- Coastal Industries, Inc. v. Shower Enclosures America, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 19, 2018 · IPR2017-00573 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5, 7–9, 11–14, and 16–26 are unpatentable; claims 4, 6, 10, and 15 are not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 33 and 34 are granted.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“invention. Pet. 26. Patent Owner sets forth many assertions related to the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. PO Resp. 3–14, 20–30; PO Supp. Resp. 15–20. Petitioner responds to those assertions. Pet. Reply 2–4, 9–18; Pet. Supp. Reply 15–16. While we will address each of those assertions, as a substantive matter, Petitioner asserts that “PO does not dispute the definition of a PHOSITA, offer a contrary definition, explain how a different definition might affect the Board’s analysis, nor contest the Board’s specific interpretation of the prior art references to put the PHOSITA determination at issue.” Pet. Reply 16–18; Pet. Supp. Reply 15– 16. We agree with that assessment. Moreover, we note that the level of ordinary skill in the art is often reflected by 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). Accordingly, as an initial matter, we address Petitioner’s unopposed substantive assertion with respect to the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other
“1. “track members” Independent claims 1, 12, 19, and 22 each recite “track members.”” slip op. at 28
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“B. Patentability of Substitute Claims 33 and 34 Petitioner asserts that various claim limitations are disclosed in the” slip op. at 100
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“701, 702 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that Mr. Poenariu’s testimony is entirely based on his finding as to the level of ordinary skill in the art, and because Mr. Poenariu did not articulate a sufficient factual basis for his conclusion as to the level of ordinary skill in the art, his entire testimony us unreliable and should be excluded. PO Mot. 5–6. Petitioner responds that Mr. Poenariu discloses more than a sufficient amount of underlying facts on which to base his testimony, and, thus, Patent Owner’s assertions go to weight and not admissibility. Pet. Opp. 6–9. We agree with Petitioner.” slip op. at 105
Patent outcomesUS 7,174,944 mixedClaim constructioncites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 7,174,944 - Motorola Mobility LLC v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 16, 2018 · IPR2014-00504 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s request for rehearing of the SAS Order, leaving review instituted on all challenged claims and all grounds in the Petition.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). In particular, “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)New argument disregardedDenied
“overlooked express statutory requirements that the Board was obligated to assess before considering the Petition for re-institution.” Reh. Req. 10 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)). Specifically, Patent Owner argues “the Petition fails to meet the particularity requirement [of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)] at least with respect to the multiple grounds identified on pages 47–59 of the Petition” because of the “vague formulation” (i.e., Veeck in view of Kellerer, Boehm, and/or Mitchell). Id. at 12. Patent Owner, however, does not identify where this “matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply,” as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). We could not have misapprehended or overlooked something that was not presented previously. A Request for Rehearing is not an opportunity to raise new arguments against a petition. To the extent Patent Owner believes the grounds newly instituted in the SAS Order lack sufficient particularity under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3), it can make such arguments in its supplemental briefing.” slip op. at 10
- Director reviewOther
“The standard operating procedure exemplifies some of the reasons for which the Chief Judge may expand a panel. PTAB SOP 1, 15 (§ III.M). For example, the Chief Judge may expand a panel “where appropriate, to secure and maintain uniformity of the Board’s decisions, e.g., in related cases ordinarily involving different three judge panels.” Id. (§ III.M.1). In this case, the acting-Chief Judge has considered Patent Owner’s suggestion for an expanded panel, but has determined that an expanded panel is not warranted.” slip op. at 12
NonePatents in suitUS 7,382,771 - Google Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 16, 2018 · IPR2014-00787 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving in place the SAS Order instituting review on all challenged claims and all petition grounds.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). In particular, “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id.” slip op. at 3
- Other 314aDecided for petitioner
“Our governing statutes and regulations do not provide for parties to request, or panels to authorize, an expanded panel. See generally 35 U.S.C. § 6; 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.1–42.412. The Chief Judge may consider panel expansions upon a “suggestion” from a judge, panel, or party. PTAB SOP 1, 15; see also Apple Inc. v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., Case IPR2014- 00319, slip op. at 2 n.1 (PTAB Dec. 12, 2014) (Paper 20) (expanded panel) (per curiam). The standard operating procedure exemplifies some of the reasons for which the Chief Judge may expand a panel. PTAB SOP 1, 15 (§ III.M). For example, the Chief Judge may expand a panel “where appropriate, to secure and maintain uniformity of the Board’s decisions, e.g., in related cases ordinarily involving different three judge panels.” Id. (§ III.M.1). In this case, the acting-Chief Judge has considered Patent Owner’s suggestion for an expanded panel, but has determined that an expanded panel is not warranted.” slip op. at 11
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,121,960 - Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 6, 2018 · IPR2017-01149 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 5–10, 15, 17, 18, 29, 31, 32, 34–38, and 41–48 are unpatentable as obvious over Young ’801, Young ’121, Strubbe, and the respective additional reference in each trial.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“observations from that deposition or seek authorization to file a sur-reply. In view of these circumstances, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude.” slip op. at 126
Patent outcomesUS 6,418,556 unpatentableNonecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 6,418,556 - Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 6, 2018 · IPR2017-01150 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 5–10, 15, 17, 18, 29, 31, 32, 34–38, and 41–48 are unpatentable as obvious over Young ’801, Young ’121, Strubbe, and Moro, Reiter, or Remillard.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of claims 5–10, 15, 17, 18, 29, 31, 32, 34–38, and 41–48 would have been obvious over the combination of Young ’801, Young ’121, Strubbe, and either Moro (48Pet.), Reiter (49Pet.), or Remillard (50Pet.).” slip op. at 126
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“12. Motion to Exclude Patent Owner moves to exclude paragraphs 8, 24, 27–30, 32 and 38 of” slip op. at 123
Patent outcomesUS 6,418,556 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 6,418,556 - Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 6, 2018 · IPR2017-01148 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 5–10, 15, 17, 18, 29, 31, 32, 34–38, and 41–48 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations in each of the three trials.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“of the evidence, that the subject matter of claims 5–10, 15, 17, 18, 29, 31, 32, 34–38, and 41–48 would have been obvious over the combination of Young ’801, Young ’121, Strubbe, and either Moro (48Pet.), Reiter (49Pet.), or Remillard (50Pet.). IV. ORDER ORDERED that 5–10, 15, 17, 18, 29, 31, 32, 34–38, and 41–48 of U.S. Patent No. 6,418,556 B1 are unpatentable as a result of each trial as a separate matter, IPR2017-01148, IPR2017-01149, and IPR2017-01150;” slip op. at 126
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“observations from that deposition or seek authorization to file a sur-reply. In view of these circumstances, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude.” slip op. at 126
Patent outcomesUS 6,418,556 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 6,418,556 - Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 6, 2018 · IPR2017-01151 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 23 and 25–27 are unpatentable as obvious over Young ’801, Young ’121, Strubbe, and any one of Moro, Reiter, or Remillard.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“would not have interpreted Young ’801’s system as restricted to a single page limited to time slots ranging from 11:00 am to 12:30 pm as depicted in Figure 6 of Young ’801. See Ex. 1720 ¶ 24 (describing Dr. Bovik’s restricted view of Young ’801 as unreasonable). This restricted reading of Young ’801 unreasonably constrains the use of the guide to 1.5 hours, something the Petitions do not do, contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments that the Reply shifts to new theories. See Rep. Opp. Mot. Exc. 2–5. To elaborate and address Patent Owner’s arguments and Dr. Bovik’s testimony, Mr. Wechselberger responds with a citation documenting well-known cursor navigation aspects of the same concept involved in spreadsheets (Ex. 1722) and elaborates about minimal program guide layout or format changes that go hand-in-hand with the Petitions’ assertions of guide size reduction. See Ex. 1720 ¶ 24; Opp. Mot. Exc. 9–11 (discussing Ex. 1720 ¶¶ 36–37, 129– 131, 136–137, 158), 11 (noting Dr. Bovik stated in his deposition “a user would have been ‘confined to the visible screen’”) (citing Ex. 1721, 56:16– 23, 108:25–109:8, 116:17–117:2; Ex. 2706 ¶¶ 51–52). In summary, the Petition cites to portions of Young ’801 that describe the page mode and generally advance the theory of moving a cursor across, upward, and to the right to obtain consecutively displayed and successive portions of schedule information, citing portions that describe new pages and cursor jumps. Petitioner did not create a new theory about how the page guide operates but responded to Patent Owner’s arguments. Patent Owner chose not to avail itself of the opportunity to depose Dr. Wechselberger about his second declaration and thereafter file observations from that deposition or seek authorization to file a sur-reply. In view of these circumstances, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude.” slip op. at 92
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“materially similar description of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. 14–15 (citing Ex. 2706 ¶¶ 1–19). During the Oral Hearing, Patent Owner indicated any differences between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s descriptions do not create a dispositive issue. See Tr. 66:11–18. On this record, Petitioner’s description comports with the level of ordinary skill implied by the prior art references discussed further below. Accordingly, we adopt it.” slip op. at 38
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“8. Young ’801, Young ’121, Strubbe, and Moro Petitioner persuasively shows that claims 23 and 25–27 the” slip op. at 47
Patent outcomesUS 6,418,556 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,418,556 - Supercell OY v. Gree, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 26, 2018 · PGR2018-00039 · APJ Lynne H Browne · PGR · Rehearing
The Board denied GREE’s rehearing request, finding no abuse of discretion in instituting PGR of claims 1–8 based on the § 101 challenge.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“limitations. For example, as noted by Patent Owner, the full quotation is “[i]n a conventional battle game, however, during one battle, the user needs to select a command to determine the action of the player character many times . . . .” Ex. 1001, 1:41–43 (emphasis added). And by modeling that behavior in the future, the number of user operations are reduced. Accordingly, while we acknowledge that it is plausible, during trial, that Patent Owner will be able to show that such a disclosure is insufficient evidentiary support for “a second mode for executing the battle with fewer user operations received from the communication terminal than in the first mode,” we disagree that it has no factual bearing on the above limitation.” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“not rest solely on our determination that the claim elements or combinations of elements analyzed on pages 32–39 of the Petition were well-understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan in the field. Rather, our Decision was also based on the sufficiency of Petitioner’s arguments in totality with respect to the second step of Alice, for example, that for some limitations, “the claimed improvements identified by Patent Owner do not improve the technological field. Rather, they improve game play for the user.” Dec. 17. Further, as we explained, “the claims recite the use of conventional computer activity to determine the outcome of the procedure. Such claims ‘defining a desirable information-based result and not limited to inventive means of achieving the result, fail under § 101’” and that “claim 1 merely indicates that these steps are performed by a server without further details.” Dec. 12–13 (citing Elec. Power Group 830 F.3d 1351; Ex. 1001, 19:52–20:11. While that analysis does concern the first step of Alice, it, nevertheless, does have some bearing on the second step as well.” slip op. at 4
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptNot reached
“not rest solely on our determination that the claim elements or combinations of elements analyzed on pages 32–39 of the Petition were well-understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan in the field. Rather, our Decision was also based on the sufficiency of Petitioner’s arguments in totality with respect to the second step of Alice, for example, that for some limitations, “the claimed improvements identified by Patent Owner do not improve the technological field. Rather, they improve game play for the user.” Dec. 17. Further, as we explained, “the claims recite the use of conventional computer activity to determine the outcome of the procedure. Such claims ‘defining a desirable information-based result and not limited to inventive means of achieving the result, fail under § 101’” and that “claim 1 merely indicates that these steps are performed by a server without further details.” Dec. 12–13 (citing Elec. Power Group 830 F.3d 1351; Ex. 1001, 19:52–20:11. While that analysis does concern the first step of Alice, it, nevertheless, does have some bearing on the second step as well.” slip op. at 4
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“address Patent Owner’s countervailing evidence with respect to the above limitations, in particular, paragraphs 24 and 28–34 of Mr. Zyda’s Declaration. Req. 8–9. While we acknowledge that it was not expressly referenced in our Decision, it was taken into account and determined that, while it is worthy of some weight, Petitioner’s evidence and analysis presented a sufficient factual dispute for which trial is warranted. Given the Petition’s adequate analysis, at this stage of the proceeding, about the generic nature of the components recited in the ’308 patent and the lack of inventive means for achieving the results claimed (Pet. 32–39), we are unpersuaded that our Decision granting institution was an abuse of discretion.” slip op. at 5
§ 101 eligibilitycites BerkheimerPatents in suitUS 9,669,308 - Marker Volkl USA, Inc. v. Kneebinding, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 15, 2018 · IPR2017-01265 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 4–9 are unpatentable as anticipated by DE ’298 and obvious over Boussemart and DE ’298.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Id. at 14.3 Petitioner disagrees with Patent Owner’s assertions, arguing that the ’867 patent’s claim language and Specification establish that the two elements “are inextricably linked.” Pet. Reply 1–9. Although we are not in complete agreement with either parties’ construction, we, nevertheless, agree generally with Petitioner, for the reasons set forth below, that the “lateral release assembly” and “upper heel housing” recited by claim 1 should not be construed as being separate functional parts of the upper heel assembly that separate and isolate lateral and vertical release forces, respectively. We begin our analysis with the express claim language. Specifically, claim 1 recites in part “a lower heel assembly attached to the ski” and “an upper heel assembly coupled to the lower heel assembly and having a lateral release assembly for applying lateral securing pressure to the ski boot, the upper heel assembly comprising an upper heel housing that is configured to compress the heel portion of the ski boot downward.” Ex. 1001, 11:36– 12:2. Thus, from the claim itself, we know that (1) the “upper heel assembly” is coupled to the “lower heel assembly” and, thus, attached to the ski; (2) this associated upper/lower heel assembly has a “lateral release assembly”; (3) the lateral release assembly is for “applying lateral securing pressure to the ski boot”; and (4) the upper heel assembly “is configured to compress the heel portion of the ski boot downward.” However, none of this claim language requires that the “lateral release assembly” and “upper heel housing” must be treated as separate functional parts of the upper heel assembly that separate and isolate lateral and vertical release forces,” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Regarding the level of skill in the art, Petitioner asserts: a POSA in the February 18, 2003 timeframe would be an individual with a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or related technology and three to five years of experience in either the design, fabrication, or manufacture of ski bindings and related equipment, research concerning ski bindings and related equipment, or the development of standards concerning ski bindings or related equipment, in addition to ten years or more of personal experience using ski bindings. Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 32). In response, “Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art (‘POSITA’) for purposes of the ’867 patent.” PO Resp. 3 (citing Pet. 14–15). Having considered the evidence, we find that Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill is correct. We also note that the cited references often reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention, and that the references cited here appear to reflect the level agreed to by the parties. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [can] reflect the appropriate level of skill in the art”).” slip op. at 11
- BurdenUnpatentable
“Patent Owner responds that DE ’298 does not disclose an “upper heel assembly” that compresses the heel portion of the ski boot downward. PO Resp. 25–30. Patent Owner argues that “the disclosure of DE ’298 makes clear that the hold-down member 13 and heel holder 25 only resist upward motion by the ski boot heel – they do not ‘compress the heel portion of the ski boot downward’ by providing downward force on the heel.” PO Resp. 26. To support its position, Patent Owner provides an annotated copy of the annotated copy of Figure 2, provided by Petitioner and designated “Fig. Q” in the Petition. See Pet. 41. More particularly, Patent Owner annotated Petitioner’s “Fig. Q,” to show “a gap (circled in purple) between the top edge of the ski boot sole (which Petitioner added; the original figure in DE ’298 does not show the boot) and the bottom edge of arms 26 of heel holder 25.” PO Resp. 27–30 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 62). Figure 2, annotated, depicts the DE ’298 releasing/retaining device of a releasing ski binding. And, because there is a “gap” between the ski boot, superimposed by Petitioner in Fig. Q (see, e.g., Pet. 41), and arms 26 of heel holder 25, Patent Owner argues that DE ’298 “cannot provide downward force as the arms 26 do not touch the ski boot heel.” PO Resp. 28 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 63).4 Therefore, although Patent Owner acknowledges that DE ’298 discloses that its hold-down member “hold[s] the shoe down ‘against upwardly pivoting’” (PO Resp. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1004, 4), Patent Owner argues that merely “[o]pposing upward motion does not compress the ski boot downward as required by the challenged claims.” 5 PO Resp. 28. 4 The cited portions of Dr. Dodge’s Declaration largely mirror the language set forth in the corresponding portion of the Patent Owner Response. 5 Patent Owner submits that “[t]he plain and ordinary meaning of the term ‘compress’ means ‘to squeeze or press together’, or ‘to make smaller as if by squeezing.’” PO Resp. 28 (citing Ex. 2003). Petitioner responds that Patent Owner’s reading of DE ’298 is strained, that other portions of the reference make clear that DE ’298 discloses an “upper heel assembly” that does in fact compress the heel downward, and that any purported “gap” in the drawing is a red herring that does not comport with basic physics. Pet. Reply 15–18.” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Patent Owner responds that DE ’298 does not disclose an “upper heel assembly” that compresses the heel portion of the ski boot downward. PO Resp. 25–30. Patent Owner argues that “the disclosure of DE ’298 makes clear that the hold-down member 13 and heel holder 25 only resist upward motion by the ski boot heel – they do not ‘compress the heel portion of the ski boot downward’ by providing downward force on the heel.” PO Resp. 26. To support its position, Patent Owner provides an annotated copy of the annotated copy of Figure 2, provided by Petitioner and designated “Fig. Q” in the Petition. See Pet. 41. More particularly, Patent Owner annotated Petitioner’s “Fig. Q,” to show “a gap (circled in purple) between the top edge of the ski boot sole (which Petitioner added; the original figure in DE ’298 does not show the boot) and the bottom edge of arms 26 of heel holder 25.” PO Resp. 27–30 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 62). Figure 2, annotated, depicts the DE ’298 releasing/retaining device of a releasing ski binding. And, because there is a “gap” between the ski boot, superimposed by Petitioner in Fig. Q (see, e.g., Pet. 41), and arms 26 of heel holder 25, Patent Owner argues that DE ’298 “cannot provide downward force as the arms 26 do not touch the ski boot heel.” PO Resp. 28 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 63).4 Therefore, although Patent Owner acknowledges that DE ’298 discloses that its hold-down member “hold[s] the shoe down ‘against upwardly pivoting’” (PO Resp. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1004, 4), Patent Owner argues that merely “[o]pposing upward motion does not compress the ski boot downward as required by the challenged claims.” 5 PO Resp. 28. 4 The cited portions of Dr. Dodge’s Declaration largely mirror the language set forth in the corresponding portion of the Patent Owner Response. 5 Patent Owner submits that “[t]he plain and ordinary meaning of the term ‘compress’ means ‘to squeeze or press together’, or ‘to make smaller as if by squeezing.’” PO Resp. 28 (citing Ex. 2003). Petitioner responds that Patent Owner’s reading of DE ’298 is strained, that other portions of the reference make clear that DE ’298 discloses an “upper heel assembly” that does in fact compress the heel downward, and that any purported “gap” in the drawing is a red herring that does not comport with basic physics. Pet. Reply 15–18.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 8,955,867 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,955,867 - Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 10, 2018 · PGR2017-00015 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · PGR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1–4 not unpatentable: the obviousness grounds failed to establish the claimed elastic fastener limitation, and claim 3 was not shown indefinite or lacking written-description support.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner and determine that a POSA would have been a person having a general knowledge about, and experience with, expandable containers, including, without limitation, balloons, and at least an associate’s degree in mechanical engineering, or the equivalent. This level of skill is consistent with the types of problems and solutions described in the ’612 patent and cited prior art. For example, the ’612 patent describes a fluid inflatable system that uses elastic valve 20A (e.g., mechanical gasket, O-ring, etc.) for sealing fluid inside multiple containers (e.g., water balloons). See Ex. 1001, 1:22–24, 3:10–16. In any event, none of the issues in this case turn on the definition of a POSA, and the prior art of record provides ample evidence of the level of skill in the art. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (finding that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not err in concluding that the level of ordinary skill was best determined by the references of record); see also Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”’) (internal citation omitted).” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther
“1. Terms Construed in the Institution Decision We construed the term “elastic fastener” in our Decision on Institution, which is set forth in the following table. Inst. Dec. 14. Claim Term Construction in Institution Decision elastic fastener “an elastic element for attaching things together” Neither party disputes the language of this construction. See generally Prelim Resp. 17; Reply. We adopt them for this Final Written Decision. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting Rodale Press, Inc. v. FTC, 407 F.2d 1252, 1256–57 (D.C. Cir. 1968)) (“‘an agency may not change theories in midstream without giving respondents reasonable notice of the change’ and ‘the opportunity to present argument under the new theory.’”)” slip op. at 14
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteNot shown unpatentable
“While the terms “unfilled state” and “filled state” describe the fullness for a container, we do not agree with Petitioner that the claim language requires determining the precise amount of fluid for each state. Section 112(b) requires that we read claim terms in the context of the surrounding claim language, not in isolation. Telebrands, 733 F. App’x at 1020. When we look at the entire claim phrase—“regardless whether the first and second ones of the plurality of containers are in a filled state or an unfilled state”— the plain language is clear that regardless of whether the balloons are in either state, the “at least first and second ones of the plurality of containers are disposed sufficiently close to each other such that they press against each other.” In other words, the exact volume of fluid or water needed to reach a “filled state” does not need to be determined in order to understand the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement. We are further persuaded because this is consistent with the district court’s construction of this term. See Ex. 1023, 19–20.” slip op. at 17
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable
“Based upon our review of the specification, and consideration of the arguments and evidence presented, Petitioner’s position is not persuasive. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to show that the ’612 patent does not provide such adequate guidance to a person of ordinary skill in the art. On its face, Figure 1 of the ’612 patent (reproduced below) shows containers 18 in contact or pressing against one another with the reasonable clarity required by Vas–Cath Inc. Figure 1 of the ’612 patent is reproduced above. Although the ’612 patent describes, as Petitioner notes, that tubes 16 can be different lengths, we are not persuaded that the ’612 patent’s disclosure of an embodiment with different tube lengths detracts from the concurrent disclosure in Figure 1 of an embodiment, where it is difficult to describe containers 18 as being not in contact with each other. Additionally, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to show adequately that a person of ordinary skill would not have understood the ’612 patent as describing the containers in Figure 1 as pressing against one another in an unfilled state. The ’612 patent indicates Figure 1 shows elastic valve 20A in an open configuration when container 18A is attached to tube 16A to allow container 18A to fill with fluid. Ex. 1001, 3:14–18. In this open configuration, container 18A is to be filled with fluid, after which, “it may be removed from tube 16A, whereupon elastic valve 20A closes, thereby closing the neck of container 18A and sealing the fluid inside.” Id. at 3:18–21 (emphasis omitted). The ’612 patent refers to Figure 1 to describe an embodiment where elastic valve 20A is in an open configuration to fill a container that has not been filled (i.e., unfilled) and removed from tube 16A. Thus, we are persuaded that, at least, Figure 1 and this accompanying description of Figure 1 in the ’612 patent provides sufficient written description for the recited limitation that “at least first and second ones of the plurality of containers are disposed sufficiently close to each other such that they press against each other . . . in a filled state or an unfilled state.”” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 9,527,612 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,527,612
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.