• Robert Bosch LLC / Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Westport Fuel Systems Canada Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 3, 2025 · IPR2023-00292 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 6, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 18–20 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations failed to establish the claimed substantially constant hydraulic-fluid thickness.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Westport does not dispute Bosch’s proposed definition of the level of skill in the art. PO Resp. 4 (quoting Pet. 23). Based on our review, we see no reason not to adopt Bosch’s undisputed definition of the level of skill in the art, as it appears consistent with the prior art and the specification of the ’829 patent.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Only those claim terms “that are in controversy” need be construed and “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 19 F.4th 1325, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Here, there does not appear to be a dispute over the meaning of any claim terms. And, after reviewing the record, we do not perceive the need to expressly construe any particular claim term in order to determine patentability of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “In contrast, the testimony of Bosch’s expert ignores Klügl’s express teachings and is fraught with contradictions that undermine the weight of that testimony. While this case may be seen as a battle of the experts over their respective interpretations of Klügl, it is clear that Bosch’s expert loses given his inability to credibly explain his opinions during cross-examination. For instance, despite opining in his declaration that Klügl satisfies claim element 1(e) because “the fluid in chamber 5 is held in place by a membrane 6 and moves through a cylindrical space of constant width and unchanging shape” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 220 (emphasis added)), surprisingly, Bosch’s expert could not, or would not, provide his opinion when asked on cross-examination about the meaning of “flexible” and “membrane” in the context of Klügl’s disclosure— Q. [By Westport’s counsel] What’s your understanding what flexible means in the context of the Klugl reference? . . . A. [By Bosch’s expert] Again, I haven’t been asked to offer a formal opinion of what flexible means in light of this, but if you want to talk about a specific -- excuse me -- part of the document, I’d be happy to. Q. What is a membrane? A. Usually, it’s a thin sheet of material but I haven’t formed a formal opinion on it. Q. What is a flexible membrane? A. Again, I haven’t offered a formal opinion what a flexible membrane is.” slip op. at 18

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

    “We agree with Westport. That is because Bosch’s argument that Klügl’s hydraulic fluid maintains substantially constant thickness is premised on the erroneous belief that Klügl’s membrane 6 will not flex. But, as Westport correctly notes, Klügl expressly teaches that membrane 6 is “flexible.” See, e.g., Ex. 1006, 7:45–47 (“[F]lexible membranes 6, 8, 26 . . . have a progressive characteristic curve of the spring force in relation to the spring deflection.”), 7:68–9:31 (repeatedly referencing “first flexible element (6)” and “first flexible membrane (6)”). Consistent with this flexibility, Klügl explains that membrane 6 flexes to maintain contact with drive piston 3, stating specifically that “in the rest position without being actuated due to thermal influences or signs of aging, . . . the first membrane 6 is moved in the direction of the drive piston 3” or “is pushed in by the drive piston 3 so that the transmission medium is pressed through the throttle 10 into the compensation chamber 7.” Ex. 1006, 3:63–4:10 (emphases added). And because Klügl’s membrane 6 flexes when transmission module 2 is unactuated, it follows that membrane 6 will also flex when transmission module 2 is actuated.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 6,298,829 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,298,829
• Robert Bosch LLC / Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Westport Fuel Systems Canada Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 3, 2025 · IPR2023-00293 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 6, 13, 14, 17–21, and 26–28, 41 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish the claimed hydraulic link limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends: A POSITA in the technology field of the ’138 patent would have had a degree in mechanical engineering or a similar discipline, along with 2 years of professional experience working with the design and development of fuel injection systems for internal combustion engines or an equivalent level of skill, knowledge, and experience. (See Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 37–39, 41.) This POSITA would be aware of and generally knowledgeable about how fuel injector valves are structured and operate, and how they are used to deliver fuel to an engine’s combustion chambers. (Id., ¶ 40.) Pet. 23. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition. See PO Resp. 4. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 11

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

    “Based on the complete record, we do not perceive the need to construe any claim limitation. Claims must be construed “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 19 F.4th 1325, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. American Science & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not construe the claim preambles here where the construction is not ‘material to the [obviousness] dispute.’” (citations omitted, alteration in original)).” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “mere fact” that Klügl labels the membrane as “flexible.” As discussed, Patent Owner explains Klügl teaches membrane 6 is flexible and that membrane 6 deflects and moves in response to fluid pressure in chamber 5 and contact with piston 3. PO Resp. 34 (citing Ex. 1006, 3:63–4:10). Additionally, Dr. Atkinson’s testimony is consistent with Klügl’s disclosure. Dr. Atkinson, explains that “[i]n all embodiments shown, Klügl only ever specifies and describes membrane 6 as a “flexible” membrane or element acknowledging that this flexibility is a necessary and desired feature of its intended purpose and behavior.” Ex. 2022 ¶ 80. With this underlying disclosure in mind, Dr. Atkinson further reasons that a flexible membrane will tend to deform longitudinally upward where it contacts the drive piston and bulge outward based on the structure disclosed in Figure 1. See id. ¶¶ 63, 66–67, 77–81, 87. In contrast, Dr. Quinlan’s testimony in many instances, including this one, is substantively incomplete and fraught with contradictions that undermine the weight of his testimony. For example, at his cross- examination deposition, he testified that he had seen and worked with membranes, but could not provide his opinion on the meaning of “flexible” or “membrane” as disclosed in Klügl. See Ex. 2025, 47:14–48:1. Dr. Quinlan was then directed to column 8 in Klügl, where Klügl teaches among other things that “the transmission module (2) has a pressure chamber (5), which is filled with a transmission medium and is delimited by a first flexible membrane (6).” See id. at 65:5–15; Ex. 1006, 8:44–46 (emphasis added). Provided below is the exchange between Patent Owner’s counsel and Dr. Quinlan regarding this express disclosure: slip op. at 37

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

    “Figure 1 of Klügl depicts an injection valve including housing 12 and piezoelectric actuator 1, which is arranged between upper stop 13 and transmission module 2. Ex. 1006, 1:47–51. We observe that transmission module 2 includes pressure chamber 5 that is at least partially filled with hydraulic fluid and is “delimited” by first membrane 6. Id. at 1:60–62, 1:68–2:2. Throttle or connecting bore 10 connects pressure chamber 5 to compensation chamber 7. Id. at 1:62–66. The connecting bore or throttle allows transmission fluid to flow between pressure chamber 5 and compensation chamber 7. Id. at 3:56–4:10. We further note that Klügl expressly teaches first membrane 6 is “flexible.” Ex. 1006, 7:45–47 (“[F]lexible membranes 6, 8, 26 . . . have a progressive characteristic curve of the spring force in relation to the spring deflection.”). Indeed, consistent with this flexibility, Klügl explains that membrane 6 “moves” to maintain contact with drive piston 3. Specifically, Klügl teaches: [i]f the piezoelectric actuator 1 shortens in the rest position without being actuated due to thermal influences or signs of aging in relation to the housing 12, the spring plate 8 pushes the transmission medium from the compensation chamber 7 via the throttle 10 into the pressure chamber 5, so that the first membrane 6 is moved in the direction of the drive piston 3 and, as a result, the drive piston 3 bears against the first membrane 6 despite the shortening of the piezoelectric actuator 1. However, if the distance between the piezoelectric actuator 1 and the drive piston 3 is reduced, the first membrane 6 is pushed in by the drive piston 3 so that the transmission medium is pressed through the throttle 10 into the compensation chamber 7 against the spring force of the spring plate 8. As a result, the drive piston 3 is always in contact with the first membrane 6 in this case as well. Id. at 3:63–4:10 (emphases added).” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 6,575,138 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 6,575,138
• Chanel, Inc. v. Molo Design, Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 9, 2023 · IPR2022-00543 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–11, 13, 16, 18, 20–25, and 27 were not shown unpatentable under any of three §103 grounds because Petitioner failed to establish the claimed foldable supports and fastener arrangement.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues, with support from its declarant, Mr. Rake, that one skilled in the art during the relevant time frame “would have a bachelor’s degree and at least two years of relevant experience working as an industrial designer, interior designer, furniture designer, architect, or other similar professional” and “would be knowledgeable regarding furniture design and/or the design of exhibit and display systems, and would have a general understanding of related manufacturing processes.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 41–44). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposal, and Patent Owner’s declarant agrees with it. Ex. 2010 ¶ 34 (“I believe this is an accurate definition of a POSITA and have used this for my analysis.”); see also Pet. Reply 1 (“The parties agree on the POSITA and level of ordinary skill in the art.”). We adopt Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill because it is consistent with the problems identified and solutions provided in the ’366 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Because the issue of whether Petitioner has proven unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence can be resolved without expressly construing the claim terms “supports,” “self-supporting,” “operable,” and “flaccid,” we reject the notion that Petitioner somehow violated our rules by not developing a more explicit construction of those terms. In addition, because Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s position that we need not formally construe any of the terms to address the issues in this proceeding or offer a competing construction, we need not construe any of these terms. See, e.g., Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017 (approving Board decision not to construe claim language where the construction is not material to the dispute).” slip op. at 13

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

    “Even if we consider an argument that claim 1 would have been obvious without considering whether a POSITA would have been motivated to fold the SoftHousing end panels into a tubular configuration, we would not find that argument convincing. None of the prior art at issue here discloses partition end panels that are semi-circular as in the design the ’366 patent discloses, much less flexible panels folded into that configuration. Instead, both SoftHousing and Arens disclose end panels having unfolded, planar surfaces, and the Velcro reference does not teach partitions at all. See Ex. 1005, 2; Ex. 1006, 11; Ex. 1007, 2; Ex. 1012, 2; Ex. 1013, Fig. 3; PO Resp. 34–35; Ex. 2010 ¶ 124. Further, merely adding the Velcro teachings from SoftHousing III, Arens, or the Velcro reference to the planar end panels of SoftHousing would not necessarily satisfy the claim limitation requiring a fastener capable of securing supports in a tubular configuration, and Petitioner does not explain how that modification meets that aspect of the fasteners limitation without the premise that a POSITA would have been motivated to form a tubular configuration. See Pet. 34–35 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 86–88, 118). The cited declarant testimony repeats the same language from the Petition when addressing why modifying SoftHousing to include fasteners would have been obvious (i.e., the fasteners would have been obvious only when a POSITA already “wanted” to form the tubular configuration). See Ex. 1003 ¶ 118. Neither the Petition nor supporting declarant set forth a coherent argument that adding fasteners capable of securing a folded support in a tubular configuration would have been obvious merely by adding Velcro to the end panels of the honeycomb core in SoftHousing’s partitions.” slip op. at 25

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached

    “4. Conclusion We find that Petitioner’s proposed modifications to and combination of SoftHousing I, SoftHousing II, SoftHousing III, Arens, and Velcro do not disclose all of the limitations of independent claim 1. We find that we need not reach Patent Owner’s alleged objective indicia of nonobviousness arguments because even if Patent Owner submitted no such evidence or failed to establish a nexus or any persuasive objective indicia evidence, our conclusion as to the obviousness of claim 1 would not change. Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded that Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 of the ’366 patent is unpatentable as obvious based on the combination of SoftHousing I, SoftHousing II, SoftHousing III, Arens, and Velcro.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 7,866,366 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,866,366
• Yamaha Golf Car Company v. Club Car, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 2, 2019 · IPR2017-02144 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board found claims 11 and 17–19 not shown unpatentable: claim 11 was entitled to priority over the ’918 Publication, and the obviousness challenge to claims 17–19 was unsupported.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “slows the speed of the golf car until it returns to the course—“[Y]our cart has been slowed down because you are outside the boundaries of the course. Your car will continue to slow down until you return to the course.” Ex. 1004, 30 (emphases added) (also showing that “Reduce Maximum Speed” may be adjusted to a select speed as similarly set forth in Figure 3 of the ’569 patent). The ’894 Provisional specifies that the Curtis 1510 controller includes a configuration setting for “REVERSE SPEED,” and we find persuasive Mr. Andrews’ testimony that this control setting is separate from the maximum forward speed settings, “M1 MAX SPEED,” “M2 MAX SPEED,” “M3 MAX SPEED,” and “M4 (HIGH) MAX SPEED.” Ex. 1004, 12; Ex. 2009 ¶ 58 (“‘REVERSE SPEED’ is a separate configuration setting that the controller can configure based on GPS location.”). We find that these disclosures in the ’894 Provisional—slowing or stopping the car until it reverses course and separate configurable settings for reverse speed in the motor controller—establish affirmative support for a configuration as claimed where the car’s forward movement is disabled, but the car may still move in a reverse direction, as required by claim 11. Because the maximum forward speed can be set to zero to stop the vehicle from further movement towards the restricted area, but setting the maximum speed to zero leaves the separate “REVERSE SPEED” configuration setting in the motor controller unchanged, Patent Owner has shown how the vehicle is capable of operation only in a reverse direction. See Ex. 1004, 10, 12, 16, 30. From a functional capability, there is simply no difference between the descriptions found in the ’894 Provisional and the claimed limitations. See Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 49–60. Thus, Patent Owner has met its burden of showing adequate written description support for claim 11 in the earlier ’894 Provisional. Accordingly, the ’918 Publication does not qualify as prior art against claim 11. Based on the final trial record before us, Petitioner does not present sufficient arguments and credible evidence to support a finding that claim 11 is anticipated by the ’918 Publication.” slip op. at 17

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedReference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “slows the speed of the golf car until it returns to the course—“[Y]our cart has been slowed down because you are outside the boundaries of the course. Your car will continue to slow down until you return to the course.” Ex. 1004, 30 (emphases added) (also showing that “Reduce Maximum Speed” may be adjusted to a select speed as similarly set forth in Figure 3 of the ’569 patent). The ’894 Provisional specifies that the Curtis 1510 controller includes a configuration setting for “REVERSE SPEED,” and we find persuasive Mr. Andrews’ testimony that this control setting is separate from the maximum forward speed settings, “M1 MAX SPEED,” “M2 MAX SPEED,” “M3 MAX SPEED,” and “M4 (HIGH) MAX SPEED.” Ex. 1004, 12; Ex. 2009 ¶ 58 (“‘REVERSE SPEED’ is a separate configuration setting that the controller can configure based on GPS location.”). We find that these disclosures in the ’894 Provisional—slowing or stopping the car until it reverses course and separate configurable settings for reverse speed in the motor controller—establish affirmative support for a configuration as claimed where the car’s forward movement is disabled, but the car may still move in a reverse direction, as required by claim 11. Because the maximum forward speed can be set to zero to stop the vehicle from further movement towards the restricted area, but setting the maximum speed to zero leaves the separate “REVERSE SPEED” configuration setting in the motor controller unchanged, Patent Owner has shown how the vehicle is capable of operation only in a reverse direction. See Ex. 1004, 10, 12, 16, 30. From a functional capability, there is simply no difference between the descriptions found in the ’894 Provisional and the claimed limitations. See Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 49–60. Thus, Patent Owner has met its burden of showing adequate written description support for claim 11 in the earlier ’894 Provisional. Accordingly, the ’918 Publication does not qualify as prior art against claim 11. Based on the final trial record before us, Petitioner does not present sufficient arguments and credible evidence to support a finding that claim 11 is anticipated by the ’918 Publication.” slip op. at 17

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

    “slows the speed of the golf car until it returns to the course—“[Y]our cart has been slowed down because you are outside the boundaries of the course. Your car will continue to slow down until you return to the course.” Ex. 1004, 30 (emphases added) (also showing that “Reduce Maximum Speed” may be adjusted to a select speed as similarly set forth in Figure 3 of the ’569 patent). The ’894 Provisional specifies that the Curtis 1510 controller includes a configuration setting for “REVERSE SPEED,” and we find persuasive Mr. Andrews’ testimony that this control setting is separate from the maximum forward speed settings, “M1 MAX SPEED,” “M2 MAX SPEED,” “M3 MAX SPEED,” and “M4 (HIGH) MAX SPEED.” Ex. 1004, 12; Ex. 2009 ¶ 58 (“‘REVERSE SPEED’ is a separate configuration setting that the controller can configure based on GPS location.”). We find that these disclosures in the ’894 Provisional—slowing or stopping the car until it reverses course and separate configurable settings for reverse speed in the motor controller—establish affirmative support for a configuration as claimed where the car’s forward movement is disabled, but the car may still move in a reverse direction, as required by claim 11. Because the maximum forward speed can be set to zero to stop the vehicle from further movement towards the restricted area, but setting the maximum speed to zero leaves the separate “REVERSE SPEED” configuration setting in the motor controller unchanged, Patent Owner has shown how the vehicle is capable of operation only in a reverse direction. See Ex. 1004, 10, 12, 16, 30. From a functional capability, there is simply no difference between the descriptions found in the ’894 Provisional and the claimed limitations. See Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 49–60. Thus, Patent Owner has met its burden of showing adequate written description support for claim 11 in the earlier ’894 Provisional. Accordingly, the ’918 Publication does not qualify as prior art against claim 11. Based on the final trial record before us, Petitioner does not present sufficient arguments and credible evidence to support a finding that claim 11 is anticipated by the ’918 Publication.” slip op. at 17

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

    “sufficiently how the ’918 Publication’s disclosure of a “signal . . . of the violation” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 68) also teaches or suggests the additional claim requirements of “the driver interface unit . . . operable to communicate an alarm to the base station of a controller limiting the performance of a driver command” as required by claim 17. Petitioner recognizes the distinction by arguing “that the system could also provide a message to the course personnel . . . of any remedial corrective measures taken in response.” Pet. 25 (emphasis added). Based on the evidence cited, the ’918 Publication does not provide any such notification. Petitioner cannot suggest that a reference could have a feature that it does not have without some rational basis as to why such a feature would have been suggested by the reference. Mr. Breen’s explanation mirrors Petitioner’s contention (Ex. 1001 ¶ 277) and likewise states “that the system could also provide a message to the course personnel” (emphasis added) but no further explanation is provided as to how this unsupported conclusion was reached. Petitioner has also failed to lay the necessary foundation to establish that “common sense” could fill the gap for the missing limitation, or provide a basis for modifying the ’918 Publication to teach the claim 17 limitation. We recognize that in certain instances “common sense” can be used to supply the missing claim limitation, but only if the art is “unusually simple and the [patented] technology particularly straightforward.” Arendi Sarl v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In this proceeding, we have no testimony or evidence to establish either condition is met. Neither Petitioner nor Mr. Breen explain adequately why the limitations of claim 17” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 7,480,569 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,480,569
• Snap-On Inc. v. Milwaukee Electric Tool CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 14, 2016 · IPR2015-01244 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8, 10, and 11 of the ’290 patent, claims 1–8 and 10–13 of the ’173 patent, and claims 1–6 and 8–19 of the ’510 patent were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Fohr, …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We hold that the prior art references asserted in the Petition are representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (absence of specific findings on “level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown’” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). To the extent that a more specific definition is required, we hold that an ordinary artisan would include one holding a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical Engineering with two or three years of experience in battery design. That definition comports with the very similar definitions advanced by the parties. In that regard, Petitioner asserts that an ordinary artisan would encompass a person holding a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical Engineering with three years of experience in battery design. Pet. 8; Ex. 1007 ¶ 9. Patent Owner similarly asserts that an ordinary artisan would include a person holding a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical Engineering with two years of battery design experience. Resp. 8; Ex. 2105 ¶ 24.” slip op. at 9

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

    “given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard). Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In our Decisions to Institute, we construed the 20 Amp Limitation to require that “the battery cells, when configured together in a battery pack, are capable of producing reasonably close to 20 amps of discharge current or greater over the course of delivering their entire rated capacity.” Dec. 5. Neither party disputes that construction, which we adopt for the purposes of this Final Written Decision. To the extent that any other claim term requires express construction, we discuss the construction in our analysis below. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only claim terms in controversy need be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy). The following facts are supported by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Not reached

    “D. Fohr as Prior Art As an initial matter, the parties dispute whether Fohr qualifies as prior art. Resp. 10–15; Reply 2–8; Sur-Reply 1–5. Specifically, Patent Owner seeks to antedate Fohr based on inventor testimony. Resp. 10–15; Sur- Reply 1–5. Petitioner responds that the named inventors are not true inventors with standing to establish facts sufficient to antedate Fohr. Reply 2–8. We decline to reach the antedating issue because it is not necessary to our ultimate conclusion on the question of obviousness. Specifically, even if we accept Petitioner’s view that Fohr qualifies as prior art, we ultimately hold that Petitioner fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that any challenged claim would have been obvious over the combined disclosures of Fohr, Sato, and Hallaj. That is so because, as explained below, Petitioner fails to establish that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to combine Fohr with Sato and Hallaj in the manner claimed.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We recognize that it may be necessary “to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents . . . in order to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed.” KSR Int’l, 550 U.S. at 418. Petitioner in these proceedings, however, directs us to no persuasive reason why an ordinary artisan would have turned to the heat-retaining battery module of Hallaj when working to implement a plurality of Sato’s cells in a pack to replace the capacitors in Fohr. Pet. 36–38 (nowhere addressing that critical point); Reply 13 (devoting four sentences to rebuttal of Patent Owner’s persuasive evidence that one would not have combined the disclosures of Hallaj, Fohr, and Sato in the manner claimed); see Ex. 1033, 15 (Examiner’s observation, in confirming the patentability of the challenged claims during reexamination, that Sato contains “no information as to how Sato’s cells would be implemented in a pack”). We view Petitioner’s unexplained leap from the single battery cell of Sato to the heat-retaining battery module of Hallaj as a classic example of impermissible hindsight reconstruction driven not by any teaching in the prior art, but by the claim requirement of a “plurality” of cells implemented in a battery pack. Pet. 36–38; Reply 13. Patent Owner, by contrast, comes forward with persuasive evidence, which we credit, showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been led to arrange a plurality of Sato’s cells in the heat-retaining battery module of Hallaj because such a modified battery pack would have been unsuitable for use as a replacement for the capacitors in Fohr. Specifically, we credit the testimony of Dr. Blomgren, who cogently explains why a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been led to the proposed modification. Ex. 2147 ¶¶ 79–85. Dr. Blomgren explains that the proposed modified battery pack “would not have adequate heat dissipation and the Joule heating naturally occurring during operation” of such a pack “would lead to overheating and cell failure” in a power tool application. Resp. 24 (citing Ex. 2147 ¶ 84). That testimony is consistent with the Examiner’s observation, made during reexamination, that “the discharge rates described in Sato are abnormally high” for a power tool cell and “would lead to overheating of the cells.” Ex. 1033, 14. That testimony also is consistent with information provided by Petitioner’s own witness, Dr. Riley, who acknowledged on cross-examination that the battery pack of Fohr, as modified by Sato and Hallaj, would provide “the heat back to the system after a discharge” and, accordingly, would have no “practical applicability” in a power tool application. Resp. 24 (quoting Ex. 2169, 127:13–18, 131:12–24); see Ex. 2169, 127:9–128:2 (Petitioner’s own witness, Dr. Riley, further explaining that Hallaj is concerned with finding “a way of managing heat generation” in a power supply so that “heat can be used, pulled back into the batteries”). We credit Dr. Blomgren’s testimony that the “storing of heat” in Hallaj would have been “antithetical to” Sato’s lithium-based chemistry cells for use as the energy store in Fohr’s hand held power tool. Ex. 2147 ¶ 83. Petitioner’s own witness, Dr. Riley, provides testimony consistent with that view. Resp. 24 (citing Ex. 2169, 12713–18, 131:12–24) (Dr. Riley’s testimony on cross-examination); see Ex. 2147 ¶¶ 81–85 (Dr. Blomgren’s declaration testimony). That view is reinforced by evidence that the discharge rates supported by Hallaj are orders of magnitude lower than what would have been expected for a battery cell meeting the 20 Amp Limitation. Resp. 25; Pet. 38; Ex. 1015, 5:41-44; Ex. 2147 ¶¶ 79–80; see Ex. 1015, 5:41–44 (Hallaj, describing temperature profiles for discharge rates). We are persuaded that the heat-retaining battery module of Hallaj was not designed to handle, in a power tool application, the discharge currents disclosed for Sato’s individual lithium-based battery cell—much less the discharge currents that would be supplied by a plurality of Sato’s cells. Resp. 25 (citing Ex. 2147 ¶¶ 81, 84); see also Ex. 2147 ¶¶ 62–85 (testimony explaining why one of ordinary skill in the art would not have applied a plurality of Sato’s cells in the battery pack configuration of Hallaj to power Fohr’s hand held power tool). We further find that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been led to replace the capacitors in Fohr’s power tool with Hallaj’s battery module, modified to include a plurality of Sato’s lithium-based cells. Ex. 2147 ¶¶ 62–85. That combination would have presented a serious risk of overheating and, in light of that risk, an ordinary artisan would not have expected the modified battery pack of Hallaj to successfully power Fohr’s hand held power tool. Id.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 7,999,510 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,999,510
• Snap-On Inc. v. Milwaukee Electric Tool CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 14, 2016 · IPR2015-01242 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioner did not prove claims 1–8, 10, and 11 of the ’290 patent, claims 1–8 and 10–13 of the ’173 patent, or claims 1–6 and 8–19 of the ’510 patent obvious over Fohr, Sato, and …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We hold that the prior art references asserted in the Petition are representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (absence of specific findings on “level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown’” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). To the extent that a more specific definition is required, we hold that an ordinary artisan would include one holding a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical Engineering with two or three years of experience in battery design. That definition comports with the very similar definitions advanced by the parties. In that regard, Petitioner asserts that an ordinary artisan would encompass a person holding a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical Engineering with three years of experience in battery design. Pet. 8; Ex. 1007 ¶ 9. Patent Owner similarly asserts that an ordinary artisan would include a person holding a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical Engineering with two years of battery design experience. Resp. 8; Ex. 2105 ¶ 24.” slip op. at 9

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

    “In our Decisions to Institute, we construed the 20 Amp Limitation to require that “the battery cells, when configured together in a battery pack, are capable of producing reasonably close to 20 amps of discharge current or greater over the course of delivering their entire rated capacity.” Dec. 5. Neither party disputes that construction, which we adopt for the purposes of this Final Written Decision. To the extent that any other claim term requires express construction, we discuss the construction in our analysis below. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only claim terms in controversy need be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy). The following facts are supported by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportNot reached

    “D. Fohr as Prior Art As an initial matter, the parties dispute whether Fohr qualifies as prior art. Resp. 10–15; Reply 2–8; Sur-Reply 1–5. Specifically, Patent Owner seeks to antedate Fohr based on inventor testimony. Resp. 10–15; Sur- Reply 1–5. Petitioner responds that the named inventors are not true inventors with standing to establish facts sufficient to antedate Fohr. Reply 2–8. We decline to reach the antedating issue because it is not necessary to our ultimate conclusion on the question of obviousness. Specifically, even if we accept Petitioner’s view that Fohr qualifies as prior art, we ultimately hold that Petitioner fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that any challenged claim would have been obvious over the combined disclosures of Fohr, Sato, and Hallaj. That is so because, as explained below, Petitioner fails to establish that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to combine Fohr with Sato and Hallaj in the manner claimed.” slip op. at 10

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

    “1. Fohr Does Not Disclose or Suggest the 20 Amp Limitation We find that Fohr suggests a plurality of capacitors or battery cells as the energy store. Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 9, 17. Fohr discloses that a plurality of capacitors would have been capable of achieving a continuous current capacity from 20 to 30 amps. Id. at ¶¶ 8, 19. Although Fohr teaches that the capacitors “can advantageously alternatively be replaced by an energy store comprising rechargeable cells,” such as “Li rechargeable batteries,” Fohr does not disclose or suggest an energy store capacity for such batteries, much less establish that lithium batteries, available at the time of the invention, would have been suitable for use in a hand held power tool, or capable of achieving the 20 Amp Limitation of the challenged claims. Id. at ¶ 9. Critical to our analysis, Fohr never states what discharge currents can be achieved when lithium battery cells are used instead of capacitors as the energy source in a hand held power tool. Ex. 2147 ¶¶ 42, 58; see generally Ex. 1014 (Fohr). The Examiner, during reexamination, came to that exact same conclusion regarding Fohr’s disclosure, remarking that “there is nothing whatsoever in the reference that indicates the current produced by any lithium-based cells.” Ex. 1033, 11;5 Resp. 17.” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 7,554,290 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,554,290
• Qualtrics, LLC v. Opinionlab, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 30, 2015 · IPR2014-00366 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–2, 5, 8, 10–11, 14, 17–19, 22, 25–27, 30, and 33 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over CustomerSat, Medinets, and HTML Spec.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd all claims patentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Thus, after considering the totality of the evidence presented by Qualtrics and OpinionLab, we determine that the preponderance weighs in favor of showing that neither CustomerSat, Medinets, nor HTML Spec, individually or collectively, would have taught or suggested to a skilled artisan the capability of providing feedback while the user remained at the particular web page from which the feedback was solicited, as required by each of the independent claims. The remaining claims challenged in the Petition, claims 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 19, 22, 25, 27, 30, and 33, depend, directly or indirectly, from claims 1, 10, 18, and 26, and thus, include the limitation that we determined was lacking from CustomerSat, Medinets, and HTML Spec, as discussed above. Accordingly, we determine that Qualtrics has not demonstrated by preponderant evidence that dependent claims 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 19, 22, 25, 27, 30, and 33 are unpatentable over the combination of CustomerSat, Medinets, and HTML Spec.” slip op. at 11

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

    “disclosure, arguing that “the cited disclosure says nothing about how the resulting survey is displayed.” Reply 3 (citing Ex. 1003, 7, and Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 14–17). Qualtrics misses the mark, however, because the very crux of the claimed invention is directed at how the user feedback is provided, i.e., while the user remains at the particular web page. As such, Qualtrics’s admission that CustomerSat does not teach how the survey is displayed— i.e., whether it is on the same page or a different page—hurts, rather than helps, their case.” slip op. at 8

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Dr. Shamos, for two reasons. Mot. 1 (Paper 36). First, Qualtrics seeks to exclude Dr. Shamos’s opinions because he “applied the wrong legal standard in determining the level of ordinary skill.” Id. at 2. According to Qualtrics, Dr. Shamos “considered only the ’805 Patent and failed to assess the prior art in the field” in opining on non-obviousness. Id. But the only support offered by Qualtrics is its mischaracterization of Dr. Shamos’s deposition testimony that he “deemed the prior art ‘irrelevant.’” Id. at 3. We are not persuaded. Our review of Dr. Shamos’s testimony reveals that he considered the patent specification of the ’805 patent in terms of the “field of the invention,” the “level of education and background [] needed to understand the specification,” and “what one would need to know” in order to understand not only the claimed invention but also “the prior art that was referenced in the petitions.” Ex. 1028, 70:1–19. That he reviewed more than simply the ’805 patent, in opining on the level of skill in the art, is likewise confirmed by his declaration, which attests that he “considered the three references” relied on in the Petition, “along with all of its Exhibits” and the “prosecution histories” of patents related to the ’805 patent. Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 18, 20. Moreover, as he further attests, Dr. Shamos opined on the level of skill in the art based on his “education, experience, and training in academia and industry.” Id. ¶ 31. Because, as a matter of necessity, the knowledge that Dr. Shamos gained in the course of his career, which includes significant experience in the field of “eCommerce” and “public opinion polling” (Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 4–11, 13), would have weighed in his assessment of the level of skill in the art, we are not persuaded by Qualtrics’s contention that his opinion was based solely on the ’805 patent. As such, we deny Qualtrics’s motion to exclude the declaration and deposition testimony of Dr. Shamos with respect to his opinions regarding non-obviousness of the claimed invention.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Moreover, the testimony of the parties’ declarants buttresses a finding that the user, in CustomerSat, provides feedback after being directed to a different web page, rather than while remaining on the same web page. For instance, we credit the testimony of OpinionLab’s declarant, Dr. Michael Shamos, that the underlying source code for CustomerSat’s feedback form refers to a web page located at “www.customersat.com/cssurvey.htm,” while the source code for the survey button, or invitation, indicates a web page located at “www.customersat.com/cgi-bin/popupadmin.” Ex. 2002 ¶ 47 (citing Ex. 1003, 67). Qualtrics’s declarant, Mr. John Chisholm, likewise only describes the “popupadmin” code as controlling the survey button, without ever ascribing that code to the survey itself. Ex. 2004, 105:10– 107:19. Thus, although CustomerSat’s feedback questionnaire may be the target of the survey button, or invitation, it nonetheless “appears on a completely separate webpage from the web page [] which contains [the] pop-up invitation.” Ex. 2002 ¶ 47 (declaration of Dr. Shamos).8 8 As further support, Qualtrics points to a depiction of a feedback form appearing within the same screen, and overlying, a particular web page. Pet. 23. As depicted, however, the feedback form is on a different web page than Qualtrics faults OpinionLab for reading too much into CustomerSat’s disclosure, arguing that “the cited disclosure says nothing about how the resulting survey is displayed.” Reply 3 (citing Ex. 1003, 7, and Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 14–17). Qualtrics misses the mark, however, because the very crux of the claimed invention is directed at how the user feedback is provided, i.e., while the user remains at the particular web page. As such, Qualtrics’s admission that CustomerSat does not teach how the survey is displayed— i.e., whether it is on the same page or a different page—hurts, rather than helps, their case. Qualtrics also argues that “the unrefuted testimony of Mr. Chisholm is that Pop!Up questionnaires could be—and, in fact, were— displayed in a pop-up window.” Reply 3 (citing Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 18–22). We disagree. OpinionLab’s declarant, Dr. Shamos, refutes expressly, and credibly, the testimony of Mr. Chisholm, explaining multiple times that, although the survey questionnaire “could be” displayed in a pop-up window, “there’s no suggestion [in CustomerSat] that the questionnaire is showing up in this—popup window.” Ex. 1028, 160:24–161:20; see also id. at 162:9–11 (“there’s no hint . . .”). And, more succinctly, in response to questions about whether clicking on CustomerSat’s survey button would turn “the survey invitation into a survey question,” and “could it work that way?,” Dr. Shamos responded: “You mean is it physically possible that you could mangle the website in that manner? Yes, you certainly could, if you wanted to. There’s no—certainly no hint or suggestion here that it’s done that the underlying web page, as evidenced by the different URLs associated with each. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 183.” slip op. at 7

  Patent outcomesUS 8,041,805 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,041,805

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.