and 18–20 unpatentable over Aonuma or Aonuma and Abe.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “(“POSITA”) at the time of the ’774 patent would have had “a bachelor’s degree in materials science, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, chemistry, or a closely related field, and at least five years of experience” in industry or academic research relating to magnetic tape, or “a master’s degree or higher” in the same fields and at least three years of experience relating to magnetic tape. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 65; Ex. 1018 ¶ 60). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assessment in its Response, and Dr. Talke agrees that it “is reasonable.” Ex. 2026 ¶¶ 25–26. Petitioner’s assessment appears consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art in this proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163–64 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8

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

    “the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). For the purposes of the Decision on Institution, we determined that, based on the record at that time, no claim term required express construction (Dec. on Inst. 7), and we see no reason to modify that determination in light of the record developed during trial. C.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedMixed

    “considerably greater than Ishikawa’s stylus load of 50–300 μN (Ex. 1015 ¶ 45). The Talke Declaration does not address this discrepancy, and Dr. Talke stated during his deposition that reducing the stylus load would reduce scratching of the magnetic tape surface. Ex. 1030, 108:14–19 (“Q: Would reducing the contact pressure for the stylus instrument reduce the scratching of the magnetic tape surface by the stylus? A: Yes, it would, but you have to remember the other problem is the diameter and size of the stylus.”). Moreover, Petitioner provides evidence that it was not uncommon to use stylus-type profilometers to measure the properties of magnetic tape, even after Bhushan was published in 1996. See Reply 6. In particular, Petitioner points to Saliba,6 which describes using a stylus-type profilometer, under identical conditions to those used in Ishikawa, to measure the surface characteristics (including peak-to-valley roughness) of the backcoating of magnetic tape. Ex. 1027, 7:28–40, 57–60. Petitioner further points to Ohno,7 which also describes using “a stylus type 3D profilometer in accordance with JIS B0601” to measure the surface roughness characteristics of magnetic tape. Ex. 1028 ¶ 36; see also Ex. 1015 ¶ 45 (Ishikawa explaining that surface roughness characteristics were measured “in accordance with JIS-B0601-1994”); Ex. 1027, 7:28–39 (Saliba explaining that surface roughness characteristics where measured “in accordance with JIS-B0601-1994”). Accordingly, we are persuaded that the 6 US Patent No. 6,558,774 B1, issued May 6, 2003 (Ex. 1027). 7 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US 2005/0175866 A1, published Aug. 11, 2005 (Ex. 1028). evidence establishes that a stylus-type profilometer is a suitable device for measuring the surface characteristics of magnetic tape.” slip op. at 19

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “We agree with Petitioner that Ishikawa teaches “peak-to-valley roughness less than about 325 nm” as recited in claim 15. Pet. 24–25; Reply 5–8; Ex. 1003 ¶ 216. In particular, Ishikawa teaches a backcoating layer of a magnetic tape that has a peak-to-valley roughness “Rz of 40 to 250 nm, particularly 50 to 200 nm.” Ex. 1015 ¶ 44. Ishikawa provides five example embodiments of its magnetic tape, and reports the measurements of a number of characteristics of the backcoat layer for each example, including peak-to-valley roughness Rz. Id. ¶¶ 120–134, Table 1. Ishikawa discloses that peak-to-valley roughness Rz was measured using a stylus-type profilometer under the following conditions: Stylus: diameter: 1.5 to 2.5 μm; curvature: 60º Contact pressure: 50 to 300 μN Cut-off length: 80 μm Sampling length: 80 μm Assessment length: 400 μm Id. ¶¶ 45, 49. The reported peak-to-valley roughness Rz values for the five examples ranged from 58 to 87 nm, as shown in the annotated portion of Ishikawa Table 1 from the Petition, reproduced below: Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1015, Table 1). The annotated portion of Ishikawa Table 1 shows the results for the measured characteristics of the backcoat layer of Examples 1–5, with the peak-to-valley roughness Rz values highlighted by a red box. Id. Because Ishikawa teaches that the backcoating layer of its magnetic tape should have a peak-to-valley roughness “Rz of 40 to 250 nm, particularly 50 to 200 nm,” and because Ishikawa presents examples of magnetic tape with backside surfaces having a peak-to-valley roughness of 87 nm or less, Ishikawa discloses “a peak-to-valley roughness less than about 325 nm” as recited in claim 15.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 7,029,774 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,029,774
• Dexcom, Inc. v. Waveform Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 12, 2018 · IPR2017-01051 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4–12, and 15–19 were held unpatentable as obvious over Hagiwara; claims 2, 3, 13, and 14 were not shown unpatentable. The motion to amend was granted in part.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part

    “j. Conclusion Regarding Obviousness Based on Hagiwara (Proposed Substitute Claims) We conclude that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claims 20, 22, 23, and 26–29 are unpatentable as obvious in view of Hagiwara. We conclude that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claims 21, 24 and 25 are unpatentable as obvious in view of Hagiwara. 2. Remaining Grounds of Unpatentability Asserted by Petitioner (Proposed Substitute Claims) In view of our determination that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claims 20, 22, 23, and 26–29 are unpatentable as obvious in view of Hagiwara, we do not reach Petitioner’s remaining grounds of unpatentability as to these claims. Regarding proposed substitute claims 24 and 25, Petitioner’s contentions regarding the Handbook, Wilson, and Say do not remedy the deficiencies in Petitioner’s contentions regarding Hagiwara, as discussed above. Accordingly, we conclude that a preponderance of the evidence does not show that proposed substitute claims 24 and 25 are unpatentable as obvious based on Hagiwara in view of the Handbook, Wilson, or Say. H.” slip op. at 71

  • ExcludeOther

    “As discussed above, we do not reach the Wilson-Based Grounds with respect to claims 1, 4–12, and 15–19 of the ’574 patent. As for claims 2, 3, 13, and 14, we determine that Petitioner has not shown unpatentability based on the Wilson-Based Grounds, even if Exhibit 1037 and the corresponding portions of Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 37) are not excluded, because Petitioner does not offer Exhibit 1037 to cure the deficiency we noted in Wilson. See Section II.F, supra. For this reason, we dismiss as moot Patent Owner’s motion.” slip op. at 72

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “sensor would not have been a motivation to combine Hagiwara’s embodiments” because Hagiwara’s catheter prevents damage to the sensor during insertion and because a sensor with a side sensor window creates a greater risk of damage and vascular injury and reduces exposure to blood, as compared with a sensor with an end sensor window. PO Resp. 20–25. We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments, but, for the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded that Petitioner has established a motivation to combine, notwithstanding the conflicting expert testimony regarding the disadvantages of a side sensor window versus an end sensor window. Neither of the expert opinions on this topic is supported by objective facts or data. Ex. 1006 ¶ 155;13 Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 54–57, 87–95; Ex. 2009, 92:8–97:12. For this reason, we give little or no weight to either side’s expert testimony 13 Dr. Vachon cites “WO 01/13102, Vadgama” (Ex. 1006 ¶ 155), however, this reference was not submitted as an exhibit in this proceeding. on this topic. 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.”); Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (nothing in the Federal Rules of Evidence or Federal Circuit jurisprudence requires the fact finder to credit unsupported assertions of an expert witness). As discussed above, however, there is no disagreement that a side sensor window was a known alternative to an end sensor window. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 73, 155; Tr. 43:22–44:3. That undisputed fact, together with Petitioner’s other evidence, is sufficient to establish a motivation to combine.” slip op. at 42

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art For purposes of our Institution Decision, we accepted the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) provided by Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Vachon. Dec. 11 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 28). That definition is: a person having a bachelor’s degree or the equivalent training or experience in mechanical engineering, bioengineering, or related field and at least three years of experience relating to biosensor research and development, or a master’s degree or the equivalent training or experience in mechanical engineering, bioengineering, or related field, and at least one year of experience relating to biosensor research and development. Id. Patent (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/guidance_on_motions_ to_amend_11_2017.pdf); Bosch Automotive Service Solutions, LLC v. Matal, 878 F.3d 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Bosch Automotive Service Solutions, LLC v. Iancu, Order on Petition for Panel Rehearing, No. 2015-1928 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 15, 2018). Owner’s declarant accepts and applies this definition of a POSITA for purposes of his opinions. Ex. 2008 ¶ 30. Neither party’s declarant indicates that any proffered opinion would change depending on the level of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, consistent with our Institution Decision, we adopt Dr. Vachon’s definition of a POSITA. Ex. 1006 ¶ 28. We also rely on the cited prior art references as reflecting the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 7,529,574 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,529,574
• Netflix, Inc. v. Affinity Labs Of Texas, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 28, 2018 · IPR2016-01701 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–5, 9, 11, 13–18, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over the instituted prior-art combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “1), “available media” (claim 9), or “a media” (claim 14). Ex. 1001, 18:31, 19:13, 20:4. In IPR2014-00407, which was directed to related U.S. Patent No. 8,359,007 (“the ’007 patent”), we construed “an available media” to mean “content accessible from a source of audio, video, and/or textual information,” but noted that the term is “not limited to a single file, song, or video, and may encompass, at a minimum, a collection of audio or video files.” Samsung Electronics Co. v. Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC, Case IPR2014-00407, slip. op. at 6 (PTAB July 21, 2014) (Paper 15, 6). This construction was supported by dependent claims 12 and 13 of the ’007 patent, which recite that “the available media” may be a “collection of audio files” (claim 12) or a “collection of video files” (claim 13). Id. Patent Owner did not subsequently contest this construction in IPR2014-00407. See Samsung Electronics Co. v. Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC, Case IPR2014- 00407, slip. op. at 6 (PTAB July 20, 2015) (Paper 48) (Final Written Decision); Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., 669 F. App’x 576 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Rule 36 affirmance). Because the ’007 patent and the ’802 patent each claim benefit to the same parent application through a line of continuing applications, we must interpret the same terms within these patents consistently. NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Because NTP’s patents all derive from the same parent application and share many common terms, we must interpret the claims consistently across all asserted patents.”). Moreover, neither party provides citations to intrinsic or extrinsic evidence in this proceeding to suggest a different construction of “an available media” should apply to the ’802 patent. Thus, upon review of the record as a whole, we construe “an available media,” as well as the related terms “available media” and “media,” to include “content accessible from a source of audio, video, and/or textual information,” and note that the terms are not limited to a single file, song, or video, and may encompass, at a minimum, a collection of audio or video files.” slip op. at 5

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

    “The claims of the ’802 patent do not define what a “segment” of an available media is, and the written description of the ’802 patent does not use the terms “segments,” “segment files,” or “independent segment files.” The Specification does note, however, that “an audio file may be formatted, segmented, compressed, modified, etc. for the purpose of providing or communicating the audio invention.” Ex. 1001, 3:26–29. This disclosure supports a construction of “segments,” “segment files,” and “independent segment files” that encompasses portions of an audio file. As noted above, however, the term “an available media” is not limited to an individual song or video file. And, when “an available media” includes a collection of audio or video files, the term segment—which is generally defined as “[e]ach of the parts into which something is or may be divided”—is broad enough to include individual songs, videos, or Internet radio stations within this collection.6 See, e.g., Ex. 3001. Thus, applying the 6 Although Patent Owner indicates that it disagrees with this construction, it does not direct our attention to any portion of the claims, written description, broadest reasonable construction standard, we construe the terms “segments,” “segment files,” and “independent segment files,” when used in conjunction with the terms “available media” or “a media,” to include both individual songs, videos, and/or Internet radio stations in a media collection, as well as individual parts of a single song, video, or Internet broadcast.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for petitioner

    “We are not persuaded by these arguments. First, the district court has determined that the claims of the ’802 patent are not in means-plus-function format, and neither party in this proceeding contends that the claims should be interpreted in this manner. Pet. Reply 11. Nor does Patent Owner contend that the prior art asserted in the Petition fails to disclose the claim limitations in question (“collection of instructions” and “delivery resource”). Thus, we do not agree that Petitioner’s failure to identify corresponding structure requires dismissal of the Petition. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)). Second, even if Dr. Mir could not identify the precise contours of several claim limitations before the district court, Petitioner and Dr. Mir correctly concluded that the Board, applying the broadest reasonable construction standard in this proceeding, would adopt constructions of the terms “segment(s)” and “an available media” that would, in combination, encompass parts of an individual song or video, as well as individual songs or videos within a broader media collection. Pet. 21, 41–43, 50. Petitioner and Dr. Mir also provide multiple citations to show where the disputed limitations are taught or suggested in the recited prior art. Patent Owner does not explain why Dr. Mir’s constructions, either express or implied, for the terms in question are incorrect, or why Dr. Mir’s citations to record evidence do not support his conclusions.7 Thus, we do not consider Dr. Mir’s prior testimony to be grounds for denying the Petition or ignoring his uncontested testimony. See Pet. Reply 12 (“Dr. Mir did not ‘guess’ as to the meanings of claim terms. Rather, he was aware of a spectrum of technologies invoked by each ambiguous claim term, and identified elements in the prior art he knew was within the broadest reasonable interpretation of those terms.”).” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “years of experience in the field of computer networking and/or multimedia networks, particularly as those systems relate to media streaming technology.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 41). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’802 patent. Because Petitioner’s uncontested definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable and consistent with the art of record, we adopt it for purposes of this proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the prior art of record may reflect the level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 9,094,802 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,094,802
• Alere Inc. v. Rembrandt Diagnostics, LPSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 9, 2018 · IPR2016-01502 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 2 is unpatentable as anticipated by MacKay; claims 3–5 were not shown unpatentable over MacKay and Cipkowski.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Mkt’g Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett–Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). For example, a preamble may be limiting when the disputed preamble phrase provides antecedent basis for a claim term in the body of a claim, the specification underscores that the additional structure recited in the preamble is important, or when the patentee clearly relied upon the preamble during prosecution to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Id. at 808–09. “Conversely, a preamble is not limiting ‘where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention,’” id. at 808, or where the patentee uses the preamble to give “a descriptive name to the set of limitations in the body of the claim,” IMS Tech., Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The phrase ‘control apparatus’ in the preamble merely gives a descriptive name to the set of limitations in the body of the claim that completely set forth the invention.”). The term “device” is not recited in the body of any claim of the ’019 patent,4 the body of claim 1 recites a structurally complete invention, and the preamble phrase “device for collecting and assaying a sample of biological fluid” specifies the intended use of the invention. Thus, we find the claims of the ’019 patent do not support construing “device” as a limitation. See Catalina Mkt’g, 289 F.3d at 808–09.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “device” set forth above requires a single, unitary structure rather than a collection of separate structures that could be used during the test. See id. at 18 (concluding without analysis that the dictionary definition requires a “single, unitary structure”). Indeed, despite the ubiquitous use of the term “device” in patents generally, we are directed to no case in which the term “device,” by itself, was found to require a single, unitary structure. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, Section 2106, I (identifying “devices” as one of the four categories of statutory subject matter); Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson, 712 F.3d 549, 565 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (O’Malley concurring in part) (confirming that, in general, the term “device” is generic). Thus, we are not persuaded that the ordinary meaning of the term “device” requires a “single, unitary structure.” See Ex. 1023 ¶ 66 (Dr. Bohannon testifying that the word device, like the words “apparatus” or “system,” is merely a generic term that does not have a specialized meaning in the art and does not require a single, unitary structure). slip op. at 12

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “We do not find this argument persuasive. As noted above, we do not construe claim 1 to contain a method step of adding fluid to the container. We construe the first wherein clause of claim 1(c), instead, to require a structure that is capable of allowing liquid to enter the container when the flow control channel is properly disposed therein and is capable of directing this liquid to the sample loading zone of the assay test strip without the liquid having to migrate through an intermediate structure, such as a wicking material. We are persuaded—and Patent Owner does not dispute—that the apparatus of MacKay, as disclosed in Figures 8A–C, has a structure that is capable of achieving both functions. See, e.g., Tr. 26:10–30:20. First, given the open nature of the container, it is evident that liquid may be added to the container when the flow control channel is disposed within the container, and Patent Owner does not assert otherwise. See, e.g., id. Second, even if the fluid present in Figures 8A–C is considered, there is no intermediate structure in the container of MacKay that would prevent additional assay sample fluid from entering the container and being immediately directed to the sample loading zone of the assay test strips.6 Based on the foregoing, we find that MacKay discloses every limitation of claims 1 and 2 of the ’019 patent. Accordingly, Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 2 is anticipated by MacKay.” slip op. at 21

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

    “discloses the subject matter of claims 3–5 of the ’019 patent. Pet. 26–30. Petitioner also asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to insert the test trip and flow control channel of MacKay in the holder of Cipkowski, in order to prevent “flooding of the test strip as taught in MacKay.” Id. at 29.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 6,548,019 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,548,019

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.