- PTAB · Jul 18, 2023 · IPR2023-00255 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 4, 5, and 8–23 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple obviousness challenges.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“(1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (“Advanced Bionics”). In applying this framework, we consider the Becton, Dickinson3 factors that address discretion to deny when a petition presents the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously presented to the Office, including: (a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; 3 Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to § III.C.5, first paragraph) (“Becton, Dickinson”). during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art or Patent Owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. Becton, Dickinson, Paper 8 at 17–18. Factors (a), (b), and (d), relate to whether the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office, and factors (c), (e), and (f) relate to whether the petitioner demonstrates that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of the claims. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 9–11. Only if the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office do we then consider whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office. Id.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4 (2021). For the reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner establishes a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the unpatentability of at least one claim of the ’287 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 4, 5, and 8–23 of the ’287 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“(“POSITA”) “would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in a pertinent discipline, such as mechanical engineering, physics, product design, or a related field” and “2–4 years of experience in working with electronic displays and have an understanding of product design issues and failure modes associated with electronic displays.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 37). In the alternative, Petitioner argues that “a POSITA would have had 5–7 years of experience in the field working with electronic displays and have a similar understanding of product design issues and failure modes associated with electronic displays.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 37). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not propose a different level of skill in the art, or address Petitioner’s proposed definition. For purposes of this Decision, and based on the current record, we adopt the uncontested assessment offered by Petitioner.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction We construe each claim “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under this standard, claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Based on the record before us, we determine that no claim term requires express construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 9,629,287 - PTAB · Jun 20, 2023 · IPR2023-00221 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–15 based on both § 103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims would be shown unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner has not in its Preliminary Response stated its assertion on the level of ordinary skill in the art. Patent Owner also has not disputed Petitioner’s assertion. At this preliminary stage and on this record, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation, both alternatives, as the level of ordinary skill in the art. They appear consistent with what is reflected by the content of the applied prior art references. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). B.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“However, because Patent Owner does not dispute at this stage that what Petitioner, in its substantive analysis, has identified as a closed loop in Karppanen and Yare is a closed loop as recited in the challenged claims, we need not construe “closed loop” for purposes of this Decision. Neither party proposed an express construction for any other term. We find that no express claim construction of any claim term is necessary at this stage of the proceeding. C.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Petitioner explains that “[one of ordinary skill in the art] would have recognized that the problem of reflectance at the boundaries may exist in Karppanen’s system as well, due to the ducting 66, i.e., the air gap between the front plate 46 and the display element 26.” Id. at 59 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 132). Petitioner further explains that the benefits to be achieved by making the modification to include a polarizer is to minimize reflectance at the gap and also to reduce the need for any anti-reflective coating. Id. at 62. Petitioner presents another motivation for one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Karppanen as discussed above in light of Larson. It is based on Larson’s description that auxiliary polarizer 20 is an absorbing polarizer and that the auxiliary polarizer minimizes attenuation of light ¶ 133). Petitioner asserts that “[one with ordinary skill in the art] would have also recognized that an absorbing polarizer can absorb at least some polarizations of the ambient light, such as sunlight, which can help improve the contrast and reduce the heating of the display caused by the sunlight.” Id. at 62 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 136). Petitioner further explains that one with ordinary skill in the art would have understood the proposed combination as use of known techniques (anti-reflective materials and/or polarizer) to improve a similar apparatus in the same way to yield predictable results, and would have expected the combination to succeed. Id. at 62–63 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 137–138). With respect to the foregoing, Patent Owner does not present counter-” slip op. at 32
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“To the extent there is any praise in the two emails (Exhibits 2001 and 2003), no specific product has been identified and Patent Owner has not shown that any of its products include all the features of any challenged claim. Nor does either email specifically identify a technical feature that is the subject of any praise or recognition. Although the emails do express an interest in outdoor displays, that general category of product, i.e., outdoor, does not identify any specific technical feature which has impressed Samsung SDS America. Further, none of the challenged claims has an “outdoor” requirement and each challenged claim includes additional features not referred to in either the Exhibit 2001 email or the Exhibit 2003 email. Thus, no claim has been shown by Patent Owner as coextensive with any of its products, even assuming that a specific product was praised by Samsung SDS America through the two emails. Accordingly, Patent Owner has not shown sufficient nexus between Exhibits 2001–2003 and any challenged claim. Patent Owner also asserts that Petitioner should have first addressed the Exhibit 2001 email, the Exhibit 2003 email, and Exhibit 2002, as objective evidence of nonobvious 11 Patent Owner refers to the Exhibit 2003 email as including language referring to “discussion relative to all weather, outdoor, daylight viewable LCD products” (Prelim. Resp. 16), but we see no such language in the email. discussed above on a lack of sufficient showing of nexus, Exhibits 2001– 2003 are too general and vague to impose on Petitioner an obligation to address them in the Petition, in the first instance, as objective evidence of nonobviousness. Thus, based on the record presented, we decline to impose such an obligation on Petitioner. For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the objective evidence of nonobviousness is very weak. F.” slip op. at 71
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,013,142 - PTAB · May 15, 2023 · IPR2023-00072 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims, finding a reasonable likelihood that Micron would prevail on its asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), institution of an inter partes review is authorized when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . 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.” After considering the information presented in the Petition, Preliminary Response, Reply, and Sur-reply, we determine that the information presented establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’806 patent, based on all grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“words” and because “the numerous (8) independent claims recite two very different interconnection techniques for stacked multichip modules.” Id. Petitioner represents that The current Petition challenges independent claims 1, 2, 23, 24, and 30 in addition to dependent claims 6-7, 9-10, 12-13, 14-19, 25-26, and 32—all of which recite a wire bond interconnection technique. The first Petition (IPR 2023-00071) seeks cancellation of independent claims 3, 27, and 31 in addition to dependent claims 4-5, 8, 11, 20-22, 28, 29, and 33—all of which recite using a combination of flip-chip and wire bond interconnection techniques for stacked multichip modules. Id. at 2–3. Petitioner further states that “each claim is challenged only once.” Id. at 3. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contentions that two petitions are necessary. See generally Prelim. Resp. On the present record, we see no reason to exercise our discretion to deny institution of either petition on the basis of Petitioner filing two petitions to address the large number of claims included in the ’806 patent. See Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 59–60 (Nov. 2019)2 (in determining whether multiple petitions are necessary, the Board may consider petitioner’s explanations regarding “the differences between the petitions, why the issues addressed by the differences are material, and why the Board should exercise its discretion to institute additional petitions if it identifies one petition that satisfies petitioner’s burden under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).”).” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Elenius, states that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical, mechanical or materials engineering and two to three years of experience in the design or development of semiconductor manufacturing, or the equivalent.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 32. Mr. Elenius further states that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. Although the proposals for the level of skill in the art by the parties’ declarants have differences in wording, we do not find the proposals to be materially different. For purposes of this Decision, we find no meaningful differences between the parties’ respective definitions that would materially alter the outcome of this Decision. Thus, although we do not find the parties’ proposals for the level of skill in the art to be materially different, for purposes of this Decision, based on our review of the ’806 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’806 patent, and cited prior art, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art reading the ’806 patent would understand the claim term “electrode section” recited in the challenged claims to mean “electrical terminals, usually called bond pads, that are part of the substrate’s wiring layer.” Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 103–107). At this time, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed construction of “electrode section.” See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we need not construe the term “electrode section” because the parties do not identify any material issue that would turn on the construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). Patent Owner contends that the term “adhesion layer” recited in the challenged independent claims should be construed to mean “a pre-formed layer that is adhered.” Prelim. Resp. 13–15. Patent Owner argues that Ball, Fogal, and Mostafazadeh do not teach “adhesion layer” under Patent Owner’s proposed construction of the term. See, e.g., id. at 16–24. Although Patent Owner’s argument raises an issue of claim construction, we need not expressly construe “adhesion layer” for purposes of this Decision because, as discussed in Section III.D.5 below, Petitioner shows sufficiently that the asserted combination of Ball, Fogal, Mostafazadeh, and the knowledge of a skilled artisan teaches or suggests “adhesion layer” even under Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham - PTAB · May 15, 2023 · IPR2023-00071 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 3–5, 8, 11, 20–22, 27, 28, 31, and 33 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under the asserted obviousness combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“On the present record, we see no reason to exercise our discretion to deny institution of either petition on the basis of Petitioner filing two petitions to address the large number of claims included in the ’806 patent. See Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 59–60 (Nov. 2019)3 (in determining whether multiple petitions are necessary, the Board may consider petitioner’s explanations regarding “the differences between the petitions, why the issues addressed by the differences are material, and why the Board should exercise its discretion to institute additional petitions if it identifies one petition that satisfies petitioner’s burden under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).”).” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), institution of an inter partes review is authorized when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . 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.” After considering the information presented in the Petition, Preliminary Response, Reply, and Sur-reply, we determine that the information presented establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’806 patent, based on all grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Although the proposals for the level of skill in the art by the parties’ declarants have differences in wording, we do not find the proposals to be materially different. For purposes of this Decision, we find no meaningful differences between the parties’ respective definitions that would materially alter the outcome of this Decision. Thus, although we do not find the parties’ proposals for the level of skill in the art to be materially different, for purposes of this Decision, based on our review of the ’806 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’806 patent, and cited prior art, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Considering the claim language of claim 3 as a whole, see Hockerson- Halberstadt, Inc. v. Converse Inc., 183 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Proper claim construction . . . demands interpretation of the entire claim in context, not a single element in isolation.”), we agree with Petitioner that claim 3 does not recite when or how the “adhesion layer” is “adhered to [the first semiconductor chip’s] back surface.” Patent Owner appears to argue that the “first semiconductor chip” with “an adhesion layer adhered to its back surface,” as recited in claim 3, must have been created “in advance,” e.g., by a wafer-level fabrication process, before the chip is mounted in the recited semiconductor device. Patent Owner argues that the patentee recognized that applying a paste or thermo-compression sheet on individual chips during packaging (i.e., mounting of the chips during packaging) caused the “overflow” and “gap” problems. Sur-reply 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:16–24, 2:44–46). According to Patent Owner, “the patentee further recognized that merely switching to a pre-formed solid sheet alone would not solve the problem” because using a thermo-compression sheet on an individual chip for mounting during packaging “results in the same problem as using an adhesive due to the inability to place the chip accurately on the thermo-compression sheet.” Id. at 2–3 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:49–56). Thus, Patent Owner argues the ’806 patent proposes a two-fold solution: “Use a preformed solid sheet and attach that sheet to the back surface of the wafer first” during the wafer fabrication process “before cutting and placing the chip” in a multichip package. Id. at 3 (underlined emphases added). Patent Owner asserts, therefore, “a first semiconductor chip having . . . an adhesion layer adhered to its back surface,” as recited in claim 3, must have a pre-formed adhesion layer adhered to its back surface “in advance” before mounting in a multichip package, such as a solid thermo-compression sheet applied to the backside of a wafer during wafer-level fabrication processing before the chips are produced by dicing. Prelim. Resp. 13–14; Sur-reply 2–3. We note, however, that claim 3 does not recite a “wafer,” placing “an adhesion layer on a back surface of a wafer,” or producing semiconductor chips by dicing or cutting the wafer. See Ex. 1001, 14:14–32. Nor does the claim recite any limitation indicating when or how an “adhesion layer” is “adhered to [the first semiconductor chip’s] back surface.” Thus, at least based on the claim language, claim 3 does not require the recited semiconductor chips with an adhesion layer to have been produced “in advance” before being used for mounting in the recited semiconductor device. Nonetheless, for purposes of this Decision, we need not and do not” slip op. at 34
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham - Cisco Systems, Inc. v. K.Mizra LLCInstitutedPTAB · Sep 24, 2021 · IPR2021-00593 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–3, 5–13, and 15–19 because Cisco showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness over Gleichauf, Ovadia, and Lewis.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“under NHK have sought to balance considerations such as system efficiency, fairness, and patent quality.” Fintiv, Paper 11 at 5 (collecting cases). Fintiv sets forth six non-exclusive factors for determining “whether efficiency, fairness, and the merits support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding.” Id. at 6. These factors consider: 1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted; 2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision; 3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties; 4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding; 5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party; and 6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion, including the merits. Fintiv, Paper 11 at 5–6.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent training, and approximately two years of professional experience in the field of network communications, and more specifically, network security.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 18). Petitioner asserts that “[l]ack of professional experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 18). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not oppose Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, although Patent Owner states that it “reserves the right to dispute Petitioner’s definition if an IPR is instituted.” Prelim. Resp. 16. Based on the current record, we find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Therefore, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“The parties dispute construction of “trusted platform module” (Pet. 13–16; Prelim. Resp. 17) but do not identify any issue that would turn on the construction of this term, at least for purposes of deciding whether to institute a review. See generally Pet.; Prelim. Resp. Based on the current record, for purposes of this Decision, we determine no claim terms require express construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Based on the record presented, we determine, for purposes of this Decision, Petitioner has shown sufficiently how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Gleichauf with Ovadia to obtain the subject matter recited in limitations [1.2] and [1.4]. We also determine, for purposes of this Decision, Petitioner sufficiently articulates a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Gleichauf and Ovadia with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 50
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,234,705
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.