• 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
• Tesla, Inc. v. Charge Fusion Technologies, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2024 · IPR2022-01217 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–10 not shown unpatentable as obvious over Kato, the Tesla Roadster Manual, and Eberhard because the asserted combination did not teach the claimed scheduled charging times and processor-controlled charging.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Wilson, testifies that one skilled in the art during the relevant time frame “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, or physics (or an equivalent field) and at least two years of work experience involving automotive systems, including vehicle information systems, vehicle sensors, and vehicle controllers (ECUs),” but “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 27). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s articulation of the level of skill in the art. See PO Resp. 16 (“Because the proposed level of ordinary skill does not affect the ultimate analysis, Patent Owner takes no position with respect to Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.”). We analyze the asserted prior art with respect to the level of skill set forth by Petitioner because it is consistent with the prior art.” slip op. at 9

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

    “According to Petitioner, “all claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning.” Pet. 10. Similarly, “for all claim terms, Patent the claim terms as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 14. And after institution, Petition made clear that “[t]he Parties agree the Challenged Claims should be given their ordinary and customary meaning for purposes of this IPR.” Pet. Reply 1. We do not need to construe any terms expressly to reach our decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 9

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

    “reliance on the time period that can be spent at a charging location corresponding to the recited calculated scheduled start time. Petitioner’s testimony from Dr. Wilson does little to help, as it simply parrots the contentions laid out in the Petition. And, like the contentions in the Petition, that testimony does not offer persuasive explanation as to why one skilled in teaching “computing . . . a charging schedule . . . comprising a scheduled start time and an indication of a scheduled stop time” as required by the claims. Contrary to Petitioner’s representations, we see nothing in paragraphs 53–55 of Kato teaching a specific time that is computed as a scheduled start time. Absent persuasive explanation and evidence from Petitioner, the preponderance of the evidence before us does not support Petitioner’s assertion that the beginning of an available time window for charging is a scheduled start time or that the end of that window is a scheduled stop time for charging. We note, again, that Petitioner relies on the express teachings of Kato. The Petition does not assert that it would have been obvious to employ a scheduled start time based on any modification to Kato’s teachings. Our decision is limited to the particular basis for the challenge advanced by Petitioner.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 10,998,753 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,998,753
• 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
• T-Max (Hangzhou) Technology Co., Ltd. / T-Max Industrial (H.K.) Co. Ltd. v. Lund Motion Products, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 12, 2020 · IPR2018-01636 · APJ Alyssa A Finamore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not adequately explain why a skilled artisan would combine Matthews and Dean to produce the claimed straddling segment.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “possessed at least a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering and at least one year of mechanical design experience in the area of mechanisms and linkages.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 29). Patent Owner similarly argues a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or other similar type of engineering degree, combined with at least one year of experience in the field of mechanical design or relevant product design experience.” PO Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 25–27). Patent Owner further argues the difference between Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill and that of Patent Owner “is immaterial to deciding the issues raised by the Petition.” Id. Upon consideration of the record, including Matthews, Dean, and Norton, we agree with Patent Owner that the difference between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s respective explanations of the level of ordinary skill in the art is inconsequential to considering Petitioner’s asserted grounds of unpatentability. Our assessment of the merits of this proceeding would be the same under both of the proffered explanations, and, therefore, it is unnecessary to adopt one explanation of the level of ordinary skill in the art over the other.” slip op. at 17

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

    “Petitioner points to both intrinsic and extrinsic evidence in support of its proposed constructions of the noted terms. Pet. 18–23. In that respect, 5 Exhibit 1010 is an excerpt from Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed. 1993). The exhibit itself does not include page numbering separate from the original page numbering of the dictionary, and the citation to this exhibit refers to the page of the dictionary. Petitioner relies on specific content of the Specification of the ’751 patent as well as the testimony of Dr. Delson. Id. We conclude that Petitioner’s proposed constructions have ample support in the record, and note that Patent Owner does not justify the basis for its disagreement of those constructions. We, therefore, adopt Petitioner’s constructions for the terms “flange” and “retain and straddle.”” slip op. at 19

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

    “These similarities, however, do not explain why a person would have combined the teachings of Matthews and Dean as Petitioner proposes. Petitioner confirms in its Reply that it is proposing to modify Matthews’s disclosure so that each of cranked members 7 is attached to the outside of each pair of links 8, 9. Reply 16–17, 19; see also Tr. 12:1–3 (“[T]he linkage that extends as element 7 could be on the outside of the other linkages 8 and 9 which is really the crux of the straddling segment. Instead of being on the inside, it’s on the outside.”). In order for the step resulting from Petitioner’s proposed combination of Matthews and Dean to retain and straddle at least one of links 8, 9, in accordance with Petitioner’s construction of “retain and straddle” as “connect on both sides to” (Pet. 21), Petitioner proposes to modify Matthews’s cranked members 7 to attach to the outside of pair of links 8 and pair of links 9 so that cranked members 7, collectively as a pair, attach to both sides of pair links 8 and pair of links 9. Petitioner is correct that Matthews and Dean teach retractable steps having similar four-bar linkages. In particular, Matthews’s cranked member 7 and Dean’s arm 100 appear to be corresponding components in the linkages that differ in how they attach to the other components of the linkage. Matthews’s cranked member 7 is attached to only one side of each link 8, 9, whereas Dean’s arm 100 straddles each link 116, 120. Ex. 1006, Figs. 1, 3; Ex. 1007, Fig. 4. Yet, Petitioner is not proposing to simply substitute Matthews’s cranked member 7 with Dean’s arm 100, or to modify Matthews’s disclosed step so that each cranked member 7 straddles each link 8, 9. Instead, Petitioner proposes to combine the teachings of Matthews and Dean so that Matthews’s cranked members 7, as a pair, straddle the two pairs of links 8, 9. Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Delson explains adequately why the similarities between Matthews’s step and Dean’s step convey that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Matthews and Dean as Petitioner proposes. Mere similarity of prior art structures is not a substitute for “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning” that is necessary “to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).” slip op. at 25

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

    “§ 103(a), and asserts the subject matter of these claims would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Matthews and Dean. Pet. 26–63; Reply 7–12, 15–25. Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s contentions, and argues secondary considerations of nonobviousness confirm the claimed subject matter would not have been obvious. PO Resp. 19–50, 56–67; Sur-Reply 5–14, 17–24.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 9,561,751 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,561,751
• T-Max (Hangzhou) Technology Co., Ltd. / T-Max Industrial (H.K.) Co. Ltd. v. Lund Motion Products, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 10, 2020 · IPR2018-01638 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 were not shown unpatentable: Falardi does not meet claim 1’s initial downward movement limitation, and DePaula does not cure that deficiency for claim 3.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Petitioner, however, does not point to any evidentiary support for the above-reproduced argument other than the testimony of Dr. Delson at paragraph 80 of his Declaration (Ex. 1002). That testimony is identical to Petitioner’s argument and includes no citation to the record. In its Reply, Petitioner submits that Dr. Delson’s testimony is offered on the premise that the meaning of “initial” is not “not limited to only being the ‘immediate’ or ‘instantaneous’ motion of the arms when the step retracts from the deployed position.” Pet. Reply 7. Thus, we understand Petitioner to advocate that Dr. Delson’s testimony is offered with an understanding of the meaning of “initially” that is not limited to the first or beginning motion of the arms. As noted above, however, we reject that construction of “initially.”” slip op. at 18

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “We do not discern any meaningful difference in the parties’ respective evaluations of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We also concur with Patent Owner’s assessment that to the extent there are any differences in those evaluations, such differences do not affect the issues raised in the Petition. In that respect, we conclude that the assessment of the merits of this proceeding are the same under both of the parties’ evaluations of the level of ordinary skill in the art. To that end, we conclude that it is unnecessary to formally adopt one evaluation over the other in deciding the 8 Exhibit 2008 is a Declaration of John Pratt, Ph.D. issues at hand. We further note that the cited prior art references further reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Furthermore, we also are not persuaded that Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Pratt, “did not provide any explanation or analyses to support his testimony,” as is argued by Petitioner. See Pet. Reply 4. Indeed, his testimony that “[a]s used in the specification, the ‘initial motion’ is only the first, or beginning movement toward a position such as the retracted or deployed positions” of step member 922 finds direct support from the abovediscussed portions of the Specification of the ’277 patent. In light of the record before us, including the disclosure of the ’277 patent, the meaning of “initial” or “initially” as understood from multiple dictionaries (Exs. 2002–2007)10, and the credible testimony of Dr. Pratt, we” slip op. at 13

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

    “persuaded that, in the context of the ’277 patent, Petitioner provides adequate evidence or explanation that its construction of “initially” as meaning “of or relating to the beginning; incipient” is the correct one. It is apparent from the entirety of the record, including Petitioner’s proposed grounds of unpatentability, that its construction is offered in an attempt to sweep into the meaning of “initial[] move[ment]” of the arms a movement that is not the first or beginning one. Petitioner seemingly bases that construction on the premise that a sole dictionary definition of “initial” as generally meaning “relating to the beginning” provides sufficient basis for its position. Petitioner, however, does not provide sufficient reasoning why the movement “relating to the beginning” should be read so broadly as to encompass movement of a component that is not the first occurring movement. Patent Owner’s construction, on the other hand, draws ample and logical support from the record as a whole, including both intrinsic and extrinsic evidence. Even assuming that the use of “initial” in the Specification is directed to movement that is not necessarily the downward motion of components, there is nothing therein that conveys that the meaning of “initial” should be expanded to include movement that is not at the beginning of a component’s act of motion. For instance, the portion of the disclosure at column 31, lines 46–53, of the ’277 patent pertains to Figure 22 and describes upward motion of step member 922 and stepping deck 924. That portion explains that “initial” movement of step member 922 is upward “after which the step member 922 and upper stepping surface 924c travel generally downward” to a deployed position. Ex. 1001, 31:46– 53. Thus, that portion of the disclosure describes exemplary “initial” upward movement of step member 922 followed by downward movement. There is nothing in that disclosure that conveys that the “initial” upward movement of step member 922 includes movement that is not viewed as being in an upward direction at the very beginning point that step member 922 starts to move. We also do not discern that the prosecution history of the application that became the ’277 patent (Ex. 1013) suggests any meaning of “initial” movement of a component that is not the first movement of the component.” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 8,157,277 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,157,277
• Supercell OY v. Gree, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 26, 2019 · PGR2018-00050 · APJ Carl M Defranco · PGR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–10 not unpatentable under § 101, § 112(a), or § 112(b), finding the claims patent eligible and rejecting the written-description and indefiniteness challenges.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “Neither Supercell nor GREE proposes a construction for any particular claim term. See Pet. 20–26; PO Resp. 6. We determine that no express construction of the claim terms is necessary for purposes of this decision, with one exception. We note that the Specification of the ’886 patent describes the claimed “terminal attribute” as follows: “Examples of the attribute information may include the OS version, the browser type, the terminal type, the communication circumstance, and the like.” Ex. 1001, 11:33–35. In that regard, the Specification also explains a communication circumstance as follows: “For example, in a case where an information processing speed or a communication speed in the user terminal . . . is high, the number of rounds is set to be large.” Id. at 11:20–23. As such, we determine that the plain and ordinary meaning of “terminal attribute” encompasses at least the examples listed in the Specification and should be read accordingly.3” slip op. at 5

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 not directed to exceptionNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with GREE that the claims are drawn to a specific technological improvement in the transmission of online game content by using a terminal attribute to improve the efficiency and functionality of transmitting multiple rounds of an online game to a user terminal, and that this improvement is not an abstract idea.7 Although, as Supercell argues, the recited function of “transmitting game view data” may be result-oriented (see Pet. 33–37; Reply 4–6), the claims nonetheless recite a specific technique for achieving that result-oriented function—identifying a terminal attribute of the user terminal and determining the predetermined number based on the terminal attribute. That particular technique, as made clear by the ’886 patent, solves a specific technological problem with conventional online game systems—long wait times and interruptions in the transmission of multiple rounds of the game. See Ex. 1001, 1:46–54 (describing the problem with conventional online game systems). So, rather than reciting just result-oriented functions, the clear focus” slip op. at 9

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable

    “As explained by GREE’s expert, a skilled artisan would have known from that description how to determine the predetermined number of rounds using a terminal attribute table. See Ex. 1007, 57:20–62:10, 82:14–23, 87:7– 90:22. That expert testimony, which we find persuasive, is unrebutted and stands in direct contrast to unsupported attorney argument from Supercell. See Pet. 58–61; Reply 19–21. Thus, we determine that Supercell has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–10 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as lacking written description support.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Pet. 64–65; Reply 22–23. But aside from that conclusory assertion, Supercell’s Petition simply poses a series of rhetorical questions without further analysis or evidentiary support. See Pet. 65–66. GREE, on the other hand, offers expert testimony as to why the meaning of the claimed “determining” limitation is clear not only from the claim language itself but also in light of the Specification. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 40– 42 (citing Ex. 1001, 11:20–41). We find that testimony persuasive. We also find persuasive GREE’s reasoning in response to each of the rhetorical questions raised by Supercell, even though it was under no obligation to do so. PO Resp. 47–49; Sur-Reply 17–19. And given the lack of argument, not to mention evidentiary support, in the Petition as to the purported indefiniteness of the challenged claims, we are not persuaded that Supercell has carried its burden of showing that the claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 9,675,886 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Mayo · Electric Power
  Patents in suitUS 9,675,886
• 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
• Hilti, Inc. / Snap-On Incorporated v. Milwaukee Electric Tool CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 14, 2016 · IPR2016-00343 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Takano and Yanai because the proposed combinations and calculations lacked adequate support and relied on hindsight.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Takano, however, discloses a battery having a plurality of cells connected in series. Ex. 1072 ¶¶ 4, 11, 26. Although we do not question that connecting battery cells in series and/or parallel is known generally in the art, Petitioner does not provide adequate specific reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify Takano to connect cells in parallel when Takano clearly discloses a series connection. Dr. Abraham’s testimony that the type of connection would be chosen “as needed to provide whatever target voltage and amperage is desired for a particular application,” by itself, does not provide a sufficient reason to modify Takano’s series connection. Petitioner does not explain how the prior art discloses a desired voltage or amperage that would cause one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Takano in the manner proposed. In this case, the only teaching of a desired amperage comes from the ’290 patent itself. Furthermore, Dr. Abraham’s reliance on the disclosure at column 5, lines 57–61, of the ’290 patent as supporting the alleged obviousness of combining two cells in parallel is improper. This passage of the ’290 patent describes alternative configurations of the patentees’ own invention; it is not describing prior art. Relying on knowledge gleaned only from the challenged patent’s disclosure is impermissible hindsight. Cf. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (As long as a judgment on obviousness “takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.”).” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Furthermore, Petitioner’s obviousness analysis relies on (1) selecting an 18650-size or 26650-size cell; (2) estimating the positive electrode surface area to be 540 cm2; (3) selecting a foil thickness of 15 micrometers; (4) selecting an average discharge voltage of 3.6 volts; and (5) for 18650-size cells, connecting two in parallel. Petitioner fails to point out how the prior art indicates that using all of these particular values in combination would be desirable for a lithium-based battery pack when several other possible values could have been selected. Where “‘the prior art gave either no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful,’ courts should reject ‘hindsight claims of obviousness.’” In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig., 676 F.3d 1063, 1070–71 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s obviousness analysis relies on impermissible hindsight.” slip op. at 20

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Third, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s argument that “three Yanai-based 18650 cells in parallel” would satisfy the 20 Amp Limitation is a new argument. Paper 60, 2. In our view, this argument does more than merely address Patent Owner’s argument regarding Dr. Abraham’s addition error. Rather, by relying on three cells instead of two, Petitioner attempts to provide a new theory as to why the combination of Takano and Yanai renders the challenged claims obvious that was not set forth clearly in the Petition. Because Petitioner waited until the Reply to make this argument, Patent Owner did not have an opportunity to respond to Petitioner’s new argument. We thus decline to consider Petitioner’s new argument as it is an improper reply. Furthermore, Petitioner’s assertion that Patent Owner made no attempt to explain why using three cells would have been just as obvious as using two cells is an improper attempt to shift the burden of proof with respect to obviousness to Patent Owner.” slip op. at 17

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

  Patent outcomesUS 7,554,290 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,554,290
• Hilti, Inc. / Snap-On Incorporated v. Milwaukee Electric Tool CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 14, 2016 · IPR2016-00344 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 were not shown unpatentable over Takano and Yanai under §103 because Petitioner’s evidence did not establish the 20 Amp Limitation without unsupported assumptions and hindsight.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Takano, however, discloses a battery having a plurality of cells connected in series. Ex. 1072 ¶¶ 4, 11, 26. Although we do not question that connecting battery cells in series and/or parallel is known generally in the art, Petitioner does not provide adequate specific reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify Takano to connect cells in parallel when Takano clearly discloses a series connection. Dr. Abraham’s testimony that the type of connection would be chosen “as needed to provide whatever target voltage and amperage is desired for a particular application,” by itself, does not provide a sufficient reason to modify Takano’s series connection. Petitioner does not explain how the prior art discloses a desired voltage or amperage that would cause one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Takano in the manner proposed. In this case, the only teaching of a desired amperage comes from the ’173 patent itself. Furthermore, Dr. Abraham’s reliance on the disclosure at column 5, lines 59–63, of the ’173 patent as supporting the alleged obviousness of combining two cells in parallel is improper. This passage of the ’173 patent describes alternative configurations of the patentees’ own invention; it is not describing prior art. Relying on knowledge gleaned only from the challenged patent’s disclosure is impermissible hindsight. Cf. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (As long as a judgment on obviousness “takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.”).” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “18650-size and 26650-size cells is flawed and thus fails to support Petitioner’s assertion that claim 1 would have been obvious over the combination of Takano and Yanai. Furthermore, Petitioner’s obviousness analysis relies on (1) selecting an 18650-size or 26650-size cell; (2) estimating the positive electrode surface area to be 540 cm2; (3) selecting a foil thickness of 15 micrometers; (4) selecting an average discharge voltage of 3.6 volts; and (5) for 18650-size cells, connecting two in parallel. Petitioner fails to point out how the prior art indicates that using all of these particular values in combination would be desirable for a lithium-based battery pack when several other possible values could have been selected. Where “‘the prior art gave either no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful,’ courts should reject ‘hindsight claims of obviousness.’” In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig., 676 F.3d 1063, 1070–71 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s obviousness analysis relies on impermissible hindsight.” slip op. at 21

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

    “e) Secondary Considerations Patent Owner argues that “[n]umerous secondary considerations strongly favor the patentability of the challenged claims.” PO Resp. 26–59. Because we are not persuaded Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently that the combination of Takano and Yanai render claim 1 obvious, we need not reach Patent Owner’s assertions regarding secondary considerations.” slip op. at 23

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Third, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s argument that “three Yanai-based 18650 cells in parallel” would satisfy the 20 Amp Limitation is a new argument. Paper 62, 2. In our view, this argument does more than merely address Patent Owner’s argument regarding Dr. Abraham’s addition error. Rather, by relying on three cells instead of two, Petitioner attempts to provide a new theory as to why the combination of Takano and Yanai renders the challenged claims obvious that was not set forth clearly in the Petition. Because Petitioner waited until the Reply to make this argument, Patent Owner did not have an opportunity to respond to Petitioner’s new argument. We thus decline to consider Petitioner’s new argument as it is an improper reply. Furthermore, Petitioner’s assertion that Patent Owner made no attempt to explain why using three cells would have been just as obvious as using two cells is an improper attempt to shift the burden of proof with respect to obviousness to Patent Owner.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 7,944,173 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,944,173

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.