- Packers Plus Energy Services Inc. / Packers Plus Energy Services (USA) Inc. v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 5, 2019 · IPR2018-01030 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 5, 6, and 10–13 are unpatentable, principally because King’s second embodiment anticipates them; the contingent motion to amend is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“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). Petitioner contends, relying on the testimony of Mr. Gonzalez, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in petroleum or mechanical engineering, or other science or technical degree applicable in the oil and gas industry, and at least three years of experience in drilling and completions of oil and gas wells, including experience in well fracturing simulations. Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1025 ¶¶ 41–43). Petitioner further contends that the artisan’s level of education necessary may increase or decrease depending on years of experience, and conversely the years of experience may increase or decrease depending on level of education. Id. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill or propose an alternative. PO Resp. 4. On the record before us, we are persuaded to adopt Mr. Gonzalez’s assessment of a person with ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the problems and solutions in the prior art of record. We further find that the prior art of record in the instant proceeding reflects the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“In applying a broadest reasonable construction, claim terms generally 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. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Additionally, we must be careful not to read a particular embodiment appearing in the written description into the claim if the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We start with whether “profile” is limited to a feature or element that makes contact with the ball. We agree with Petitioner that “profile” is not limited to features that make contact. Claim 1 recites “a profile disposed at the second portion configured to increase resistance to extrusion of a runnable member past the pluggable seat in comparison to the same pluggable seat without the profile.” Ex. 1001, 4:7–10 (emphasis added). Claim 11 recites a profile disposed at a second portion of the seat having a second diameter that is smaller than the first diameter and positioned downstream of the first portion, downstream being defined as a direction that the ball is moved into seating engagement with the seat, the profile being configured to require greater pressure required to extrude the ball past the first portion. Ex. 1001, 4:41–47. Consistent with Petitioner’s proposed construction (Pet. 22; Ex. 1025 ¶ 48), and contrary to Patent Owner’s contentions and the testimony of Mr. Watson (see, e.g., PO Resp. 14–16; Ex. 2010 ¶ 45), claims 1 and 11 recite that the “profile” is configured “to increase resistance” and “to require greater pressure,” respectively. Ex. 1001, 4:7–10, 4:41–47. Claims 1 and 11 also include recitations relating to seating, such as “seatable thereagainst” and “seating engagement,” but these recitations pertain to “a first portion” and defining the position of “a second portion,” i.e., “downstream,” respectively. Id. at 3:57, 4:3, 4:44. No similar terms are recited with respect to “profile.” Id. at 3:55–4:10, 4:33–47.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Regarding the first of Patent Owner’s assertions, consistent with Petitioner’s contentions and the testimony of Mr. Gonzalez and contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion and the testimony of Mr. Watson, Haugen describes an apparatus and method of operation for the release of concentric tubing strings used in well operations. Ex. 1003, at code (57). We agree with Petitioner that the ’829 Patent Specification does not limit the field of endeavor to “fracturing” or “sliding sleeves” and claim 1 does not recite that the “frustoconical surface” of the first portion prevents extrusion. Pet. Reply 17. Indeed, the ’829 Patent describes the field broadly as “industries concerned with earth formation boreholes, such as hydrocarbon recovery and gas sequestration.” Ex. 1001, 1:6–7. “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” KSR at 417.” slip op. at 35
Patent outcomesUS 8,365,829 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,365,829 - Unified Patents Inc. v. Iron Oak Technologies, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 15, 2019 · IPR2018-00486 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, and 11 are unpatentable as obvious over Eriksson alone and over Eriksson and Schellinger.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent would have had at least a Master’s Degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related subject, or at least a Bachelor’s Degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related subject and three years of experience working with wireless networks and telephone systems. Pet. 13. Iron Oak does not dispute or comment on Unified’s assertion of the level of ordinary skill in the art or offer its own proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. We adopt Unified’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it appears reasonable and consistent with the ’658 Patent. We note that the asserted prior art of record also reflects this level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther
“Based on the foregoing, we decline to adopt Iron Oak’s proposed construction of “communication path” because it is not supported by sufficient intrinsic or extrinsic evidence that defines communication path or otherwise demonstrates a clear intention to limit the scope of communication path as “uniquely” defined by the elements of the path. Further, based on the complete record and for purposes of this Final Written Decision, we maintain our preliminary construction of “communication path,” and conclude that a communication path is “any suitable element over which communications are transmitted or received” for the reasons provided in our Decision to Institute. This construction is consistent with the ’658 Patent Specification which provides that a “communication path may be uniquely defined by any one or a combination of the following: a network of satellitebased or land-based transceivers, a public switched telephone network . . . a mobile communication switching office . . ., or any other suitable element for communications.” See Ex. 1001, 1:20–25. As discussed above, Unified agrees with this claim construction.” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“First, Unified is correct that Iron Oak’s proposed construction seeks to add words to the claims. Essentially, Iron Oak requests that we narrow the scope of “a request for communication” to “a request for a specific communication.” Second, the portions of the Specification cited by Iron Oak do not support the proposed construction. Column 9, line 51 to column 10, line 5 describes, inter alia, that “mobile unit 32 may receive a request for communication,” that the request for communication “may specify various parameters for the communication,” and that the information relating to the parameters “may be conveyed in the form of one or more communication attributes.” Ex. 1001, 9:52–60. The cited passage describes a request for communication but it does not define a request for communication with respect to “a certain communication,” as Iron Oak asserts. Column 1, lines 10 to 39 describes various communication paths but does not mention the phrase “request for communication” let alone define the phrase as requested by Iron Oak. See id. 1:10–39. Figure 5 and 7 are flow charts detailing various processing steps including receiving a request for communication. Id. at Figs. 5, 7. However, neither figure provides support for Iron Oak’s proposed construction. For these reasons, we find that Iron Oak’s proposed construction is not suggested by the claim language or otherwise sufficiently supported by intrinsic evidence, and we decline to adopt this construction. Rather, we conclude that the term “request for communication” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning of a request that communication occur.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Ex. 1002, 5:55–57, 6:1–3, 6:26–56).8 For the following reasons, we determine that Unified presents persuasive arguments supported by convincing evidence to support a finding that Eriksson discloses the preamble of claim 1, including the recited communication paths, under either our construction or Iron Oak’s proposed construction of communication paths. Eriksson discloses an apparatus in which each of a plurality of cells is “served by at least one base station” where the base station includes transceiver 20, CPU 30, memory 40, and channel selector 50. Ex. 1002, 5:56–57, Fig. 1. Eriksson’s base station, thus, corresponds to an apparatus as appearing in the preamble of claim 1. Ex. 1003 ¶ 67. We note that Iron Oak does not address why Eriksson’s channels do not correspond to the recited communication paths under our construction of that term as set forth in the Decision to Institute and maintained herein. Further, Iron Oak does not squarely dispute the evidence presented by Unified in the Petition on this point. In particular, Unified’s expert, Dr. Haas, testifies by declaration that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that the channels of Eriksson are communication paths.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 74. Dr. Haas supports this opinion with disclosure from Eriksson of “allocating channels for connections between base stations and mobiles” and selecting “a channel (‘communication path’) based on its characteristics.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002, Abstract, 7:50–53). Dr. Haas opines that this process is similar to the disclosure in the ’658 Patent of selecting “a ‘particular 8 As noted above, Iron Oak did not request leave to file a sur-reply and, thus, does not address Unified’s contentions and evidence submitted in the Petitioner Reply. communication path 16’ . . . based on its ‘characteristics.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 4:4–9). Relying on various dictionary definitions and prior art references, Dr. Haas further opines that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood a ‘channel’ to be a ‘communication path’ based on ordinary usage of these terms.” Id. ¶ 75 (citations omitted). We find Dr. Haas’s testimony on this point to be credible and this testimony was not directly disputed by Iron Oak. Further, the Specification of the ’658 Patent supports Dr. Haas’s testimony by describing that “[c]ommunication over a communication path 16 may be implemented in a voice channel, control channel, paging channel part of a seized voice or data channel, . . . or other suitable technology.” Ex. 1001, 4:28–33. Based on the evidence presented by Unified including the declaration testimony of Dr. Haas discussed above that one of ordinary skill would have understood a channel to be a communication path as well as the reference to channels in the Specification of the ’658 Patent (see e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:28–33; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 74–75), we find that Unified’s arguments and evidence establish that Eriksson’s channels correspond to communication paths as we have construed this term, because the channels constitute suitable elements over which communications are transmitted or received. See e.g,, Ex. 1002, Abstract, 6:23–26, 7:50–53.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 5,966,658 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 5,966,658 - PTAB · Jun 21, 2019 · IPR2019-00158 · APJ Beverly M Bunting · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied the Patent Owner’s rehearing request, finding no misapprehension or oversight in its preliminary § 112(f) construction of “tool” for institution.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). On rehearing, the burden of showing that the Decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the Decision, in this case, Patent Owner. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). A request for rehearing must identify specifically all matters the requesting party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). In our Decision, when considering the meaning and scope of the claim language, we “preliminarily determine[d] that the term tool is used merely as a generic placeholder meant to cover ‘the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.’” Dec. 16. Based on this understanding, we preliminarily agreed with” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). On rehearing, the burden of showing that the Decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the Decision, in this case, Patent Owner. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). A request for rehearing must identify specifically all matters the requesting party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). In our Decision, when considering the meaning and scope of the claim language, we “preliminarily determine[d] that the term tool is used merely as a generic placeholder meant to cover ‘the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.’” Dec. 16. Based on this understanding, we preliminarily agreed with plus-function limitation having the function of imparting a deforming force on the deformable member, and the corresponding structure is a wedge, swage, shoulder, cone, ramp, mandrel, plug, and dart, as exemplified by tools 102, 122 and 142 disclosed in the ’439 patent.” Id. at 17–18. In its Preliminary Response, other than disputing Petitioner’s proposed construction, Patent Owner did not advance its own construction of tool. Prelim. Resp. 21–45. Now, Patent Owner’s stated basis for requesting rehearing is that we erred in preliminarily interpreting tool as a means-plusfunction (“MPF”) term. Req. Reh’g. 1.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“(Paper 1, “Petition” or “Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–23 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,080,439 B2 (Ex. 1003, “the ’439 patent”). Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, LLC, (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response to the Petition (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”). On April 15, 2019, we entered a Decision on Institution (Paper 9, “Decision” or “Dec.”) in this proceeding, determining that Petitioner had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’439 patent. Dec. 33. Patent Owner timely filed this Request for Rehearing of the Decision. Paper 12 (“Request” or “Req. Reh’g.”).” slip op. at 2
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 9,080,439 - Expedia, Inc. / Homeaway.Com, Inc. et al. v. International Business Machines CorporationRehearing deniedPTAB · Jun 5, 2019 · IPR2018-01685 · APJ Beverly M Bunting · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied the petitioner’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution because the petition did not persuasively map Barriga-Caceres to the construed federated-environment limitation.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). On rehearing, the burden of showing that the Decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the Decision, in this case, Petitioner. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). A request for rehearing must identify specifically all matters the requesting party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Petitioner’s stated basis for rehearing is that we “misapprehended or overlooked that Barriga-Caceres’s disclosure would” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“and Orbitz, LLC (collectively “Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–2, 4–11, and 15–20 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,631,346 (Ex. 1001, “the ’346 patent”). International Business Machines Corp. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 8, “Prelim. Resp.”). On April 11, 2019, we entered a Decision on Institution (Paper 10, “Decision” or “Dec.”) in this proceeding, determining that Petitioner had not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’346 patent on any of the asserted grounds. Dec. 22. Petitioner timely filed this Request for Rehearing of the Decision. Paper 11 (“Request” or “Req. Reh’g.”).” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“(“A brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archeologist with the record.”). However, as the Supreme Court has counseled, “the statute envisions that a petitioner will seek an inter partes review of a particular kind—one guided by a petition describing ‘each claim challenged’ and ‘the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based.’ [35 U.S.C.] § 312(a)(3). From the outset, we see that Congress chose to structure a process in which it’s the petitioner, not the Director, who gets to define the contours of the proceeding.” SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355, 200 L. Ed. 2d 695 (2018). Although we are sympathetic to the timing of the Federal Circuit’s construction, Petitioner does not argue persuasively, or provide authority to the effect, that we should reformulate the Petition to fit this claim construction. The additional explanation Petitioner now offers, as discussed below, concerning how the teachings of Barriga-Caceres are mapped to the “federated computing environment” limitation using the claim construction from the Federal Circuit, was not presented in the Petition, and Petitioner did not attempt to make it available to us before our statutory deadline. That is, we could not have misapprehended or overlooked arguments and evidence not presented in a cohesive manner in the Petition.” slip op. at 6
NonePatents in suitUS 7,631,346 - Expedia, Inc. / Homeaway.Com, Inc. et al. v. International Business Machines CorporationRehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 6, 2019 · IPR2018-01134 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, finding no overlooked or misapprehended arguments and no abuse of discretion in instituting review over the challenged claims.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be indicated if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The burden of showing that the Decision should be modified is on Patent Owner, the party challenging the Institution Decision. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). In addition, “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Decided for patent owner
“factor, where the petitioner had the benefit of materials from a previous proceeding.” Req. 12. The third General Plastic factor asks us to consider “whether at the time of filing of the second petition the petitioner already received the patent owner’s preliminary response to the first petition or received the Board’s decision on whether to institute review in the first petition.” General Plastic, Case IPR2016-01357, slip op. at 16. The General Plastic panel was “concerned here by the shifts in the prior art asserted and the related arguments in follow-on petitions.” Id. at 17. We fully considered the third General Plastic factor in our Institution Decision. Dec. 41–42. There, we explained that the extent of the guidance provided by the ’605 DDI was that the ’605 IPR petitioner failed to introduce meaningful argument or expert testimony to explain adequately (and allow the panel to evaluate) the relevance of Unleashed. Id. Thus, the extent of any roadmap given to Petitioner was that it ought to provide meaningful explanation and expert testimony in the petition itself to allow us to evaluate the relevance of Unleashed. Id. We found this to be entitled to less weight than a situation in which a petitioner changes its argument in response to the Board rejecting its argument in a previous case, or supplements its presentation of evidence in response to the Board finding a deficiency with a reference it presented in the previous case. Id. at 42.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for patent owner
“slip op.] at 15 (‘There is no per se rule precluding the filing of follow-on petitions.’).” Trial Practice Guide Update 10 (Aug. 2018) <https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2018_Revised_Trial_ Practice_Guide.pdf>. Indeed, as explained in the Institution Decision, Petitioner presented a strong case as to the merits. Dec. 24–35. This is an additional factor weighing against denial. Trial Practice Guide Update 10. We also weighed Patent Owner’s arguments in the context of the factors set forth in Becton, Dickenson, and concluded that, when considered together, those factors weighed against exercising our discretion under § 325(d). Dec. 37–40. In sum, we understood and fully considered Patent Owner’s arguments regarding General Plastic’s third factor, gave those arguments the weight they were due, and weighed the third factor along with the remaining factors outlined in General Plastic. We concluded that, when considered together, the factors weighed against exercising our discretion under § 314(a). We reached a similar conclusion upon considering factors relevant to our discretion under § 325(d). Patent Owner might disagree with our weighting of its arguments, but Patent Owner has not shown that we misapprehended or overlooked them, or that we were unreasonable in weighing those arguments in the context of all the factors.” slip op. at 7
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 5,961,601 - Abs Global, Inc. v. Cytonome/St, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 14, 2018 · IPR2017-02163 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied ABS Global’s rehearing request, leaving in place its denial of institution because the Petition did not show that Weigl teaches the claimed focusing regions.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. LEGAL STANDARD In a request for rehearing, “[t]he burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Further, “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Not reached
“our Decision Denying Institution (Paper 11, “Decision” or “Dec.”). In that Decision, we concluded that Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that any of the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,311,476 B2 (“the ’476 patent”) are unpatentable on any of the asserted grounds. See Dec. 22–27. Petitioner requests rehearing, arguing that we misapprehended or overlooked disclosures in Weigl,1 which was the primary reference Petitioner relied on in the asserted grounds. See Req. Reh’g 1. For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner’s request for rehearing is denied.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“helpful context, but in analyzing whether a petitioner has shown that the cited reference teaches a particular limitation, we look primarily to the section of the petition presenting arguments regarding that limitation. This flows from “the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim,’” Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)), as well as the requirement that “the Board must base its decision on arguments that were advanced by a party, and to which the opposing party was given a chance to respond.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also Sirona Dental Systems GmbH v. Institut Straumann AG, 892 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“It would . . . not be proper for the Board to deviate from the grounds in the petition and raise its own obviousness theory. . . .”). Here, the Request does not point to, and we do not find, any discussion of a constant-depth configuration in Weigl, in the Petition’s arguments regarding the “primary focusing region” and “secondary focusing region” limitations. See Pet. 39–44. Instead, as noted above, the Petition’s annotated drawings illustrating its contentions regarding these limitations show channel depth increasing, and the center fluid maintaining its dimensions as it flows downstream. The Request also argues that, leaving aside the constant-depth configuration, even a channel with increased depth would still serve to accelerate and narrow the center fluid. Req. 7–10. But here again, Petitioner did not present any such argument in the portion of its Petition arguing the “primary focusing region” and “secondary focusing region” limitations. See Pet. 39–44. The Request points to the summary of Weigl in the “Background of the Technology” section of the Petition. Req. 7–10 (citing Pet. 10–11). As such, we are not persuaded that our Decision overlooked or misapprehended Petitioner’s arguments regarding the “primary focusing region” and “secondary focusing region” limitations.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 7,311,476 - Caterpillar Inc. v. Ernie BrookinsAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 11, 2018 · IPR2017-01020 · APJ Jill D Hill · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 are unpatentable: claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 as anticipated by Keiser and all claims under the stated obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“3. “Rotational Power Distribution and Control System” Patent Owner repeats the same unsuccessful argument made in its Patent Owner Preliminary Response concerning limiting the phrase “rotational power distribution and control system” to a “fluid controlled resistance brake” because of the restriction requirement during prosecution. PO Resp. 3, 7–11. Patent Owner specifically argues that “[t]he patent application was restricted by the examiner to that of a ‘fluid controlled resistance brake’ (a hydraulic clutch) that takes the place of a standard clutch or torque converter and does not change gear ratio.” PO Resp. 8. Petitioner counters that Patent Owner does not cite to any authority that supports its novel proposition that election of a species during prosecution necessarily limits the scope of the claims, and that Patent Owner fails to “address the Board’s prior determination in any manner.” Reply 4. We agree. In our Decision on Institution, we preliminarily declined to limit the scope of 1 Patent Owner notes a claim construction ruling by a District Court in another proceeding involving the ’290 patent, construing “gear set” to mean “a gear set with three rotational interfaces.” Prelim. Resp. 14; Ex. 2001 at 15. claims 1–10 narrowly to include only the hydraulic clutch embodiment of Figures 1–3, or a “fluid controlled resistance brake” as argued by the Patent Owner. See PO Resp. 3, 7–8. Dec. on Inst. 11–12. Based on further review of the record, including the prosecution history and details of the restriction and election, we decline to limit the phrase “rotational power distribution and control system” to a “fluid controlled resistance brake” for the reasons provided in the Decision on Institution.” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner, relying on the testimony of its declarant, contends that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSITA”) of the ’290 patent would have a degree in mechanical engineering or equivalent, and 3–5 years’ experience in the research, development, or application of hydraulic systems.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 14–17). According to Petitioner, “[t]his level of skill is approximate and more experience would compensate for less formal education, and vice versa.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 14–17). Although Patent Owner disagreed with Petitioner’s proposed definition in its Patent Owner Preliminary Response,2 Patent Owner does not dispute this contention directly in its Patent Owner Response. See, generally, PO Resp. Based on the entire record, we agree with Petitioner’s assessment, and find that a POSITA “would have [had] a degree in mechanical engineering or equivalent, and 3–5 years’ experience in the research, development, or application of hydraulic systems, and that significant experience with, or an understanding of hydraulic systems, would compensate for a formal degree.” Pet. 12. We also note that the cited references reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of skill in the art”).” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Additionally, we credit the testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Monika Ivantysynova, that the casing 110 of Keiser’s variator pump 100 shown in its Figure 9 “is the claimed ‘cylinder block’ recited in claim 1 of the ’290 patent,” such that Keiser’s variator pump 100 – and thus its cylinder block 110 – is disclosed as coupled to the sun gear. Ex. 1002, p. 28. According to Ms. Ivantysynova, Keiser’s cylinder block 110 “is interconnecting to the sun gear via the variator pump 100 (a power transfer mechanism) that is disposed outside of the continuously variable connection, i.e., not through a planetary [or differential] gear set.” Id. at 28–29 (citing Ex. 1004, 37:1–4). Patent Owner’s argument regarding a gear ratio change is not convincing because it is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. That is, the language of claim 1 does not recite coupling without a gear ratio change, and Patent Owner has not provided evidence or explanation regarding why the recitation of claim 1 necessitates a lack of gear ratio change. Based on the entire record, Petitioner presents sufficient arguments and credible evidence to support a finding that Keiser discloses “a cylinder block of said hydrostatic pump being coupled to one of said gear set” as required by claim 1.” slip op. at 26
- BurdenUnpatentable
“While an anticipatory reference “must clearly and unequivocally disclose the claimed [invention] or direct those skilled in the art to the [invention] without any need for picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures,” (see Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (quoting In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972)), the portions of Keiser on which Petitioner relies are directly related to each other by Keiser’s teachings that the pump of Keiser’s Figure 9 is an exemplary embodiment of a variator pump 14 as disclosed in Keiser’s Figure 1. See Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (distinguishing NetMoneyIN when the reference in question explicitly contemplated the combination of the disclosed functionalities).” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 7,824,290 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,824,290 - Google LLC v. Makor Issues & Rights Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 9, 2018 · IPR2017-00816 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 4 and 6 are unpatentable over Xu, Vemuri, and Peterson; the Board found the TravTek-based grounds did not establish unpatentability.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“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: a POSITA would have had a combination of experience and education in electrical engineering and navigation systems. This typically would consist of a minimum of a bachelor degree in electrical engineering or a related engineering field plus 2-5 years of work and/or research experience in the field of electrical engineering and its subfield of navigation systems. Ex. 1003 ¶ 20. Patent Owner does not contest this level of skill for the person of ordinary skill in the art. Based on the final trial record before us, we adopt generally Dr. Braasch’s assessment of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Namely, that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have (1) a bachelor of science in electrical engineering or a related engineering field, and (2) 2–5 years of experience in the field of navigation systems.” slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“is focused on whether the term should be construed in a broader lay sense as proposed by Petitioner (Pet. Reply 5, 7) or whether the term should be construed in accordance with the more specific descriptions found in the Specification as proposed by Patent Owner (PO Resp. 4–10). As addressed in more detail below, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction in whole because it adds unnecessary ambiguity. For example, “irregular or abnormal” do not add clarity to the definition. PO Resp. 7. If a feature is not necessary to give meaning to what the inventor means by a claim term, it would be “extraneous” and should not be read into the claim. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The Specification, however, does convey that the term “traffic jam” is not used in a layman’s sense, but instead used as a description of a situation arising from a data comparison meeting certain criteria as discussed below.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for petitioner
“We determine that the claim limitation “statistical application for collecting structured GPS data . . .” is not in means-plus-function format because it does not recite traditional “means-for” language and also because the claim limitation has sufficiently definite structure. We find Dr. Braasch’s testimony persuasive that a POSITA would have understood “computing individual statistical travel time estimates” to simply describe averaging collected travel times. Ex. 1003 ¶ 144; Ex. 1034 ¶ 36. We agree with Petitioner’s argument that, “the ’783 patent discloses that the ‘statistical or empirical travel times’ are ‘averages by necessity.’” Pet. Reply 22 (quoting Ex. 1001, 10:22–36) (citing Ex. 1034 ¶¶ 36–38).” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableUnpatentableMixed
“Based on the final record, Petitioner has not provided sufficient arguments or credible evidence to support a finding that 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 4 also requires that the 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 claim elements.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 6,480,783 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,480,783 - Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Conformis, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 12, 2018 · IPR2017-00373 · APJ Beverly M Bunting · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 29 and 30 are unpatentable as obvious over CAOS, Radermacher, and Woolson, and over Swaelens and Woolson; obviousness over Swaelens alone was not shown.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedOther
“In our Decision on Institution, we agreed with Patent Owner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have an understanding of, or experience working with, imaging technology, e.g., in preparation for performing surgery. Dec. 7. We also noted that the applied prior art, e.g., Radermacher, reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. Id. (citing Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Patent Owner again argued in its Patent Owner Response that Petitioner’s position is incomplete because it does not include “experience with and an understanding of imaging technologies” or access to a person having such experience or understanding. PO Resp. 16–17. In his Reply Declaration, Dr. Mabrey agrees that “a POSITA ‘would have an understanding of, or experience working with, imaging technology, e.g., in preparation for performing surgery.”’ Ex. 1202 ¶ 15. Based on the entire record, we find that the person of ordinary skill in the art would be “an orthopedic surgeon having at least three years of experience in knee arthroplasty surgery” or “an engineer having a bachelor’s degree in biomedical engineering (or closely related discipline) who works with surgeons in designing cutting guides and who has at least three years of experience learning from these doctors about the use of such devices in joint replacement surgeries.” Additionally, this person would have experience with, or an understanding of, surgical imaging technologies, or would have access to such a person. Patent Owner challenges whether Dr. Mabrey has this additional qualification. PO Resp. 17–19. Our review of Dr. Mabrey’s experience, however, reveals that it aligns with our assessment of the appropriate skill level. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 4–9, 16–19, 43–57 (discussing personal and industry use of imaging); Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 20 (“I have been formally trained on various forms of medical imaging, including x-ray, CT, MRI, and fluoroscopy in connection with both my orthopedic surgery residency and my decades-long practice as an orthopedic surgeon at four major academic medical centers.”). Thus, we find that Dr. Mabrey qualifies as one of skill in the art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Having considered the entire record, our determination regarding the obviousness of the challenged claims does not turn on the interpretation of any of the claim terms. Thus, based on the final trial record before us, we determine that express construction of these terms or limitations is not necessary. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“combine MRI and X-ray image data only if the two images could be co-registered, we agree with Petitioner that “[t]he claims simply require deriving the patient-specific surface from MRI and orienting a guide ‘based on information derived from’ the second image data set (e.g., x-ray).” Reply 15. Moreover, we credit the testimony of Dr. Mabrey that “it would have been obvious to a POSITA . . . to identify the mechanical axis on a standing x-ray, calculate the angle between the transcondylar axis and the mechanical axis, and manually transfer the mechanical axis to the [first] image,” e.g., an MRI or CT image, for use in creating a tool. Id. (citing Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 7–9, 40; Ex. 1211 ¶ 21; Ex. 1210, 37:11–41:19). More specifically, Dr. Mabrey states:” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“with ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of CAOS, Radermacher, and Woolson, namely, that the POSITA would modify CAOS’s patient specific instrument using Radermacher’s teaching regarding the use of MRI imaging to make a patient-specific surface, and Woolson’s disclosure concerning the use of image data (e.g., x-ray or CT) to preoperatively identify the mechanical axis and plan the cuts to align the knee replacement implant with the patient’s mechanical axis, with a predictable result. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988 (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”)). As the Federal Circuit has made clear, when a reason to combine or modify references is in dispute, we must make a finding of a motivation to combine and must have an adequate evidentiary basis for that finding. See In re Nuvasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “‘[C]onclusory statements’ alone are insufficient and, instead, the finding must be supported by a ‘reasoned explanation.’” Id. at 1383 (quoting In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); accord id. at 1384 (not permitting the Board to effectively adopt the petitioner’s argument, which “amount[ed] to nothing more than conclusory statements that a PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine the prior art references to obtain additional information.”). Moreover, the Board “cannot rely solely on common knowledge or common sense to support [its] findings.” Id. at 1383.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 8,551,169 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,551,169 - Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v. Resmed LimitedRehearing deniedPTAB · Apr 24, 2018 · IPR2017-00632 · APJ Beverly M Bunting · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Fisher & Paykel’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 22 and 37 because it found no overlooked or misapprehended matter or abuse of discretion.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“When considering a request for rehearing, the Board reviews its decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). On rehearing, the burden of showing that the Decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the Decision, in this case, Petitioner. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsNot shown unpatentable
“claims 22 and 37 with the identified group of non-instituted claims. In our Decision, we expressly stated that “[c]laims 22 and 37 each require the second frame to include contact points that prevent rotation of the first frame with respect to the second frame.” Dec. 22. As Petitioner correctly points out, claims 22 and 37 depend from instituted claims 17 and 32, and further recite that “the second frame includes contact points [contacting the first frame] to prevent rotation of the first frame with respect to the second frame.” Req. Reh’g. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1001, 21:21–23, 22:44–47). Claim 17 requires “an opening located between the annular connection and the upper support member, the opening providing access to the first frame.” Ex. 1001, 21:4–7. Claim 32 similarly requires “a separate opening located between the annular opening and the upper support member, the separate opening providing access to the first frame while the mask assembly is fully assembled.” Id. at 22:28–31. Petitioner relied on its arguments directed to Decision, however, we were not persuaded by Petitioner’s primary argument directed to claim 81. Dec. 22. Namely, that Berthon-Jones and Barnett teach retaining the upper portion of opening 536 as a separate opening to limit or prevent unwanted rotation. See Pet. 43–44. Petitioner has not directed us to any disclosure in Berthon-Jones indicating that opening 536 performs an anti-rotation function. Rather, the function of securing the second frame to the first frame, as disclosed in Berthon-Jones, is performed by receiving holes 526, which snap-fit over connecting members 524. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 182, Fig. 51; see [Paper 7], 22–23. Dec. 18–19. Nonetheless, we were persuaded by Petitioner’s alternative argument, namely that “opening 526 located between the annular opening and upper member in the modified second frame corresponds to the ‘separate opening’ limitation.” Dec. 19 (citing Pet. 45; Ex. 1002 ¶ 182, Fig. 51). And, for the same reasons as stated with respect to claim 81, we were “persuaded at this preliminary stage of this proceeding that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its contention that claims 17 and 32 would have been obvious over Berthon-Jones, Barnett, and Lithgow.” Id. at” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Decision, however, we were not persuaded by Petitioner’s primary argument directed to claim 81. Dec. 22. Namely, that Berthon-Jones and Barnett teach retaining the upper portion of opening 536 as a separate opening to limit or prevent unwanted rotation. See Pet. 43–44. Petitioner has not directed us to any disclosure in Berthon-Jones indicating that opening 536 performs an anti-rotation function. Rather, the function of securing the second frame to the first frame, as disclosed in Berthon-Jones, is performed by receiving holes 526, which snap-fit over connecting members 524. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 182, Fig. 51; see [Paper 7], 22–23. Dec. 18–19. Nonetheless, we were persuaded by Petitioner’s alternative argument, namely that “opening 526 located between the annular opening and upper member in the modified second frame corresponds to the ‘separate opening’ limitation.” Dec. 19 (citing Pet. 45; Ex. 1002 ¶ 182, Fig. 51). And, for the same reasons as stated with respect to claim 81, we were “persuaded at this preliminary stage of this proceeding that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its contention that claims 17 and 32 would have been obvious over Berthon-Jones, Barnett, and Lithgow.” Id. at” slip op. at 4
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“bracket or frame structure” was a known modification with predictable results.” Req. Reh’g. 5–9. Primarily, our determination that we were “not persuaded that a ‘bracket or frame structure’ would have been a predictable option for incorporating Barnett’s collar 34 into Berthon-Jones’s mask.” Id. at 5 (citing Dec. 18). By way of example and citing the testimony of Mr. Eaton, we stated by that “adding a ‘bracket or frame structure’ would have been just ‘[a]nother possible solution.’” Dec. 18. slip op. at 6
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,944,061
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.