• Valeo North America, Inc. / Valeo S.A. et al. v. Magna Electronics Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 22, 2016 · IPR2015-01414 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–12, 14, 15, 17, 19–52, 54–67, 69–79, and 81–86 are unpatentable under § 103(a) over the 17 combinations listed in the order.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The fact that other parts of the claims recite locations of the image capture devices and the overlap zones does not mean that anything more should be read into the “without duplication of objects” clause, which appears clear on its face. Further, the claims do not say anything about parallax or require that the problem of parallax be solved for the synthesized image. Indeed, parallax is not the same as the duplication of objects. See Ex. 1066 ¶ 11 (“Duplication . . . is different from parallax. For example, when each of the cameras have a common center of projection, there will be little or no parallax, but given their overlapping fields of view, the cameras may nonetheless capture the same objects multiple times resulting in duplication.” (citation omitted)). Thus, we are not persuaded that reading in any language pertaining to parallax effects would be appropriate based on the language of the claims.” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Neither party explains in detail why their proposed level of ordinary skill in the art should be adopted. After reviewing the evidence, including the cited prior art, however, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s definition is substantially correct. The ’724 patent describes “rearview vision systems which provide the vehicle operator with scenic information in the direction rearward of the vehicle” using “image capture devices, such as CMOS [(complementary metal-oxide semiconductor)] imaging arrays and the like.” Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 22–27. “Camera-based rearview vision systems” had been proposed at the time, but had not “obtained commercial acceptance” and suffered from various problems according to the ’724 patent. Id. at col. 1, l. 60–col. 2, l. 55. The ’724 patent further acknowledges that various aspects of the disclosed systems, such as, for example, CMOS and charge-coupled device (CCD) imaging arrays, optical correction systems, various types of image filtering, backlit liquid-crystal displays (LCDs), and systems for measuring the distance of an object behind the vehicle, were known at the time. See, e.g., id. at col. 11, ll. 60–64, col. 12, ll. 33–37, col. 13, ll. 26–41, col. 17, ll. 48–62, col. 20, ll. 42–53, col. 22, ll. 3–19, 44–55. Drs. Wolberg and Wilhelm further testify as to the development and state of the art by the time of the ’724 patent, which we find helpful in assessing what background knowledge would have been available to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 27–39; Ex. 1022 ¶¶ 20–27. As a whole, the evidence indicates a higher level of ordinary skill than what Patent Owner proposes, and suggests, for example, that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had at least some understanding of ways in which images from multiple cameras could be combined. See, e.g., Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 28–38; Ex. 1003, 3, 6; Ex. 1005, 3–6. Accordingly, based on our review of the ’724 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’724 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of the parties’ declarants, we conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s or master’s degree in engineering, computer science, or physics (or equivalent work experience), with some familiarity with how cameras may be used in vehicles and a working understanding of combining image data from multiple cameras and microprocessor-driven controls for displays, actuators, and elementary decision making. We apply this level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 20

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s arguments are not persuasive for three reasons. First, as explained above, to establish an earlier constructive reduction to practice, Patent Owner must show that the ’527 application provides sufficient written description support for the challenged claims. Patent Owner states that “each limitation of [the set of claims listed above] is supported in the ’935 patent disclosure,” but includes no substantive arguments in its Response explaining why. See id. Rather, Patent Owner cites 46 paragraphs of Dr. Etienne-Cummings’s declaration and a “Constructive Reduction to Practice Chart” spanning 43 pages. Id. (citing Ex. 2001; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 54–99). Any arguments contained in these materials cannot be incorporated by reference into the Response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”).12 Consequently, we do not consider information presented in the declaration or claim chart but not discussed sufficiently in the Response. Second, even if Dr. Etienne-Cummings’s analysis and the claim chart are considered, they are not sufficient. The claim chart provides only block 12 See also Paper 8, 3 (“The patent owner is cautioned that any arguments for patentability not raised in the response will be deemed waived.”); Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., Case CBM2014-00013, 8 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2015) (Paper 37) (“Arguments that are not developed and presented in the Patent Owner Response, itself, are not entitled to consideration.”), reversed-in-part on other grounds, No. 2015-1703, -- F.3d --, 2016 WL 6958650 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 29, 2016); Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, Case IPR2014-00454, 7–10 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) (Paper 12) (informative) (noting that “[o]ne purpose of the prohibition against incorporation by reference is to eliminate abuses” of the page limits established for the parties’ substantive papers, and that citing “large portions of another document, without sufficient explanation of those portions, amounts to incorporation by reference”). quotes and figures from the ’935 patent,13 but does not explain in any detail why they provide support for the various limitations of the challenged claims. See Ex. 2001. Likewise, the majority of Dr. Etienne-Cummings’s declaration merely states that “the features of [the respective claim] are disclosed” at the block-quoted portions of the ’935 patent, without explanation. See, e.g., Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 56–61, 64, 65, 67–74, 76–99. Third, we agree with Petitioner that the ’935 patent does not provide sufficient written description support for the independent claims of the ’724 patent (claims 1, 49, 65, and 78), each of which recites that the “synthesized image is displayed by a single display screen of a reconfigurable display device that is viewable by a driver of the equipped vehicle when normally operating the equipped vehicle.” See Reply 13–15. As explained above, we interpret “reconfigurable display” to mean a display in which a portion of the display upon which the driver views the synthesized image is used as a high-information content display to selectively display various types of auxiliary information. See supra Section II.A.4. Patent Owner cites various excerpts from the ’935 patent describing display 20, but these portions do not call the display device “reconfigurable” or disclose that it is used to selectively display information. See, e.g., Ex. 2001, 5–6 (citing Ex. 2002, col. 3, l. 61–col. 4, l. 5, col. 5, ll. 48–50, col. 6, ll. 5–12, 22–39); Ex. 2004 ¶ 56. Indeed, the ’724 patent Specification 13 It is unclear why Patent Owner attempts to map the disclosure of the ’935 patent, rather than the ’527 application, to the challenged claims. The ’935 patent issued on September 23, 1997 (after Yamamoto published), from the ’527 application filed on May 22, 1995 (before Yamamoto published). Patent Owner does not provide a copy of the ’527 application in the record to show that the written description is the same as that of the issued ’935 patent.” slip op. at 26

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “many ways in which a reference may be disseminated to the interested public, ‘public accessibility’ has been called the touchstone in determining whether a reference constitutes a ‘printed publication’ bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). “A reference will be considered publicly accessible if it was ‘disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.’” Id. (citation omitted). We first summarize the evidence presented regarding Wang’s alleged public accessibility. Wang is a publication of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and has a copyright notation of “TH0367-3/91/0000/0100$01.00 © 1991 IEEE” on the first page. See Ex. 1009, 1. Petitioner contends that the document was published “on May 27–31, 1991,” citing the testimony of Dr. Wolberg. Pet. 7. Dr. Wolberg testifies that “[a]s a person who regularly reviews scholarly articles, including IEEE publications such as the Wang article, and as someone who regularly attends conferences such as the IEEE conference in which the Wang paper was presented,” he believes that Wang was published in May 1991. Ex. 1020 ¶ 84. Dr. Wolberg also discusses two publications (Exhibits 1040 and 1042) that cite Wang prior to the effective filing date of the ’724 patent (May 22, 1996), “which further indicates to [Dr. Wolberg] that Wang was publicly accessible.” Id.; see Ex. 1040, 12 (cited reference 16); Ex. 1042, 3 (cited reference 4). Finally, he cites the University of Edinburgh website, which “states that the authors of the Wang article began work on CMOS imaging sensors as early as 1986, and began publishing articles reporting the results of their work that led to the incorporation of a CMOS chip in a video camera in 1989.” Ex. 1020 ¶ 84 (citing Ex. 1044). Petitioner presents additional evidence with its Reply that allegedly confirms Wang’s public accessibility prior to May 22, 1996. Reply 11–12. First, Petitioner submits a declaration from Gerard P. Grenier, the Senior Director of Publishing Technologies for the IEEE.17 Ex. 1055. Mr. Grenier states that Wang “was published and presented as part of [the] Euro [A]SIC ’91 [conference] which occurred May 27–31, 1991.” Id. ¶ 9. According to Mr. Grenier, “[t]he Article was published by IEEE as part of the conference proceedings on the date of the conference. Copies of the conference proceedings were made available to attendees of the conference.” Id. ¶ 6. Mr. Grenier also testifies that “IEEE maintains records of the dates on which articles were first made available for public download,” “[t]hese records are maintained as part of the ordinary course of business of the IEEE [and] are updated regularly as articles are published,” and he has “personal knowledge of the records.” Id. ¶ 7. Second, Petitioner submits a copy of Wang, with a “EURO ASIC ’91” cover page and table of contents, “[s]helved” at the Linda Hall Library in Kansas City, Missouri in 1991. Ex. 1046. Third, Petitioner submits a certified copy of Wang from the Library of Congress, with the same cover page and table of contents and a date stamp of June 5, 1992. Ex. 1060. Fourth, Petitioner notes that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Board decision finding similar claims with a priority date of February 26, 1993, unpatentable based in part on Wang in 17 Petitioner submitted a substantially similar version of the declaration, dated approximately one month earlier, with its Petition, but did not discuss the declaration in the Petition. Compare Ex. 1039, with Ex. 1055. Our analysis applies equally to both versions of the declaration. In re Magna Elecs., Inc., 611 F. App’x 969, 973 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (unpublished) (Ex. 1045). Reply 11. Patent Owner disputes the sufficiency of Petitioner’s evidence of” slip op. at 43

  Patent outcomesUS 8,643,724 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,643,724
• Valeo North America, Inc. / Valeo S.A. et al. v. Magna Electronics Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 22, 2016 · IPR2015-01410 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–12, 14, 15, 17, 19–52, 54–67, 69–79, and 81–86 are unpatentable under § 103(a) over the combinations listed in the Order.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “On December 28, 2015, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 1, 3–12, 14, 15, 17, 19–52, 54–67, 69–79, and 81–86 on 17 grounds of unpatentability and consolidated Case IPR2015-01414 with Case IPR2015-01410 (Paper 7, “Dec. on Inst.”). Patent Owner Magna Electronics Inc. filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 14, “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 17, “Reply”). The parties did not request oral argument, and no hearing was held. See Paper 22.” slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s arguments are not persuasive for three reasons. First, as explained above, to establish an earlier constructive reduction to practice, Patent Owner must show that the ’527 application provides sufficient written description support for the challenged claims. Patent Owner states that “each limitation of [the set of claims listed above] is supported in the ’935 patent disclosure,” but includes no substantive arguments in its Response explaining why. See id. Rather, Patent Owner cites 46 paragraphs of Dr. Etienne-Cummings’s declaration and a “Constructive Reduction to Practice Chart” spanning 43 pages. Id. (citing Ex. 2001; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 54–99). Any arguments contained in these materials cannot be incorporated by reference into the Response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”).12 Consequently, we do not consider information presented in the declaration or claim chart but not discussed sufficiently in the Response. Second, even if Dr. Etienne-Cummings’s analysis and the claim chart are considered, they are not sufficient. The claim chart provides only block 12 See also Paper 8, 3 (“The patent owner is cautioned that any arguments for patentability not raised in the response will be deemed waived.”); Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., Case CBM2014-00013, 8 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2015) (Paper 37) (“Arguments that are not developed and presented in the Patent Owner Response, itself, are not entitled to consideration.”), reversed-in-part on other grounds, No. 2015-1703, -- F.3d --, 2016 WL 6958650 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 29, 2016); Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, Case IPR2014-00454, 7–10 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) (Paper 12) (informative) (noting that “[o]ne purpose of the prohibition against incorporation by reference is to eliminate abuses” of the page limits established for the parties’ substantive papers, and that citing “large portions of another document, without sufficient explanation of those portions, amounts to incorporation by reference”). quotes and figures from the ’935 patent,13 but does not explain in any detail why they provide support for the various limitations of the challenged claims. See Ex. 2001. Likewise, the majority of Dr. Etienne-Cummings’s declaration merely states that “the features of [the respective claim] are disclosed” at the block-quoted portions of the ’935 patent, without explanation. See, e.g., Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 56–61, 64, 65, 67–74, 76–99. Third, we agree with Petitioner that the ’935 patent does not provide sufficient written description support for the independent claims of the ’724 patent (claims 1, 49, 65, and 78), each of which recites that the “synthesized image is displayed by a single display screen of a reconfigurable display device that is viewable by a driver of the equipped vehicle when normally operating the equipped vehicle.” See Reply 13–15. As explained above, we interpret “reconfigurable display” to mean a display in which a portion of the display upon which the driver views the synthesized image is used as a high-information content display to selectively display various types of auxiliary information. See supra Section II.A.4. Patent Owner cites various excerpts from the ’935 patent describing display 20, but these portions do not call the display device “reconfigurable” or disclose that it is used to selectively display information. See, e.g., Ex. 2001, 5–6 (citing Ex. 2002, col. 3, l. 61–col. 4, l. 5, col. 5, ll. 48–50, col. 6, ll. 5–12, 22–39); Ex. 2004 ¶ 56. Indeed, the ’724 patent Specification 13 It is unclear why Patent Owner attempts to map the disclosure of the ’935 patent, rather than the ’527 application, to the challenged claims. The ’935 patent issued on September 23, 1997 (after Yamamoto published), from the ’527 application filed on May 22, 1995 (before Yamamoto published). Patent Owner does not provide a copy of the ’527 application in the record to show that the written description is the same as that of the issued ’935 patent.” slip op. at 26

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

    “parallax or require that the problem of parallax be solved for the synthesized image. See supra Sections II.A.2–3. Rather, we interpret “synthesized image is generated without duplication of objects” to mean the synthesized image is generated with minimal multiple exposure of objects appearing in the overlap zones, and interpret “synthesized image approximates a view as would be seen by a virtual camera at a single location exterior of the equipped vehicle” to mean the synthesized image is a nearly exact representation of what would be seen by a virtual camera at a single location exterior of the vehicle. Id. Thus, the claims allow for a “minimal” level of multiple exposure and only require a “nearly exact” representation of what the virtual camera would see. We are not persuaded that any parallax effects that might remain when the pattern recognition techniques of Mitsubishi are used in Yamamoto’s system, as Petitioner asserts, would cause more than “minimal” multiple exposure or prevent the resulting image from being a “nearly exact” representation. See Ex. 1020 ¶ 110; Ex. 1066 ¶ 25. Moreover, even if the resulting image in the combined system would suffer from some parallax effects, we do not see how that contradicts Petitioner’s asserted reason for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Yamamoto’s system, or why parallax concerns would have outweighed the advantage of improved image processing, such that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have abandoned the three camera arrangement of Yamamoto. See Reply 15–17; Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.”). In that respect, we find Dr. Wolberg’s analysis of how and why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references’ teachings compelling. See Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 101–15; Ex. 1066 ¶¶ 22–37.” slip op. at 32

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “public accessibility. PO Resp. 17–21. Based on all of the evidence of record,18 however, we are persuaded that Wang was disseminated or otherwise made available prior to May 22, 1996, to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence could have located it. Most probative are the Library of Congress certification and Linda Hall Library documentation, which show that Wang was catalogued and readily available through these libraries. See Exs. 1046, 1060. Mr. Grenier further testifies that copies of the article were made available to attendees of the EURO ASIC ’91 conference, which was an IEEE academic conference pertaining to ASICs. See Ex. 1039; Ex. 1055; Ex. 1060, 2–13 (stating that the conference “includes reports on ASIC design experiences, advances in design methods and tools, and on the evolution of ASIC technology,” and is “the definitive place . . . for the academic community to exchange ideas”; listing numerous papers to be 18 We are persuaded that all of Petitioner’s evidence should be considered, including the evidence introduced with the Reply, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Further, during a conference call with the parties on May 26, 2016, Patent Owner sought authorization to file a motion to “strike” Petitioner’s new evidence and portions of Petitioner’s Reply. See Paper 20. We determined that a motion to strike was not appropriate at that time, but stated that “[s]hould either party request a hearing in this proceeding, . . . the parties may address the propriety of the exhibits and Petitioner’s Reply during oral argument. If the parties choose not to request a hearing, Patent Owner may request another conference call and we will determine whether additional briefing or any other action may be appropriate at that time.” Id. at 3; Ex. 1071, 20:14–22:18. Patent Owner did not request oral argument, and did not request another conference call to address the issue. presented relating to, for example, digital signal processing ASICs, chip architecture, and graphic application and image processing ASICs). Given the level of ordinary skill in the art of the ’724 patent set forth above, see supra Section II.B, we are persuaded that the EURO ASIC ’91 conference is the type of conference that ordinarily skilled artisans would have been interested in and likely attended. The dates and documentation for the conference also are consistent with the other submitted evidence, including the copyright notation of Wang itself, which states in part “© 1991 IEEE.” See Ex. 1009, 1. Finally, as Petitioner correctly points out, the first article cited by Dr. Wolberg shows that Wang in fact was accessed by some other individuals working in the field of image sensors. See Reply 12; Ex. 1040. Based on the record presented, we are persuaded that Wang is a prior art printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 8,643,724 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,643,724
• Growlerwerks, Inc. v. Drink Tanks CorporationInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 22, 2016 · IPR2016-01125 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of IPR on claims 1–19, exercising discretion to address the overlapping effective-filing-date question in the refiled petition.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied

    “date of the challenged claims, as a predicate to applying Mociak as prior art to the ’670 patent; as discussed above, the answer to that question controls whether the 1125 Petition was untimely filed. Because the 262 Petition was filed after July 13, 2016, this second petition does not present the same untimely filing concern under 37 C.F.R. § 42.3 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.102(a)(1) as the 1125 IPR. The 262 Petition, however, does present the same question regarding effective filing date. Thus, deciding whether the 1125 Petition was untimely filed would potentially mean addressing the same question twice. We decline to do so. In our view, our decision on the effective filing date of the ’670 patent is best constrained to a single petition. First, addressing the question in a single proceeding conserves judicial resources because we will not be addressing the same question twice. Moreover, doing so avoids any possibility of reaching different decisions based on different evidence or arguments. Further, our approach does not unduly prejudice either Petitioner or Patent Owner. Petitioner took the opportunity to file the same challenge the filing date of the 1125 Petition in its Preliminary Response. Because the refiled petition proposes the same grounds and arguments for invalidity as the present Petition—it is substantively identical (IPR2017- 00262, Ex. 1021)—and was filed before any decision in this proceeding, it therefore does not present any concerns of taking a “second bite at the apple” or using our decision as a “roadmap” that other panels of the Board have found persuasive when considering multiple petitions against a given patent. See, e.g., Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Inc., IPR2014- 00581, slip op. at 12 (PTAB Oct. 14, 2014) (Paper 8). We exercise our discretion to make our substantive determinations pursuant to the refiled 262 Petition, and deny the 1125 Petition.” slip op. at 7

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportNot reached

    “Petitioner argues that no claim of the ’670 patent is entitled to an effective filing date earlier than June 28, 2013.14 Pet. 8–11. Patent Owner does not address this issue in the Preliminary Response. See generally Prelim. Resp. Petitioner addresses this question with two separate arguments, one directed to independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2–17 (id. at 9–10), and the other directed at independent claim 18 and dependent claim 19 (id. at 10–11). While we take no position on these arguments at this time, if we were to conclude Petitioner is correct about either of those arguments, the ’670 patent would contain a claim with an effective filing date after March 13, 2016, and 37 C.F.R. § 42.102(a)(1) would require a petition for IPR be filed no earlier than nine months after the grant of the patent, here July 13, 2016. The present Petition was filed June 2, 2016 (see Paper 4).” slip op. at 6

  § 102 anticipationDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 9,156,670
• Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Sep 26, 2016 · IPR2015-00195 · APJ Christopher G Paulraj · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Steuben Foods’ rehearing request, leaving claims unpatentable over the Biewendt-based combination because the evidence supported the Board’s obviousness conclusion.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “The requirements for rehearing are set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides, in relevant part, that “[t]he burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision,” and that “[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.” We determine that we did not misapprehend the evidence and arguments of record supporting our conclusion of obviousness based on Biewendt, and for the reasons that follow, Patent Owner’s request for rehearing is denied. .” slip op. at 2

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Second, Patent Owner has failed to demonstrate error in our consideration of Dr. Heldman’s unequivocal testimony—based on his studying of clean room technology for 40 years—that he expected that Biewendt’s sterilization machine would be kept above atmospheric pressure based on its description as a “clean room.” FWD, 29; see generally Ex. 2055, 146:3–157:19. Indeed we accorded the testimony of both Dr. Heldman and Dr. Sharon the weight that was appropriate in view of the arguments and evidence of record in the trial.1 As to Patent Owner’s argument that this was a “new position” not presented in the Petition or the accompanying declaration, we note that Dr. Heldman was merely responding to questions posed by Patent Owner’s counsel during his deposition, rather than injecting a new theory of his own accord. See, e.g., Ex. 2055, 147:13–14 (“Q. Are all clean rooms overpressured? A. That's the only design that I know.”). Dr. Heldman’s testimony is consistent with the statement in the Petition “that the entire sterilization machine of Biewendt is maintained under positive pressure to prevent contamination from the” slip op. at 3

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for petitioner

    “argument that we “overlooked the fact that the cited passage in ZFL says that the “fully enclosed system, which is ventilated by sterile air at a slight overpressure, is free of unsterile transport media that may get into the system and works with packages and lids which are sterile on all sides.” Req. Reh’g 4 (citing Ex. 1010, 298). Specifically, that “ZFL and Buchner are consistent with Biewendt in explaining that that those portions of the machine downstream of the sterilization chamber are kept at a pressure above atmospheric in order to ensure sterility during the filling and sealing process.” Id. at 5. Patent Owner, however, did not previously present this interpretation of ZFL and Buchner, and a request for rehearing is not an opportunity to present such new arguments. Moreover, contrary to Patent Owner’s new argument, these references plainly indicate that the “fully enclosed system” and the “entire plant” of the Bosch system is subject to a “slight overpressure.” Ex. 1010, 298; Ex. 1011, 27. As such, we find no basis in the record to conclude that we overlooked any persuasive evidence suggesting that only those portions of the Bosch system downstream of the sterilization machine are subject to overpressure.” slip op. at 4

  None
  Patents in suitUS 6,475,435
• Amit Agarwal v. Immersion CorporationInstitution denied
  PTAB · Sep 19, 2016 · IPR2016-00807 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied for all challenged claims because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on either asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “A claim is anticipated only if a single prior art reference expressly or inherently describes each and every limitation set forth in the claim. See Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Further, a reference cannot anticipate “unless [it] discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed[,] but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Although the elements must be arranged in the same way as in the claim, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). We analyze this asserted ground based on anticipation with the principles identified above in mind. 2. Overview of Rosenberg (Ex. 1002)” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “A claim is anticipated only if a single prior art reference expressly or inherently describes each and every limitation set forth in the claim. See Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Further, a reference cannot anticipate “unless [it] discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed[,] but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Although the elements must be arranged in the same way as in the claim, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). We analyze this asserted ground based on anticipation with the principles identified above in mind. 2. Overview of Rosenberg (Ex. 1002)” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Rosenberg and Simon. Pet. 17– 20. Claims 5 and 15 depend from claims 1 and 12, respectively, and further recite “wherein the display signal is configured to display a keypad comprising a plurality of softkeys.” Claims 7 and 17 depend from claims 1 and 12, respectively, and further recite “wherein the plurality of softkeys comprises one softkey for each digit from 0 to 9.” Similar to its challenges based on anticipation discussed above, Petitioner relies on Rosenberg as disclosing all of the limitations of underlying independent claims 1 and 12. Id. at 17. Simon is relied upon by Petitioner only to teach the additionally recited limitations of claims 5, 7, 15, and 17. Id. at 17–19. Hence, Simon cannot and does not remedy the above-identified deficiencies in Petitioner’s analysis of challenged independent claims 1 and 12. Accordingly, on this record, the information presented in the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing in its challenge to claims 5, 7, 15, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Rosenberg and Simon.” slip op. at 19

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

    “Petitioner contends that “no claim interpretation is needed” (Pet. 1), and Patent Owner does not propose any claim constructions in this case (Prelim. Resp. 10). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented, we determine that no claim terms require express interpretation for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only those terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 9

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,773,356
• Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Ino Therapeutics, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 15, 2016 · IPR2015-00891 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision

  Praxair failed to prove claims 1–16 unpatentable under the three §103 grounds because it did not establish a sufficient reason to combine the prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd all claims patentableNot shown unpatentable

    “sensed in-line gas concentration being used to perform verification of gas supply and gas delivery to a subject or patient into a device receiving gas concentration information from Peters’s handle and memory on the gas supply cylinder in order to verify and control gas delivery to a patient smacks of hindsight reasoning. After considering the evidence and arguments of both parties, we conclude that Praxair has failed to carry its burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 1 is unpatentable. Because Praxair’s obviousness analysis for dependent apparatus claims 2–11, as well as the dependent method claims 12–16, asserted in each of the grounds in this proceeding relies on the deficient asserted combination including Bathe and Peters, we similarly are not persuaded that Praxair has sustained its burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 2–16 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 27

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

    “argument and testimony that Peters’s valve could work on Bathe’s cylinder does not explain why or how a person of skill in the art would combine Bathe and Peters, only that they could. PO Resp. 43–44. That Bathe could be modified by simply placing Peters’s valve on the cylinder to control gas flow from the cylinder, does not, alone, satisfy the requirements for combining the prior art. See InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Experts “testimony primarily consisted of conclusory references to her belief that one of ordinary skill in the art could combine these references, not that they would have been motivated to do so.”). Petitioner’s challenge lacks an adequate motivation, not only to incorporate the smart valve of Peters into Bathe, but also to: (1) repurpose the incorporated valve by using (a) its “memory to store gas data comprising one or more of gas identification, gas expiration date and gas concentration” and (b) its processor and transmitter “to send and receive wireless optical line-of-sight signals to communicate the gas data to the control module that controls gas delivery to a subject” and (2) modify the Bathe system, such that its CPU would receive the wirelessly transmitted gas concentration data, even though the CPU already receives (and uses) flow and operator input data to provide a desired NO concentration. See Ex. 1005, 6:5–20.” slip op. at 21

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “read [Bathe] and been motivated to apply subsequent improvements to component parts of that system, such as the improved valve of [Peters].” Ex. 1002 at ¶ 112 (citing Ex. 1005, 6:11–15). Dr. Stone does not, however, point to any persuasive evidence or disclosure in Bathe, or provide sufficient explanation or reasoning to support this statement. See id. In particular, Dr. Stone does not describe what the “improvements” would have been or provide sufficient rationale as to why Bathe, which already has a connection between a supply cylinder and a gas delivery device and teaches verification of gas concentration from the cylinder by sensor 65 in the delivery system, would be improved by Peters’s manually actuated valve handle and included memory to meet the limitations of the independent claims. See Ex. 1005, 6:11–15. We find Dr. Stone’s testimony deficient as to showing any suggestion in Bathe or otherwise that would have motivated one of skill in the art to add Peters’s valve and memory to Bathe. We are also not persuaded that a person of skill in the art would have” slip op. at 23

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “D. INO’s Motion to Exclude Patent Owner seeks to exclude the testimony of Dr. Robert Stone (Exs. 1002, 2020). Because we do not rely on Dr. Stone’s testimony in a manner adverse to INO, the motion to exclude is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 8,573,210 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,573,210
• Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Ino Therapeutics, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 15, 2016 · IPR2015-00889 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 were not shown unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations because Praxair did not establish a sufficient reason to combine the references.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeOther

    “D. INO’s Motion to Exclude Patent Owner seeks to exclude the testimony of Dr. Robert Stone (Exs. 1002, 2020). Because we do not rely on Dr. Stone’s testimony in a manner adverse to INO, the motion to exclude is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 25

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Praxair asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, or the equivalent, and would have had at least two years’ experience in biomedical engineering designing medical gas delivery or monitoring systems.” Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 17–18). INO does not expressly dispute the general level of skill in the art proffered by Praxair but adds through its declarant, Mr. Warren P. Heim, that one of skill in the art would “know Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Current Good Manufacturing Practices.” Ex. 2021 ¶ 107.” slip op. at 15

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

    “presented by both parties and the prior art itself, we find that Praxair has not shown a sufficient reason for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have made the proposed combination of Bathe, Peters, FR ’804, and the IR Standard. PO Resp. 36–53. INO points out, correctly, that Praxair has not shown that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Peters’s smart valve, having a memory for compiling data for billing and invoicing functions, with Bathe. Id. Moreover, we are not persuaded that Praxair’s inability to provide sufficient motivation for combining Peters and Bathe is remedied by the introduction of FR ’804, particularly given that Bathe already included an in-line sensing unit to sense and verify the gas concentration from the cylinder as required by FDA guidance. Id. at 47.” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “time of litigation. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“[a] factfinder should be aware, of course, of the distortion caused by hindsight bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning”). “Good ideas may well appear ‘obvious’ after they have been disclosed.” Arkie Lures, Inc. v. Gene Larew Tackle, Inc., 119 F.3d 953, 956 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In the instant case, Praxair’s attempt to transform Bathe from having a sensed in-line gas concentration being used to perform verification of gas supply and gas delivery to a subject or patient into a device receiving gas concentration data from Peters’s handle and memory on the gas supply cylinder in order to verify and control gas delivery to a patient smacks of hindsight reasoning. After considering the evidence and arguments of both parties, we conclude that Praxair has failed to carry its burden of” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 8,573,209 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,573,209
• Fitbit, Inc. v. Bodymedia, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 8, 2016 · IPR2016-00707 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Fitbit did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–29 would have been obvious over Mault 470 and Mault 089, which were not shown to be prior art.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Petitioner asserts that the broadest reasonable construction of “contextual data of the individual” as recited in the claim limitation 1(b)(i) is “data relating to an individual’s activity state environment, surrounding, or location.” Pet. 17. Petitioner asserts that this construction was applied in the related ITC proceeding. Id. (citing Ex. 1015, 17–22, 33). Patent Owner does not contest this proposed construction. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction for “contextual data of the individual.”” slip op. at 6

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable

    “of the claimed subject matter without explaining what the parent application conveys to those skilled in the art. See Pet. 9–10 (discussing whether June 2000 applications contain “equivalent description” of claim 1 limitations); Ex. 1003 ¶ 32 (addressing whether “equivalent description” exits in the parent applications). Contrary to Petitioner’s application of the “equivalent description,” the test for sufficiency of support in a parent application is not “the presence or absence of literal support in the [parent application] for the claim language,” In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1983), but instead is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the later claimed subject matter, Vas-Cath Inc., 935 F.2d at 1563–64; see Yorkey v. Diab, 605 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d at 1375). In the present case, Petitioner relies on conclusory statements that [t]he June 2000 applications do not contain an equivalent description of a processing unit configured to provide feedback for an individual’s weight-loss goal by performing each of the steps recited in subparts b.(i)–(v) of claim 1 in sufficient detail such that one of skill in the art can clearly conclude the applicant invented the claimed invention.” slip op. at 12

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “Based on the foregoing, we find that Petitioner has not shown that Mault 470 and Mault 089 are prior art, and, thus, there is not a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that claims 1–29 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mault 470 and Mault 089.” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)

    “Mault 470 and Mault 089 are prior art, and, thus, there is not a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that claims 1–29 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mault 470 and Mault 089. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the Petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the asserted ground that claims 1–29 would have been unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mault 470 and Mault 089.” slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 8,398,546
• LG Display Co, Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 15, 2016 · IPR2015-01717 · APJ Beverly M Bunting · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 5, 10, 13, 16, 17, 25–29, and 33–35 were not shown unpatentable under §103 over Oe and Etsuo because the proposed combinations lacked sufficient reasoned support.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “persuaded Petitioner has provided sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinning explaining why one with ordinary skill in the art would have modified the teachings of the applied references to address the noted differences. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”)). We consider Petitioner’s first reason to combine Oe and Etsuo “because they are in the same field of backlighting for liquid crystal display devices.” Pet. 36. The mere fact that both Oe and Etsuo are in the same field of endeavor falls short of an adequate rationale. The same field of endeavor analysis is merely the jumping-off point in reaching the determination of whether a claimed invention is obvious. See K-TEC, Inc. v. Vita-Mix Corp., 696 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (to qualify as prior art in an obviousness analysis, references must be analogous art—either from the same field of endeavor, or reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor is involved). Next, we consider Petitioner’s second reason to combine because “both Oe and Etsuo relate to backlight devices that use light sources located at edges of a light guide.” Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 165). Although Petitioner relies on the testimony of Dr. Escuti, he does not proffer any persuasive facts, data, or analysis to support his opinion. See Ex. 1004 ¶ 165 (“Also, both Oe and Etsuo relate to backlight devices that use light sources located at edges of a light guide.”). Merely repeating an argument from the Petition in the declaration of a proposed expert does not give that argument probative value. Dr. Escuti’s opinion lacks sufficient support. For this reason, we do not credit the testimony of Dr. Escuti on this issue. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). Petitioner’s second reason is also unavailing because it does not address the entirety of Petitioner’s proposed modification. As discussed above, Petitioner relies on the disclosure in Etsuo for both the position of the plurality of light sources adjacent a single input edge claim element, as well as the output distribution having a greater width component than height component claim element. Petitioner’s reasoning, directed only to the use of light sources at the edge of the light guide, does not explain sufficiently why one of skill in the art would have replaced a single light source positioned adjacent one input edge of Oe, with the plurality of light sources disclosed by Etsuo that have an output distribution defined by a greater width component than height component.” slip op. at 20

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed

    “We have reviewed the testimony from both Dr. Escuti, and Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Werner (Ex. 2021). We find that both experts have, at times, taken liberties in proffering conclusory statements without real analysis.5 However, it is within our discretion to assign the appropriate weight to the testimony of both Dr. Escuti, and Mr. Werner. See, e.g., 5 Under our rules, expert testimony that does not have a proper basis is entitled to little or no weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding the Board has discretion to give more weight to one item of evidence over another “unless no reasonable trier of fact could have done so”); In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We, therefore, are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that Dr. Escuti’s testimony be disregarded in its entirety. Instead, we have accorded the testimony of both Dr. Escuti and Mr. Werner the weight that is appropriate in view of the arguments and evidence of record in this trial. 4. Overview of Oe (Ex. 1024)” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “taken into account. In making this determination, we were aided by expert testimony. According to Dr. Escuti, “a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’660 Patent would have at least an undergraduate degree in physics, optics, engineering, or applied mathematics AND 3 years of work experience (or a graduate degree) in a field related to optical technology.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 23. Mr. Werner does not take issue with this testimony, and in fact proposes a similar standard: a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’660 patent would hold an undergraduate degree in physics, material science, electrical engineering, or mathematics and have one or both of the following: (1) three or more years of work experience in a field related to optical technology; or (2) a graduate degree in a field related to optical technology. Ex. 2021 ¶ 76. We find that Mr. Werner’s definition is too limited in that it does not include a person with an undergraduate degree in optics. We, therefore, do not accept his standard and adopt instead Dr. Escuti’s more complete definition.” slip op. at 12

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

    “disclosure in the specification of the ’600 patent to support Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction of “height” and “width.” Indeed, our review of the specification of the ’660 patent reveals that these terms are not defined explicitly or implicitly. For example, the specification states that “the deformities may vary in shape and/or size along the length and/or width of the panel members.” Ex. 1001, 5:43–44 (emphasis added). With respect to the planar optical conductor, claims 1 and 33 each recite, in relevant part, that the input edge has “at least one input edge with a greater cross-sectional width than thickness.” Ex. 1001, 9:11–12, 10:65–67 (emphasis added). Both claims 1 and 33 recite that the output distribution generated by the plurality of light sources is “defined by a greater width component than height component.”4 Id. at 9:15–16, 11:5–6 (emphasis added). Claim 33 recites that the plurality of LED light sources each have “a greater width than height.” Id. at 11:1–2 (emphasis added). Because the terms “width” and “height” are commonly understood, we also consult a general purpose dictionary. “Width” is defined as “the horizontal measurement taken at right angles to the length.” See Merriam- Webster.com, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/width, (last viewed July 10, 2015). The dictionary definition of height is “the distance from the bottom to the top of something standing upright.” See Merriam-” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 7,404,660 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,404,660
• LG Display Co, Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 15, 2016 · IPR2015-01717 · APJ Beverly M Bunting · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 5, 10, 13, 16, 17, 25–29, and 33–35 were held not unpatentable under § 103 over Oe and Etsuo because the combination lacked an adequately supported reason to combine.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “taken into account. In making this determination, we were aided by expert testimony. According to Dr. Escuti, “a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’660 Patent would have at least an undergraduate degree in physics, optics, engineering, or applied mathematics AND 3 years of work experience (or a graduate degree) in a field related to optical technology.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 23. Mr. Werner does not take issue with this testimony, and in fact proposes a similar standard: a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’660 patent would hold an undergraduate degree in physics, material science, electrical engineering, or mathematics and have one or both of the following: (1) three or more years of work experience in a field related to optical technology; or (2) a graduate degree in a field related to optical technology. Ex. 2021 ¶ 76. We find that Mr. Werner’s definition is too limited in that it does not include a person with an undergraduate degree in optics. We, therefore, do not accept his standard and adopt instead Dr. Escuti’s more complete definition.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed

    “Owner’s expert, Mr. Werner (Ex. 2021). We find that both experts have, at times, taken liberties in proffering conclusory statements without real analysis.4 However, it is within our discretion to assign the appropriate weight to the testimony of both Dr. Escuti, and Mr. Werner. See, e.g., 4 Under our rules, expert testimony that does not have a proper basis is entitled to little or no weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding the Board has discretion to give more weight to one item of evidence over another “unless no reasonable trier of fact could have done so”); In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We, therefore, are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that Dr. Escuti’s testimony be disregarded in its entirety. Instead, we have accorded the testimony of both Dr. Escuti and Mr. Werner the weight that is appropriate in view of the arguments and evidence of record in this trial. 4. Overview of Oe (Ex. 1024)” slip op. at 13

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

    “Because the terms “width” and “height” are commonly understood, we also consult a general purpose dictionary. “Width” is defined as “the horizontal measurement taken at right angles to the length.” See Merriam- Webster.com, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/width, (last viewed July 10, 2015). The dictionary definition of height is “the distance from the bottom to the top of something standing upright.” See Merriam- 3 In a related district court proceeding, the claim term “output distribution defined by a greater width component than height component” was determined to have its plain meaning. Ex. 2008, 47. See TR. 21:24–22:8. Webster.com, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/height, (last viewed July 10, 2015). Within the context of the claims, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contentions that the term “width” is used other than according to its ordinary and customary meaning with respect to the shape of the input edge of the optical conductor, the output distribution of the light source, and the shape of the LED light source. Along this vein, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contentions that the term “height” is used other than according to its ordinary and customary meaning with respect to the light output distribution. Based on this usage in the claims, no express construction is necessary.” slip op. at 10

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

    “persuaded Petitioner has provided sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinning explaining why one with ordinary skill in the art would have modified the teachings of the applied references to address the noted differences. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”)). We consider Petitioner’s first reason to combine Oe and Etsuo “because they are in the same field of backlighting for liquid crystal display devices.” Pet. 36. The mere fact that both Oe and Etsuo are in the same field of endeavor falls short of an adequate rationale. The same field of endeavor analysis is merely the jumping-off point in reaching the determination of whether a claimed invention is obvious. See K-TEC, Inc. v. Vita-Mix Corp., 696 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (to qualify as prior art in an obviousness analysis, references must be analogous art—either from the same field of endeavor, or reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor is involved). Next, we consider Petitioner’s second reason to combine because “both Oe and Etsuo relate to backlight devices that use light sources located at edges of a light guide.” Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 165). Although Petitioner relies on the testimony of Dr. Escuti, he does not proffer any persuasive facts, data, or analysis to support his opinion. See Ex. 1004 ¶ 165 (“Also, both Oe and Etsuo relate to backlight devices that use light sources located at edges of a light guide.”). Merely repeating an argument from the Petition in the declaration of a proposed expert does not give that argument probative value. Dr. Escuti’s opinion lacks sufficient support. For this reason, we do not credit the testimony of Dr. Escuti on this issue. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). Petitioner’s second reason is also unavailing because it does not address the entirety of Petitioner’s proposed modification. As discussed above, Petitioner relies on the disclosure in Etsuo for both the position of the plurality of light sources adjacent a single input edge claim element, as well as the output distribution having a greater width component than height component claim element. Petitioner’s reasoning, directed only to the use of light sources at the edge of the light guide, does not explain sufficiently why one of skill in the art would have replaced a single light source positioned adjacent one input edge of Oe, with the plurality of light sources disclosed by Etsuo that have an output distribution defined by a greater width component than height component. We also consider Petitioner’s argument in the Reply that, in addition to Etsuo, Petitioner also relies on Oe’s explicit disclosure of “a plurality of point-like sources of light.” Reply 16–17. Petitioner directs us to the passage of Oe cited in its claim chart (Pet. 40), describing how the light source could be “a plurality of point-like sources of light arranged along the incident surface” (Ex. 1024, 7:30–31). Id. at 16. But Petitioner’s arguments in this regard do not address specifically its proffered reason to combine Oe and Etsuo. Indeed, Petitioner does not explain the relevance of the point-like sources of light to the claim element in question. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) (requiring a full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing law, rules, and precedent). Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner never argues that ‘point-like sources’ are equivalent to LEDs.” PO Resp. 10. We agree. Petitioner’s argument that “Oe discloses a plurality of light sources 4 adjacent to the input edges” (Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1024, 6:5–13; Ex. 1004 ¶ 161)) makes no mention of the specific passage in Oe concerning the point-like sources of light. Indeed, the cited passage states that:” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 7,404,660 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,404,660

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.