- The Boeing Company v. The Regents Of The University Of CaliforniaNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 2, 2025 · IPR2024-00761 · APJ Alyssa A Finamore · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1–24 not unpatentable because the asserted references did not show the glass element propagating a modified stress wave to generate tensile stress at the interface.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the invention of the ’684 patent “would have had an M.S. in Mechanical Engineering or a related field, and at least five years of experience using laser systems to characterize and test mechanical behavior in materials” and that “[m]ore education may supplement practical experience or vice versa.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 38). Patent Owner” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Decided for patent owner
“Both parties maintain that no claim term needs to be construed. Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 40); PO Resp. 20. Patent Owner, however, provides an express construction for limitation [1.d] of independent claim 1 and the similar limitation of independent claim 13, namely limitation [13.c]. PO Resp. 20 (citing Ex. 2011 ¶ 25). To resolve the controversy before us, we determine that these limitations require express construction. 1. “the glass element is configured to propagate and modify a stress wave to the coating/substrate interface to generate a tensile stress between the substrate and the coating” (limitation [1.d]) and “propagating and modifying a stress wave through the glass element to the coating/substrate interface to generate a tensile force between the substrate and the coating” (limitation [13.c]) Patent Owner argues these limitations mean “changing the profile of the laser generated compressive wave and propagating the wave profile as modified to the free surface of the coating, which upon reflection from the free surface as a tension wave generates a tensile stress at the coating/substrate interface.” PO Resp. 20 (citing Ex. 2011 ¶ 25). Petitioner does not refute this proposed construction and, during the oral argument, Petitioner confirmed it agrees with the proposed construction. Tr. 8:16–9:12. We so no reason to depart from the parties agreed-upon construction of limitations [1.d] and [13.c]. Accordingly, for purposes of this Final Written Decision, we adopt the parties’ construction of limitations [1.d] and [13.c].” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“a shock in the compression wave in the fused silica substrate. Even if we were to agree with Petitioner that Wang-Dissertation’s fused silica substrate modifies the compression waveform, we would not be persuaded that the fused silica substrate propagates the modified wave to the free surface of the coating, which upon reflection from the free surface as a tension wave generates a tensile stress at the coating/substrate interface, as limitation [1.d] requires. In view of the presence of tension-wave-1 in Wang-Dissertation’s experiments, we find Petitioner has not demonstrated persuasively that the fused silica substrate propagates a modified stress wave to the free surface of the coating to generate a tensile stress at the coating/substrate interface. Also, we find credible Dr. Gupta’s unrebutted testimony that any modified compression wave would attenuate in the substrate and not propagate to the free surface coating or generate a tensile stress at the coating/substrate interface. Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 93–98. Petitioner does not dispute that the experiments in Wang-Dissertation include tension-wave-1. See Ex. 1005, 65 (“The experimental picture is complicated somewhat by the presence of a tensile wave, reflected from the back of the confining layer.”). Nor does Petitioner dispute that Wang-Dissertation discloses that the tension-wave-1 propagates faster than the compression-wave-1 and eventually overtakes compression-wave-1. See id. at 65–66 (“Being tensile, it propagates faster that the peak compressive stress, and faster than the low stress tail of the main pulse. It eventually overtakes the compressive pulse and linear dissipative mechanisms govern the final thickness of the shock.”). Rather, Petitioner relies on Dr. Wang’s testimony regarding the timing of the waves through the sample and argues that tension-wave-1 does not overtake compression-wave-1 in the fused silica substrate. Pet. Reply 17 (citing Ex. 1038 ¶ 5). Dr. Wang testifies that the peak stress from tension-wave-1 is about 2 ns behind the peak of compression-wave-1 and will not reach the interface before the reflected tensile peak of compression-wave-1 reaches the interface in 0.3 ns. Ex. 1038 ¶ 5. However, as Dr. Gupta persuasively explains, the delay between tension-wave-1 and compression-wave-1 depends on the properties of the confining layer, and Wang-Dissertation acknowledges that these properties are not well controlled. Ex. 2011 ¶ 54; see also Ex. 1005, 65 (“The surface properties of that confining layer are not well controlled.”).” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“claimed subject matter. Pet. 35–38; Pet. Reply 23–24. In doing so, Petitioner continues to rely on Wang-Dissertation to disclose limitation [1.d] of independent claim 1 and limitation [13.c] of independent claim 13. Pet. 35–38; Pet. Reply 23–24. Petitioner does not put forth any further obviousness rationale in this ground based on Wang-Dissertation for teaching these limitations. For the same reasons discussed in sections II.C.2–3, Petitioner has not persuaded us that Wang-Dissertation teaches or suggests limitations [1.d] and [13.c]. Thus, Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Wang-Dissertation renders obvious the subject matter set forth in claims 4, 6, 9, 15, 17, 20, 23, and 24, which depend from independent claims 1 and 13.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 7,487,684 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,487,684 - PTAB · Jun 26, 2025 · IPR2024-00294 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable; proposed substitute claims 21–24 are also unpatentable, so the contingent motion to amend is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“appear to be that Patent Owner specifies that the POSA’s knowledge and experience may include optical sensors and that the POSA may have a degree emphasizing software. We do not deem these differences material, particularly because the optical sensors and technologies at issue are those used in physiological monitoring technologies and both parties agree that the POSA would have a working knowledge of physiological monitoring technologies. Ex. 1003 ¶ 24; PO Resp. 11. We find the additional specificity of Patent Owner’s definition to be helpful. In addition, Patent Owner’s definition appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’507 patent. Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art. (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). We note that we would reach the same outcome under either definition of the POSA. Cf., PO Resp. 12 (asserting that Petitioner’s proposed definition is “flawed” but also asserting that “patentability is confirmed” “[r]egardless of the level of skill”).” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“Ex. 1007, 1528. The dispute between the parties focuses on whether D’Angelo was made available to attendees of the IEEE EMBS conference identified in this header and, if so, what effect that has.16 Accordingly, we begin our analysis by considering the conference.” slip op. at 42
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“understood Mendelson to disclose averaging signals. We do not find in Mendelson any discussion of summing or averaging signals. See generally Ex. 1011, 912–915. Our inability to find a teaching of averaging in Mendelson is consistent with the testimony of Drs. Kenny and Duckworth. Dr. Kenny testifies that “there is simply no disclosure in Mendelson itself of any summing or averaging of collected signals.” Ex. 1083 ¶ 23. And in his deposition, Dr. Duckworth was unable to identify any express disclosure of averaging in Mendelson. See Ex. 1087, 103:9–114:11 (confirming that certain aspects of his declaration testimony relating to averaging of signals are not discussed in Mendelson). Accordingly, Mendelson, standing alone, does not support that the POSA would have understood Mendelson’s Sensor Module to have output averaged signals” slip op. at 28
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“the PDA to read out ‘data that’s been stored’ (i.e., previously measured physiological data) even after the Receiver Module’s battery had died” because Mendelson’s Receiver Module lacks “a microSD card or other nonvolatile storage from which measured data could be ‘read out’ after its battery has died.” PO Resp. 37; see also Ex. 2037 ¶ 147 (testimony of Dr. Duckworth confirming that Mendelson’s system could not store data that could be read out after its battery died). Accordingly, Patent Owner argues the POSA “would not have been motivated to modify Mendelson’s Receiver Module to draw power from the PDA as proposed because doing so would not allow the PDA to ‘read out’ the previously ‘measured physiological data’ after the Receiver Module’s battery died.” PO Resp. 39.” slip op. at 60
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,736,507 - PTAB · Apr 21, 2025 · PGR2024-00053 · APJ Jeffrey N Fredman · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 34–38, 40, 41, 43–46, and 58–60, finding a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over the asserted Mabuchi-based grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“post-grant review, “the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). The Board uses a two-part framework in determining whether to exercise its discretion under § 325(d), specifically: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of [the] first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“likely occur very close in time to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision. . . . the claim construction hearing will occur on April 16, 2025” Prelim. Resp. 63. Neither party identifies a date for trial in the Parallel Litigation. On review of the Pacer record, it appears that the claim construction hearing was continued to April 23, 2025. There is no indication that the trial will be completed prior to a PTAB Final Written Decision, much less a court decision. Accordingly, this factor weighs against exercising discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review under 35 U.S.C. § 324. Institution of a post-grant review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) (2018). Upon consideration of the Petition, Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that the information presented shows that it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail in establishing unpatentability of at least one of claims 34–38, 40, 41, 43–46, and 58–60 of the ’482 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“[a] person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time (“POSITA”) would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, or a related field, and two-to-three years of experience in the research, design, development, or testing of rotating or reciprocating mechanisms, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 37). Patent Owner contends that [a] person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the invention would have a working knowledge of product development, and would likely have a degree in engineering and/or industrial design, and/or at least three to five years of experience in conceiving, designing, engineering, and/or modifying such products and devices.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 11,857,482 - Apple Inc. v. Masimo CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Jul 9, 2024 · IPR2024-00242 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of the ’242 IPR because Petitioner did not justify a second petition raising a dispositive Sarantos/Shie motivation issue previously decided against it.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“significant because in IPR2022-01465, the Board addressed substantially the same issue. In that case, as here, Petitioner proposed to modify Sarantos’s wristwatch sensor to use the light shape changing material disclosed in Shie. Compare Pet. 10 (“It would have been obvious to a POSITA to use the light shape changing material of Shie in the window region 2226 (orange) between light source 2208 (green) of Sarantos’s wristwatch sensor and the user’s wrist tissue.”); with Ex. 2036, 139 (decision in IPR2022-01465 explaining “[Petitioner] asserts it would have been obvious ‘to use the light shape changing material of Shie in the wristwatch sensor of Sarantos in between LEDs 2208 and the user’s wrist tissue’”). Whether the POSA would have been motivated to make this modification is dispositive in this case. See Prelim. Resp. 38–41. In IPR2022-01465, on a fully developed record, the Board determined that Petitioner did not “explain sufficiently why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to use a light shape changing lens within the context of Sarantos’s sensor.” Ex. 2036, 143; see also id. at 146 (explaining that Dr. Anthony’s testimony “seeks to establish only that Shie’s cylindrical lens structures shape light, and does not explain why or how Shie’s cylindrical lens structures would achieve any of the three benefits identified in the Petition in the context of Sarantos’s sensor”). Thus, the Board determined that Petitioner had not established sufficient motivation to support a finding of obviousness. Id. at 145, 146. This prior decision weighs heavily against institution. Put simply, we find little reason to go forward with Petitioner’s second-ranked Petition where the Board in IPR2022-01465 previously decided an issue, in a Final Written Decision, against Petitioner that is case dispositive in this Petition.” slip op. at 13
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“that Petitioner did not “explain sufficiently why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to use a light shape changing lens within the context of Sarantos’s sensor.” Ex. 2036, 143; see also id. at 146 (explaining that Dr. Anthony’s testimony “seeks to establish only that Shie’s cylindrical lens structures shape light, and does not explain why or how Shie’s cylindrical lens structures would achieve any of the three benefits identified in the Petition in the context of Sarantos’s sensor”). Thus, the Board determined that Petitioner had not established sufficient motivation to support a finding of obviousness. Id. at 145, 146. This prior decision weighs heavily against institution. Put simply, we find little reason to go forward with Petitioner’s second-ranked Petition where the Board in IPR2022-01465 previously decided an issue, in a Final Written Decision, against Petitioner that is case dispositive in this Petition. We recognize that the record in this proceeding is not identical to that in IPR2022-01465 and that it is possible that Petitioner could adduce evidence in this proceeding that would address the deficiencies the Board identified in Petitioner’s showing. But on the present record, Petitioner relies on the same prior art and the same testifying expert to support its argument that it would have been obvious to make the same proposed modification to Sarantos. And, in its Notice of Ranking, Petitioner emphasizes the “strong similarities” between the claims in the patents at issue as a way of showing that going forward with a second petition in this case would not burden the Board or Patent Owner. Notice 4. Given that Petitioner has already met the reasonable likelihood standard for institution in the ’241 IPR, the possibility that Petitioner might be more successful litigating an issue on the second go-around than it was on the first does not present circumstances warranting institution of a second petition.” slip op. at 13
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,687,743 - Apple Inc. v. Masimo CorporationInstitutedPTAB · Jul 9, 2024 · IPR2024-00241 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on all grounds for claims 1–25, finding a reasonable likelihood that Apple would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review may not be instituted unless 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.” Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable based on the grounds advanced here. We decline to deny the Petition on a discretionary basis as requested by Patent Owner. Thus, for reasons explained below, we institute inter partes review of claims 1–25 of the ’743 patent.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 11–12 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (holding that PTAB has discretion to deny institution in certain circumstances where there is a parallel district court proceeding). Our analysis under Fintiv is guided by the USPTO Director’s Memorandum issued on June 21, 2022, titled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation” (“Director’s Memo”).6 Pursuant to the Director’s Memo, we “will not discretionarily deny institution . . . where a petitioner presents a [Sotera] stipulation.” Director’s Memo 3 (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A)). Because Petitioner has offered a stipulation like that in Sotera, i.e., a stipulation to “not pursue for the instituted claims, in [the Delaware Litigation], the same grounds as in the IPR2024-00241 petition or any grounds that could reasonably have been raised in that petition” (Ex. 1078, 1), we do not discretionarily deny institution under Fintiv. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s stipulation “does not carry the benefits underlying the Director’s Guidance” because it was filed “only after the parties and the court conducted extensive and costly fact and expert discovery, and fully briefed and argued dispositive motions.” Prelim. Sur-reply 2. This argument is not persuasive because the Director’s Guidance does not afford discretion to discount a Sotera stipulation based on how far a parallel district court litigation has progressed when the stipulation was made. Director’s Memo 7 (explaining, without qualification, that “the” slip op. at 11
- Parallel petitionsNot reached
“B. Discretionary Denial in View of Multiple Petitions Petitioner filed two petitions for inter partes review of the ’743 patent, this Petition challenging claims 1–25 and the petition filed in IPR2024- 00242 challenging claims 1, 3–14, and 16–25. See Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2024-00242, Paper 3 (PTAB, filed Dec. 12, 2023). Patent Owner argues that Petitioner “fails to establish that two petitions on the ’743 Patent are necessary” and that “if the Board institutes one of the Petitions, it should deny the other.” Paper 9, 1. Petitioner requests that we consider this Petition before we consider the Petition in IPR2024-00242. Paper 2, 1. Accordingly, we reserve consideration of whether multiple petitions are merited for our decision in IPR2024-00242. III.” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner contends that “[Petitioner’s] asserted level of ordinary skill in the art is relatively low” which “supports the patentability of the 7 The current record in this proceeding does not include any argument or evidence directed to objective indicia of nonobviousness. claims,” and further “notifies the Board that in the Delaware Litigation, [Patent Owner’s] expert presented a slightly different definition of the level of ordinary skill which includes education and/or experience with optical technologies.” Prelim. Resp. 11–12 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 48–51). Patent Owner asserts that the difference between the parties’ definitions “does not impact [Petitioner’s] patentability challenges here.” Id. On the present record, Petitioner’s definition of the POSA is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’743 patent and the asserted prior art. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s description. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining “the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,687,743 - Apple Inc. v. Masimo CorporationInstitutedPTAB · Jun 27, 2024 · IPR2024-00294 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–20 on all grounds asserted in the Petition.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review may not be instituted unless 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.” Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that at least one of the challenged claims are unpatentable based on the grounds advanced here. We decline to deny the Petition on a discretionary basis as requested by Patent Owner. Thus, for reasons explained below, we institute inter partes review of claims 1–20 of the ’507 patent.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 11–12 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (holding that PTAB has discretion to deny institution in certain circumstances where there are parallel district court proceedings). Our analysis under Fintiv is guided by the USPTO Director’s Memorandum issued on June 21, 2022, titled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation” (“Director’s Memo”).11 Pursuant to the Director’s Memo, we “will not discretionarily deny institution . . . where a petitioner presents a [Sotera] stipulation.” Director’s Memo, 3 (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A)). Because Petitioner has offered a stipulation like that in Sotera, i.e., a stipulation to “not pursue for the instituted claims, in [the Delaware Litigation], the same grounds as in the IPR2024-00293 petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in that Petition” (Ex. 1078, 1), we do not discretionarily deny institution under Fintiv.” slip op. at 10
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“Discretionary Denial in View of Parallel Petitions Petitioner filed two petitions for inter partes review of claims 1–20 of the ’507 patent, this Petition and the petition filed in IPR2024-00293. See Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2024-00293, Paper 3 (PTAB, filed December 12, 2023). Patent Owner argues that Petitioner “fails to establish that two petitions on the ’507 Patent are necessary” and that “if the Board institutes one of the Petitions, it should deny the other.” Paper 8, 1. This argument is moot because, concurrently herewith, we deny institution of inter partes review in IPR2024-00293 on the merits. III.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The main differences between the parties’ definitions of the POSA appear to be that Patent Owner specifies that the POSA’s knowledge and experience may include optical sensors and that the POSA may have a degree emphasizing software. On the present record, we do not deem these differences material, particularly because the optical sensors and technologies at issue are those used in physiological monitoring technologies and both parties agree that the POSA would have a working knowledge of physiological monitoring technologies. Ex. 1003 ¶ 24; Prelim. Resp. 6. We find the additional specificity of Patent Owner’s definition to be helpful. In addition, Patent Owner’s definition appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’507 patent. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). We note that we would reach the same outcome under either definition of the POSA.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,736,507 - Pioneer Pet Products, LLC v. Oil-Dri Corporation Of AmericaSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 19, 2023 · IPR2022-01138 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–8, 10–16, and 18 are unpatentable over Goss; claims 2, 9, 17, and 19 were not shown unpatentable. The revised motion to amend is denied for lack of written-description support.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd mixedMixed
“To prevail in its challenges, Petitioner must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burdens of proof in an inter partes review).” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“(“PHOSITA”) “would have at least a bachelor of science degree in chemistry, mineralogy, geological science, material science, chemical engineering, or mining engineering with at least two to five years of work experience relating to designing specific chemical mixtures including clay or other minerals, particularly absorbents.” Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 38). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. 23. We adopt the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner because it appears consistent with the record, including the prior art. See GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“We generally agree with Petitioner that the assumptions and approximations made in the calculations described in the ’397 patent to determine the external surface area of the components of the litter render the computations only a general approximation of the respective surface areas. See Pet. Reply 9–12. We need not, however, reach the issue of whether the 47% surface area limitation requires the use of the multi-step method disclosed in the ’397 patent because Petitioner followed that methodology in its arguments and evidence in its Reply. See Pet. Reply 13. Importantly, Patent Owner agrees that Petitioner followed the approach set forth in the ’397 patent, and argues that we need not construe “external surface area” to resolve any dispute between the parties. See PO Sur-reply 23–24 (arguing that we need not “determine whether ‘total external surface area’ must be determined using the same multi-step approach” in the ’397 patent to resolve the controversy because “the only calculation of external surface area relied on by Petitioner was presented in the Reply and it followed the methodology of the [’]397 Patent”); PO Supp. Sur-reply 2 (same). Based on our review of the current record, we need not and do not formally construe any claim terms to resolve the patentability issues in this inter partes review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating 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))). To the extent some implicit claim construction disputes remain, we address those issues in the context of the challenges below.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“review of the record, we find that Petitioner fails to articulate an adequate rationale for the combination of Goss and House. The Petition contains only a single sentence addressing the issue, without any citation to record evidence or declaration support. See Pet. 46. In addition, the assertion merely states the conclusion that a “PHOSITA would understand that there is a rational underpinning to combine the teachings of Goss and House as required under patent law because both are related to cat litter having similar characteristics.” Id. This assertion, at most, addresses the fact that Goss and House are in the same field or that they are analogous art, but does not explain why a PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine Goss and House. See id. In addition, the Petition lacks sufficient explanation of how Petitioner proposes to combine Goss and House. See Pet. 46–53. Instead, when Petitioner relies on House in this challenge, it appears to be a back-up argument in the event that we find Goss fails to disclose the limitation. Merely stating that Goss and House both disclose a limitation does not explain which aspects of House Petitioner proposes adding to Goss or what the resulting litter composition would look like. See id. The details of the resulting litter based on the combination of Goss and House matter here because it could impact whether all limitations of a given claim are satisfied by the combination. For example, Petitioner relies exclusively on specific examples from Goss for the 47% surface area limitation, but adding some aspects of House’s litter components to meet other limitations could undermine Petitioner’s reliance on Goss’s specific examples. The failure of the Petition to set forth a specific combination elides these issues. See Pet. 46–51. Petitioner’s Reply arguably addresses some of these concerns by providing a more fulsome motivation section, backed by new expert testimony, and specific litter examples based on Goss and various cellulose filler materials allegedly disclosed by House. See Pet. Reply 24–25 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶ 7); see also PO Sur-reply 18–22 (arguing that Petitioner’s Reply still fails to articulate an adequate motivation to combine). This analysis goes far beyond the limited analysis in the Petition, and Petitioner provides no reason why it could not have been included in the Petition. See Pet. Reply 24–25. As noted below, in some situations petitioners should be afforded the opportunity to go beyond the arguments in a petition when addressing a new claim construction or other new argument raised by a patent owner or an” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 11,026,397 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,026,397 - Resmed, Inc. v. New York UniversityAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 6, 2023 · IPR2022-00994 · APJ Alyssa A Finamore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, and 13 are unpatentable as obvious over Sullivan995, Sullivan460, and Matthews; the Board did not reach the other grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“the specification . . . we do not read limitations from the embodiments in the specification into the claims.” Hill-Rom Servs., 755 F. 3d at 1371 (citing Liebel–Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 904 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). “We depart from the plain and ordinary meaning of claim terms based on the specification in only two instances: lexicography and disavowal.” Id. In order for a patentee to act as its own lexicographer, the “patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term other than its plain and ordinary meaning’” and “must ‘clearly express an intent’ to redefine the terms.” Bradium Tech., 923 F.3d at 1044.” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, or a similar technical field, with at least two years of relevant product design experience” and that “[a]dditional experience could substitute for less education, and additional education could likewise substitute for less experience.” Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 89). Petitioner further contends that the “Petition does not turn on this precise definition, and the challenged claim[s] would be unpatentable from the perspective of any reasonable person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 90). Patent Owner does not object to Petitioner’s definition for the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 11. Petitioner’s definition for the level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the problems addressed in the ’344 patent and the prior art. We, therefore, apply Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art in this Decision.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“At the outset, we agree with Petitioner that “enablement ‘is not a requirement to prove invalidity under § 103.’” Pet. Reply 23 (quoting Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). Moreover, we also agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood a preset level is established from previously-acquired data, such as an average level, as Sullivan995 discloses. Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1005, 17:3–27, Fig. 12; Ex. 2015, 38:2–16). Sullivan995 discloses the computing system may “calculate control values of patterns for each patient based on moving average values or such values or patterns will be pre-programmed into the computing system.” Ex. 1005, 17:14–18. According to Sullivan995, when “signals deviate from predetermined values or patterns the computer system generates a signal which is sent to the feedback speed controller on the blower motor.” Id. at 17:19–22.” slip op. at 48
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“The Board uses a two-step analysis in evaluating nexus between the claimed invention and objective evidence. Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-01129, Paper 33 at 32–33 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2020) (precedential), aff’d sub nom. Zaxcom, Inc. v. Lectrosonics, Inc., 2022 WL 499848 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 18, 2022). We first consider whether the patent owner has demonstrated “that its products are coextensive (or nearly coextensive) with the challenged claims,” resulting in a rebuttable presumption of nexus. Id. at 32. If not, that “does not end the inquiry into secondary considerations”; “the patent owner is still afforded an opportunity to prove nexus by showing that the evidence of secondary considerations is the ‘direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention.’” Id. at 33 (quoting Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1373–75). “Where the offered secondary consideration actually results from something other than what is both claimed and novel in the claim, there is no nexus to the merits of the claimed invention.” Id. (citing In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068–69 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). There is no requirement that the objective evidence of non-obviousness be tied exclusively to claim elements that are not disclosed in the prior art, and the claimed combination as a whole may serve as a nexus for the objective evidence. Id. (citing WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).” slip op. at 56
Patent outcomesUS 9,168,344 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,168,344 - Resmed, Inc. v. New York UniversityAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 6, 2023 · IPR2022-00990 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–6, 9–12, 14–24, and 26–29 are unpatentable as obvious over Sullivan995 and Sullivan460; the Board did not reach the two Matthews grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“not implicitly define the phrase “analyzes the data to determine the patient’s breathing patterns,” as proposed, because Patent Owner has failed to show any sufficient evidence that the ’115 patent clearly expresses an intent to redefine the phrase or define the phrase in terms other than its plain and ordinary meaning. In other words, implied lexicography does not apply here. Accordingly, after reviewing Patent Owner’s contentions in light of all the evidence of record, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction; instead, we apply the plain and ordinary meaning of “analyzes the data to determine the patient’s breathing patterns” in our consideration of the issues before us.” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“F. Objective Evidence of Non-obviousness The fourth Graham factor instructs that we must consider—apart from what the prior art itself would have suggested—whether objective evidence of non-obviousness (i.e., secondary considerations) may lead to a conclusion that the challenged claims would not have been obvious. See, e.g., Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1538–39 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (instructing that evidence of secondary considerations, when present, must always be considered in determining obviousness). Objective evidence of non-obviousness may include evidence of commercial success, licensing, copying, praise by others, long felt but unresolved need, and failure or skepticism of others. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18. But, secondary considerations are only a part of the “totality of the evidence”; their mere existence does not control the conclusion of obviousness. See Richardson- Vicks Inc. v. Upjohn Co., 122 F.3d 1476, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Objective evidence of non-obviousness “may often be the most probative and cogent evidence in the record” and “may often establish that an invention appearing to have been obvious in light of the prior art was not.” Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc., 699 F.3d 1340, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012).” slip op. at 59
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“§ 42.6(a)(3) provides that “arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document,” and Exhibit 1059 “is not an argument.” PO MTE Opp. 11. Patent Owner also argues in its Reply that Exhibit 1059 should have been filed with the Petition or through a motion as supplemental evidence. PO MTE Reply 5. Petitioner, however, explains that the opinions of Dr. Kirkness supported by Exhibit 1059 in his Reply Declaration were relied on by Petitioner “in support of its argument that the ‘analyzing the breathing patterns’ terms have their plain and ordinary meaning, in response to [Patent Owner’s] proposed construction.” PO MTE Opp. 11. We agree with Petitioner for the same reasons discussed above regarding Exhibits 1009 and 1054–1058. Because Patent Owner shows no persuasive basis to exclude Exhibit 1059, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude as to Exhibit 1059 is denied.” slip op. at 70
Patent outcomesUS 9,533,115 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,533,115 - Resmed, Inc. v. New York UniversityAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 6, 2023 · IPR2022-00991 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1–6, 8, 11, 12, 16–26, 30, and 31 unpatentable as obvious over Sullivan995 and Sullivan460, with claims 6 and 23 also obvious over Matthews.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “in 2003” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“not implicitly define the phrase “analyzes the data to determine the patient’s breathing patterns,” as proposed, because Patent Owner has failed to show any sufficient evidence that the ’955 patent clearly expresses an intent to redefine the phrase or define the phrase in terms other than its plain and ordinary meaning. In other words, implied lexicography does not apply here. Accordingly, after reviewing Patent Owner’s contentions in light of all the evidence of record, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction; instead, we apply the plain and ordinary meaning of “analyzes the data to determine the patient’s breathing patterns” in our consideration of the issues before us.” slip op. at 28
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“H. Weighing the Graham Factors We have considered the scope and content of the prior art of” slip op. at 67
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“VI. ORDER19 In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper 51) is denied; FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper 52) is denied;” slip op. at 79
Patent outcomesUS 9,867,955 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,867,955
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.