- Groupon, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 7, 2017 · IPR2017-01158 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Groupon’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied on both § 103 grounds because the Petition did not adequately explain how the combinations would provide a federated computing environment.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision [i]s based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “The burden of showing that a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). In its request for rehearing, the dissatisfied party must (1) “specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked,” and (2) identify the place “where each matter was previously addressed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,768. We address Petitioner’s arguments with these principles in mind.” slip op. at 3
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“we noted that the only claim element that Petitioner mentions as missing in Sunada and Mellmer is a “federated computing environment.” Inst. Dec. 11, 16. We found that Petitioner’s proffered rationale for combining Sunada or Mellmer with the LA Specifications to arrive at the claimed invention was inadequate because Petitioner did not address how modifying Sunada or Mellmer to implement Liberty Alliance’s method of exchanging attributes would provide a federated computing environment (i.e., the missing claim element). Id. at 11, 16.” slip op. at 7
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“new argument that Petitioner presents in order to offer more explanation, which does not address what we overlooked or misapprehended in our Institution Decision. In its Petition, Petitioner proposed combining the references by “us[ing] the methods for transferring attributes described in the LASpecs in the exchanges specifically described in Sunada and Mellmer.” Pet. 21–23. Petitioner explained that such combination “would allow a POSITA to obtain predictable results,” which Petitioner identified explicitly as “the transfer of information described in Sunada and Mellmer” (id. at 23), not as “a compliant implementation of Sunada or Mellmer to operate in a federated computing environment” (Req. Reh’g 7). At this stage, it is too late for Petitioner to add further explanation in a request for rehearing. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 9
NonePatents in suitUS 7,631,346 - Cree, Inc. v. Optolum, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 4, 2017 · IPR2017-01511 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable, chiefly because Begemann did not disclose the claimed heat-conduction-to-contained-fluid limitation.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“evidence. As explained below and given the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail on its assertions that Begemann anticipates either of claims 17 or 30. 1. Principles of Law” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the Board’s use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in Inter Partes Review proceedings). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, and absent any special definitions, claims terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definitions for claim terms or phrases must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a definition, limitations are not to be read from the specification into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Petitioner advances interpretations of the claim terms “elongate,” “thermally conductive member,” and “heat dissipation protrusions.” Pet. 17–18. In turn, Patent Owner advances interpretations of “thermally conductive member,” “heat dissipation protrusions,” and “configured to.” Prelim. Resp. 17–21. Having considered the evidence of record and as reflected in the discussion below, we determine that express construction of these terms is not necessary for purposes of this Decision. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”).” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“A claim is anticipated if each limitation of the claim is disclosed in a single prior art reference arranged as in the claim. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “The requirement that the prior art elements themselves be ‘arranged as in the claim’ means that claims cannot be ‘treated . . . as mere catalogs of separate parts, in disregard of the part-to-part relationships set forth in the claims and that give the claims their meaning.’” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). The Federal Circuit has also explained, however, that “a reference can anticipate a claim even if it ‘d[oes] not expressly spell out’ all the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination.” Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681 (CCPA 1962)).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“likewise require that the thermally conductive member includes the “configured to” limitation and “one or more heat dissipation protrusions, at least one of said heat dissipation protrusions being carried on said elongate member outer surface” limitations discussed above. Ex. 1001 at 4:47–50, 5:60–63. In addition to the anticipation arguments for claims 17 and 30, Petitioner argues in the alternative, “[s]hould it be determined that Begemann does not disclose the claimed heat dissipation protrusions, then claim 17 is obvious in view of Begemann in combination with English” (Pet. 28) and “claim 30 is obvious in view of Begemann in combination with English . . . for reasons previously explained . . . for claim 17” (Pet. 59). According to Petitioner, English expressly discloses the placement of cooling fins on an exterior of a hollow, metal base portion of an elongated, thermally conductive metal support to further enhance heat dissipation for cooling LEDs mounted on the metal support. Pet. 31. Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide the cooling fins of the lamp of English to the outer surface of Begemann’s gear column to enhance the performance and/or efficiency of cooling the LEDs by enhancing heat dissipation away from the gear column, substrate, and LEDs “to air circulating inside and at the outer surface of the gear column 1.” Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 93–94). Further, Petitioner presents the following annotated copy of Begemann’s Figure 1 to illustrate its proposed modification of Begemann’s gear column using English’s fins: Petitioner’s annotated version of Begemann Figure 1 with accompanying text that describes providing cooling fins to the outer surface of Begemann’s gear column 1. Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1003 at 4:6–9). As Patent Owner argues (Prelim. Resp. 39), Petitioner does not rely on English to meet the “configured to” limitation for either of claim 17 or 30 (see, e.g., Pet. 26–27, 55–56 (citing only Begemann for the “configure to” limitation)). Having determined above that Begemann fails to disclose the “configured to” limitation, Petitioner’s reliance on English to satisfy the heat dissipation protrusions limitation fails to cure the noted deficiencies in Begemann with regards to the “configured to” limitation of claims 17 and 30 of the ’028 Patent.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,242,028 - 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 - Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Conformis, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 29, 2017 · IPR2017-00372 · APJ James A Worth · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Smith & Nephew’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1–83 because the petition failed to show a reasonable likelihood of obviousness.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. DISCUSSION Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, which includes specifically identifying all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3
- BurdenNot reached
“II. DISCUSSION Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, which includes specifically identifying all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“combination of Radermacher and Kenna in which a cutting guide (as in Radermacher) is aligned intra-operatively (as in Kenna), but that the Decision did not address a combination of Radermacher and Kenna in which there is angular alignment (as in Kenna) when the cutting guide is planned pre-operatively (which Petitioner argues to have been taught in Radermacher). First, we regard this latter argument to be a new argument. The argument in the Petition is reproduced above. We conclude that the Petition provided inadequate argument and reasoning for combining the references in this manner, i.e., to take the intra-operative teachings of Kenna and apply them pre-operatively. Neither the Petition nor Declaration explain how this would have been accomplished or persuade us that such a combination would have been obvious (without intra-operative adjustment, as taught in Kenna). In particular, the Petition does not explain adequately how a person of ordinary skill would have included Kenna’s angle adjustment teaching in Radermacher’s prosthesis with a patient-specific surface, rather than rotating Kenna’s cutting guide intra-operatively. Although we appreciate Petitioner’s argument that the combination does not require bodily incorporation of one prior art device into another, we are not persuaded that the Petition adequately set forth what that combination would be, or how it would be achieved. See, e.g., Pet. 43–45 (quoting Kenna and asserting it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of the prior art).” slip op. at 9
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner’s reliance on Exhibits 1051, 1054, 1055, and 1057 is misplaced because the Petition did not contain developed arguments with respect thereto, and we regard this as a new argument. As such, we determine that we did not overlook or misapprehend any arguments with respect to Exhibits 1051, 1054, 1055, and 1057. To the extent that Petitioner relies on Kenna for the argued limitation, we address that contention below.” slip op. at 5
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,377,129 - 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 - 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.