- SAP America, Inc. v. Lakshmi ArunachalamAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 21, 2017 · CBM2016-00081 · APJ Kevin F Turner · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 20 and 21 are unpatentable under § 101 and § 103; the motion to amend proposing claims 22–49 is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that “[b]ased on the technologies disclosed in the ’506 patent, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would have had the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree or higher in computer science or computer engineering, as well as at least 3–5 years of academic or industry experience in the relevant field.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 22). Although Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in its Patent Owner’s Response, Patent Owner does opine about the same in its Motion to Amend. Therein, Patent Owner argues that: a person of ordinary skill in the art in 1995 would have been a person who had a degree in computer science, or the equivalent of that degree, and some substantive experience with Web technologies then being developed and considered by persons then working on internet systems. [Ex. 2006, 23] It would have been very rare to find anyone to have had a computer degree and as much as three to five years of experience in the area of Web technology as of November 1995. (Id.) Mot. Amend 5–6. Based on the positions of Petitioner and Patent Owner, we find mostly agreement as to the level of skill of such ordinarily skilled artisans and we are persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had the equivalent of a degree in computer science or computer engineering, as well as some substantive experience 29 with Web technologies then being developed and considered by persons then working on Internet systems. This level of skill is considered and applied in the grounds below.” slip op. at 29
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionNo construction neededOther
“networked object,” and that we “willfully left out ‘Individual’ and only construed ‘Network Object.’” PO Resp. 36. Patent Owner is correct that we did not construe “individual networked object.” The reason is that it is not a term recited in the challenged claims, nor claim 14, from which the challenged claims depend. We construed “networked object,” i.e., without “individual,” because it is a term recited in the claims. Patent Owner also argues that the proper construction of “networked object” is “the information entries and attributes in a DOLSIB [distributed on-line service information base].” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 8:50–54). We do not agree. Although the specification of the ’506 Patent details that “[t]he networked object identity 11 identifies the information entries and attributes in the DOLSIB as individual networked objects,” that is not a definition of “network objects.” We continue to find that the broadest reasonable construction, in view of the specification, of “networked object” is “an object that operates within a network or transmitted over a network.” We are not persuaded that “individual networked object” need be construed because it is not a claim term, and we are not persuaded that every recitation of “networked object” must refer to an “individual networked object.” Patent Owner argues that we did not construe the claim term “attributes,” which should be understood as “characteristics of an object.” Id. at 36–37 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:45–58, 23:19–25). Petitioner counters that the passages cited by Patent Owner do not support the proffered definition, because those passages do not contain the word “attribute.” Pet. Reply 4. Although Patent Owner’s construction is not unreasonable, claim 14 already recites that the step of “associating an object identity with information entries and attributes,” so that “attributes” need not be referred to as “characteristics of an object,” since such an association is already directly recited in the claims. As such, we are not persuaded that the claim term “attributes” needs explicit construction. Similarly, Patent Owner argues that “information entries” should be construed as “values of the characteristics of an object.” PO Resp. 37 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:45–58, 23:19–25). Again, we find it unnecessary to tie “information entries” to an object, since the association is already provided 12 in claim 14. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the claim term “information entries” needs explicit construction. With respect to the claim term “virtual information store,” we construed that term as “an information store in which information entries and attributes are associated with a networked object identity,” as discussed above. Patent Owner argues that we have not given proper effect to the word “virtual,” arguing that the proper construction is “a transient information store that is temporarily created and which contains information entries and attributes associated with a networked object identity.” PO Resp. 39–41. Patent Owner cites to the specification of the ’506 Patent (Ex. 1001, 3:1–5, 8:47–54), and “[t]he IBM Computer Dictionary” (id.), but, as Petitioner points out, Patent Owner has not “submitted this dictionary as an exhibit or provided any further information to locate the dictionary.” Further, the sections of the ’506 Patent cited by Patent Owner are not explicit about the store being “transient” or “temporarily created;” this is an inference drawn by Patent Owner. See PO Resp. 40. The introduction of the terms “transient” and “temporarily” to the construction adds more ambiguity to the claim term because the specification of the ’506 Patent does not discuss how long any “virtual information store” would be stored or maintained. In addition, we are not persuaded that Patent Owner’s provision of affirmatively containing the information entries and attributes is necessary because having a store in which the information entries and attributes are associated with a networked object identity would have been understood by ordinarily skilled artisans as being a store containing those elements. 13 Therefore, we are not persuaded that the claim term “virtual information store” requires a different construction and we maintain the construction provided in the Institution Decision, which is reproduced above.” slip op. at 11
- BurdenUnpatentable
“not have been obvious to make any changes to Lawlor’s system,” and that “the whole purpose of Lawlor is to establish a system built upon an existing software and infrastructure that would require no changes.” PO Resp. 80–81 (emphasis in original). We do not agree. We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner misinterprets Lawlor’s teachings, “improperly concluding that Lawlor teaches away from any combination or modification.” Pet. Reply 24 (emphasis in original). Lawlor explains that “[b]ecause the central computer interacts with the user's bank as a standard POS or ATM network node, no significant software changes are required at the banks’ computers,” demonstrating that Lawlor makes use of a standard ATM network and existing external systems without significant modification. Ex. 1004, Abstr. As explained by Dr. Sirbu, incorporation of techniques described in CORBA into Lawlor’s system would not require modification to the external systems of Lawlor or additional processing at the central computer of Lawlor. Ex. 1002 ¶ 72. Lawlor system does not restrict or disparage modification, and Patent Owner has not pointed out any portion that purportedly restricts or disparages modification. Patent Owner also argues that Lawlor does not disclose “an OSI Layer 7 application layer switch as is the VAN Switch in FIG. 5B.” PO Resp. 79. As discussed above, however, challenged claims 20 and 21 do not recite a VAN switch, and the only consideration of such a switch comes from Patent Owner’s claims constructions that we do not adopt. As such, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a 45 preponderance of the evidence that claim 20 is unpatentable over the combination of Lawlor and CORBA, and that the subject matter of claim 21 is unpatentable over the combination of Lawlor, CORBA and Billings.” slip op. at 45
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“2. 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(2)(i) Rule 221(a)(2)(i) requires that the amendments in a motion to amend must respond to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial. Patent Owner’s new claims do not respond to any ground of unpatentability in the trial. Those grounds are based on 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 103 and directed at claims 20 and 21. Pet. 28–73. Both claims 20 and 21 depend on claim 14 and the grounds of unpatentability consider all of the elements of claim 14. Thus, for example, new claim 25, which recites “[t]he apparatus of claim 14, wherein the user device is a multi-media device,” does not purport to demonstrate that such a claim brings the subject matter into the scope of § 101, nor that such a multi-media device would not be obvious over Lawlor, CORBA, and Billings. See Mot. Amend 9–17. Patent Owner’s analysis addresses claims 22–49 as a group and does not address all of the elements of the new claims. Id. Patent Owner also fails to indicate if any of the new claims include any feature of the challenged claims. For at least these reasons, we find that Patent Owner has not complied with the substantive requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(2)(i). 3. 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(2)(ii) and 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(3) Rule 221(a)(2)(i) requires that the amendment may not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent. We also note that this rule is fully supported by 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(3), which details that “[a]n amendment under this subsection may not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent.” Patent Owner appears to take this rule as merely requiring that “the new claims do not enlarge the scope of any of the old claims.” Mot. Amend 3. 52 The “old claims,” however, are the only two claims existing in the ’506 Patent, namely claims 20 and 21. They are the “scope of the claims of the patent,” and the scope cannot refer to any claim that might have existed during the prosecution of the ’506 Patent. See Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., 345 F.3d 1318, 1329–30 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Therefore, we look to the scope of claims 20 and 21 to determine the scope of the claims of a patent. Proposed new claims in the Motion to Amend improperly enlarge the scope of claims 20 and 21. For example, new claim 27 recites “[t]he apparatus of claim 14, wherein the service is configurable specific to the context of a Web merchant.” This proposed claim is broader, in at least one aspect, than claims 20 and 21, which also depend from claim 14, because it contains none of the elements of claims 20 and 21, although it adds an additional element, i.e., “the service is configurable specific to the context of a Web merchant.” For at least these reasons, we find that Patent Owner has not complied with the substantive requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(2)(ii) or 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(3). 4. § 42.221(a)(3) and 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(1)(B) Section (a)(3) of Rule 221 discusses that a patent owner must propose a reasonable number of substitute claims, and goes on to discuss that “[t]he presumption is that only one substitute claim would be needed to replace each challenged claim, and it may be rebutted by a demonstration of need.” The claims subject to the instant proceeding are claims 20 and 21, such that the normal presumption would be for the inclusion of two substitute claims. 53 Patent Owner does not address why the proposed 28 claims are a reasonable number of substitutes for the 2 challenged claims, so Patent Owner cannot be said to have rebutted the one for one presumption by any demonstration of need. We also note that this rule is fully supported by 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(1)(B), which details that for the amendment of a patent, for each challenged claim, “a reasonable number of substitute claims” must be proposed. Petitioner points out that the meaning of “reasonable number of substitute claims” has been previously addressed by the Board, providing “in the absence of special circumstance, a challenged claim can be replaced by only one claim, and a motion to amend should, for each proposed substitute claim, specifically identify the challenged claim which it is intended to replace.” Opp. 1–2 (citing Idle Free at 5). Furthermore, as Petitioner addresses, Patent Owner has failed to identify which of the challenged claims are intended to be replaced by the new claims. Id. Patent Owner’s response appears to be that “PO does not propose a reasonable number of substitute claims, because it is not necessary.” PO Reply 2. This, however, is not responsive. For at least these reasons, we find that Patent Owner has not complied with the substantive requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(3) or the statutory requirements of § 326(d)(1)(B). 5. 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(b)(1) Rule 221(b)(1) requires that a motion to amend must show the changes clearly and set for the support in the original disclosure of the patent for claim that is added. In the case of new claims 22–49, Patent Owner does 54 not indicate any changes from the claims subject to the present proceeding. The claims are indicated as being new, so that no changes from the pending claims are discussed at all. See Claim App’x. In addition, Patent Owner argues that written description support for the new claims can be found in a chart provided in a reexamination of the patent. Mot. Amend 3 (citing inter partes Reexamination Control No. 95/001,129). We note that such incorporation by reference is not permitted under our rules. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). As well, as Petitioner points out, Patent Owner has not demonstrated that the claims provided in the chart are the same as the new claims. Opp. 4. Given this deficit, Patent Owner cannot successfully meet the regulatory requirements under 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a) or (b)(1) regarding written description support, based on the present record. Additionally, Patent Owner has failed to provide any mapping of the new claims to those old claims, and, as Petitioner points out, the Board determined during the cited inter partes reexamination that no written description support was provided for a number of limitations identical to those recited in the new claims. Id. (citing Ex. 1007, 32–36). For at least these reasons, we find that Patent Owner has not complied with the substantive requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(b)(1). 6. Conclusion As discussed above, Patent Owner has not demonstrated compliance with 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.221(a), 42.221(a)(2)(i), 42.221(a)(2)(i), 42.221(a)(3), or 42.221(b)(1) or 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(1)(B) and (3). As such, Patent Owner has failed to meet the substantive requirements for a motion to amend.” slip op. at 52
Patent outcomesUS 7,340,506 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Enfish · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,340,506 - Composite Materials Technology, Inc. v. Greatbatch, Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 4, 2017 · IPR2017-01441 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–18 were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Contrary to Petitioner’s arguments, the fact that two references relate to the same general subject matter is not, by itself, sufficient to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to modify one reference in view of the other; it demonstrates at most that the two references are in the same field of endeavor. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1577–78 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Nor is an alleged admission that Fife and Stephenson are prior art to the ’075 patent sufficient to explain why these two references would be combined in a manner necessary to arrive at the claimed invention. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 389, 418–19 (2007) (“[I]nventions in most, if not all, instances rely upon building blocks long since uncovered, and claimed discoveries almost of necessity will be combinations of what, in some sense, is already known.”). In support of the Petition, Mr. Frost generally reiterates Petitioner’s arguments, stating: “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings of Fife and Stephenson since both Fife and Stephenson relate to methods for producing tantalum electrolytic capacitors, and both Fife and Stephenson constitute admitted prior art mentioned specifically in the ’075 Patent.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 32. Mr. Frost does not explain, however, why either of these factors would have prompted one of ordinary skill in the art to use Stephenson’s higher formation voltages in Fife. Thus, this testimony is entitled to little, if any, weight. See ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (expert testimony regarding motivation to combine is insufficient if it is “generic and bears no relation to any specific combination of prior art elements” and “fails to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined elements from specific references in the way the claimed invention does”); see also Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (explaining that “[l]ack of factual support for expert opinion going to factual determinations” may “render the testimony of little probative value”). As Petitioner provides insufficient rationale to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the disclosures of Fife and Stephenson in a manner necessary to achieve the claimed invention, it has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over those references. And, because challenged claims 2–11 and 13–18 each depend from claim 1, and because the deficiencies in Petitioner’s arguments and evidence regarding claim 1 are not remedied by Petitioner’s arguments and evidence regarding claims 2–11 and 13–18, Petitioner has likewise not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that the subject matter of those claims would have been obvious over Fife and Stephenson.6” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“In support of the Petition, Mr. Frost generally reiterates Petitioner’s arguments, stating: “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings of Fife and Stephenson since both Fife and Stephenson relate to methods for producing tantalum electrolytic capacitors, and both Fife and Stephenson constitute admitted prior art mentioned specifically in the ’075 Patent.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 32. Mr. Frost does not explain, however, why either of these factors would have prompted one of ordinary skill in the art to use Stephenson’s higher formation voltages in Fife. Thus, this testimony is entitled to little, if any, weight. See ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (expert testimony regarding motivation to combine is insufficient if it is “generic and bears no relation to any specific combination of prior art elements” and “fails to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined elements from specific references in the way the claimed invention does”); see also Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (explaining that “[l]ack of factual support for expert opinion going to factual determinations” may “render the testimony of little probative value”).” slip op. at 8
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,312,075 - Hamamatsu Corporation v. President & Fellows Of Harvard CollegeAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 16, 2017 · IPR2016-01143 · APJ Jacqueline T Harlow · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4–6, and 11 are unpatentable as anticipated by Uematsu; claim 3 is unpatentable as obvious over Uematsu.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“’446 patent would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in material science, physics, or electrical engineering, and at least one year of work experience in semiconductor processing.” Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 15). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal, or otherwise address the level of skill in the art at the time of invention of the ’446 patent in its Response. See generally, PO Resp. In addition, in its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner applies the level of skill in the art set forth in the Petition. Prelim. Resp. 6; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 11–12. We agree with Petitioner that an artisan of ordinary skill at the time of invention of the ’446 patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in material science, physics, or electrical engineering, and at least one year of work experience in semiconductor processing, with the understanding that the level of skill is also reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In addition, we have reviewed the credentials of Dr. Souri (Ex. 1007), and we consider him to be qualified to provide his opinion on the level of skill and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“On the record before us, we conclude that the term “undulating topography” should be afforded its plain and ordinary meaning, which encompasses a wavy surface, and permits, but does not require, the non-uniformity or irregularity of the individual features, within that topography. As an initial matter, we observe that Patent Owner’s contention that “undulating topography” requires non-uniformity and/or irregularity of the claimed submicron-sized features, is improper, as it was impermissibly raised for the first time during oral hearing. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“No new evidence or arguments may be presented at the oral argument.”). Accordingly, we need not address this contention. Nevertheless, for the reasons set forth below, we determine that even had Patent Owner timely raised this argument, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “undulating topography” does not require that the claimed submicron-sized features be non-uniform or irregular.” slip op. at 10
- Prior constructionPrior construction not adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We also consider the district court’s construction of “undulating topography” as “arrangement of features of varying heights and widths” (Paper 23,2 22) in determining the broadest reasonable interpretation of that term.3 We observe, however, that we are “not generally bound by a prior” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. As explained above, we conclude that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “undulating topography” encompasses a wavy surface, and permits, but does not require, non-uniformity or irregularity of the claimed submicron-sized 32 features. Furthermore, for the reasons set forth above, we find that Uematsu’s disclosure of a transition layer including “pyramids 11 having a regular width and largeness” formed on a silicon substrate (Ex. 1005, [0019]) satisfies the “undulating topography” requirement of claim 1. In particular, we find that the depiction of Uematsu’s pyramids in Figure 8 establishes that Uematsu teaches a wavy surface. Id. at Fig. 8. We also find, in accord with Dr. Souri’s testimony, that Working Example 1 of Uematsu “describes an undulating topography composed of pyramids that are ‘formed on a silicon substrate 3 having a front surface with a (100) plane.’” Ex. 1007 ¶ 39 (quoting Ex. 1005, [0019]).” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 7,884,446 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,884,446 - PTAB · Oct 6, 2017 · IPR2017-01353 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–4, 6, 8, 11–13, 15, and 18 were unpatentable over either asserted obviousness combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” After considering the Petition and Preliminary Response we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“As discussed above, however, Petitioner has not established sufficiently that Satterthwaite discloses adding STMP or any other salt of a condensed phosphate directly to the disclosed mixture of water, gypsum, and mineral wool. This deficiency undermines Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to Hjelmeland to determine how much STMP to add to Satterthwaite’s composition. Rather, in view of our determination regarding the disclosure of Satterthwaite, the more appropriate inquiry is whether, in view of Hjelmeland, a person of ordinary water mixture of Satterthwaite in the first place. Petitioner, however, does not explain adequately why one of ordinary skill in the art, having already utilized STMP to crosslink the starch, would have then sought to add STMP or any other condensed phosphate to Satterthwaite’s mixture in view of Hjelmeland’s disclosure. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 904 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.”). As a result, Petitioner has failed to identify a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the disclosed elements in the art in the same fashion as recited in the claims of the ’904 patent. Id. (“[I]t can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.”).” slip op. at 19
§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,500,904 - PTAB · Oct 6, 2017 · IPR2017-01351 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, and 4–7 were unpatentable over either asserted obviousness combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“well as the testimony of Mr. Harlos and Dr. Bruce, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, and 4–7 are unpatentable over the recited prior art references. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review with respect to any of the asserted grounds. IV. ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that inter partes review is not instituted.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Because the reaction of STMP and potato starch in Graux occurs before the starch is added to the gypsum and water mixture, and because the reaction converts the starch and STMP into di-starch orthophosphate and tetrasodium pyrophosphate, i.e., STMP is consumed during Graux’s reaction process, we are not persuaded that Graux expressly teaches or suggests a set gypsum that is “formed from”12 calcined gypsum, water, and sodium trimetaphosphate, as required by claim 1.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Furthermore, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Hjelmeland to determine the amount of STMP to use in Graux. Pet. 21 (asserting that an ordinary artisan would have found it obvious to use the amount of condensed phosphate specified by Hjelmeland in the plaster composition of Graux). Although, as noted by Petitioner, Graux and Hjelmeland both disclose the use of a condensed phosphate, the references use this material in different ways. In particular, Graux uses the condensed phosphate (STMP) to crosslink a potato starch, whereas Hjelmeland discloses adding the condensed phosphate to a gypsum suspension to act as a retarding agent. Ex. 1006, 5:39–50; Ex. 1008, 3:60–4:16. Petitioner does not explain why the concentration of STMP used to retard the setting of a gypsum suspension is in any way related to the amount of STMP required to effectively crosslink a starch. Nor does Petitioner explain adequately why one of ordinary skill in the art, having already utilized STMP to crosslink its starch, would have then sought to add STMP to Graux’s mixture in view of Hjelmeland’s genus disclosure. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.”). Thus, Petitioner has failed to sufficiently identify a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the disclosed elements in the same fashion as recited in the claims of the ’980 patent. Id. (“[I]t can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.”). Based on the foregoing, Petitioner has not demonstrated that Graux, ASTM C473-95, Hjelmeland, Sucech, and Summerfield teach or suggest every limitation of independent claim 1. As dependent claims 2 and 4–7 depend directly from claim 1, we are likewise not persuaded that the combination of Graux, ASTM C473-95, Hjelmeland, Sucech, and Summerfield teaches or suggests the subject matter of these claims.” slip op. at 13
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 7,758,980 - PTAB · Oct 6, 2017 · IPR2017-01350 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood that challenged claims 1–7, 10–15, 18, 22, 26, 29, 32–34, and 40 were unpatentable over either asserted obviousness combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” After considering the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“After reviewing the parties’ positions, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently that the prior art references teach or suggest including an enhancing material in the mixture of Graux in an amount such that, when the mixture is cast in the form of a ½ inch gypsum board, the board has a sag resistance of less than about 0.1 inch per two feet in length, as determined according to ASTM C473-95. Petitioner has not directed us to any sag resistance values for gypsum boards made using the ingredients disclosed in Graux and measured according to ASTM C473- 95,13 or evidence sufficient to establish that the claimed sag resistance value is an inherent property of a gypsum-containing product formed from the mixture disclosed in Graux. See Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Top–U.S.A. Corp., 295 F.3d 1292, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“Inherent anticipation requires that the missing descriptive material is ‘necessarily present,’ not merely probably or possibly present, in the prior art.”) (quoting In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). With regard to Petitioner’s argument that the ’284 patent discloses prior art gypsum boards having a sag resistance of less than 0.1 inch, we note that Petitioner has not directed us to any evidence demonstrating that these products contain the enhancing materials recited in independent claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 34, or 40. Further, we agree with Patent Owner that the mere fact that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of the test methods set forth in ASTM C473-95 does not establish that boards tested according to 13 Even if we were to agree with Petitioner that Graux discloses a mixture of calcined gypsum, water, and a claimed enhancing material––which, for the reasons discussed above, we do not––Petitioner’s argument still suffers from this deficiency. those test methods would have a particular sag resistance value, or that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to produce a board having a particular sag resistance value. Under the heading “Significance and Use” in the section discussing Humidified Deflection (i.e., sag resistance), ASTM C473-95 states only that “[t]his test method covers a procedure for evaluating the deflection of gypsum board.” Ex. 1009, 8 (Section 49.1) (emphasis added). We are not persuaded that such a disclosure would have taught or suggested combining the components of Graux to achieve a gypsum board having a sag resistance of less than about 0.1 inch per two foot length of said board. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner has not demonstrated that Graux discloses every limitation of independent claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 34, or 40, or that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to modify Graux in view of ASTM C473-95, or any of the other recited prior art references, to arrive at the subject matter of the challenged claims. And, as each of the challenged dependent claims depends, directly or indirectly, from one of independent claims 1, 5, and 10, we are also not persuaded that these claims would have been obvious over Graux, ASTM C473-95, Hjelmeland, Sucech, Baig, and Summerland.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner also does not explain adequately why one of ordinary skill in the art, having already utilized STMP to crosslink the starch, would have then sought to add STMP to Satterthwaite’s mixture. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.”). Thus, Petitioner has failed to sufficiently identify a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the disclosed elements in the art in the same fashion as recited in the claims of the ’284 patent. Id. (“[I]t can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.”).” slip op. at 18
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 6,342,284 - PTAB · Oct 6, 2017 · IPR2017-01352 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–4, 6, 8, and 10 were unpatentable over either asserted obviousness combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” After considering the Petition and Preliminary Response we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDenied
“comprising calcined gypsum, water, an accelerator, and one or more enhancing materials selected from a group that includes STMP. Ex. 1038, 32:2–9. Petitioner does not direct us to any embodiment or teaching in Graux in which STMP is added directly to a mixture of gypsum, water, and an accelerator. Instead, Petitioner relies on the addition of a cross-linked starch in Graux as satisfying the requirement that the claimed matrix of set gypsum is prepared from a mixture comprising sodium trimetaphosphate. Pet. 33. On this record, we are not persuaded that this disclosure is sufficient to show that STMP is present in the mixture of gypsum, water, and an accelerator in Graux.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“As discussed above, however, Petitioner has not established sufficiently that Satterthwaite discloses adding STMP or any other salt of a condensed phosphate directly to the disclosed mixture of water, gypsum, and mineral wool. This deficiency undermines Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to Hjelmeland to determine how much STMP to add to Satterthwaite’s composition. Rather, in view of our determination regarding the disclosure of Satterthwaite, the more appropriate inquiry is whether, in view of Hjelmeland, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to add STMP to the starch-gypsum-water mixture of Satterthwaite in the first place. Petitioner, however, does not explain adequately why one of ordinary skill in the art, having already utilized STMP to crosslink the starch, would have then sought to add STMP or any other condensed phosphate to Satterthwaite’s mixture in view of Hjelmeland’s disclosure. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.”). As a result, Petitioner has failed to identify a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the disclosed elements in the art in the same fashion as recited in the claims of the ’914 patent. Id. (“[I]t can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.”).” slip op. at 20
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 8,142,914 - Sonos, Inc. v. D&M Holdings Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 5, 2017 · IPR2017-01044 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–4, 10, 11, 13–20, and 25–27 were unpatentable over Deslippe.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to the challenged claims. Therefore, we do not institute an inter partes review as to the challenged claims of the ’294 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“interpretation of “providing, for each group, a system control interface” as meaning that one system control interface can control multiple groups of multimedia devices. Pet. 6–7. Similarly, Petitioner’s challenge requires interpretation of claim 1’s language of “defining at least two groups” and “each group has a group leader” as meaning one group leader may control multiple groups. Patent Owner interprets this language to require a separate system control interface and group leader for each of multiple groups. Prelim. Resp. 28. We agree with Patent Owner and interpret the claim language as requiring the groups to have distinct system control interfaces and group leaders. In this regard, we can find no mention in the ’294 patent of a device serving as system control interface and group leader for multiple groups. Also, under similar facts in Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298−99 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the Federal Circuit construed claims reciting a “gateway,” “caching computer,” and “at least two other computers” to be four separate elements, finding the Board’s construction permitting the “two other computers” to include the “caching computer” unreasonably broad in light of the language of the claims and specification. Similarly, in the case of In re Smith International, Inc., No. 2016-” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)
“Claim 1 recites a “relative group leader” which, for reasons explained in Section II.A, supra, we interpret as a master multimedia device which is a member of a group, which controls slave multimedia devices within the group. Petitioner contends Deslippe’s master device 110 is a “relative group leader” as claimed. Pet. 22. However, as Patent Owner observes, “[t]he master console device 110 is not disclosed in Deslippe as capable of playing media and thus is not a multimedia device.” Prelim. Resp. 25. We agree with Patent Owner’s assertion. In this regard, the ’294 patent states “[t]he master device 110 can include, for example, a stand-alone control console or a control program using communication abilities of a computer (e.g., desktop, laptop, or handheld computer).” Ex. 1001, ¶ 42. Deslippe also states “[t]he slave devices 112A–112D can include any of a variety of devices including a speaker, an electronic device with an audio playback and/or recording capability, or a device collecting and/or displaying information about an audio stream.” Id. Thus, because Deslippe’s master device 110 is not a multimedia device (whereas its slave devices 112 are), Deslippe does not disclose the claimed “relative group leader,” and thus does not anticipate claim 1.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not found
“control interface is provided in accordance with an open networking protocol.” Ex. 1001, 21:31–33. Claim 11 thus incorporates the limitations of claim 1. 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 4. As noted, Deslippe differs from claim 1 in that its master device 110 has not been shown to be a “relative group leader” that is a multimedia device, such as a speaker, that is one of a group of multimedia devices responsive to a system control signal to implement an operational change, such as a volume adjustment. Petitioner’s contentions with respect to claim 11 do not address this difference or explain why it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 50–51. Accordingly, we are not persuaded Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing obviousness of claim 11 in view of Deslippe. Claim 15 is similar to claim 11 but depends from claim 13 and thus incorporates all of its limitations. 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 4. Petitioner has not shown that Deslippe’s master device 110 is one of a group of multimedia devices that is responsive to the system control signal it generates to implement an operational change, such as a volume adjustment. Petitioner has not explained why this difference between claim 15 and Deslippe would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill. Accordingly, we are not persuaded Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood to prevail in showing claim 15 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,987,294 - PTAB · Oct 3, 2017 · IPR2017-01088 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claim 2 was unpatentable under any of the three § 103 grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” After considering the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer foundTerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“materials,” for purposes of this Decision we need only resolve whether the proper construction of the term “enhancing materials” is broad enough to encompass boric acid. Example 2 of the ’236 patent states that samples were prepared by mixing beta calcium sulfate hemihydrate, an accelerator, and water with either “0 g additive (control samples), 3 g of STMP (inventive samples), or 3 g of other additives (comparative samples).” Ex. 1030, 13:41–46. According to Table 2 of the ’236 patent, boric acid is one of the “other additives” used in making the “comparative samples.” Id. at 14:22. The ’236 patent explains that “[t]he additives employed in the comparative samples (outside the scope of the invention) are representative of other materials that have been employed to attempt to improve resistance of gypsum board to sagging under conditions of high humidity.” Id. at 14:8–13 (emphasis added). As Patent Owner points out, the ’236 patent further characterizes the board made using boric acid as one of the “noninventive comparative boards.” Id. at 14:28–32. We find this discussion of comparative examples as being outside the scope of the invention constitutes a clear indication that the “patentee disavow[ed] the full scope of a claim term . . . in the specification.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365. As a result, these comparative examples, including a composition comprising gypsum, water, an accelerator, and boric acid, are “outside the reach of the claims of the patent.” SciMed, 242 F.3d at 1341; see also Prelim. Resp. 32–34 (Patent Owner referring to boric acid as a “conventional additive[]”). Therefore, when viewed in the context of the specification, the correct construction of “enhancing material” cannot include boric acid.” slip op. at 8
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Thus, on this record, we are not persuaded that Graux discloses, expressly or inherently, the combination of calcined gypsum, water, an accelerator, and one or more of the enhancing materials recited in claim 2. Petitioner does not rely on Kerr to cure this deficiency. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner has not demonstrated that the combined teachings of Graux and Kerr disclose or suggest every limitation of independent claim 2. Therefore, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claim 2 is unpatentable over Graux and Kerr.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Thus, on this record, we are not persuaded that Graux discloses, expressly or inherently, the combination of calcined gypsum, water, an accelerator, and one or more of the enhancing materials recited in claim 2. Petitioner does not rely on Kerr to cure this deficiency. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner has not demonstrated that the combined teachings of Graux and Kerr disclose or suggest every limitation of independent claim 2. Therefore, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claim 2 is unpatentable over Graux and Kerr.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,425,236 - PTAB · Oct 3, 2017 · IPR2017-01086 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 5, 7–9, and 54–57 were unpatentable over either asserted obviousness combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard). Claims of a patent that will expire within 18 months from the Notice of Filing Date, however, are construed using “a district court-type claim construction approach,” provided a motion under 37 C.F.R. § 42.20 is filed within 30 days from the filing of the petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Patent Owner timely filed such a motion, and Petitioner does not dispute that the ’550 patent expired shortly after the Petition was filed. Paper 6, 2; Pet. 9. Thus, to the extent necessary, we will construe the claims of the ’550 patent using “a district court-type claim construction approach.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Petitioner provides proposed constructions for the terms “accelerator,” “set gypsum-containing product,” and “enhancing material(s).” Pet. 11–15. Patent Owner responds to Petitioner’s proposed constructions with its own proposed constructions of these terms. Prelim. Resp. 21–28. Upon review of Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s arguments and supporting evidence, however, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See 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.”).” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not found
“mineral wool. This deficiency undermines Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to Hjelmeland to determine how much STMP or condensed phosphate to add to Satterthwaite’s composition. Rather, in view of our determination regarding the disclosure of Satterthwaite, the more appropriate inquiry is whether, in view of Hjelmeland, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to add STMP or other condensed phosphate to the starch-gypsum-water mixture of Satterthwaite in the first place. Petitioner, however, does not explain adequately why one of ordinary skill in the art, having already utilized STMP to crosslink the starch, would have then sought to add STMP or any other condensed phosphate to Satterthwaite’s mixture in view of Hjelmeland’s disclosure. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.”). As a result, Petitioner has failed to identify a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the disclosed elements in the art in the same fashion as recited in the claims of the ’550 patent. Id. (“[I]t can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.”).” slip op. at 19
- Expert testimonyOther
“pyrophosphate. Id. Consistent with Mr. Harlos’ testimony, Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Bruce, testifies that the STMP of Graux is “consumed” during the crosslinking reaction.9 Ex. 2001 ¶ 110.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 6,632,550
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.