• Preomics GmbH / Biognosys AG. v. The Brigham And Women’S Hospital, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 23, 2026 · IPR2024-01473 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4, 6, 17, 22, and 25 are unpatentable as anticipated by and obvious over Cai; claims 2, 3, 7, 23, and 24 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We disagree with Patent Owner and again find Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art sufficient for the reasons explained in the Decision on institution. See Dec. 8–10. As explained before, the formal training required by Petitioner’s description of a POSA includes understanding of both proteins and analytical techniques for studying them. See Dec. 9. Neither Patent Owner, nor its declarant, Dr. Cimas, clearly articulates a competing POSA description at trial, but both suggest more formal training, e.g., a graduate degree, is required. See Resp. 65–66; Ex. 2023 ¶ 8 (agreeing with our observation that the educational backgrounds of the inventors and authors of Cai, Zaccaria, and Hu “suggests that a graduate degree is more typical for a POSA”) (quoting Dec. 9, n. 5). Even if we were to accept that modification, it would not change our findings herein. Nor does it suggest that Dr. Vargas, who holds a Ph.D. in chemistry from Stanford University and has substantial experience with mass spectrometry and other analytical techniques, is unqualified to testify from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 1004 (Vargas CV). Accordingly, our findings and conclusions would be the same, even assuming the perspective of a POSA possessing the higher level of formal training and specific proteomics experience that Patent Owner suggests is appropriate here.5” slip op. at 9

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

    “Ex. 1001, 20:33–39. As Petitioner points out, the first sentence in this passage does not define the term “biological sample,” but rather the term “sample.” Id. According to that sentence, the term “sample” refers to either “a biological sample or a complex biological sample obtained from a subject.” Id. (emphasis added). Patent Owner’s argument assumes, without explanation, that the phrase “obtained from a subject” modifies both instances of “biological sample” in the first sentence. Id. But it need not be read that way. Indeed, that sentence is more naturally read to define “sample” as one of two things––either a “biological sample” or a “complex biological sample” with only the latter being “obtained from a subject.” Id. In addition, the second sentence in the passage above supports Petitioner’s view that the term “biological sample” is not limited to a sample obtained directly from a subject. It provides a broad, non-exhaustive list of “[s]uitable biological samples” that specifically includes the types of biological samples, i.e., “cell lysates,” “systemic blood,” “plasma,” assayed in Petitioner’s cited references. Ex. 1001, 20:36–39. It also lists as an example “processed tissue samples,” which would include samples that have been modified (i.e., “processed”) from the form in which they were originally obtained. Id.; see also Ex. 1001, 20:52–57 (describing tissue processing). Given this broad description, we agree with Petitioner that there is no basis in the cited intrinsic evidence for reading in the “negative limitations” Patent Owner seeks to try to distinguish the particular biological samples assayed in Cai, Hu, and Zaccaria. See Reply 3–4.” slip op. at 12

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

    “We agree with Petitioner. Step 1(a) recites forming coronas around a plurality of particles of “different particle types.” Ex. 1001, 86:53–60. Step 1(b) recites separating a “subset of the plurality of the particles comprising the coronas.” Id. at 86:61–65. As Petitioner correctly observes, as a matter of ordinary English parlance, “there is no requirement whatsoever that the ‘subset’ have all of the same characteristics as the set from which it is separated.” Reply 10. By way of analogy, consider a jar containing a plurality of coins of different coin types, e.g., nickels and dimes. One can separate out a “subset” of that plurality of coins (plural) by removing any two coins from the jar—this is true even if the two coins are both nickels or both dimes. In the same way, nothing in the ordinary meaning of the claim language requires the subset in step 1(b) to include particles with coronas representative of each of the different particle types in step 1(a). Nor has Patent Owner identified any other evidence that supports its attempt to read such a requirement into the claims. See Resp. 16, 18 (citing expert testimony that is not inconsistent with the broader, ordinary meaning of the claim language and, even if it was, would not be a proper basis for limiting the same). For these reasons, we reject Patent Owner’s interpretation of “a subset of the plurality of particles comprising the coronas” in step 1(b) as limited to a subset of each type of particle comprising the coronas formed in step 1(a).” slip op. at 15

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

    “We credit Petitioner’s showing above and agree that Cai discloses a method comprising all of the steps in claim 1. Beginning with step 1(a), Cai discloses contacting two different particle types, i.e., MWCNT and CB, with HeLa cell lysate (i.e., a biological sample) to form protein coronas around those particles. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 199–206; Ex. 1005, Abstr. (describing MWCNT and CB as distinct “forms of carbon nanoparticles” that bind “vastly different sets of proteins”). Cai’s results show the coronas formed around the MWCNT and CB particles comprise overlapping and distinct proteins as recited in step 1(a). Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 216–222; Ex. 1005, 587 (“a small number of CB-binding proteins also bind to MWCNTs”). A subset of the proteins from the coronas on these particles is then prepared by eluting the bound proteins and analyzing them with SDS-PAGE in a MWCNT and CB “pull-down,” which reads on step 1(b). Ex. 1005, 586 (Fig. 1A–B depicting scheme for “pull-down experiment” and describing other “pull-down experiments” used with SILAC media in Fig. 3), 588 (Fig. 3). Regarding step 1(c), Cai discloses assaying the proteins in those subsets using LC-MS/MS with SILAC encoding to characterize and quantify the relative abundance of the proteins that bind to each type of particle.11 Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 225–229; Ex. 1005, 586–587 (describing “systemic characterization of carbon nanoparticle-protein corona”), 588 (Fig. 3). Cai’s results show “the relative abundance of the MWCNT-binding proteins spread over 8 orders of magnitude” and that “some of the proteins with the highest binding efficiencies” are actually “low abundance proteins” in the lysate, meaning that that Cai’s method selectively enriches such proteins for detection. Ex. 1005, 587. We credit Dr. Vargas’s testimony that these results demonstrate that Cai’s method achieves the “dynamic range” recited in step 1(c). Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 225–229.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 11,435,360 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,435,360
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Ouraring, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 25, 2025 · PGR2024-00030 · APJ Linda E Horner · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 17 and 18 are unpatentable under §112(d) for improper dependent form; claims 1–10 and 12–16 were not shown unpatentable on the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “We do not credit Dr. Anthony’s testimony, which is based on the arbitrary shading in Figure 7 (see Ex. 1002 ¶ 174), that Schröder teaches or suggests limitation 1[d] because it (1) is inconsistent with Petitioner’s reasoning for limitation 1[c], and (2) it is based on an admitted misreading of the embodiment of Schröder’s Figure 5 (see Ex. 1002 ¶ 175). As to the first item, Dr. Anthony states that “a POSITA would have been motivated to place a battery in a part of the cavity that is far from a PCB holding other electrical components because that configuration allows for better thermal management.” Ex. 1002, para. 175. The problem with this statement is that Petitioner relies on Schröder’s teaching that inlay 12, i.e., the alleged PCB, could include “other electrical components,” such as a battery to support its position that Schröder suggests placing a battery between the ring halves. See, e.g., Pet. Reply 2 (pointing to Dr. Mercier’s depo testimony that inlay 12 with “other components” is inserted between ring halves); id. at 3 (relying on Schröder’s teaching about placing components in depressions on inlay 12). So, Petitioner earlier asserts for the battery limitation 1[c] that Schröder teaches or suggests putting a battery on inlay 12 inside the ring halves, but then for limitation 1[d], Dr. Anthony testifies that a POSITA would place the battery “far” away from the inlay 12 (i.e., the alleged PCB). These positions are inconsistent.” slip op. at 25

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “at least a four-year degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, optical engineering, or related field of study, or equivalent experience, and at least two years’ experience in academia or industry studying or developing physiological monitoring devices such as non-invasive biosensors. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 18–22). Petitioner also contends that a person of ordinary skill would have been “familiar with, for example, sensor system design and signal processing” and that “[a] higher level of education or skill might make up for less experience, and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Resp. 26. We adopt this uncontested definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. This definition is supported by the record and consistent with the disclosure in the ’178 patent and the references cited in the Petition.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Patent Owner indicates that in the related ITC proceeding involving the ’178 patent, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) adopted three constructions agreed-upon by the parties in that proceeding8 and also construed two disputed terms.9 Resp. 26–27 (citing Ex. 2016, 5, 6, 14). Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner, however, that no terms need to be construed to decide the issues raised in the Petition. Id. at 27. We reviewed the constructions adopted by the ITC. Ex. 2016, 5, 6, 14. 8 In the ITC proceeding, the ALJ adopted the parties’ agreed-upon constructions that: (1) the preamble of claim 1 [a finger-worn wearable ring device] is limiting; (2) [positioned/configured to fit] within a “cavity” is [positioned/configured to fit] within a “hollow space”; and (3) [the internal housing component] “coupled with” [the external housing component] is [the internal housing component] “connected with” [the external housing component]. Ex. 2016, 5. 9 In the ITC proceeding, the ALJ construed the claims such that: (1) the internal and external housing components of claims 1, 12, and 17 enclose space and do not necessarily exclude potting material; and (2) “circumferential,” as recited in claims 1, 17, and 18, does not require a closed shape. Ex. 2016, 14, 17. These constructions are not germane to the issues we need to decide to resolve this proceeding. Thus, we agree that no explicit claim construction is necessary for this decision. To the extent the parties’ arguments raise any implicit issues of claim construction, we address those issues within the context in which they are raised in our analysis below.” slip op. at 11

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

    “The record supports Patent Owner’s argument that Mestas’s batteries are much too large to fit within a ring form factor, and “Mestas’s batteries, layout, and other components . . . would have to be scaled down 5 to 10 times to be appropriately sized for a finger worn ring.” Resp. 64 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Dr. Anthony’s cross-examination testimony at Ex. 2021, 313:12). Moreover, we do not credit Dr. Anthony’s testimony that miniaturization of the battery would have been “trivial to implement.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 242. Dr. Anthony admitted on cross-examination that it would not have been within the level of skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art to design a smaller version of Mestas’s battery, and that such a person would need to procure a battery of the appropriate size and specifications for implementation in a finger-ring from a battery manufacturer. Ex. 2021, 315:9–318:9. Yet Dr. Anthony had not ascertained, for purposes of his testimony, whether there was a battery available in 2013 that was appropriate to fit within the inlay space of the modified version of Schröder’s finger-ring that he and Petitioner allege would have been obvious to one of skill in the art at that time. Id. at 321:5–10. Further, we credit Dr. Mercier’s testimony that Dr. Anthony’s testimony fails to consider the differences in power requirements between Mestas and Schröder or to account for the constraints of such a substantially smaller form factor in Schröder’s finger-ring as compared to Mestas’s wrist device. Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 159–160. Although large curved batteries suitable for use in a wrist band or other larger wearable device, such as shown in Mestas, were known at the time of the ’178 patent, we also have evidence that prior art “finger ring wearables up to the ’178 patent had used ‘coin’ type batteries.” Id. at 66 (citing Ex. 2018 ¶ 161). We credit Dr. Mercier’s testimony that a person having ordinary skill in the art would look to a coin type battery for the necessary power requirements of Schröder’s device. Ex. 2018 ¶ 161. Indeed, this testimony is consistent with the other art of record that consistently shows the use of flat batteries in finger-ring devices, often stacked above and protruding from the general ring shape of the device. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 (Niwa), Figs. 22, 28; Ex. 2025 (Asada ’701 patent), Fig. 4; Ex. 1035 (Rhee), Figs. 7-1, 8-1, 8-2; Ex. 1037 (Asada article), Fig. 9; Ex. 1034 (Asada ’199 patent), Fig. 2; Ex. 1028 (Kimura), Fig. 24; Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 61–70. In fact, Oura’s first-generation ring design, released in 2015, used a Superbowl ring-type design, with the battery and other components mounted on top of the ring. Ex. 2034; Ex. 2018 ¶ 71. Based on these findings, Petitioner has not met its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify Schröder’s finger-ring to place a curved battery between the internal and external housing components in light of the teachings in Mestas. Thus, Petitioner has not met its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that dependent claim 3 of the ’178 patent is unpatentable over Schröder and Mestas.” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 11,868,178 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,868,178
• Life Spine, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 20, 2024 · IPR2022-01434 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 and 15 are unpatentable over Chung and Olmos-based obviousness grounds; claims 10–14 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted references did not teach the claimed complementary relationship.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “improperly incorporates-by-reference 12 pages of expert testimony via a single sentence.” PO Sur-reply 16 n.2 (citing Pet. Reply 17, which in turn cites Ex. 1026 (Hatch Decl.) ¶¶ 49–66). We find that many of the paragraphs within the cited range (i.e., Hatch Declaration paragraphs 49–66) appear to have a tenuous connection to the proposition for which Petitioner cites these paragraphs. See Pet. Reply 17. That said, we find that paragraphs 53–55 directly relate to Petitioner’s proposition in the Reply, i.e., that “Petitioner’s experts explain why a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would rely on a cross-sectional view over a perspective view for making the determination in question, because only the cross-sections provide the needed side view directly orthogonal to the positions of the yellow expansion portion and the end of the dovetail.” Id. Accordingly, we find that paragraphs 53–55—the only paragraphs we cite from Petitioner’s range in reaching our conclusion—are not improperly incorporated by reference into Petitioner’s Reply.” slip op. at 66

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied

    “provide Petitioner an opportunity to respond under the new construction, and decline to strike Petitioner’s relevant argument and evidence. Cf. Axonics, 75 F.4th at 1383 (“[W]hen the Board adopts a new claim construction following institution, an IPR petitioner must have adequate notice and an opportunity to respond under the new construction.”). Like in Axonics, in its new arguments on Reply, Petitioner here relies on the same embodiment from the same prior art reference that it relies on in the Petition to support the same legal argument, i.e., that Olmos’s Figure 16 embodiment discloses the “complementary with one another” limitation of challenged claims 10– 14. See Axonics, 75 F.4th at 1384; see also Apple Inc. v. Andrea Elecs. Corp., 949 F.3d 697, 706 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (permitting petitioner to elaborate in reply on an unpatentability theory presented in the petition). Moreover, we permitted Patent Owner to file (and it indeed did file) a sur-reply brief and expert declaration that addressed Petitioner’s new obviousness theories. Accordingly, both parties had adequate notice of our preliminary construction and an opportunity to respond under that new construction. For these reasons, we deny Patent Owner’s motion to strike.” slip op. at 124

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “from the expansion portion. We agree with Patent Owner that the wording of this limitation as a whole requires that the “extension necessarily must protrude beyond a longitudinal end of the expansion portion.” Id. at 11. We also agree with Patent Owner that “[u]nder Petitioner’s tenuous theory, an extension in any direction except 90 or 180 degrees would satisfy the claim language since any such direction has a so-called ‘longitudinal component.’” Id. at 13. For these reasons, we disagree with Petitioner’s argument that the purported “longitudinal component” of Chung’s extension satisfies limitation 1[h].” slip op. at 55

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “would have been motivated to add an extension to the Figure 16 embodiment because “an integrally-formed extension advantageously requires fewer parts, which facilitates both manufacturing and use.” Pet. 118. We agree with Patent Owner that this argument is unavailing. PO Resp. 50. Petitioner’s combination entails adding an extension (from Figure 8) to an embodiment lacking one (Figure 16). We agree with Patent Owner that adding a new component (whether separately or integrally) can in some instances complicate manufacturing/assembly and increase costs. See id. (citing Ex. 2013 (Culbert Decl.) ¶ 115). Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed combination in this instance would reduce complexity or facilitate the manufacturing process. Accordingly, we do not rely on this argument offered by Petitioner.” slip op. at 106

  Patent outcomesUS 8,845,731 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,845,731
• Tide International (USA), Inc. v. Upl Na Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 4, 2022 · IPR2020-01113 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 are unpatentable as obvious over Misselbrook, CN ’588, and JP ’902; claims 7–12 were not shown unpatentable because the grounds did not establish motivation to add a disintegrating agent.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “relevant to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include the type of problems encountered in the art and prior art solutions to those problems. See Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696–97 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The prior art itself may also reflect an appropriate level of skill. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7

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

    “We also adopt the parties’ position that the preamble of claims 1 and 7 is not limiting beyond the term “granule.” Claims 1 and 7 each recite “[a] chemically stable dry flow, low compact, dust free soluble phosphoramidothioate granule consisting of” the set of ingredients recited in body of those claims. Ex. 1001, 7:44–45, 8:19–20. While the wherein clause describing the dimensions of “said granule” relies on “granule” in the preamble for antecedent basis, none of the other preamble language appears to be necessary to breathe life and meaning into the claim, and the claim body recites a structurally complete invention. See Catalina Marketing Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (explaining that a preamble is limiting if it is “necessary to give live, meaning, and vitality to the claim,” but “is not limiting where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body”) (internal quotations omitted). Thus, we agree with the parties, and the district court in the related litigation, that the preamble language other than “granule” is not limiting.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Moreover, we agree that the transitional phrase “consisting of” in claims 1 and 7 creates a “very strong presumption that the claim element is ‘closed’ and therefore exclude[s] any elements, steps, or ingredients not specified in the claim.” Pet. 5; Resp. 12 (both quoting Multilayer Stretch Cling Film Holdings, Inc. v. Berry Plastics Corp., 831 F.3d 1350, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Neither party seeks to overcome that presumption, nor do we see any basis for doing so based on the record before us. Accordingly, we construe the challenged claims to be limited to granule compositions containing only those ingredients recited in the claims. There are no other terms that need to be construed to resolve the issues presented in this proceeding. Therefore, we do not construe any additional terms. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert creditedMixed

    “demonstrating that the “general conditions” regarding the use of these ingredients in such compositions was known. In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (noting that any overlap between the claimed and disclosed ranges serves to disclose the “general conditions” of the claim). “Such overlap itself provides sufficient motivation to optimize the ranges.” Id. Moreover, we credit Mr. Geigle’s testimony that a POSITA would have understood because the concentration of acephate was increased the concentration of the other ingredients would necessarily decrease and that a POSITA would have been able optimize these amounts using standard techniques and testing. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85–113. Thus, Petitioner has demonstrated that these ingredient concentrations are result-effective variables that would have been obvious to optimize through routine experimentation.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 7,473,685 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,473,685
• Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v. Resmed LimitedSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 23, 2018 · IPR2017-00501 · APJ James J Mayberry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 61–64 are unpatentable under § 103; claims 1–60, 65, and 66 were not shown unpatentable under § 103.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “(Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting inter partes review of claims 1–66 (the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,027,556 B2 (Ex. 1001, the “’556 patent”). Patent Owner, ResMed Ltd. (“ResMed”), filed a Preliminary Patent Owner Response to the Petition. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We instituted trial on claims 61–64 and 66 only. See Paper 8 (“Dec. on Inst.” or “Institution Decision”), 42–43 (instituting trial on claims 61–64 and 66 on four of the twelve asserted grounds); cf. Pet. 9–10 (listing the twelve asserted grounds).” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenOther

    “D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability In inter partes reviews, a petitioner bears the burden of proving unpatentability of the challenged claims, and the burden of persuasion never shifts to the patent owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To prevail in this proceeding, Fisher must support its challenge by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). Accordingly, all of our findings and conclusions are based on a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 27

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Petition, how Barnett teaches using a different material that is more rigid than silicone for neck 46 and ribs 56. The Petition lays out certain factual statements, but draws no conclusion from those statements, leaving us to somehow connect the dots.” slip op. at 33

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

    “patent . . . that claims as innovation the combination of two known devices according to their established functions.” KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 418. Importantly, “obviousness must be determined in light of all the facts, and . . . a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (emphasis added); see also Winner Int’l, 202 F.3d at 1349 n.8 (“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.”). Accordingly, we weigh Fisher’s and ResMed’s evidence with respect to whether a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Barnett with Ogden’s teaching of a main body of a cushion module using a material that is more” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 9,027,556 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,027,556
• Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v. Resmed LimitedSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 7, 2018 · IPR2017-00059 · APJ James J Mayberry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 73–76, 78–82, and 84–86 are unpatentable under § 103; claims 23–72, 77, and 83 were not shown unpatentable because the proposed modification would change Ogden’s principle of operation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “We find both parties assert very similar definitions of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Both definitions include a degreed engineer with two years of experience. Fisher identifies the fields of experience as “masks, respiratory therapy, patient interfaces or relevant product design experience” and ResMed, through Mr. Sleeper, defines the field of experience as “relevant product design experience.” Mr. Sleeper declares that additional experience may compensate for less education and additional education may compensate for less experience. We find, based on our review of the complete record, that the evidence of record supports a level of ordinary skill in the art consistent with the parties’ definitions—a person having a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering or other similar type of engineering degree combined with two years of experience in the field of masks, respiratory therapy, patient interfaces, or other relevant product design experience. We also find that additional experience may compensate for less education and additional education may compensate for less experience. Further, we note that our patentability analysis presented below would reach the same findings and determinations under either party’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other

    “ResMed takes the position that the plurality of tabs must form the snap-fit structure. See PO Resp. 27 (“Moreover, even if there was a ‘snap-fit,’ there would only be a snap-fit by a single tab (detent 43, illustrated below in Figure 1)—not the required plurality of tabs”); Tr. 35:7–9 (“The plurality of tabs are what need to have the snap-fit. And having one snap-fit for one tab is not enough to meet this claim language.”). As detailed below, we determine that the broadest reasonable construction of the disputed claim limitation encompasses a structure having a plurality of tabs, but the plurality of tabs not necessarily providing the snap-fit structure. That is, under the broadest reasonable construction, a single tab may provide the snap fit structure. First, the plain reading of claim 73 supports our construction. See, e.g., Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[T]he context in which a term is used in the [claim at issue] can be highly instructive.”). As a starting point, the plain meaning of the phrase “plurality of tabs” is two or more tabs and we discern nothing in the record to indicate a contrary meaning. See, e.g., Dayco Prod., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 258 F.3d 1317, 1327–28 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[W]e have held that ‘plurality,’ when used in a claim, refers to two or more items, absent some indication to the contrary.”). The plain language of the claim also requires the two or more tabs be structured to attach removably the headgear connector to the rigid mask frame. The claim language further requires this removable attaching be with a snap-fit. The language of the claim, however, does not require two or more tabs be associated with the snap-fit. That is, nothing in the plain language of the claim element precludes a structure that includes two or more tabs interfacing with the rigid mask, where only one of the tabs is associated with snap-fit aspect of the interfacing.” slip op. at 13

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

    “What a reference teaches and how a proposed modification of a reference would change its principle of operation are underlying factual inquiries in an obviousness analysis. See, e.g., Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (addressing the Board’s factual findings with respect to a reference’s principle of operation). We find that Ogden’s principle of operation is to employ a rigid plate loosely mounted to a rigid shell, such that “in use, the rigid plate is free to move relative to the rigid shell in response to any unequal forces being applied to it by the side straps as the patient, for example, turns his or her head from side-to-side.” Ex. 1102, 1:57–61; see also PO Resp. 52–53, 61 (indicating that Ogden’s principle of operation is its loosely-mounted rigid plate). Ogden’s disclosure as a whole supports our finding as to its principle of operation. As Ogden discloses, the loose-fitted rigid plate “rotate[s] to compensate for any unequally applied forces as the patient moves his or her head.” Ex. 1102, 4:17–20. [W]hen the patient turns his or her head and instead of tending to lift the shell 3 and its seal 5 off the patient’s face and breaking the seal as in FIG. 4, the rigid plate 9 of the present invention in FIG. 5 rotates relative to the rigid shell 3. This movement then compensates or equalizes the forces and keeps the shell 3 securingly in place with the center lines 69 and 71 of the shell 3 and the patient’s face aligned. Id. at 4:31–38; see also 4:61–5:3 (describing how Ogden’s facial mask compensates for any unequal applied forces by the side straps through the operation of loosely-mounted rigid place 9); Fig. 4 (illustrating how the seal at a patient’s face is broken by side-to-side movement with a rigid plate fixedly mounted to a rigid shell); cf. id. at 1:16–20 (“[A] common problem often arises that the mask will tend to unseat and leak as the patient turns his or her head (e.g., from side-to-side) or rolls over in bed and the straps contact and are deflected by a pillow, blanket, or other object.”); PO Resp. 52 (describing the problem addressed by Ogden).” slip op. at 32

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference . . . would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Haruna, 249 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (quoting Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Mich. Inc., 192 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); see, e.g., In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that, to teach away, the prior art must “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed”). We find that Ogden’s disclosure fails to rise to the level of teaching away. Ogden provides a solution to a problem with fixed headgear connectors but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage fixed headgear connectors. Instead, Ogden illustrates that a specific prior art mask with a fixed headgear connector may result in leakage of supplied air to the mask and discloses an improvement to that specific mask. Ogden does not indicate that a fixed headgear connector renders a mask inoperable or otherwise indicates that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not consider a path that led to a mask with a fixed headgear connector. We also do not agree with ResMed’s characterization that Ogden expressly teaches away from the proposed combination. Ogden expressly teaches a solution, but does not expressly teach away from other solutions. We note that, “[w]here the prior art contains ‘apparently conflicting’ slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 8,960,196 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,960,196
• Google LLC v. Makor Issues & Rights Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 12, 2018 · IPR2016-01535 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 12–14 and 18 are unpatentable as obvious over Xu and Peterson; unpatentability was not shown for claims 15, 16, and 19.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “We first examine the claim as a whole with a focus on the disputed language. The claim language itself requires “computing real time traffic jam identification.” Ex. 1001, 23:10 (emphasis added). By qualifying the claimed traffic jam as being determined in real time, and by also by using “sample vehicles to measure time delays,” a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that traffic jams are more immediate, e.g., real time, than the regular, statistical, congestion described in the ’783 patent. See Ex. 2002 ¶ 7 (“[C]laim 12 further goes on to recite the computation of ‘traffic jams,’ by using ‘sample vehicles to measure time delays,’ which a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand must therefore be distinct from regular, statistical, congestion.”). The claim also requires “collecting GPS data and computing individual statistical travel time estimates (regular times) for predetermined roads.” Ex. 1001, 23:3–6; Tr. 27:16–29:17 (discussing the relevance of this limitation). Reading the claim as a whole suggests that a “traffic jam” must be a sudden unpredictable change of traffic on a segment as compared to these regular times. See Ex. 2002 ¶ 7.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). In that regard, Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Braasch, testifies that:” slip op. at 18

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

    “Based on the final record, Petitioner has not provided sufficient arguments or credible evidence establishing how TravTek teaches the traffic jam limitation. Specifically, Petitioner has not persuasively shown how TravTek teaches the use of measured time delays of sample vehicles for computing a real time traffic jam. As explained above, we construed the term “traffic jam” to mean “a sudden unpredictable change of traffic in a segment as compared to regular times, i.e., individual statistical travel time estimates,” and thus the claimed “measuring time delays” must also be in relation to regular times. Claim 12 also requires that traffic jam identification is determined “by utilizing the sample vehicles for measuring time delays.” Petitioner has not directed us to record evidence sufficient to show that TravTek teaches these limitations.” slip op. at 24

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “First, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Xu only uses information from third party, or other external, sources to identify current traffic conditions. Patent Owner’s argument narrowly focuses on one example described in Xu, and fails to consider Xu as a whole, from the perspective of an ordinarily skilled artisan. A prior art reference must be considered for everything it teaches by way of technology and is not limited to the particular example it is describing. EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Furthermore, in an obviousness analysis, we must consider the combination of references, as a whole, in light of the general knowledge of an ordinarily skilled artisan. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). One stated objective of Xu is to create “a method for collecting dynamic traffic data using equipment installed in vehicles” as opposed to just relying on the prior art “methods for collecting traffic data” such as “sensing systems” that “are installed along highways,” using “[v]ideo cameras” or “pulsed laser range image technology.” Ex. 1006, 3:23–48. Given that a purpose of Xu was to use dynamic traffic data obtained from GPS receivers installed in vehicles, Xu, as a whole, provides a basis for using that same dynamic traffic data for determination of real time traffic conditions as testified by Dr. Braasch. Id.; see also id. at 2:63–67, 4:17–22; Ex. 1026 ¶ 36. For example, Xu explains how current traffic conditions may impact traffic forecasts and “the [TSC] receives a plurality of traffic data indicating that the link is experiencing an unusual congestion, by comparing the current traffic status with the normal traffic condition.” Id. at 12:66–13:6 (emphasis added); Ex. 1026 ¶ 36. Based on the final record, Petitioner establishes that the “plurality of traffic data” would include dynamic vehicle position data and that “time delays” are determined by comparing the current traffic status as determined by vehicle position with the normal traffic condition. Ex. 1006, 13:2–5 (“comparing the current traffic status with the normal traffic condition”); see also Pet. 68; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 145–46; Ex. 1026 ¶¶ 32–40. Indeed, as Dr. Braasch testifies, vehicle position data would be a source of real time traffic conditions indicative of unusual congestion. See Ex. 1026 ¶ 36; Ex. 1006, 12:66–13:6; Tr. 33:7–34:8 (citing Ex. 1006, 12:54–65). We are also persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Xu’s “communication system ‘forwards road traffic data reported from all vehicles 20 . . . to the traffic service center’ and that this data is used to provide ‘an optimum travel route based on real-time traffic conditions.’” Pet. Reply 17 (citing Ex. 1006, 7:37–52; 8:26–36; 12:66–13:6). Also persuasive is the cross-examination testimony of Dr. Kurzhanskiy that “one of the plurality of traffic data that could be being [sic] used to detect unusual congestion is vehicle probe position data.” Pet. Reply 17 (quoting Ex. 1024, 82:19–83:7) (also agreeing “that Xu discloses that vehicle position data is a form of traffic data that the system collects”). For these reasons, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Xu fails to disclose the traffic jam limitation.” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 6,480,783 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,480,783
• Pacific Surf Designs, Inc. v. Surf Waves, Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2018 · IPR2016-01454 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 and 7–20 are unpatentable; claim 6 was not shown unpatentable, based on the anticipation and obviousness grounds summarized by the Board.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Although the district court construed “activity section” as Petitioner describes, it also construed “curved sidewall extending substantially upwardly from [an/another] edge of the middle section,” which is part of the activity section, as “upwardly curved wall that the rider may traverse extending from [an/another] edge of the middle section.” Ex. 1013, 12–14. That said, it does not appear that the district court specifically considered whether to include “that the rider may traverse” in its construction. Id. It did, however, identify the issue regarding “activity section” as whether that term should include Petitioner/Defendant’s “additional proposed phrase ‘on 6 At the hearing, Patent Owner argued that the Lochtefeld 530 lacks the claimed sidewall because: the sidewall is “not to be designed [to be traversed]. But more than designed, there’s nothing in this reference that tells you that you should be traversing on it. So it’s more than just designed. There’s nothing in this reference that says you would traverse it.” Tr. 34:15–22. all of which a rider can ride.’” Ex. 1013, 10:1–4. It concluded that such language would be “superfluous and introduce[] ambiguity.” Id. at 10:9–12. We conclude the broadest-reasonable interpretation of “activity section” in light of the Specification does not require that a rider may traverse the entire activity section, including all portions of the sidewalls. Such a construction would be inconsistent with the Specification’s description that sidewalls may curve past vertical, as shown in Figure 12C. Ex. 1002, 4:5–6, Fig. 12C. In this regard, our construction comports with that of the district court. See Ex. 1013, 10:9–12. Beyond that, as discussed below (see infra at 41), whether the claims require that a rider may traverse some portion of the sidewall does not affect our conclusions regarding unpatentability. Thus, we do not further construe the “activity section.”” slip op. at 11

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

    “Regarding the claim phrase “extending substantially upwardly,” Patent Owner’s expert takes the position that curvature must be measured “perpendicular to a tangent along the edge.” See Ex. 1014, 59:3–60:1. Patent Owner relies on its expert to argue that Lochtefeld 589 does not disclose the claimed sidewalls but provides no support for construing “extending substantially upwardly” in such a manner. Patent Owner’s expert does not provide any support for such a construction in his declaration. Instead, he asserts that Lochtefeld 589 discloses sidewalls that extend either downward or horizontally, without explaining how he comes to that conclusion. Ex. 2001 ¶ 23. We will not impose a limiting construction based solely on an expert’s unsupported statements. Without some reason to construe “extending substantially upwardly” as sought by Patent Owner, we consider the ordinary meaning of the phrase within the context of the claims and Specification. The Specification gives a very permissive and general description of the sidewalls. E.g., Ex. 1001, 3:15–22, 3:56–4:6. Thus, the Specification leads us to construe “extending substantially upwardly” as encompassing a sidewall that, at some point, extends above the edge of middle section corresponding to the side wall.” slip op. at 13

  • Prior constructionTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “3. “the first curved side” All claims recite that the “second curved sidewall” is opposite “the first curved side.” Although the claims do not provide antecedent basis for “the first curved side,” Petitioner proposes that the term be construed as “the first curved sidewall.” Pet. 20. Petitioner notes that Patent Owner argued in the related district court proceeding that “[i]t is beyond dispute that the claim term ‘the first curved side’ was intended to be ‘the first curved sidewall,’ both to comport with all of the disclosures of the ’016 Patent and also in accordance with proper antecedent basis.” Id. (citing Ex. 1010, 28:13–18). Patent Owner does not address this issue. A district court may “correct an error in a patent by interpretation of the patent where no certificate of correction has been issued . . . only if (1) the correction is not subject to reasonable debate based on consideration of the claim language and the specification and (2) the prosecution history does not suggest a different interpretation of the claims.” Novo Indus., LP v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2003). We have applied this same standard in our proceedings. E.g., Apple Inc. v. Achates Reference Publ’g, Inc., Case IPR2013-00080, slip op at 10–12 (PTAB June 3, 2013) (Paper 22). Here, we conclude the claims are properly read such that “first curved side” refers to the “first curved sidewall” and that such correction is not subject to reasonable debate. Neither party has identified how the prosecution history suggests a different interpretation. Thus, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction, namely “first curved sidewall.”” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “1. The level of ordinary skill in the art Petitioner asserts that the applicable person of ordinary skill in the art is “a person with skill in designing, manufacturing, or refurbishing surfing simulation water rides.” Pet. 17. Petitioner’s expert declarant applies that definition in his analysis. Ex. 1002 ¶ 17. We adopted that definition in our institution decision and noted that the teachings of the prior art presented in the Petition reflect that level of skill. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Inst. 19. Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, and we also adopt it here.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 8,088,016 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,088,016
• Avx Corporation v. Presidio Components, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 21, 2017 · IPR2016-00636 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 13–16 and 18 are unpatentable under §103; claims 1–12, 17, and 19–21 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations relying on Liebowitz and Devoe lacked sufficient motivation to combine.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Liebowitz discloses a “high inductance drawback” to buried metallizations and vias, and expressly states that its invention is designed to “avoid[] any of these inductance-increasing methods.” Ex. 1004, 1:40–53; see also Ex. 2009, 113 (prosecution history of the ’639 patent, where the applicants distinguished Devoe by arguing that “the present invention recognizes that buried multi-layered structures can be used to make capacitors using vias and edge connections” and “it is this very construction that the present inventor seeks to avoid” (emphases omitted)). Indeed, Dr. Chung in her declaration filed in support of the Petition expressly recognized the high inductance drawback mentioned in Liebowitz. Ex. 1003 ¶ 49. Yet Petitioner’s proposed combination is based on a POSITA looking to Devoe to incorporate the very feature that Liebowitz states should be avoided. Petitioner and Dr. Chung do not account sufficiently for this express disclosure in Liebowitz. Instead, Dr. Chung testifies that a skilled artisan would have understood that the benefits of increased capacitance “may outweigh any negative impacts of an increase in inductance” because “the inductance concerns raised in Liebowitz are not always applicable.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 49 (emphasis added). Dr. Chung concludes that a skilled artisan would have combined the buried metallizations and vias of Devoe with the capacitor of Liebowitz “when increasing capacitance is of greater concern than lowering inductance.” Id. However, Petitioner does not provide sufficient explanation or credible evidence to explain when or under what circumstances increasing capacitance would have been of greater concern than lowering capacitance, or sufficient evidence to show that a skilled artisan would have understood that the benefits of increased capacitance would have outweighed the negative effects of high inductance. In particular, Dr. Chung’s unsupported and equivocal testimony that increased capacitance “may” outweigh increased inductance is insufficient for Petitioner to meet its burden.11 See id.” slip op. at 24

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “We disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that a declarant must actually be a person of ordinary skill in the art in order to present testimony as to what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood at the time of the invention. See, e.g., SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co. Inc., 594 F.3d 1360, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (stating there is no requirement of a 9 Patent Owner further contends Petitioner admitted that it was “required to present the opinions of a person of ordinary skill in the art . . . at the time of the invention of the ’639 patent.” PO Resp. 20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 15). We have reviewed the cited material and find Petitioner did not make any such admission. perfect match between an expert’s experience and the field of the art in question, provided the expert has “sufficient relevant technical experience” to testify). The Federal Circuit has explained that a person of ordinary skill in the art is a “hypothetical person postulated by § 103” that is “presumed to have . . . knowledge of all material prior art.” Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 745 F.2d 1437, 1452–53 (Fed. Cir. 1984); see also id. at 1454 (“It should be clear that that hypothetical person [of ordinary skill in the art] is not the inventor, but an imaginary being possessing ‘ordinary skill in the art’ created by Congress to provide a standard of patentability . . . .”). Thus, the proper question to ask is not whether the testifying witness is in fact such a “hypothetical person,” but rather whether the testifying witness possesses sufficient qualifications to be able to testify as to what the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art postulated by § 103 would have known and understood at the time of the invention. Although Dr. Chung may not have “industry” experience (Ex. 1016 ¶ 65), we find that Dr. Chung possesses sufficient education, training, and experience to provide testimony as to what a POSITA would have understood at the time of the invention, under either party’s proffered definition. See, e.g., Ex. 1011, 1–34; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 2–5; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 63–65 (describing Dr. Chung’s experience). For example, Dr. Chung has both a master’s degree and a doctorate in Materials Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Ex. 1003 ¶ 3. Dr. Chung has been active in capacitor research for at least 16 years, including experience in the design of single-layer capacitors, as evidenced by numerous publications. Ex. 1011; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 64, 65. Additionally, Dr. Chung is the Founding Director of the Composite Materials Research Laboratory at the University of Buffalo, is a professor, and has taught classes in Materials Science, including teaching concepts in the design of single layer capacitors to her students. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 4–5; Ex. 1016 ¶ 64. We further note that Dr. Chung is the author of Yih (Ex. 1012), which is one of the prior art references that is asserted in this proceeding. Certainly, the prior art of record in this proceeding—namely, Liebowitz, Devoe, Veater, SinghDeo, Insetta, and Yih —is indicative of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355; GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579. Moreover, to the extent Dr. Chung is less familiar with aspects” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that a declarant must actually be a person of ordinary skill in the art in order to present testimony as to what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood at the time of the invention. See, e.g., SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co. Inc., 594 F.3d 1360, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (stating there is no requirement of a 9 Patent Owner further contends Petitioner admitted that it was “required to present the opinions of a person of ordinary skill in the art . . . at the time of the invention of the ’639 patent.” PO Resp. 20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 15). We have reviewed the cited material and find Petitioner did not make any such admission. perfect match between an expert’s experience and the field of the art in question, provided the expert has “sufficient relevant technical experience” to testify). The Federal Circuit has explained that a person of ordinary skill in the art is a “hypothetical person postulated by § 103” that is “presumed to have . . . knowledge of all material prior art.” Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 745 F.2d 1437, 1452–53 (Fed. Cir. 1984); see also id. at 1454 (“It should be clear that that hypothetical person [of ordinary skill in the art] is not the inventor, but an imaginary being possessing ‘ordinary skill in the art’ created by Congress to provide a standard of patentability . . . .”). Thus, the proper question to ask is not whether the testifying witness is in fact such a “hypothetical person,” but rather whether the testifying witness possesses sufficient qualifications to be able to testify as to what the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art postulated by § 103 would have known and understood at the time of the invention. Although Dr. Chung may not have “industry” experience (Ex. 1016 ¶ 65), we find that Dr. Chung possesses sufficient education, training, and experience to provide testimony as to what a POSITA would have understood at the time of the invention, under either party’s proffered definition. See, e.g., Ex. 1011, 1–34; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 2–5; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 63–65 (describing Dr. Chung’s experience). For example, Dr. Chung has both a master’s degree and a doctorate in Materials Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Ex. 1003 ¶ 3. Dr. Chung has been active in capacitor research for at least 16 years, including experience in the design of single-layer capacitors, as evidenced by numerous publications. Ex. 1011; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 64, 65. Additionally, Dr. Chung is the Founding Director of the Composite Materials Research Laboratory at the University of Buffalo, is a” slip op. at 11

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “In our Decision on Institution, we construed “essentially monolithic structure” in claims 1 and 8 to mean “an essentially solid structure of materials that are sintered together” and that has “internal metallizations that create a partial boundary or seam within the structure, but because the metallizations do not cover the entire area of the dielectric layer, the ceramic materials sinter together around the edges of the metallization.” Dec. on Inst. 8–12. We disagreed with Petitioner’s argument that “essentially monolithic structure” should be interpreted broadly “to incorporate the elimination of any or all ‘boundaries/joints’ within a structure.” Id. (citing Pet. 6). Rather, we determined that the ’639 patent distinguished between a “monolithic structure,” which lacks any boundary or seam, and an “essentially monolithic structure” that possesses a partial boundary or seam. Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:3–19). The parties do not dispute our interpretation in their Patent Owner Response and Reply. Moreover, in consideration of the arguments and evidence developed during trial, we do not perceive any reason or evidence that compels any deviation from this interpretation. Accordingly, we adopt our previous analysis and claim interpretation of “essentially monolithic structure” for purposes of this Decision. Id. at 8–12. We further determine that for the purposes of this Decision, no other claim terms require construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (stating “only those terms need be construed that in controversy and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”).” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 6,661,639 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,661,639
• Spectrum Brands, Inc. / Unikey Technologies, Inc. v. Assa Abloy ABSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 12, 2017 · IPR2016-00686 · APJ Christopher G Paulraj · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 5, 9–16, 22, 23, 26, 29, and 30 are unpatentable over Nielsen; claims 7 and 21 were not shown unpatentable over Nielsen and Karkas for lack of a sufficient reason to combine.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Id. ¶ 84. Dr. Villasenor, however, does not cite to any underlying technical documents that may have corroborated Mr. Lovelock’s explanation about how the Seos platform operates; nor has Dr. Villasenor mapped Mr. Lovelock’s explanation to specific claim elements. Also, Mr. Lovelock himself has not submitted a declaration in this proceeding. We, thus, give Dr. Villasenor’s opinion that Patent Owner’s Seos platform practices the claims little weight. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”); see also 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.”). Further, we recognize that Dr. Villasenor’s testimony is the only evidence of record on this issue, as Petitioners have not submitted a rebuttal declaration attesting that Patent Owner’s products do not practice the claims.” slip op. at 37

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “between the commercial success of the Seos product and the claims of the ’374 patent.” Mot. to Exclude 8. Patent Owner argues that “the quoted passage is not relevant because it is removed by 10 years from the commercial success events Dr. Villasenor addressed,” and “bears no relationship to, and does not serve to prove, disprove or rebut the nexus between the commercial success of the Seos product in the hospitality or enterprise industries and the claimed credential updating features embodied in the Seos system.” Id. at 9. We disagree. As discussed above, we find that the quoted passage of the Annual Report statement is evidence of Patent Owner’s pre-existing market share, and, thus, relevant to the issue of whether the alleged commercial success has a nexus to the claimed invention. We have taken into account the fact that the 2004 Annual Report is from over 10 years ago, and do not find that it will cause any confusion. To the contrary, the 2004 Annual Report is more probative to the issue of pre-existing market share than more recent reports insofar as the ’374 patent claims an effective filing date based on a provisional application filed in April 2005. Ex. 1001, Title Page. Accordingly, we determine that Exhibit 1008 is admissible evidence under Rules 402 and 403, and we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude as to that exhibit. IV.” slip op. at 44

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “We agree with Dr. Villasenor insofar as the relevant field for the ’374 patent is more accurately defined as “electronic control access systems” rather than merely “security systems” (id. ¶ 41), but otherwise find no meaningful difference between the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by the parties’ experts. We also recognize that the level of skill in the art is reflected in the prior art references themselves, which focus on mobile-phone based electronic access systems, and take that into consideration in our analysis. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). As such, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have least an undergraduate degree in computer science or electrical engineering and one year of experience in electronic control access systems.” slip op. at 15

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

    “We determine, for purpose of this Final Written Decision, that no terms in the challenged claims require express construction. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 8,150,374 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,150,374

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.