- Chongqing HKC Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. v. 138 East LCD Advancements LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 28, 2023 · IPR2023-00476 · APJ Wesley B Derrick · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–11 unpatentable, principally failing to establish distinct lead wiring lines.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows that there is “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). We deny inter partes review, for example, where a petition fails to identify “with particularity” the challenges or evidence supporting them. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) as “requiring [inter partes review] petitions to identify ‘with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim’”); Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3))). For the reasons discussed below, we deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentable
“display electrodes” and “a plurality of lead wiring lines provided on the extending portion and that are led from one of the sides of the wiring lines to the extending portion.” Ex. 1001, 16:40‒44. Separately listing “wiring lines” and “a plurality of lead wiring lines” clearly implies that wiring lines Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal quotation omitted) (“Where a claim lists elements separately, the clear implication of the claim language is that those elements are distinct component[s] of the patented invention.”); Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 96 F.3d 1398, 1404‒05 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (concluding that two separately recited elements could not be the same element because it would contradict the plain language of the patent and “they logically cannot be one and the same”). Here, the claim language identifies wiring lines and lead wiring lines as separate elements in that the “lead wiring lines . . . are led from one of the sides of the wiring lines to the extending portion.” Ex. 1001, 16:42‒ 44. Here also, the ’913 patent’s specification separately identifies and describes both lead wiring lines 103a and wiring lines 105 in a single embodiment. See, e.g., id. at Fig. 1, 7:42‒46 (“In FIG. 1, . . . [t]he wiring lines 105 are relayed on the upper side of the frame light-shielding film 53 so as to connect the two scanning line driving circuits 104.”), 8:26‒29 (“the data line driving circuit 101a is connected to the plurality of external connecting terminals 102a through the lead wiring lines 103a at both ends of the extending portion 201” (referring to the embodiment depicted in Figure 1)).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentable
“display electrodes” and “a plurality of lead wiring lines provided on the extending portion and that are led from one of the sides of the wiring lines to the extending portion.” Ex. 1001, 16:40‒44. Separately listing “wiring lines” and “a plurality of lead wiring lines” clearly implies that wiring lines Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal quotation omitted) (“Where a claim lists elements separately, the clear implication of the claim language is that those elements are distinct component[s] of the patented invention.”); Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 96 F.3d 1398, 1404‒05 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (concluding that two separately recited elements could not be the same element because it would contradict the plain language of the patent and “they logically cannot be one and the same”). Here, the claim language identifies wiring lines and lead wiring lines as separate elements in that the “lead wiring lines . . . are led from one of the sides of the wiring lines to the extending portion.” Ex. 1001, 16:42‒ 44. Here also, the ’913 patent’s specification separately identifies and describes both lead wiring lines 103a and wiring lines 105 in a single embodiment. See, e.g., id. at Fig. 1, 7:42‒46 (“In FIG. 1, . . . [t]he wiring lines 105 are relayed on the upper side of the frame light-shielding film 53 so as to connect the two scanning line driving circuits 104.”), 8:26‒29 (“the data line driving circuit 101a is connected to the plurality of external connecting terminals 102a through the lead wiring lines 103a at both ends of the extending portion 201” (referring to the embodiment depicted in Figure 1)).” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. See Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Industries, Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983). 7 Yoneda, JP2000267590A, published Mar. 19, 1999. Ex. 1011. 8 Tanaka, JP2004094020A, published Mar. 25, 2004, with exhibit including certified English language translation. Ex. 1012. 9 Hirosue, US 2003/0189686 A1, published Oct. 9, 2003. Ex. 1013. have either a bachelor’s degree in electrical or computer engineering with three years of experience in the field of display technology or a master’s degree with one year of experience in the field of display technology.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 41‒44). Patent Owner, “[f]or purposes of th[e] Preliminary Response . . . does not dispute the level of skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 7. On this record, we find Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill reasonable and, therefore, adopt it for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 6
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,335,913 - Takeda Vaccines, Inc. v. Valneva Austria GmbHInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 9, 2023 · IPR2023-00354 · APJ Wesley B Derrick · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Patent Owner disclaimed all challenged claims before institution; it declined to enter adverse judgment.
RulingsInstitution decision- Adverse judgmentDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner’s statutory disclaimer of the challenged claims, Petitioner correctly notes that the Federal Circuit in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 880 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2018), construed Rule 42.73(b) as permitting the Board to enter adverse judgment when a patent owner cancels all challenged claims prior to institution. Paper 6, 2‒3; Arthrex, 880 F.3d at 1350. Neither Arthrex nor Rule 42.73(b), while permitting us to do so, requires us to enter adverse judgment. In the present instance, and consistent with 35 U.S.C. § 253(a), Arthrex, Rule 42.107(e) and the Board’s precedential General Electric decision, we determine that a denial of institution is sufficient to dispose of this case. We acknowledge Petitioner’s request to treat the terminal disclaimer as a request for adverse judgment (see Ex. 3003), but determine that denying institution without entering adverse judgment against the Patent Owner is consistent with § 253(a), Rule 42.107(e), and General Electric, where there are no pending claims for us to consider following disclaimer of all challenged claims prior to institution of trial.” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“disclaiming all challenged claims of the ’681 patent, and paid the requisite fees. See Ex. 3002; see also 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) (providing that a patentee may disclaim); 37 C.F.R. § 1.321 (setting forth requirements for statutory disclaimer). In particular, based on our review of Ex. 3002 and Patent Office public records, we are satisfied that a disclaimer of the challenged claims of the ’681 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) has been recorded in the Office as of March 21, 2023. See Vectra Fitness, Inc. v. TNWK Corp., 162 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (holding that a disclaimer filed under immediately “recorded” on the date the Office receives the disclaimer without any requirements of further action). Accordingly, we deny institution of the requested inter partes review. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e) (“No inter partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.”); see also General Elec. Co. v. United Techs. Corp., IPR2017-00491, Paper 9 (PTAB July 6, 2017) (precedential) (“General Electric”) (denying institution of inter partes review under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e) based on disclaimer).” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 11,219,681 - Amperex Technology Limited v. Maxell, Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 28, 2023 · IPR2021-01443 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5 are unpatentable as obvious over Choi and Kim; the Board found motivation to combine and that the references teach or suggest the claimed limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in chemistry, chemical engineering, or materials science, as well as five or more years of experience in the field of batteries and battery materials.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 11). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. We find that Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the scope and content of the ’019 Patent and the asserted prior art. We apply Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA, with the caveat that the phrases “at least” and “or more” do not require significantly more education or experience than is explicitly set forth in Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that the proper construction of “different compositions of elements” in claim 3 and “composition of elements . . . is different” in claim 4 is “the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms, i.e. different elements or different amounts of the same elements between the at least two lithium-containing transition metal oxides.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 128). Patent Owner neither opposes this construction, nor proposes any express construction of its own. See PO Resp. We apply Petitioner’s unopposed claim construction, which is supported by the specification of the ’019 Patent. Ex. 1001, 11:29–33 (In formula (2), “M1, M2 and M3 are selected from the same elements as in the formula (1), but the elements selected or the constituting element ratios selected in the individual positive electrode active materials having different average particle sizes may differ from each other.”). The specification provides several examples in which the cathode active material is a mixture of two lithium-containing transition metal oxides having different average particle sizes and different amounts of the same elements. Ex. 1001, ¶¶ 128, 129 (discussing Examples 1, 6, and 9–11).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“We determine that no other claim term requires express construction for purposes of resolving the controversy. 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
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“lithium-containing transition metal oxides including “dopants.” PO Resp. 5–6; PO Sur-reply 2–3; Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 33–36. Kim’s silence on particle size and dopants does not, however, mean that Kim’s cathode active material is “wholly different” from Choi’s cathode active material, as asserted by Patent Owner and Dr. Lucht. PO Resp. 6; Ex. 2008 ¶ 35. Patent Owner does not dispute that Choi and Kim both disclose lithium-containing transition metal oxides as cathode active materials. PO Resp. 5 (discussing Kim and citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 69); see also Ex. 2008 ¶ 36 (same). Moreover, Dr. Lucht does not explain how Kim’s silence on particle size and dopants would have affected a POSITA’s motivations and expectations regarding the electrolyte—the modification of Choi proposed by Petitioner. For this reason and as further explained below, Dr. Lucht’s testimony that “Kim . . . discloses a wholly different cathode active material technology than Choi” (Ex. 2008 ¶ 35) is not sufficient to rebut Dr. van Schalkwijk’s testimony that a POSITA would have been motivated to include the aliphatic nitrile compound of Kim as an electrolyte additive in the battery of Choi “to increase thermal stability and improve discharge characteristics in the resultant batteries” and would have expected the addition of the aliphatic nitrile compound to be effective. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 151, 152. As discussed above, Choi and Kim teach different ways to improve thermal stability. Whereas Choi’s small diameter cathode active materials confer thermal stability (Ex. 1005, 7, 10), Kim teaches that thermal stability and discharge characteristics are improved by a protective layer formed by a complex between the surface of a cathode active material and an aliphatic dinitrile compound. Ex. 1006, code (57), ¶¶ 32, 33, 37–42. According to Kim, a “polar cyano group with high dipole moment in the aliphatic nitrile cathode” and “X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy data . . . show a complex is formed by a bond between a cobalt metal oxide and the cyano group of the dinitrile compound.” Id. ¶¶ 39, 40, Figs. 1, 2. Because Choi’s cathode active material likewise contains a transition metal, such as cobalt, the references support a reasonable inference that the same sort of cyano group complex would be formed if a dinitrile compound were included in Choi’s electrolyte. Ex. 1005, 5–6; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 37–40. On this record, there is no evidence that Choi’s dopants would have interfered with complexation between the surface of a cathode active material and an aliphatic nitrile compound or formation of a protective layer on the cathode, as described by Kim. To the contrary, Dr. van Schalkwijk testified that the addition of small amounts of an additive element, such as magnesium, to the cathode “wouldn’t change . . . the types of results they were looking for in terms of film formation on what is substantially lithium cobalt oxide or lithium nickel oxide.” Ex. 2016, 37:18–40:3 (discussing Kim). In our Institution Decision, we observed that “Dr. Lucht does not say that Kim’s teachings about an aliphatic nitrile compound are inapplicable to Choi’s cathode materials.” Inst. Dec. 19. On this record, there is still no such testimony from Dr. Lucht. At the oral hearing, Patent Owner’s counsel conceded that Patent Owner is not arguing that the result would be different when combining a dinitrile (or mononitrile) compound with a “complex” cathode material, as compared with a “basic” cathode material. Tr. 32:7–20. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s distinction between “complex” and “basic” lithium-containing transition metal oxides (PO Resp. 5–7; Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 34– 36; Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 10–12) does not undermine Dr. van Schalkwijk’s testimony that a POSITA would have been motivated to include an aliphatic nitrile in characteristics of Choi’s battery and would have expected that the electrolyte additive would have been effective. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 147, 148, 150–152.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 9,350,019 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,350,019 - Google LLC / Ecobee Technologies Ulc v. Ecofactor, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 6, 2023 · IPR2022-00686 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 7, and 15–20 are unpatentable: claims 15, 19, and 20 as obvious over Hildebrand and Van Ostrand; claims 1–3, 7, 16, and 17 over those references and Rosen; and claim 18 over those …
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“the art would have combined the relevant teachings of Hildebrand and Van Ostrand with a reasonable expectation of success. As discussed above, Hildebrand is directed to a system for monitoring the efficiency of an HVAC system to determine when there is a fault. See Section II.E.1, supra; Ex. 1002 ¶ 60. Using much of the same data as Hildebrand, Van Ostrand teaches a method to determine which stage in a multiple stage HVAC system failed. See Section II.E.2; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 60–61. Van Ostrand further teaches that the “[typical] HVAC system include[s] multiple stages of heating and/or cooling capacity.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 4. Because Hildebrand is silent as to which stage of the typical system—which has multiple stages— has failed, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have turned to Van Ostrand for that determination. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 61–62. This modification would allow the Hildebrand system to detect which specific stage has failed. See Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 29–33. And because Van Ostrand represents a known method of detecting fault, it would have been obvious to use it to improve Hildebrand in a predictable way with a reasonable expectation of success. Ex. 1002 ¶ 63; see also KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 416–21. Petitioner has also sufficiently shown that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have added Rosen’s use of internet weather to the Hildebrand-Van Ostrand combination. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 115 (“Hildebrand and Van Ostrand are applied as I describe above with respect to Ground 1, with outside temperature over the Internet from a weather data provider. In my opinion, it would have been obvious to obtain outside temperature measurements from the Internet, thus replacing Hildebrand’s use of outside temperature sensors.”). Specifically, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have seen an advantage in avoiding the expense of obtaining, wiring and servicing an extra outside temperature sensor by obtaining weather information from the Internet as taught by Rosen. Ex. 1002 ¶ 120; see also Section II.F.1 (describing Rosen). Because it is undisputed that Rosen teaches using computer programming and network communications that were well-known and established at the relevant time period, there was a reasonable expectation of success. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 120–121.” slip op. at 35
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“There is also no dispute that ym is the output from a computer model. See Pet. 69; PO Resp. 32. Again, that is consistent with Spalink, which defines item 310—which generates ym—as a reference model. Ex. 1008 Fig. 3; ¶ 75 (describing ym as the output of the refence model). Thus, there is no meaningful dispute that the comparison shown in Figure 3—which the Petition relies on—is a comparison between a first HVAC system and a model, not a second HVAC system as recited in claim 8. Accordingly, that comparison does not teach or suggest “compar[ing] the relative efficiency of the first HVAC system and the second HVAC system” as recited in claim 8. Petitioner’s arguments that the data in the reference model comes from other buildings is inapposite. Although Petitioner accurately describes how reference model 310 is based on “data 367 collected from different buildings” (Ex. 1008 ¶ 77), Petitioner has not shown that a computer model is a second HVAC system. Therefore, comparing the output of a building to a model based on buildings does not teach or suggest the necessary comparison between the first HVAC system and the second HVAC system recited in claim 8.” slip op. at 57
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“claims 5 and 6. See Pet. 7 (listing of grounds), 45 (Ground 2 heading). However, the “Claim Mapping” section only discusses claims 1–3, 7, 15–17, and 20. Pet. 49–50. We noted this lack of mapping in the Institution Decision. Inst. Dec. 20. In its Reply, Petitioner argues as follows: The Institution Decision states “that the Petition omits any particular mapping for claim 5, 6, and 19” in the context of this Ground. (See Institution Decision, 20). Petitioner respectfully submits that the Petition makes clear that the claim mapping for these dependent claims is the same as in Ground 1, “with the exception that the outside temperature measurements, first recited in claim elements [1c] and [15c], come from an Internet weather data source.” (See Pet., 49). Pet. Reply 21–22 n.3. However, the Petition does not support that argument. Instead, page 49 of the Petition—which is all Petitioner cites to—does not mention claims 5 and 6. Instead, the page Petitioner cites shows that Petitioner misleadingly cropped the quotation. The full quotation below shows that page 49 of the Petition does not list claims 5 and 6: CLAIMS 1, 7, 15 AND 20 Independent claims 1 and 15, and their respective dependent claims 7 and 20, are obvious in the same manner discussed in Ground 1, with the exception that the outside temperature measurements, first recited in claim elements [1c] and [15c], come from an Internet weather data source. Pet. 49 (bold in original) (italics added to emphasize cropped language). Our rules require that “[t]he petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). Petitioner did not do that with respect to” slip op. at 39
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“b) Our Analysis We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that Hildebrand teaches or suggests limitation [1c]. The gravamen of Petitioner’s argument is that Hildebrand’s HVAC system is limited to HVAC system 12—the heating system, cooling system, and fan. See Pet. 12 (“The HVAC system is ‘HVAC system 12’ . . . .”); Ex. 1004, 4:1–10 (describing HVAC system 12). Although nominally supported by Mr. Shah’s testimony, that testimony is conclusory, parrots the Petition, and provides no corroborating evidence to show that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that an HVAC system was limited to the heating and cooling systems. We give Mr. Shah’s testimony on that point no weight. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”); Verlander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Board has discretion to accord little weight to broad conclusory statements from expert witness); 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). Moreover, Petitioner’s argument is inconsistent with Mr. Shahs’ direct testimony that clearly states that the HVAC system is broader then just the heating and cooling system and fan and includes other elements, such as thermostats and HVAC control systems. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 65 (“HVAC communications, and software, were widely known and understood.”). Applying Mr. Shah’s definition, the HVAC system as recited in claim 1 includes more than Hildebrand’s heating and cooling systems. Indeed, when discussing dependent claim 5, Petitioner argues that Hildebrand’s HVAC system also includes a thermostat. See Pet. 39. We do not find the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) finding in an ITC proceeding involving a different record (and different patent) to be persuasive. Although the ALJ considered Hildebrand, there is nothing in the excerpt of the opinion to conclude that he considered Mr. Shah’s definition of an HVAC system. See Ex. 1010, 475–76. Nor is it clear from the record that the ALJ considered contrary testimony from Patent Owner’s expert. Id. Hildebrand Figure 1 shows an HVAC system including heating and” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 8,019,567 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,019,567 - Google LLC / Ecobee Technologies Ulc v. Ecofactor, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 6, 2023 · IPR2021-01218 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 7, and 15–20 are unpatentable on specified §103 grounds; claims 4–6 and 8–14 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The ’567 patent is directed to a using a thermostat to detect faults in the HVAC system. See Ex. 1001, code (57). That aligns more closely with and HVAC control systems—than the one proposed by Petitioner—which focuses on energy controls. Compare Ex. 2002 ¶ 27, with Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31– 33. Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s propose definition. However, we consider the parties’ positions to be substantially similar, and note that neither party argues that the level of skill is determinative to the outcome of the case. Accordingly, we would have reached the same factual findings and conclusions of law had we adopted Petitioner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“We decline to find Dr. Palmer less credible based solely on his experience. In judging the credibility of experts, we focus on whether the witness offers corroboration for his opinions, provides opinions that are consistent with the prior art, and the witness’ cross-examination testimony. Moreover, we note that Mr. Shah and Dr. Palmer substantially parrot the Petition and Patent Owner Response, respectively. Such testimony is generally unhelpful. Testimony which goes into more detail and expands on the points made in the papers (but not going beyond the points made in the papers) is more helpful and, as a general matter, given more weight so long as it is consistent with, and supported by, the other evidence in the record.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Because no express construction is needed for our decision, we do not construe any of the claim limitations. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe 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 11
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“that Hildebrand teaches or suggests limitation [1c]. The gravamen of Petitioner’s argument is that Hildebrand’s HVAC system is limited to HVAC system 12—the heating system, cooling system, and fan. See Pet. 12 (“The HVAC system is ‘HVAC system 12’ . . . .”); Ex. 1004, 4:1–10 (describing HVAC system 12). Although nominally supported by Mr. Shah’s testimony, that testimony is conclusory, parrots the Petition, and provides no corroborating evidence to show that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that an HVAC system was limited to the heating and cooling systems. We give Mr. Shah’s testimony on that point no weight. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”); Verlander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Board has discretion to accord little weight to broad conclusory statements from expert witness); 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 8,019,567 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,019,567 - Sunspec Alliance v. Tigo Energy, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 26, 2023 · IPR2021-01287 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 12–13 are unpatentable; claims 14–16 are not shown unpatentable because the asserted grounds fail to establish the required predetermined number of heartbeat skips or sensor-triggered skips.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“contention that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree or similar degree in electrical engineering and one year of experience in the design of solar power systems, power control systems, and/or power safety systems” or “could have also obtained similar knowledge and experience through other means.” Dec. 6. Patent Owner does not appear to dispute this definition. See generally PO Resp; see also id. at 51 (employing Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art in discussing Mr. Dunton’s testimony). In its Reply, Petitioner argues that “Patent Owner does not challenge but adopts Petitioner’s proposed level of skill for a POSITA for the relevant time period.” Reply 1 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 28; Ex. 1030, 119:25–120:14). Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s definition, because it is consistent with the cited prior art. We further note that the prior art itself demonstrates the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that “specific findings on the level of skill in the art . . . [are not required] ‘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))).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We interpret the term “heartbeat signals” as “periodic signals.” The term “heartbeat” appears only once in the in the specification outside of the claims: “the ‘heartbeats’ of the ping are set at a high rate, such as 100 or even 1000 per second.” Ex. 1001, 18:7–13. The disclosure of “the heartbeats” having a “rate” defined in “per second” terms indicates that they are periodic, as is generally recognized for heartbeats, i.e. human heartbeats. The term “heartbeat signals” appears in the challenged claims in conjunction with the detection of an anomaly (claim 12, “wherein the controller detects an anomaly in heartbeat signals from the remote unit”) and in conjunction with “skips” (claim 13, “wherein the anomaly includes skips of heartbeat signals”; claim 14, “when the anomaly includes a predetermined number of skips of the heartbeat signals”; claim 15, “when skips of the heartbeat signals are less than the predetermined number”). Accordingly, the heartbeat signals allow for the detection of an anomaly therein, indicating that they are typically predictable, and for the detection of skips of heartbeat signals, indicating that they are periodic. In view of the specification and the claims, and the parties’ arguments, we find that the plain and ordinary meaning of “heartbeat signals” is “periodic signals.”” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Because patentee has acted as its own lexicographer, and because the ’321 patent specification is incorporated by reference into the ’770 patent specification (Ex. 1001, 1:7–37; Tr. 9:10–22), we adopt the construction: “Skips refers to the event of missing a communication or pulse.” Ex. 2005, 9:36–37. Cont’l Cirs. LLC v. Intel Corp., 915 F.3d 788, 796 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316) (“When the patentee acts as its own lexicographer, that definition governs.”).” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that the preamble of claim 12 is limiting. The body of claim 12 recites “photovoltaic panel” and thus refers back to the preamble, and other challenged claims use the term “photovoltaic panel” in the non-preamble portions of the claims. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 20:51, 20:58, 20:67, 21:5, 21:10. Aside from the preamble issue, the parties do not dispute the meaning of “photovoltaic panel.” Accordingly, we need not expressly construe the term “photovoltaic panel” for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 10,256,770 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,256,770 - Tennant Company v. Oxygenator Water Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 17, 2022 · IPR2021-00625 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Final written decision
The Board found that Tennant did not prove claims 13, 14, and 17–27 unpatentable because the asserted references did not establish the claimed microbubbles and nanobubbles, and the obviousness combinations were inadequately supported.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner states, for “purposes of this proceeding, PO does not challenge Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 53 n.6. Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s definition, because it is consistent with the cited prior art. We further note that the prior art itself demonstrates the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that “specific findings on the level of skill in the art . . . [are not required] ‘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))).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Because patentee has acted as its own lexicographer, and because Petitioner agrees that the definition provided in the specification is the preferred construction, we adopt the construction of “nanobubble” provided in the specification. Cont’l Cirs. LLC v. Intel Corp., 915 F.3d 788, 796 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316) (“When the patentee acts as its own lexicographer, that definition governs.”). Namely, we construe “nanobubble” as “a bubble with a diameter less than that necessary to break the surface tension of water.” Ex. 1101, 4:12–13. We decline to add any additional language to our construction, as proposed by Petitioner, because the additional quoted sentence in the specification appears to describe an effect of nanobubbles on the appearance of water when nanobubbles are present, rather than define the nanobubbles themselves. On this record, we determine that no other claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 14
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“We disagree that our Institution Decision established a prima facie case that Petitioner met its burden at the Final Written Decision stage. An affirmative decision on institution is a determination that Petitioner has shown, on the record at that stage in the proceeding, that Petitioner has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its arguments as to at least one challenged claim. Dec. 40; 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). To prevail in an instituted inter partes review, however, 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) requires Petitioner to meet “the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.” See TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]here is a significant difference between a petitioner’s burden to establish a ‘reasonable likelihood of success’ at institution, and actually proving invalidity by a preponderance of the evidence at trial . . . . The Board’s findings in its Final Written Decision were thus not inconsistent with those in its Institution Decision; they were made under a qualitatively different standard.”). To state that our Institution Decision established a prima facie case that Petitioner was correct would be erroneous, as such a position conflates different burdens required of Petitioner and, in doing so, would have us improperly give Petitioner an advantage in the actual trial culminating in a final written decision. Fan Duel, 966 F.3d at 1341–42.” slip op. at 25
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable
“On this complete record, we find that Petitioner’s testing does not sufficiently demonstrate that Wikey inherently discloses nanobubbles. Pet. 22–29. Petitioner apparently had the ability to test for the express disclosure of nanobubbles in its Wikey-based apparatus, but did not do so. Sur-Reply 2–3. Patent Owner points out that nanobubbles, which Petitioner’s expert indicated were on the order of 0.1 microns, are detectable using available technology that Petitioner knew of and had used in the past. Id. However, Petitioner’s expert acknowledged that he did not do any testing that would determine whether nanobubbles were formed. Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 2172, 70:1–4). Petitioner’s reliance on milkiness and supersaturation to demonstrate the presence of nanobubbles is also unsupported. Petitioner argues that milky appearance equals supersaturation (Reply 9 (citing Ex. 1101, 9:38– 50)), and also that milky appearance equals nanobubbles (id. (citing Ex. 1101, 4:14–15)); the inference Petitioner apparently wants us to draw is that supersaturation equals nanobubbles. Patent Owner, however, persuasively argues that dissolved oxygen content over 100% does not prove the water is milky. PO Resp. 25–26; Sur-Reply 6–7; see also Tr. 13:24–26 (Petitioner’s counsel agreeing that “you can have supersaturation without milkiness”). Patent Owner also demonstrates that supersaturation does not necessarily mean that nanobubbles are present. PO Resp. 26; Sur-Reply 7; Ex. 2172, 76:9–14, 77:23–78:21. Thus, Petitioner’s argument based on supersaturation equaling nanobubbles because milkiness equals both breaks down because milkiness does not necessarily equal either. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner’s arguments and testing fail to show that Wikey inherently discloses nanobubbles.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS RE45,415 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham - Duke Manufacturing Co. v. Low Temp Industries, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 15, 2022 · IPR2021-00415 · APJ Wesley B Derrick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 11, 12, and 14–19 are unpatentable as obvious over Finegan and Tipton; the Board did not reach the remaining instituted grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“On this record, we find that the differences in the parties’ contentions as to the level of ordinary skill are not consequential, in part because both Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill are grounded on a relevant engineering degree and/or significant experience designing food service equipment, both of which reasonably also indicate some understanding of heat transfer concepts.9 Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed definition, which overlaps that proposed by Petitioner, particularly that of a person with a mechanical engineering degree and/or four years of experience designing food service equipment who also has an understanding of heat transfer concepts. We further note that the prior art itself demonstrates the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. Cf. Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355 (explaining that “specific findings on the level of skill in the art . . . [are not required] ‘where the prior art itself 9 We note that neither Patent Owner nor Dr. Mayor provide any particular definition of an understanding of heat transfer concepts, and it is not apparent that more than a rudimentary understanding is required.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Dr. Mayor’s testimony as to the meaning of “well” (Ex. 2027 ¶¶ 29– 32) is entitled to little weight because it fails to explain how the cited portions of the specification and file history support his position, and it is not otherwise apparent that it does. Velander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“It is within the discretion of the trier of fact to give each item of evidence such weight as it feels appropriate.”); cf. Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“Lack of factual support for expert opinion going to factual determinations, however, may render the testimony of little probative value in a validity determination.”). In sum, we determine that the meaning of “well,” as used in the ’253 patent, includes the interior walls and exterior walls (if present).” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededMixed
“On this record, we determine that “well” includes at least the well bottom (or floor), the interior well walls, and the exterior well walls (if present). The specification discloses that “[w]ell 18 may comprise generally vertically-extending interior walls 22 connected by bottom or floor 26 . . . [that] [w]ell 18 additionally may comprise four exterior walls 30,” and that “well 18 preferably . . . is formed of stainless steel,” which by the plain meaning of the words indicates that the bottom (or floor), the interior walls, and the exterior walls are part of the well. See Ex. 1201, 4:3–17. Further, the disclosure that “well 18 preferably . . . is formed of stainless steel” indicates that a well includes physical structure(s), such as the walls and the bottom (or floor). Id. at 4:15–17. Also, each independent claim requires” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Further, as depicted in the figures, including Figures 1 and 4, the exterior walls are not shown to be in contact, as there is no well structure depicted in the region spanned by D1, despite Figure 5, depicting a cross-sectional view of the same embodiment, showing an exterior wall 30. In sum, the depicted structure in the relied-on figures appears wholly consistent with D1 being the distance between the exterior walls 30 of adjacent wells 18, where wells are defined as including the interior walls 22 and exterior walls 30. Having a space D1 between exterior walls 30 of adjacent wells 18 is also consistent with claim 1 reciting “at least one exterior wall of one well is spaced an insulative distance from an exterior wall of an adjacent well.” Ex. 1201, 5:46–48. inconsistencies identified above between their positions and what is actually disclosed and depicted in the ’253 patent. Having considered the parties’ arguments and evidence, as well as the related District Court proceeding and Federal Circuit proceeding,14 we adopt Petitioner’s construction of “adjacent” as “next to.” We are not directed to anything in the record that requires the wells to be “immediately next to or abutting,” as Patent Owner contends. Rather, as the ’253 patent discloses a distance D1 between wells, the proper meaning is simply “next to.”” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 9,795,253 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,795,253 - Duke Manufacturing Co. v. Low Temp Industries, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 6, 2022 · IPR2021-00414 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–26 are unpatentable: claims 1, 6, 7, 10, 12, 14, 16–20, and 22–26 as anticipated by Finegan; claims 1–26 as obvious over Finegan, Safyan, and Hansen; and claims 3–5 as obvious over Finegan and …
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of one of ordinary skill in the art. On this record, we find that the differences in the parties’ contentions as to the level of ordinary skill are not consequential, in part because the levels of skill both Petitioner and Patent Owner set forth are based on an engineering degree and a length and type of experience that overlap. Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition, because it is consistent with the cited prior art. We further note that the prior art itself demonstrates the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that “specific findings on the level of skill in the art . . . [are not required] ‘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))).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for patent owner
“On this record, we determine that the control system limitations sufficiently connote structure and are not subject to means-plus-function construction. See Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349 (stating the determination of whether a limitation is a means-plus-function term “subject to the strictures of § 112, para. 6” is not based merely on the presence or absence of the word “means” but on whether “the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure”). As to Petitioner’s argument that Patent Owner only demonstrates support for “controls” and “controllers” being known in the art and not for a “system,” as the claims recite (Reply 11–12), we determine that there is no meaningful distinction because the controls or controllers disclosed in the ’970 patent are necessarily included in systems with other known elements to control temperature. Further, the disclosure of exemplary apparatus in the specification, including disclosure incorporated by reference (Ex. 1101, 1:58–61), supports that temperature control systems are known structures/apparatuses, and Petitioner fails to establish that they are not (see generally Pet.; Reply). In sum, we determine the control system limitations are terms that persons of ordinary skill in the art would have understood to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structures of a broad category of systems known to those of skill in the art. The breadth and diversity of the structures/apparatuses ordinarily skilled artisans would have understood to be included within the meaning of the terms do not subject the terms to means-plus-function construction. Further construction of the terms is not necessary.” slip op. at 19
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Regarding Patent Owner’s first argument, we find that Finegan sufficiently discloses thermally isolated wells and insulative gaps. Finegan’s wells are either thermally isolated as a result of their relative orientation (Pet. 31 (citing annotated Finegan Fig. 7)), or as a result of the insulation or insulative air gap (Pet. 29–31 (citing annotated Finegan Figs. 4, 7)). Finegan’s flanges, whether frosted or not, are “part of the well and must themselves be thermally isolated from their surroundings to facilitate frost formation,” and “the inclusion of the flanges does not defeat the well’s thermal isolation.” Reply 13; Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 294–297 (Dr. Homan’s testimony). Petitioner also demonstrates that Finegan’s insulation material would reduce heat transfer. Ex. 1149 ¶¶ 84–85 (Dr. Homan’s testimony that Finegan’s insulation material and insulation tape reduce heat transfer). Finegan’s insulation “extends over most of the well and the thermally-conductive material (38), to insulate the well.” Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1149 ¶ 84; Ex. 1105, 7:22–26, Fig. 4). Although we agree with Patent Owner that Finegan states that there is a “need to provide for a food service table or buffet that employs a shallow pan for use in both hot and cold service conditions while still providing sufficient frosting of the top surface” (Ex. 1105, 2:11–13), Petitioner has demonstrated that Finegan’s thermal isolation and insulation would not defeat this objective. Reply 13–14. Regarding Patent Owner’s second argument, we refer to our claim construction to find that Finegan teaches wells in a single frame. Because, under our construction, a well includes at least the interior well walls and exterior well walls (if present), and a frame refers to a “rigid supporting structure,” we find that Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that Finegan teaches wells in a single frame. Pet. 26–27, 29–31. We disagree that “skilled artisans would view the two apparatuses (10) in Figure 7 of Finegan to be independent pieces of equipment and thus not a module with wells bound by a single frame” and that “Finegan does not teach wells in a single frame” because the pans are separated by what Patent Owner argues is an “indeterminate distance of countertop.” PO Resp. 32. As discussed above, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s claim construction for “a frame.” Accordingly, we find that, under our claim constructions, Petitioner demonstrates that Finegan’s countertop 14 and side walls housing its wells 18 meet the limitations of the challenged claims, particularly those that require an arrangement between the frame and the wells (i.e. claims 14, 23, and 25). Reply 14–15, 17 (citing Ex. 1105, annotated Figs. 1, 7; Ex. 1149 ¶ 101); see also Ex. 2050, 10–11 (finding unfounded the district court’s determination “that Finegan’s Figure 7 only discloses a single pan in each of two separate modules” and determining that Figure 7 “discloses a single ‘apparatus 10’ with two wells 18A and 18B . . . . Those wells are shown within a single countertop 14.”). Additionally, we disagree with Patent Owner’s characterization of Dr. Homan’s testimony as admitting that Finegan’s pans/wells are separate modules. PO Resp. 30–32 (citing Ex. 1130, 241:24–242:3, 217:20–24, 240:5–14). A fair reading of Dr. Homan’s testimony indicates that he was referring to “wells,” despite counsel using the term “modules,” ultimately supporting Petitioner’s position that Finegan discloses two wells in a single frame. Reply 15–16 (citing Ex. 1130, 241:15–242:2). Regarding Patent Owner’s third argument, and referring to our claim construction, we find that Finegan teaches the control system limitations. Although we do not find these terms to be subject to means-plus-function construction, we nevertheless find sufficient Petitioner’s mapping of these limitations to the structures in Finegan performing the functions of the control system limitations. See, e.g., Pet. 31–32 (regarding claim 1.c.1, referring to Finegan Fig. 7 to map PLC 80 connected to heating elements 78 (via switches 94) and valving 90 for controlling refrigerant flow from condensing unit 118 to cooling coils 32, and using user interface 96 and temperature sensors 82A). Petitioner persuasively argues that Finegan’s PLC (programmable logic controller) 80 and user interface 96 meet the control system limitations: “Both Finegan’s global control and the ‘970 patent’s individual controls perform this function [of independently controlling the wells’ temperatures] in the same way, by connecting the electrical resistance heating elements to an electrical power source and by operating valving to control the flow of refrigerant.” Reply 20 (citing Ex. 1101: 4:49–52, 4:56–63; Ex. 1105, 9:27–11:28); Pet. 32–33.” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“sufficiently discloses insulative gaps. The Petition shows that Finegan’s wells are “individually insulated and thermally isolated by thermal insulation (40) between exterior and interior wall (44, 20 (identifiable by opposed surfaces (36, 46))).” Pet. 50 (citing Ex. 1103 ¶ 273; Ex. 1105, Fig. 4). Safyan teaches air gaps (i.e., an unfilled insulating space) as an alternative to foam. Id. at 51 (citing Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 276–277, Ex. 1106, Fig. 2, 4:36–46). Petitioner argues with evidentiary support that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasons to omit Finegan’s insulating material to leave an insulative gap, as in Safyan, to reduce material and labor costs, as a matter of simple substitution, with a reasonable expectation of success. Id. at 52 (citing Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 279–282). Patent Owner’s argument that Finegan does not disclose an insulative gap and that its insulation does not meet the limitations of the challenged claims argues against Finegan individually, rather than against the Finegan-Safyan combination. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.”). Petitioner also provides adequate motivation to combine Finegan and Safyan, not limited to arguing that the two references are in the same field of endeavor. Pet. 51–53 (relying on Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 276–282); Reply 22–23. Regarding claim 9, we find that Petitioner provides adequate motivation as to why one of ordinary skill in the art “would have minimized the distance between wells.” Pet. 53–54; Ex. 1149 ¶ 124–126. We credit Petitioner’s reliance on references and evidence supporting its assertion that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have located Finegan’s wells as close together as needed (e.g., three inches or less)” to “meet size restrictions for a compact space-saving design.” Pet. 56 (citing Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 298–299). We disagree that “Finegan’s frost top would be destroyed” (PO Resp. 43) by this combination, because spacing “as small as a fraction of an inch between the flanges of adjacent wells would ensure thermal isolation of the wells and that a cooled flange would form frost.” Pet. 56 (citing Ex. 1103 ¶297).” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 8,661,970 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,661,970 - Duke Manufacturing Co. v. Low Temp Industries, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 6, 2022 · IPR2021-00413 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 and 9–16 are unpatentable as obvious over Finegan and Safyan; claims 17 and 18 are unpatentable as obvious over Finegan, Safyan, and Tipton.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“have had “a mechanical engineering or equivalent degree and/or approximately four years of experience designing food service equipment,” as well as “an understanding of heat transfer concepts.” PO Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2027 ¶ 71) Patent Owner also contends: “Additional education may substitute for experience and significant experience in the food service equipment industry may substitute for formal education.” Id. Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of one of ordinary skill in the art. On this record, we find that the differences in the parties’ contentions as to the level of ordinary skill are not consequential, in part because the levels of skill both Petitioner and Patent Owner set forth are based on an engineering degree and a length and type of experience that overlap. Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition, because it is consistent with the cited prior art. We further note that the prior art itself demonstrates the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that “specific findings on the level of skill in the art . . . [are not required] ‘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))).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other
“AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019). Under Phillips, claim terms are afforded “their ordinary and customary meaning.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. “[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Id. at 1313. Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“The parties did not provide us with an express claim construction of “adjacent” from the district court (see Ex. 2019, 10 (district court expressly construing only the term “insulative air gap”)), but the Federal Circuit’s opinion characterized the district court’s understanding of “adjacent” as follows: “the district court appeared to understand the claims as requiring Finegan, for anticipation purposes, to teach ‘two immediately adjacent pans within a single module that can be maintained at different temperatures.’” Ex. 2050, 10. As such, the Federal Circuit explained, “both parties state that the district court adopted [Patent Owner’s] argument that the adjacency limitation requires the wells to touch.” Id. The Federal Circuit determined that the district court “clearly erred” in finding no substantial merit as to whether Finegan discloses the adjacent wells limitation because, in part, the district court relied on an “overly narrow understanding of ‘adjacent.’” Id.; see also id. at 2 (“the district court relied on an erroneous claim construction and misread the Finegan reference”). The Federal Circuit also did not explicitly construe the term “adjacent,” but stated that the district court’s “constricted understanding of ‘adjacent’ is at odds with the patents’ disclosure, which describes a ‘distance D1’ ‘between adjacent wells,’ ‘with D1 preferably being approximately three inches.’” Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:46–52). “Given the specification explicitly states that adjacent wells preferably have a distance between them,” the Federal Circuit held that the district court’s “finding that Finegan’s pans 18A and 18B are not adjacent, or next to, each other” “cannot be sustained.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 3:46–52). Having considered the parties’ arguments and evidence, the district court’s approach, and the Federal Circuit opinion, we adopt Petitioner’s construction of “adjacent” as “next to.” Patent Owner’s position is grounded in part on a calculation that “only works if the space between adjacent wells is measured from the interior walls of adjacent wells, and the exterior walls of the adjacent wells are abutting.” PO Resp. 20–21. As discussed above, the meaning of “wells” in the context of the ’761 patent includes both interior walls 22 and, if present, exterior walls 30. Patent Owner does not direct us to anything in the record that requires the wells to be “immediately next to or abutting” as Patent Owner urges. Sur-Reply 3. Rather, we find persuasive the specification’s disclosure of a distance D1 between adjacent wells as supporting a construction of “adjacent” as “next to.” Ex. 1001, 3:46–52; see Ex. 2050, 10.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for patent owner
“On this record, we determine that the recited “temperature-control system” or “temperature-controlling system” sufficiently connotes structure and is not subject to means-plus-function construction. See Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349 (stating the determination of whether a limitation is a means-plus-function term “subject to the strictures of § 112, para. 6” is not based merely on the presence or absence of the word “means” but on whether “the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure”). Further, the disclosure of exemplary apparatus in the specification, including disclosure incorporated by reference (Ex. 1001, 1:51–54), supports that temperature control systems are known structures/apparatuses, and Petitioner fails to establish that they are not (see generally Pet.; Reply). In sum, we determine the terms “temperature-control system” or “temperature-controlling system” are terms that persons of ordinary skill in the art would have understood to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structures of a broad category of systems known to those of skill in the art. The breadth and diversity of the structures/apparatuses ordinarily skilled artisans would have understood to be included within the meaning of the terms do not subject the terms to means-plus-function construction. Further construction of the terms is not necessary.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 8,307,761 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,307,761
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.