• Elekta, Inc. v. Varian Medical Systems, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 23, 2016 · IPR2015-01401 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4–7, 14, 15, 53, 60, and 61 are unpatentable over Jaffray 2001 under §§ 102(b) and 103(a), and over the stated Jaffray combinations under § 103(a).

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question” at the time of the invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). We construe only those claim terms necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). 2. “capable of implementing a treatment plan” Patent Owner takes the position that to be “capable of implementing a treatment plan,” a radiation treatment system cannot still be in development and must pass industry-established quality assurance validations that are prerequisites to commissioning such systems for use on real patients. See PO Resp. 17–18. We decline to read in these additional limitations. Neither the claims nor the Specification has any support for excluding devices that are still early in development, or those that have not yet been validated against established quality standards. The broadest reasonable construction of the term requires no more than a system capable of implementing one or more treatment plans. 3. “communications network” slip op. at 7

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

    “Patent Owner asserts “[a] communications network is a communication system that facilitates communication between many devices and that uses a networking protocol to selectively route messages to their intended devices.” PO Resp. 28. In Reply, Petitioner proposes a broader construction: “a link between two or more components of the radiation treatment system that allows information to be shared between them.” Reply 11. We agree with Petitioner. In the three instances when the ’021 patent Specification recites “communications network,” it describes only a generic connection between components. See Ex. 1001, 2:36–40 (explaining that “[t]he couch 218 may be connected to the therapy simulator rotatable gantry via a communications network”), 4:16–18 (explaining that “the computer 220 connects to the simulator 100 and the command processor 225 via a communications network 240”), 6:16–18 (explaining that “box 451, processor 425, and computer 450 connect to simulator 400 via communications network 440”). Figures 1 and 3 of the ’021 patent depict the communications network (items 240 and 440) simply as arrows connecting various components. Notably absent from the ’021 patent is any reference to networking protocols or a routing mechanism, and nothing in the term’s plain language requires a networking protocol or selectively routing messages as Patent Owner suggests. We agree with Petitioner under the broadest reasonable construction, a communications network is simply a link between two or more components of the radiation treatment system that allows information to be shared between them. 4. “a high energy radiation source” and “a cone-beam radiation source”” slip op. at 7

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

    “i. Jaffray 2001 Teaches “a radiation treatment system capable of implementing a treatment plan” All of the challenged claims require a “radiation treatment system capable of implementing a treatment plan.” We agree with Petitioner that because Jaffray 2001 teaches “[t]he adaptation of this system to a medical linear accelerator for on-line image-guided radiation therapy demonstrates the suitability of this technology for intra-therapeutic guidance,” Jaffray 2001 discloses a system capable of implementing a treatment plan. See Pet. 18 (quoting Ex. 1003, 800); Ex. 2024 ¶¶ 25–28 (explaining that “a medical linear accelerator, by its very nature, is capable of implementing a treatment plan”), ¶¶ 29–30 (explaining that Fig. 2(a) from Patent Owner’s Exhibit 2015 confirms that Jaffray 2001’s medical linear accelerator is capable of implementing a treatment plan). In contesting this element, Patent Owner notes that one of the other Jaffray references—Jaffray JRO 1999 (Ex. 1007)—states its design “allows normal operation of the accelerator with the imagers removed and the kV xray tube retracted.” Ex. 1007, 775. Patent Owner interprets Jaffray JRO 1999’s statement to mean in all of Jaffray’s systems, removing the imaging system was “necessary” before the linear accelerator could implement a treatment plan. PO Resp. 8–9; Ex. 2020 ¶ 58. Patent Owner argues further Jaffray 2001’s system was not capable of implementing a treatment plan because it was still in development and had not been tested or validated against established industry standards that must be met before the FDA will commission such devices for medical use. See PO Resp.17–18; Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 49–52. We disagree. As explained above, under our claim construction, the claim limitation at issue requires only a system capable of implementing one or more treatment plans, not one that is ready to certify for actual medical use on real patients. Jaffray JRO 1999’s reference to allowing normal operation with the imagers removed does not undermine that teaching; it simply indicates the disclosed system permits radiation therapy with the imagers removed, a feature beneficial for “limited situations in which the treatment plan may require extreme angulation.” Reply 3; see Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 7–8. We find Jaffray 2001 discloses a radiation treatment system capable of implementing a treatment plan as the challenged claims require.” slip op. at 12

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

    “challenged claims, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Jaffray 2001 at the time of the invention. See Pet. 26–27. As explained above, we find Jaffray 2001 discloses every limitation from the challenged claims. In addition, Petitioner explains—with unrefuted support from Dr. Hamilton and the prior art—by 1981 translatable treatment couches moveable in three planes plus angulation and coupled to the gantry via a communications network were standard on linear accelerators. See Pet. 26– 27 (citing Ex. 1016 ¶ 36; Ex. 1015, 220; Ex. 1010, 1, 2, 12, 39–48). Petitioner also explains—again with unrefuted support from Dr. Hamilton— none of the Jaffray references suggest any changes to these standard features and one skilled in the art would understand the linear accelerator depicted in Jaffray 2001 is the Elekta SL20, which had a translatable treatment couch including the same standard features. Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1016 ¶ 128). In addition, Petitioner explains that to the extent Jaffray 2001 fails to disclose a computing unit to capture and store image projection data, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include one because “to process the image projection data to generate volumetric images, it is necessary to store the image projection data in the computer which will process the data.” Pet. 27 (citing 1016 ¶ 207). Thus, in addition to demonstrating the necessary disclosures in the prior art (through incorporating its anticipation argument), Petitioner identified sufficient reasons that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements the way the claimed invention does. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. In contesting obviousness based on Jaffray 2001, Patent Owner reiterates its argument that Jaffray 2001 does not disclose a system capable of implementing a treatment plan (as required in all of the challenged claims), a computing unit coupled to the rotatable gantry via a communications network (as required in claims 1, 4, and 5), or a translatable treatment couch coupled to the rotatable gantry via a communications network (as required in claims 14, 15, and 60). PO Resp. 45. Patent Owner asserts also we should reject Petitioner’s obviousness challenge as an improper attempt to “bootstrap” obviousness to anticipation, without identifying any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art or explaining why those elements would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 43. We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments addressing Jaffray 2001’s ability to implement a treatment plan and communications network for the reasons explained in our anticipation analysis above. Moreover, we do not view Petitioner’s obviousness challenge as a mere “bootstrap” to anticipation because Petitioner identified potential differences between Jaffray 2001 and claimed subject matter (i.e., the claimed translatable treatment couch and computing unit to store image projection data) as well as rationale explaining why one skilled in the art would have known to include those elements.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 7,945,021 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,945,021
• Broad Ocean Technologies, LLC v. Nidec Motor CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 21, 2016 · IPR2015-01617 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7–13 were not shown unpatentable because Beifus did not disclose the claimed torque table with alternate torque settings.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Beifus states that Figure 6 “is a chart illustrating an induction motor speed-torque curve that is programmed into a memory of an ECM.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 11. Because “[a] claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference,” the dispositive issue in this proceeding is well defined: does Figure 6 (and related disclosure) of Beifus teach “selecting a torque table associated with the adjustment factor, the torque table including alternate torque settings,” as recited in independent claim 7? See Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).” slip op. at 9

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “reasoning of Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Petitioner contends that “[u]pon reading Beifus, a person of ordinary skill would immediately recognize that the ECM control circuit could handle the torque values in two ways – storing a set of torque values in a memory or by calculating the torque values ‘on the fly.’” Reply 18. Kennametal explains that “a reference can anticipate a claim even if it ‘do[es] not expressly spell out’ all the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination.” Kennametal at 1381 (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681 (CCPA 1962)). Petitioner did not raise the Kennametal theory of anticipation in its Petition, and the argument based on it in the Reply is, therefore, improper. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, or patent owner response.”) (emphasis added); CBS Interactive, Inc. v. Helferich Pat. Lic., LLC, Case IPR2013-00033, slip op. at 3 (PTAB Aug. 9, 2013) (Paper 79) (“Should there be improper arguments or evidence presented with a reply, the Board, exercising its discretion, may exclude the reply and related evidence in their entirety, or alternatively, decline to consider the improper arguments and/or related evidence.”). Although Patent Owner addressed this theory in its Response (PO Resp. 21–24), Patent Owner appears to have done so only prophylactically after the theory was raised by Petitioner in redirect examination of Dr. Sidman. See PO Resp. 21 (“During Dr. Sidman’s redirect examination by [Petitioner’s] counsel, he was asked the following leading question . . . .”) (“The Board should disregard any of this new evidence and argument if [Petitioner] intends to rely on it.”). Because this is a new argument, not raised in the Petition, we do not consider it.” slip op. at 18

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “the ambiguity when Figure 6 is actually described in detail in the specification.” Id. at 16. As Patent Owner asserts, “Beifus makes it clear that Figure 6 is a plot of values derived from key characteristics which are motor parameters of the emulated motor.” Id. (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 36; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 15–16, 31). This understanding of Beifus is confirmed by testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Mark N. Horenstein, Ph.D. Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 15–16. Dr. Horenstein explains that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the parameters stored in the ECM are key parameters used with the formula reproduced above to describe the torque-speed curve of the induction motor being emulated, namely the no-load speed, breakdown speed, and shape description number n. Id. ¶ 15. Dr. Horenstein further testifies that, “although square and diamond symbols appear along the curves in Figure 6, nowhere does Beifus describe the storing of these individual points.” Id. ¶ 16. Rather, Dr. Horenstein expresses his opinion that “a person of skill would understand these symbols to be included simply to identify which curve applies to Option 1 and which to Option 2 [i.e., different options for the induction motor breakdown speed], as indicated by the legend to the right of the plots.” Id. Petitioner challenged Dr. Horenstein’s opinion at his deposition, in part by comparing a drawing from one of Dr. Horenstein’s own patents that included a series of curves with data marked by different symbols: Q. So if a person of ordinary skill in the art looking at Figure 6 of the Beifus patent sees diamonds and squares, wouldn’t they come to an understanding that those are data points? A. I don’t think so. And the reason is that a formula is given that explains how the curves are computed. Figure 19 of [Dr. Horenstein’s patent], those are discretely measured points performed by experiment, and there really is no formula that applies to those curves per se, they’re just data points that have some scatter relative to each other and they happen to be connected by lines, but those lines do not represent a formula. Ex. 1013, 54:2–16. We disagree with Petitioner’s characterization of this testimony as explaining that “the reason a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the diamonds and squares appearing in Figure 19 of [Dr. Horenstein’s] patent are data points, as opposed to mere curve identifiers, is because the diamonds and squares are connected by lines.” Reply 15. Rather, Dr. Horenstein’s testimony makes clear that his opinion is grounded in Beifus’s disclosure of a formula that allows calculation of the illustrated points and that connection of data points measured by experiment with lines is incidental. Dr. Horenstein’s testimony is more persuasive than the testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Michael D. Sidman, Ph.D., on the identification of “key characteristic points” disclosed by Beifus. For example, Dr. Sidman appeared to suggest at his deposition that the entire speed-torque curve of Beifus’s Figure 6 is itself a “key characteristic point,” but qualified that position when challenged by Patent Owner. See Ex. 2001, 23:22–25:15. Nevertheless, Dr. Sidman agrees that (1) a curve can be generated from a mathematical formula and graphed (Ex. 2001, 30:8–11); (2) Beifus’s two formulas correspond to the formulas for “Option 1” and “Option 2” shown in Figure 6 (id. at 33:12–36:19); (3) operating speed, breakdown speed, no load speed, and shape-description number n are variables used in the formula disclosed by Beifus (id. at 22:23–23:10); (4) the calculation disclosed by Beifus could be performed on the fly in a motor controller (id. at 47:6–14); and (5) Beifus does not explicitly disclose that any precalculations are performed (id. at 43:1–23). These aspects of Dr. Sidman’s testimony are consistent with Patent Owner’s reading of Beifus.” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “We see no compelling reason to modify these constructions based on the positions of the parties as developed during the trial, and adopt them for this Decision. With respect to the construction of “torque table,” Patent Owner asserts: If the Board’s construction means that the table need not be in any particular format in the memory, but the table must still store the alternative torque values required by the claim “in a memory connected to the motor,” then Patent Owner accepts this interpretation for the purposes of this proceeding. However, if the Board’s construction including reference to “a torque curve graphically representing a set of torque values” does not require the torque values shown on the curve to be stored in memory, it is erroneous. PO Resp. 9. We agree with Patent Owner’s position, namely that “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘table’ still must require the torque values to be stored in the table.” Id. As Patent Owner points out, “[t]he only intrinsic evidence available in this proceeding demonstrates a ‘torque table’ stores alternative torque settings.” Id. In particular, the ’092 patent consistently uses “table” to refer to discrete data that are stored in a memory, such as in the “speed tables” described as alternatives to “torque tables.” See Ex. 1001, col. 11, ll. 5–24, col. 16, ll. 63–66 (“Instead of adjusting the torque as described above, the motor controller 18 could store a plurality of different torque or speed tables and select one of the torque/speed tables based on an input provided by the torque adjustment mechanism.”). This aspect of the construction of “torque table” is reflected in its reference to including a graphical representation of “a set” of torque values in a memory connected to a motor.” slip op. at 7

  Patent outcomesUS 7,990,092 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 7,990,092
• Honeywell International Inc. v. Allure Energy, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 6, 2016 · IPR2015-01248 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5, 20, 22–25, and 30 are unpatentable as obvious over Yamashita and Shamoon; claims 2–4, 6–8, and 19 were not proven unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner is attempting to improperly limit the construction. As we explained in our Decision on Institution, we declined to limit “comparison” to a particular type of evaluation, and by our construction, we did not find that the “focus” of the “comparison” is to identify “any dissimilarity” as Patent Owner contends. See Inst. Dec. 9. Indeed, as evidenced by the dictionary definitions cited by Patent Owner and that we relied upon, determining dissimilarities is not the “focus” of the plain and ordinary meaning of “comparison” that we adopted. See Inst. Dec. 9 (citing Ex. 2003 (defining “comparison” as “the act of looking at things to see how they are similar or different” and “the act of suggesting that two or more things are similar or in the same category”)); see also Ex. 2011 (defining “comparison” as “the representing of one thing or person as similar to or like another” and “an examination of two or more items to establish similarities and dissimilarities”).” slip op. at 6

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

    “Here, we agree with Petitioner that the plain language of the claim is sufficient and no construction is necessary for this term. The claim language already establishes that there are two user profiles, each is associated with a particular and different mobile device, and the profiles include “information to alter an operating condition of the network device according to a preference of a [first/second] user.” The claim already addresses what attributes the user profile must have. We see no support in the claim language or specification for Patent Owner’s additional requirements that the profiles be “individual” and “include information unique to each user.”” slip op. at 9

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

    “v. Summary as to Claims 1, 20, 22–25, and 30 Patent Owner raises no evidence of secondary considerations of nonobviousness in this case. Thus, weighing the evidence of obviousness that is before us, we find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 20, 22–25, and 30 would have been obvious over the combination of Yamashita and Shamoon.” slip op. at 31

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

    “We do not find Patent Owner’s arguments persuasive. Teaching away requires that “a person of ordinary skill upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994).4 Patent Owner cites nothing in Yamashita that says that adding the features from Shamoon in addition to the automatic functionality of Yamashita would be unlikely to work; Yamashita alleges only that manual control alone has certain disadvantages. 4 We understand Patent Owner to be arguing both that the references teach away from the combination generally and teach away because, in particular, the combination would change the principle of operation of the system. PO Resp. 33–36. See In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. McGaw, Inc., 149 F.3d 1321, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (finding no teaching away where nothing in the prior art device suggested that the claimed invention was unlikely to work). The lack of teaching away is confirmed by Yamashita’s disclosure of an embodiment requiring manual interaction. See Reply 20 (citing Ex. 1006, 22:31–51). Indeed, although Patent Owner contends that automatic functionality is “not the focus or main purpose of Shamoon,” PO Resp. 35, Shamoon’s system demonstrates that automatic functionality can be combined with manual functionality to result in a working system. See Ex. 1007, 8:36–45. As for Patent Owner’s contentions that Yamashita “abandoned bi- directional communication” (PO Resp. 35), we find no support in the cited portions of Yamashita for these contentions. Although Yamashita does tout the benefits of its automatic control system, the cited portions of Yamashita are silent about the advantages or disadvantages of “bi-directional communication.” As for Patent Owner’s arguments about substantial reconstruction and redesign (PO Resp. 36 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 91)), we do not find the testimony or argument persuasive. Yamashita’s control terminal and mobile terminals already has built in communication abilities (Ex. 1006, 11:31–38), and we find Dr. Selker’s testimony persuasive that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to add the ability to communicate the thermostat reading to verify that Yamashita’s automatic control worked. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 205–207. As for Patent Owner’s allegation that the combination with Shamoon would change Yamashita’s principle of operation, we disagree. Yamashita would continue to work as before; the messages, rules, and control information would continue operate in the same manner. Shamoon would only add additional functionality to allow for an improved user interface and two-way communication. Where the device would operate on the same principles as before, the combination does not change the principle of operation. See Mouttet, 686 F.3d at 1332 (noting Ratti inapplicable where the modified apparatus will operate “on the same principles as before”). As Petitioner explains, Shamoon demonstrates that its known techniques have been used to improve similar devices in similar ways. We find that Petitioner has articulated sufficient reasoning with rational underpinnings to support the combination. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 205–207, 213. Thus, we conclude that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings of Yamashita and Shamoon.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 8,626,344 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,626,344
• Honeywell International Inc. v. Allure Energy, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 6, 2016 · IPR2015-01251 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 9–14, 16, and 26–29 are unpatentable as obvious over Yamashita and Shamoon; claims 15, 17, and 18 were not proven unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s further narrowing of our construction is improperly limiting. As we explained in our Decision on Institution, we declined to limit “comparing” to a particular type of evaluation, and by our construction, we did not find that the “focus” of the comparison is to identify “any dissimilarity” as Patent Owner contends. See Inst. Dec. 10. Indeed, as evidenced by the dictionary definitions cited by Patent Owner and that we relied upon, determining dissimilarities is not the “focus” of the plain and ordinary meaning of “comparing” that we adopted; rather, each of them emphasizes determining similarities as well. See Inst. Dec. 9 (citing Ex. 2002 (defining “comparison” as “the act of looking at things to see how they are similar or different” and “the act of suggesting that two or more things are similar or in the same category”)); see also Ex. 2006 (defining “comparison” as “the representing of one thing or person as similar to or like another” and “an examination of two or more items to establish similarities and dissimilarities”). The specification does not compel a different understanding. The” slip op. at 7

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

    “that the parties’ actual dispute is twofold. First, the parties dispute whether the mobile device must be able to transmit location information to the site regardless of whether the proximity setting is enabled or disabled. See Reply 8–9; PO Resp. 14–15. Second, Patent Owner argues that the entire process of proximity detection must be automatic. PO Resp. 14. As we explain below, we agree with Petitioner that this term does not require that the mobile device continue to send location reports if the proximity setting is not enabled, whereas we disagree with Petitioner that the proximity setting is limited to enabling or disabling the ability to send location reports. Instead, we find the specification supports a broader construction. In particular, we find that the specification states that “[f]or example, a user may enable proximity detection using proximity detection selector 1036 and energy use at a site may be altered based on a user[’]s distance to the site.” Ex. 1001, 46:45–48. It further explains that “[i]n some forms, proximity detection selector 1036 can be hidden, displayed, selectable, or any combination thereof in response to a user having a mobile device capable of being detected when a user is at or away from a site.” Id. at 46:50–54. Thus, we consider the broadest reasonable construction of “proximity setting” consistent with the specification to be “a setting that can enable or disable proximity detection, where energy use at a site may be altered based on the user’s location.” Both parties acknowledge that this is a reasonable meaning of the term. Reply 8; PO Resp. 12.” slip op. at 10

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

    “In sum, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the control terminal in Yamashita receives messages from the wireless terminals that represent the relative location of the mobile terminal (e.g., within 300 m of the site or moving away from the site) and that the control terminal includes a number of rules to compare the messages to determine what control information to send to the controlled appliances, and that as a result of the comparison sends control information to alter the condition of the controlled appliances. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 214–216. Thus, we are persuaded that Yamashita accounts for the “comparing limitations” of claim 9.” slip op. at 27

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

    “We find that Petitioner has shown adequately that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Yamashita with Shamoon. In particular, we do not agree with Patent Owner that Yamashita teaches away from the combination or that the combination would change the principle of operation of Yamashita.3 Patent Owner is correct that Yamashita distinguishes manual control, and notes the disadvantages of “burdensome operations” and the possibility the user may forget to perform the required operations. Ex. 1005, 1:35–40. Patent Owner is also correct that Yamashita states that one objective of the invention is a system that can automatically control an appliance based on position without requiring any operation by the user. Id. at 1:44–47. Yet, Yamashita also discloses an embodiment where the user is prompted before a message is sent, which does require an operation by the user. Id. at 23:31–51. Thus, we do not agree that Yamashita disparages all manual interaction as Patent Owner contends. Moreover, teaching away requires that “a person of ordinary skill upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Patent Owner cites nothing in Yamashita that says that adding the communication features from Shamoon to transmit the thermostat readings to the mobile terminal to the automatic functionality of Yamashita would be unlikely to work; Yamashita alleges only that manual control alone has certain disadvantages, not that communicating information from the site to” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 8,626,344 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,626,344
• Honeywell International Inc. v. Allure Energy, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 6, 2016 · IPR2015-01253 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 are unpatentable as obvious over Richton and Rosenblatt.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We do not agree that the claim language unambiguously requires that there must be outer boundaries. The term “zone” generally refers to an area. We turn to the specification to see how the ’797 patent describes a zone. See Trs. of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y. v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“‘[T]he specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis’ and is, in fact, ‘the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’”). As Petitioner points out, the specification refers to zones that do not have an outer boundary. See Ex. 1001, 12:41–44 (“detect mobile device 210 within a first zone (e.g., less than one (1) mile from the site, less than three (3) miles from site, greater than five (5) miles from site, etc.).”). Indeed, contrary to Patent Owner’s argument that in order to be “within” the zones there must be an outer boundary, the specification describes an embodiment where the user is “within” a zone that is “greater than five (5) miles from [the] site.” Id. at 12:42–44. In this instance, there is an inner boundary for the zone (five miles), but not an outer boundary.” slip op. at 8

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

    “attempts to rebut this testimony with testimony from its declarant, Mr. McAlexander, that this statement in Richton only means that the location-action server can be distributed over a couple of remote servers. Ex. 2004 ¶ 71. We do not find Mr. McAlexander’s testimony persuasive for several reasons. In particular, the testimony ignores Richton’s explicit statement that it is not important where the components of the location-action server are located, but that “[o]nly the operative connection between the components is important.” Ex. 1003, 12:58–59. This statement suggests that the functionality can be more distributed than Mr. McAlexander contends. Moreover, Mr. McAlexander’s testimony mischaracterizes Petitioner’s and Dr. Selker’s argument by saying that “[t]his [statement] does not disclose [that] the various components, which carry out the location-based action services, are located on the mobile device.”8 Ex. 2004 ¶ 71. Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Selker, however, suggested that this statement in Richton discloses locating the components on a mobile device. Instead, they suggested, and we agree, that because the functionality can be distributed, it enables the functionality to be placed on a mobile device.” slip op. at 21

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

    “not commensurate with the scope of the claims because “whether” and “within” do not impart the limitations that Patent Owner seeks to include the claims. When Richton determines that the mobile device crosses a particular distance threshold such that the device is now in a particular zone, we find that Richton determines whether the device is within that zone. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 116–119; Ex. 1003, 6:36–50, 8:46–9:10. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Richton teaches or suggests the zone limitations of claims 3–8 and 14.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 8,457,797 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,457,797
• Atlanta Gas Light Company v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Dec 6, 2016 · IPR2015-00826 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving claims 1–8 unpatentable, and granted sanctions for Petitioner’s failure to timely update real-party-in-interest notices.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “IV. REQUEST FOR REHEARING On rehearing, the burden of showing that the Decision should be modified lies with Patent Owner, the party challenging the Decision. 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 previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id.” slip op. at 10

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for patent owner

    “With respect to Southern Company Gas, Petitioner’s assertion ignores the fact that Southern Company Gas did not result merely from a name change, but rather also from a merger with AMS Corp. that occurred before the name change. See Paper 34, 3. In the related IPR, the Board specifically found that AGLR is a real party in interest, and it follows that the merged entity is also a real party in interest. Atlanta Gas, slip op. at 13 (PTAB Jan. 6, 2015) (Paper 88). The merger with AMS Corp. has meaningful effects that impose an obligation on Petitioner to apprise the Board that Southern Gas Company is a real party in interest. Petitioner’s failure to file timely the updated mandatory notice is especially significant in light of the central nature that the issue of AGLR’s status as a real party in interest played in the related IPR. See Atlanta Gas, Paper 87, 46:6–9 (“The problem that we have, and you will remember, we had to fight like tooth and nail to get these documents. At every turn there was an objection to producing documents related to the real party in interest issue or the privity issue.” (statement by Patent Owner at oral hearing in the related IPR)). With respect to The Southern Company, we do not credit Petitioner’s argument that The Southern Company is not a real party in interest in light of Petitioner’s explicit notification to the contrary. Petitioner cannot have it both ways, identifying The Southern Company as a real party in interest (even “out of an abundance of caution”) to ensure compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 312(b), while simultaneously maintaining that it is not a real party in interest to evade the obligations of 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(3). In light of these various considerations, we conclude that Petitioner has performed conduct that warrants a sanction.” slip op. at 5

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted

    “be to expunge the Decision and the request for rehearing, dismiss the Petition with prejudice, and order [Petitioner] to pay compensatory expenses and attorney fees to [Patent Owner].” Mot. 5. We disagree that this proposed sanction is proportionate to the harm suffered by Patent Owner. In particular, as Petitioner contends, the harm suffered by Patent Owner is limited because “the estoppel provisions apply to the petitioner and ‘the real party in interest or privy of the petitioner.’” Opp. 6 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(1)) (emphasis by Petitioner). There is no requirement that a petitioner identify all of its privies in a petition, and Patent Owner’s ability to address whether The Southern Company was a privy that would give rise to estoppel was not impacted by Petitioner’s original failure to file an updated mandatory notice. Furthermore, “[a] sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.11(d)(4) (emphasis added). We have considered, but are not persuaded by, Patent Owner’s argument that “[a]ny remedy short of termination with prejudice would encourage future petitioners to try to suppress the identification of real parties-in-interest.” Mot. 6. A more limited sanction will have sufficient deterrent effect. We determine that an appropriate sanction, proportionate to the harm suffered by Patent Owner, is to award costs and fees incurred in association with this proceeding from the time after issuance of the Final Written Decision until the date of this Decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.12(b)(6).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Not reached

    “Although we agree with Patent Owner in the abstract that the “ordinary and customary meaning” standard applied to expired patents requires that evidence be viewed through the eyes of one of ordinary skill in the art, Patent Owner stretches that principle too far. See id. at 9–10. “[A] claim construction analysis must begin and remain centered on the claim language itself.” Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc., 382 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Patent Owner asks us to deviate far from this cardinal principle by incorporating features of the Fisher S254 regulator that are not recited in the claims themselves, under circumstances in which the Fisher S254 regulator is not explicitly identified as such anywhere in the specification of the ’029 patent. “Reading a claim in light of the specification, to thereby interpret limitations explicitly recited in the claim, is a quite different thing from reading limitations of the specification into a claim, to thereby narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly adding disclosed limitations which have no express basis in the claim.” In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404–05 (CCPA 1969). This is particularly the case when the standard we are obliged to apply does not afford Patent Owner a presumption of validity of the patent’s claims. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that we misapprehended or overlooked any aspect of Patent Owner’s claim-construction arguments. Nor are we persuaded that Patent Owner’s evidence in support of those arguments was inadequately considered.” slip op. at 16

  Claim constructioncites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 5,810,029
• Telebrands Corp. v. Ragner Technology CorporationInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 23, 2016 · PGR2016-00026 · APJ Michael W Kim · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show that claims 1–25 were more likely than not unpatentable for indefiniteness or obviousness over Berardi and Gladfelter.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . demonstrate[s] that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.”” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the ’057 patent “would have been a person having general knowledge about and experience with the manufacture and/or use of hoses and with fluid mechanics and materials science as they relate to hoses and how hoses work generally. The person of ordinary skill has at least an associate’s degree in science or engineering.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1005). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s assertion. On these facts, we determine that Petitioner’s articulation of a person of ordinary skill in the art is credible.” slip op. at 7

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteNot shown unpatentable

    “’057 patent defines the following relevant claim terms: “extended length” and “maximum stretched length.” Petitioner does not dispute that these claim terms are defined expressly by the ’057 patent, nor does Petitioner indicate that these claim terms are indefinite. Next, each independent claim recites expressly that the “stretched length” is longer than the “extended length,” which we construed above as “the length the hose or those components extend to when the hose is pressurized with a fluid and no extension forces are applied other than fluid pressure.” Finally, the term “maximum stretched length,” both by the use of the word “maximum” and the express definition set forth in the ’057 patent, indicates that it constitutes an upper bound for the term “stretched length.” Accordingly, through transitive analysis, we determine that the recited term “stretched length” is a relative length intermediate the explicitly defined terms “extended length” and “maximum stretched length.” Relative claim terminology is acceptable if one of ordinary skill would have understood what is claimed, in light of the Specification. Seattle Box Co., Inc. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984).” slip op. at 10

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

    “those components extend to when the hose is pressurized with a fluid and no extension forces are applied other than fluid pressure,” and also determined that “stretched length” is a relative length intermediate the explicitly defined terms “extended length” and “maximum stretched length.” When considered in the aggregate, we see that “extended length” is a length of a hose attributable to only fluid pressure, while “stretched length” is a length of a hose attributable to any force other than fluid pressure. Accordingly, a discussion of the prior art must acknowledge the interplay between the length of the hose, fluid pressure, and other forces, in order to meet the aforementioned claim limitation.” slip op. at 17

  § 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 9,182,057
• H&S Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Oxbo International CorporationInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 26, 2016 · IPR2016-00926 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 28, 32, or 44 unpatentable on any asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we conclude the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any claim of the ’929 patent. Accordingly, the Petition is denied and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 2

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

    “assemblies being aligned side by side when each of the pickup assemblies is positioned in the extended use position such that the first, second, and third pickup assemblies provide a continuous line of material pickup.” Petitioner contends that “‘a continuous line of material pickup’ is: ‘a pickup face uninterrupted by gaps.’” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 35–36). Patent Owner argues that “the claims require the pickup assemblies be aligned such that they pickup material continuously along the width of the merger,” and that introducing “gaps” to the meaning of the term “adds unnecessary vagueness to an otherwise definite phrase.” Prelim. Resp. 11. We agree with Patent Owner, and, for purposes of this decision, we determine no express construction is necessary for “continuous line of material pickup.”” slip op. at 8

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

    “Beougher Figure 1 illustrates combine 10 (folded for transit) equipped with folding header assembly 11, including center section 17 and wing sections 18, which Petitioner contends correspond to the recited three pickup assemblies. Ex. 1010, 3:57–4:8, 6:5–10. As Petitioner notes, “each of the header sections carries an auger section,” and more particularly, “center section 17 rotatably supports auger section 45, and wing sections 18 carry auger sections 46.” Pet. 16 (quoting Ex. 1010, 5:10–13). Petitioner offers no additional explanation in support of its contention that each of the three auger sections of Beougher corresponds to one of the three conveyors recited in claim 44. See Pet. 16; see also Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 46–53. According to Beougher, during combine operation the center and wing sections “of the auger” are in general alignment. Ex. 1010, 6:1–3. The “structure for automatically coupling and uncoupling the auger sections, and for maintaining positive driving connection in all three auger sections during upward and downward pivoting of the header’s wing sections” is shown in Beougher in Figures 6–9. Id. at 5:31–35. Although the three auger sections permit “flexing,” the “parts are nevertheless locked against relative rotational movement by means of springloaded pins 68 received within grooves or keyways 61 of shaft extension 56.” Id. at 6:12–15. In light of these disclosures in Beougher, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that Beougher discloses the three conveyors of claim 44, as opposed to a single auger “that can be separated into sections when the combine harvester header is retracted.” See Prelim. Resp. 35. We have also considered Petitioner’s argument that “the pertinency of Beougher as an anticipatory reference was confirmed by the Patent Office during prosecution of an application related to the ’929 patent,” but find Patent Owner’s decision to cancel a claim during prosecution of a related application does not further support Petitioner’s contentions in this case. See Pet. 17; see also Prelim. Resp. 35–36 (explaining that Patent Owner accepted the allowed claim in the related application and filed a continuing application to prosecute additional claims directed to windrow mergers rather than present arguments in response to the Examiner’s rejection). Accordingly, the information presented by Petitioner does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing claim 44 of the ’929 patent is anticipated by Beougher.” slip op. at 10

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

    “(citing Ex. 1012, p. 2, l. 8, Fig. 4; see also additional description of Zhavoronkin in section II.E. below). Petitioner argues that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the second pickup assembly of Schnittjer to include a transverse conveyor as taught by Zhavoronkin, to provide the device with additional options for discharging the material being picked up and moved as taught by Zhavoronkin, to arrive at claim 44 of the ’929 Patent.” Pet. 53 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 75 (stating the same)). Petitioner offers no additional explanation for this asserted rationale, which we find not sufficient to support the asserted combination of Schnittjer and Zhavoronkin. As explained above, the apparatus of Schnittjer operates to mix and combine material into a windrow behind its center conveyor 20. On its face, adding a transverse conveyor behind center conveyor 20 of Schnittjer, as Petitioner proposes, would preclude the apparatus from operating as intended. Petitioner provides no sufficient explanation for why Schnittjer would be modified as proposed for the purported benefit of “provid[ing] the device with additional options for discharging the material being picked up and moved,” when the modification would prevent the apparatus from discharging the material as intended. See also Prelim. Resp. 69 (arguing that “adding a middle conveyor would eliminate the device’s ability to invert the compost core on top of that side material, thereby rendering the combined apparatus inoperable for its intended purpose.”). Petitioner further argues that the asserted combination “would merely involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results,” “would have been predictable for at least the reason that Schnittjer already discloses pickup assemblies having transverse conveyors,” and “would merely involve the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way.” Pet. 53–54. Petitioner identifies no testimony from Mr. Shirley in support of the additional arguments. We are not persuaded that the additional generic arguments offered by Petitioner in support of the asserted combination are sufficient in this case because Petitioner has not shown that its proposed modification of Schnittjer would still permit Schnittjer to operate as intended. Petitioner has identified no persuasive predictable result or improvement corresponding to its asserted combination. Accordingly, the information presented by Petitioner does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing claim 44 of the ’929 patent would have been obvious over Schnittjer and Zhavoronkin.” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,310,929
• H&S Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Oxbo International CorporationInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 18, 2016 · IPR2016-00909 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable; the asserted references did not establish the claimed trough feature.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–4 and 6–8 of U.S. Patent No. 8,511,052 B2 (“the ’052 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, Oxbo International Corporation, filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we conclude the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any claim of the ’052 patent. Accordingly, the Petition is denied and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable

    “The determination of whether a given reference qualifies as a prior art “printed publication” involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public. In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The key inquiry is whether the reference was made “sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art” before the critical date. In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 226 (CCPA 1981). “A given reference is ‘publicly accessible’ upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). Petitioner offers little explanation or evidence in support of its contention that the 2004 Oxbo Manual and the 2006 Oxbo Manual are prior art printed publications. With respect to the 2004 Oxbo Manual, Petitioner does no more than identify a copyright date which does not correspond to the date of revision that also appears on the document. Pet. 18. With respect to the 2006 Oxbo Manual, Petitioner further contends that “by its nature, the repair parts manual was made available to the public.” Id. at 35. The statement of Mr. Shirley, to which the Petition cites as support, offers no evidence specific to the manuals asserted as prior art, but instead consists of a general observation that Patent Owner sold windrow mergers, and a conclusory statement that “manuals such as these were distributed to the consuming public by Oxbo as manufacturers typically do.” Ex. 1010 ¶ 34. Mr. Shirley is not explicit in what “manuals such as these” he is referring to, but the paragraph cited by Petitioner addresses “similar manuals for its 2003 and 2005 Model Year 310 Windrow Mergers,” not explicitly the 2004 Oxbo Manual and the 2006 Oxbo Manual. We are not persuaded, based on the facts of this case, that the presence of a copyright notice dated prior to the revision date of the document and a generic reference to the “nature” of a document as a manual is sufficient evidence to support a threshold showing of public accessibility as of a particular date to support institution of inter partes review. See, e.g., ServiceNow, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., Case IPR2015-00716, slip op. at 17 (PTAB Aug. 26, 2015) (Paper 13) (finding a copyright notice insufficient); but see Ford Motor Co. v. Cruise Control Techs. LLC, Case IPR2014-00291, slip op. at 7–8 (PTAB June 29, 2015) (Paper 44) (finding a copyright notice sufficient evidence of publication) (citing FLIR Sys., Inc. v. Leak Surveys, Inc., Case IPR2014-00411, slip op. at 18–19 (PTAB Sept. 5, 2014) (Paper 9)). While Petitioner argues that the copyright date and the revision date of both manuals predate the priority date of the ’052 patent, Petitioner has provided no evidence that the references at issue were disseminated as of any particular date, and does not otherwise explain why these particular manuals were “sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art” before the critical date. See In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d at 1160; see also ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 594 F.3d 860, 865–66 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (finding no error in district court’s determination that user manuals were not printed publications in the absence of evidence of the source, publication, or public accessibility of either manual). Accordingly, the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any challenged claims of the ’052 patent based on the 2004 Oxbo Manual or the 2006 Oxbo Manual.” slip op. at 10

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

    “The photo above from the 2004 Oxbo Manual appears to show a portion of the 310 Windrow Merger. Neither Petitioner nor Mr. Shirley further explains why the photo shows the trough feature, as claimed. See Ex. 1010 ¶ 37 (stating that “[t]he trough can be seen in the figure” (referring to third photo on page 23224 of the 2004 Oxbo Manual), and that “[i]n my opinion one of ordinary skill in the art would view these assemblies as the pickup and transfer unit as claimed in the ‘052 Patent”). Contrary to Petitioner’s conclusory assertions, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not sufficiently identified any structure in the 2004 Oxbo Manual corresponding to the trough feature. See Prelim. Resp. 27–32. The figures and photos cited by Petitioner all show that the pickup head of the 2004 Oxbo Manual “does not form a wall on the forward side of the conveyor and that the conveyor belt is horizontally flush with the pickup head.” Prelim. Resp. 28. Petitioner has not shown how the pickup head depicted in the 2004 Oxbo Manual, together with the conveyor and cover, “defines a trough” because the conveyor belt is horizontally flush with the pickup head. As explained in our claim construction discussion above, we agree with Patent Owner that the recited trough feature requires a depth formed by two sides. Petitioner has not shown how the 2004 Oxbo Manual satisfies this limitation.5” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentable

    “Dow Figure 15 shows pickup transfer assembly 108, including merger head 128, arcing shroud 160. Ex. 1008, 4:42–44, 4:66–5:1, 6:18–20. Neither Petitioner nor Mr. Shirley further explains why the Dow apparatus shows the trough feature, as claimed. See Ex. 1010 ¶ 69 (stating that “[t]he trough can be seen in [Dow] Figure 15,” and that “[i]t is my opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand these assemblies to be the pickup and transfer unit disclosed in the ’052 Patent”). Patent Owner contends that Dow does not disclose a trough, as shown in Figure 3 of Dow, reproduced below. Dow Figure 3 shows merger apparatus 100, including head unit 124 and conveyor 134. Ex. 1008, 4:35–37, 62–66. We agree with Patent Owner that Dow, as shown in Figure 3, illustrates “a pickup head and conveyor belt on the same horizontal plane,” and that the belt conveyor “is not located in a depth or depression between the pickup heads and front of shrouds.” Prelim. Resp. 45–46. As noted above, we agree with Patent Owner that the recited trough feature requires a depth formed by two sides. Petitioner has not shown how the pickup head depicted in Dow, together with the conveyor and shroud, “defines a trough” because the conveyor belt is horizontally flush with the pickup head. As explained in our claim construction discussion above, we agree with Patent Owner that the recited trough feature requires a depth formed by two sides. Petitioner has not shown how Dow satisfies this limitation. Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that any of the asserted references discloses “a pickup and transfer unit defining a trough in which material is conveyed,” as recited in claim 1, the only challenged independent claim. Accordingly, the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any challenged claims of the ’052 patent based on the 2004 Oxbo Manual, the 2006 Oxbo Manual, Pourchet, or Dow.” slip op. at 15

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,511,052
• Apple Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 28, 2016 · CBM2016-00053 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · CBM · Institution

  The Board denied Apple’s petition and did not institute CBM review because Apple failed to establish standing, including a real and immediate controversy concerning the ’060 patent.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “3. Analysis We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to show sufficiently that it has standing to bring this covered business method patent review. Specifically, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not established sufficiently, at this time, that there is a real and immediate 8 controversy regarding the ’060 patent. An essential link in the logical chain of Petitioner’s allegations that it has standing is that the scope of the claims of the ’060 patent and the asserted claims of ’850 patent in the district court lawsuit are “substantially similar.” See Pet. 7–10. We agree, however, with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown adequately that the claims of the two patents are sufficiently similar. Although Petitioner contends that claim 13 of the challenged patent is similar in scope to claim 12 of the already asserted ’850 patent, it fails to provide any meaningful analysis to support its contention. Instead, it merely summarizes and lists certain similar claim limitations in the two claims without providing any discussion of the actual language of the identified limitations, the other limitations in the claims, and the claims as a whole.” slip op. at 8

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDenied

    “petitioner’s grounds for standing. 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a). Rule 42.304(a) states it is Petitioner’s burden to “demonstrate that the patent for which review is sought is a covered business method patent, and that the petitioner meets the eligibility requirements of § 42.302.” Id. One of those eligibility requirements is that only persons (or their privies) who have been sued or charged with infringement under a patent are permitted to file a petition seeking a covered business method patent review of that patent. AIA § 18(a)(1)(B); 37 C.F.R. § 42.302(a). Under our rules, “[c]harged with infringement means a real and substantial controversy regarding infringement of a covered business method patent exists such that the petitioner would have standing to bring a declaratory judgment action in Federal court.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.302(a).” slip op. at 5

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 9,009,060

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.