• Precision Planting LLC / Agco Corporation v. Deere & CompanyNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 2, 2020 · IPR2019-01048 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not proven unpatentable over Hedderwick and Koning because Petitioner did not establish a persuasive motivation to combine the references as proposed.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Based on the prior art, Dr. Glancey’s opinion testimony and analysis, and providing some, but minimal, weight to Dr. Taylor’s opinion testimony, we determine that the evidence favors Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill, primarily based on Dr. Glancey’s analysis and reasons summarized above. Accordingly, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in a technology pertinent to the challenged claims would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or similar field, and two years of experience designing agricultural products or related machinery, or five years of experience designing agricultural products or related machinery, without a four-year undergraduate engineering degree. A recipient of other academic degrees may qualify as a person of ordinary skill if they have taken coursework or have experience in the pertinent technology. Additional education could offset less work experience; additional work experience could offset less education or coursework.” slip op. at 18

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

    “[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We determine that an explicit construction of the claims is not necessary for the purposes of determining whether the challenged claims are not patentable. slip op. at 20

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

    “sufficiently persuasive evidence, even in combination, to establish why a person of ordinary skill would have modified Hedderwick by (1) selectively gleaning only a portion of Koning’s conveying system, i.e., belt 44 with bristles 45, (2) selectively excluding Koning’s belt 23, and then (3) modifying Koning’s brush belt by reversing its orientation so that it carries seeds deposited into the bristles, as in the ’906 patent, rather than covering and guiding seeds carried by a separate and distinct conveyor belt, as in Koning. See WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding an absence of a motivation to reverse parts to an orientation that was “totally backwards” from what one of skill in the art would even attempt). Petitioner’s arguments do not acknowledge the different function of Koning’s brush belt, or explain why a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to adapt Koning’s brush belt to such a use and reasonably expect success in doing so. We determine Petitioner fails to meet its burden of providing a sufficiently persuasive explanation or reason for concluding that one of skill in the art would have combined these particular references to produce the claimed invention. “Without any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to arrive at the claimed invention, we are left with only hindsight bias.” Metalcraft v. Toro, 848 F.3d at 1367. “[W]e cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention.” Id.” slip op. at 30

  • ExcludeOther

    “II. MOTION TO EXCLUDE Petitioner and Patent Owner each move to exclude a substantial number of exhibits on a number of different evidentiary grounds. See Pet. Mot. Excl.; PO Mot. Exclude. As our analysis does not refer to any of those exhibits, we dismiss each motion as moot.” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 9,686,906 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,686,906
• Precision Planting, LLC / Agco Corp. v. Deere & CompanyNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 30, 2020 · IPR2019-01044 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Hedderwick, Koning, and Benac because Petitioner did not establish motivation to combine or a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “have had either (1) a bachelor’s degree plus four years of experience in mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or a related field or (2) a master’s degree plus two years of experience in mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or a related field.” Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 19– 20). In the testimony the Petition cites in support of that proposal, Mr. Prairie lists factors that are typically considered in assessing the level of ordinary skill in the art, and then states “[b]ased on these factors together with my experience and expertise,” his opinion of the level of ordinary skill in the art is the same as Petitioner proposes. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 19–20. This conclusory testimony is entitled to little weight. See 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 12

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

    “construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” See Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,358 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) effective November 13, 2018) (now codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)).6 That standard “includ[es] construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id.; see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). We determine that no terms require express construction to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim terms need only be construed “to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). V. OBVIOUSNESS OVER HEDDERWICK, KONING, AND BENAC” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Glancey, explains that [i]f a wheel is used to load and place seeds within a moving belt with brush hairs, the wheel must be able to disengage from seeds while the seeds remain in between brush hairs. If the wheel maintains contact with the seed after the seed has moved into the brush hairs, the wheel will continue to apply force to the seed and eject or remove the seed from the profile of the brush hairs . . . . Ex. 2200 ¶ 223. Dr. Glancey testifies, credibly, that in Petitioner’s combination, seeds would have been rejected from the belt because, as the paddle wheel rotates, seeds “would be scooped through the belt.” Id. ¶ 225.” slip op. at 31

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

    “way the references use endless members in the form of brush belts and paddle wheels, versus the way Petitioner uses those components in the proposed combination. Contrary to Petitioner’s and Mr. Prairie’s assertions, the proposed combination does not merely apply known techniques to a known device, because none of the cited references use brush belts and paddle wheels in the manner Petitioner proposes. As discussed in greater detail below, Benac teaches that a paddle wheel can be used to ensure that seeds jammed in vacuum holes are released reliably, and then dropped to the ground. Benac does not address brush belts as an endless member and, therefore, does not teach that paddle wheels can be used to guide seeds into the bristles of a brush belt, as Petitioner proposes. See Pet. 64. And Koning does not teach a brush belt that captures seeds released from above, as Petitioner and Mr. Prairie propose. See Pet. 61–62; Ex. 1002 ¶ 104; Ex. 2193, 190:10–191:3; Ex. 2263, 167:21–170:9. Rather, Koning’s brush belt maintains the relative position of potatoes lying on a conveying surface by holding them from above while the conveyor moves them to the furrow. Ex. 1004, 3:16–24, 5:3–14, Fig. 4. Petitioner’s arguments do not adequately account for these differences between the references’ use of a brush belt as an endless member and paddle wheels versus the proposed combination. Moreover, Patent Owner points out problems ordinarily skilled artisans would have encountered in attempting to combine the references as Petitioner proposes. Petitioner does not persuasively explain how those issues could have been overcome, and instead simply asserts, essentially, that ordinarily skilled artisans could have figured it out. See, e.g., Ex. 1135 ¶ 80. It is Petitioner’s burden to establish that ordinarily skilled artisans would have been motivated to combine the success in doing so. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Petitioner’s arguments and evidence do not carry that burden.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 8,813,663 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,813,663
• Precision Planting, LLC / Agco Corp. v. Deere & CompanyNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 30, 2020 · IPR2019-01046 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 3 were not shown unpatentable over Hedderwick, Koning, and Yamahata under § 103 because Petitioner did not establish motivation to combine or a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Based on the evidence and arguments of record, we determine that the evidence favors Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill. Our determination is primarily based on Dr. Glancey’s analysis and reasons summarized above, as well as the prior art of record and the sophistication of the technology of the ’199 patent. We have considered Mr. Prairie’s opinion, but we give that testimony minimal weight due to the lack of supporting explanation. Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Specifically, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in agricultural engineering, or a similar field, and two years of experience designing agricultural products or related machinery. Alternatively, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had five years of experience designing agricultural products or related machinery, without a four-year undergraduate engineering degree.” slip op. at 13

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

    “IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION “In an inter partes review proceeding, a claim of a patent . . . shall be construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” See Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,358 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) effective November 13, 2018) (now codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)).7 That standard “includ[es] construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id.; see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). We determine that no terms require express construction to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim terms need only be construed “to the extent” slip op. at 14

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Ex. 1135 ¶ 51. Yet it is Petitioner’s burden to show motivation and reasonable expectation of success for the proposed combination, not Patent Owner’s burden to show that the prior art demonstrates the futility of the proposed combination. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, Petitioner’s affirmative showing on motivation and reasonable expectation of success for using Koning’s brush belt in the proposed combination is unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above. And Patent Owner’s evidence of difficulties an ordinarily skilled artisan would have expected to encounter in that proposal serves to highlight the issues that Petitioner’s showing ignores. Petitioner additionally contends that Patent Owner’s arguments are based on the erroneous premise that an ordinarily skilled artisan must be able to physically combine the references. See Pet. Reply 7 (citing In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332–33 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). We disagree. Patent Owner’s arguments, summarized above, simply point out that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have expected success in combining the references’ teachings in the way Petitioner proposes. Motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success are properly assessed with reference to the combination as Petitioner has framed it. The Federal Circuit has explained that doing so is not inconsistent with Mouttet. See Samsung, 925 F.3d at 1382–83 (“We will not fault the Board for analyzing Petitioners’ obviousness grounds in the way presented in the Petition.”).” slip op. at 34

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner’s and Mr. Prairie’s analysis does not acknowledge, much less bridge, the gap between Koning’s use of a brush belt to hold potatoes from above as they lie on a conveying surface, versus the brush belt’s use in above.10 During his deposition, Mr. Prairie resisted agreeing that the potatoes are lying on the conveyor in Koning, testifying that he takes from Koning’s description that “they are captured within the belt with brush hairs. And that there is some weight that’s along the conveying member 23.” Ex. 2193, 96:24–99:25. Mr. Prairie testified that he “do[es]n’t believe the brush hairs support the full weight of the potatoes,” but that Koning did not provide him sufficient information to answer whether the conveying member supports the majority of the weight of the potatoes. Id. at 106:22–107:21. In our view, it is clear from Koning’s description that the potatoes lie on the conveyor and the purpose of the brush belt is to maintain their position relative to each other while they are moved by the conveyor. Ex. 1004, 3:16–24, 5:3–14, Fig. 4; see also Ex. 2205 ¶¶ 140–141 (Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Glancey, testifying that a simple mechanical analysis shows that in Koning, about 87% of the potatoes’ weight is supported by the conveying member). Mr. Prairie’s refusal to acknowledge the differences between the brush belt’s function in Koning versus the proposed combination undermines the credibility of his testimony that the proposed combination would have been a simple application of a known technique to a known device. 10 See WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting expert testimony that supported the absence of a motivation to combine: “[I]f I can equate this one to kind of a simple analogy, if you’re trying to build a piece of furniture. What’s a typical thing? You put on a piece of wood. You take a nail, and you hit the nail with a hammer. In control terms, what Mr. Phipps is suggesting is that you put the hammer on the workbench, pick up the piece of furniture and bash the piece of furniture onto the hammer. It’s totally backwards from what I believe one of skill in the art would even attempt . . . .”). have been simple for an ordinarily skilled artisan to adapt Koning’s brush belt for use in the proposed combination, where seeds are deposited onto the brush belt from above—is further undermined by his testimony that he “can’t recall a time where I’ve seen a seed being dropped into a brush belt.” Ex. 2193, 113:5–9; see also Ex. 2263, 81:2–12 (“Q. And you never attempted to drop a seed onto a moving brush belt to see whether that would be inserted into the brush belt, correct? A. As I stated, for the purposes of this case, I did not do any physical experimentation with a moving brush belt as I didn’t feel it was necessary. The prior art discloses sufficient information.”) (objection omitted). Mr. Prairie has “had some industrial design projects where we’ve had to utilize brushes for various applications,” but he “ha[s] not used a brush belt to convey seed.” Ex. 2194, 297:6–16. Mr. Prairie testified that “prior to writing this declaration, brush belt technology was not a specific area that I study, that I was researching.” Ex. 2263, 79:6–9. Indeed, during his initial deposition in this case, the only specific example of a moving brush belt Mr. Prairie could recall seeing was Patent Owner’s ExactEmerge product. Ex. 2193, 108:6–110:10. The basis for Mr. Prairie’s opinion, that a seed would be expected to enter a moving brush belt in the proposed combination, appears to only be Koning itself. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 79–81; Ex. 2193, 116:12–19, 118:7–23; Ex. 2263, 159:5–160:2. When asked at his deposition, Mr. Prairie did not explain any other engineering analysis he performed to make that determination. Ex. 2193, 114:23–117:12. Mr. Prairie testified that he “did not operate a brush belt for this declaration because [he] didn’t feel it was necessary to make my assessments” and he “did not do study or experimentation on a brush belt as I did not feel it was necessary.” unpersuasive because, as discussed above, Koning does not teach using a brush belt to receive and convey seeds that have been dropped onto it from above. Mr. Prairie does not account for that difference by explaining why an ordinarily skilled artisan would expect Koning’s brush belt to effectively capture and carry seeds dropped from above, as in the proposed combination.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 9,480,199 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,480,199
• Intel Corporation v. Qualcomm, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 20, 2020 · IPR2018-01154 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 16 is unpatentable as obvious over Kwak; claims 15, 17–18, and 20 were not shown anticipated by Kwak, and claim 19 was not shown obvious over Kwak and Choi 2010.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Our Institution Decision adopted Petitioner’s proposed level of skill. Dec. on Inst. 11. Patent Owner does not dispute this issue. PO Resp. 11. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art and we find the work experience is commensurate with the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Here, the ’558 patent requires a degree of knowledge that is specific to mobile device architecture as well as transmission and power circuitry for radio frequency devices. See Pet. 36–37; Ex. 1201, Abstract, 1:7–9, 30–31.” slip op. at 7

  • Prior constructionTerm construed petitioner constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “1. “current sense amplifier” (claim 15) Petitioner offers a claim construction for “current sense amplifier” (claim 15) to mean an “amplifier that produces a voltage from a current,” which is based on the ALJ’s construction in the parallel ITC proceeding. Pet. 35–36 (citing Ex. 1223, 11–12). Petitioner argues that the ITC construction is consistent with the ’558 patent specification and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 35–36 (Ex. 1201, 4:64–66, 5:7–10, 5:18–20). Patent Owner argues that this term does not require construction, but does not contest Petitioner’s contention or our adoption of this construction in the Institution Decision. PO Resp. 10. Based on the full record and for the reasons given by the ALJ in the ITC proceeding (Ex. 1223, 11–12), we adopt the construction of “current sense amplifier” to mean an “amplifier that produces a voltage from a current.”” slip op. at 8

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

    “As we discussed in IPR2018-01152 and IPR2018-01153, and incorporate herein (1152 Final Dec. 12–21), the broadest reasonable interpretation is what would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1257. The ’558 specification and the context of claims 6, 8, and 13 and the related language of claim 19 support that the amplifier must be able to receive both the boosted supply voltage and the first supply voltage (a selective boost) as recited in the claims. PO Resp. 35–38; Ex. 1201, 1:42–50, 5:31–49, 8:55– 62, 8:62–9:17, 9:21–36, 10:19–29, Figs. 3 and 5. In light of these findings, we do not agree with Petitioner’s arguments that the plain language of the claim 19 identifies two alternatives that need not both be present. Pet. Reply 3–4. We credit and find persuasive Patent Owner’s evidence that the ’558 specification, which provides context for the interpretation of an ordinarily skilled artisan, refers to the capability of receiving or operating on both voltages at the source (envelope amplifier). See PO Resp. 35–38.” slip op. at 10

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

    “On the full record, Petitioner has not provided sufficient or persuasive argument and evidence that Figure 6 is merely a more detailed implementation of Figure 5 such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would envision them as a single disclosure. Figure 6 specifically discusses a summing circuit operating on input current and offset current that differs from the voltage circuit signals shown in Figure 5. PO Sur-reply 13–14. We also note that feedforward node in Figure 6 differs from that shown in Figure 5. Indeed, Kwak expressly notes the differences and advantages between Figures 4 and 5 (showing summation of voltage signals) and Figure 6, which shows voltage signals converted into current signals before summation, stating that: In CMOS design, although three voltage signals can be added and then integrated as shown in Figs. 4 and 5, the simultaneous summation and integration of the signals at the node Vc, after the conversion of the three voltage signals into current ones, is advantageous, that is, the sensed output current of the linear amplifier, the feedforward current, and the high-frequency current through the ripple filter are added together and integrated at the node with the inverted polarity of the last one Ex. 1211, 2669. Kwak’s disclosure notes differences between the voltage signals of Figures 4 and 5 and the current conversion feedforward teachings shown in Figure 6. See id. On the full record, Petitioner has failed to persuasively establish that “a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination of elements” of claim 15 based on Kwak’s disclosures. See Microsoft Corp., 878 F.3d at 1068. Petitioner’s parallel citations to Figures 5 and 6 and joint discussion of the current summing and integration of Figure 6 and the voltage summing of Figures 5 (see Pet. 42–49), do not establish that Kwak shows the elements of the claim in an embodiment as arranged in the claims. Microsoft Corp., 878 F.3d at 1068–1069. Petitioner’s arguments and testimony evidence (Ex. 1203 ¶ 96; Pet. 44–45 (citing Ex. 1203 ¶¶ 94–96)) fail to address sufficiently the differences between Kwak’s Figures 5 and 6. For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Kwak anticipates independent claim 15 or dependent claims 17, 18, and 20.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 8,698,558 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,698,558
• Intel Corporation v. Qualcomm, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 20, 2020 · IPR2018-01240 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 11 is unpatentable as obvious over Chu, Choi 2010, Hanington, and Myers; claim 10 was not shown unpatentable over Chu, Choi 2010, and Hanington.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The ’558 specification and the context of claims 6, 8, and 13 and the related language of claim 10 support that the “source” must be able to receive both the boosted supply voltage and the first supply voltage (a selective boost). PO Resp. 35–38; Ex. 1201, 1:42–50, 5:31–49, 8:55–62, 8:62–9:17, 9:21–36, 10:19–29, Figs. 3 and 5. Accordingly, we do not agree with Petitioner that the use of a conditional “or” in claim 10 indicates that only one voltage is necessary to meet the claims. Pet. Reply 3–9. We credit Patent Owner’s evidence and arguments that the language of claims 10 and 11 and the ’558 patent specification support that claim 10, like dependent claim 11, require a selective boost. See PO Resp. 26–29. Petitioner’s arguments assert both that Patent Owner improperly limits the construction to one disclosed embodiment and that the Patent Owner’s construction improperly excludes a disclosed embodiment. Pet Reply 6–8. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Patent Owner’s construction should be rejected because it excludes an embodiment. Pet. Reply 6 (citing EPOS Techs. Ltd. v. Pegasus Techs. Ltd., 766 F.3d 1338, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Anchor Wall Sys., Inc. v. Rockwood Retaining Walls, Inc., 340 F.3d 1298, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Dow Chem. Co. v. Sumitomo Chem. Co., 257 F.3d 1364, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). The cases Petitioner cites refer to constructions that read out preferred embodiments. See EPOS Techs., 766 F.3d at 1347; Dow Chem. Co., 257 F.3d, at 1378; Anchor Wall Sys., 340 F.3d at 1308. Petitioner provides no persuasive evidence that the embodiment they identify as being excluded is the preferred embodiment of the ’558 patent. Further, Petitioner cites no support that claims 10 or 11 must be construed to cover all embodiments. See Baran v. Med. Device Techs., Inc., 616 F.3d 1309, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The Federal Circuit has stated that the broadest reasonable construction is not required to cover the most embodiments in a patent specification, but “must be reasonable in light of the claims and specification. The fact that one construction may cover more embodiments than another does not categorically render that construction reasonable.” PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 747, 755 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that exclusion of a single embodiment renders Patent Owner’s claim construction improper.” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “persuasive. We credit Petitioner’s argument and evidence regarding the Chu and Choi 2010 concerns with power degradation and efficiency, which Patent Owner’s declarant testified were common concerns known before the ’558 patent. Pet. Reply 11–12 (citing Ex. 1330, 13:12–20, 13:21–14:2, 259:7–18); Ex. 1027 ¶ 18. We find that Petitioner presents persuasive evidence and argument that the issues of power degradation and efficiency were known in the art and within the knowledge and skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See id.; see also PO Resp. 32–33 (noting that “Patent Owner does not contest that efficiency and output distortion/robustness problems were generally known in the art.”). We also find that Petitioner identifies persuasive motivations to combine from the references themselves, identifying specific teachings in Choi 2010 in reference to boost converter systems like those in Chu. Pet. 57–58 (citing Ex. 1306, 1074, 1077). Indeed, Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Kelley, agreed that Choi 2010 teaches the use of boost converters to address battery degradation. Ex. 1030, 105:20–106:4, 156:3–6. Finally, Petitioner provides evidence that degrading battery performance affecting operation further motivates the combination of Chu and Choi 2010. Ex. 1030, 165:17–22; Pet. 57–61. We are also persuaded by Petitioner’s citation to secondary references of examples that use a boost converter to prevent distortion provides further support that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Chu with Choi 2010 and Hanington. See Pet. 58–60 (citing Ex. 1318, code (57); Ex. 1315, 8); Ex. 1303 ¶¶ 109–111. Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the secondary references attempts to bodily incorporate the teachings from these references into Chu and Choi 2010. Patent Owner also fails to address persuasively the support for the teachings these secondary references provide for modifying Chu’s supply modulator to incorporate a boost converter as disclosed in Choi 2010 and Hanington. Pet. 58–60 (citing Ex. 1318, code (57); Ex. 1315, 8); Ex. 1303 ¶¶ 109–111. Indeed, Patent Owner’s declarant agrees extending battery life, which is discussed in Exhibit 1315 and cited by Petitioner as a motivation to combine Chu and Choi 2010 (Pet. 58–60), would be achieved by the combination of Chu and Choi 2010 and was within the ordinary skill of an artisan. Ex. 1330, 281:6–282:2, 284:6–12. We also disagree with Patent Owner that the Petition fails to show how to combine the references to solve the conflicting problems that Petitioner alleges as motivation—efficiency and degradation. PO Resp. 33– 35. First, we credit Dr. Kelley’s testimony that the result of the combination was within the knowledge and skill of an artisan. Ex. 1330, 105:20–106:4, 156:3–6, 281:6–282:2, 284:6–12. Second, we find that the evidence and argument in the Petition explain sufficiently how Chu would have been modified to incorporate the boost supply voltage of Choi 2010 and Hanington and that such modifications involve typical and well known components widely used in boost converters. See Pet. 68–70; Ex. 1303 ¶¶ 112–113, 126–127; Ex. 1329 ¶ 24.” slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “Owner argues “Choi 2010’s boost is a constant boost applied to the linear amplifier, and thus teaches away from a selective boost.” PO Resp. 39. Patent Owner further argues combining Myers’ selective boost with Choi 2010’s constant boost would destroy the purpose and benefits of Choi 2010’s design. Id. at 43. We do not find that Choi 2010’s use of a constant boost teaches away from selective boost in Myers. Patent Owner’s evidence and argument do not persuade us that Choi 2010’s teachings of boost exclude or discourage the use of selective boost. The portion of Choi 2010 Patent Owner cites does not criticize or discourage the use of selective boost, but applies boost generally to achieve its goals. See Ex. 1306, 1333–1334. We do not find that the teachings in Choi 2010 discourage a person of ordinary skill in the art from working with boosted voltage to achieve battery efficiencies. See Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Choi 2010 does not discredit or criticize selective boost to improve efficiency.” slip op. at 23

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightDecided for petitioner

    “the ITC investigation (see Ex. 2001, 36–37), Petitioner does not assert the direct incorporation of Myers technology into the combination of Chu and Choi 2010/Hanington. Instead, Petitioner asserts that Myers teaches a method of choosing a power source to improve operation efficiency. Pet. Reply 22–23; Pet. 72–76; Ex. 1312, 9:18–21, 1:19–23. Furthermore, Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Kelley, acknowledges this teaching. Ex. 1330, 270:13–271:5. Petitioner’s arguments and evidence differ materially from those cited in the ITC investigation. See Ex. 2001, 36–37. In the case before us, Petitioner does not directly incorporate Myers hardware into Chu or Choi 2010 and Hanington, but asserts that Myers— particularly Figure 7 that discloses the technique of switching between two different power sources—teaches a technique that would have been within the level of skill of an artisan at the time of patenting. Pet. Reply 23; see Pet. 72–76; Ex. 1330, 283:16–284:1; see also Ex. 1330, 152:21–153:4 (agreeing that a person of ordinary skill would have known how to select between two power sources). Contrary to the combination of the envelope elimination and restoration (EER) circuits of Myers into the linear amplifiers of Chu and Choi 2010 argued at the ITC, Petitioner has provided testimony and citations to the record that Myers’s selection functionality is applicable to the combination of Chu and Choi 2010. We credit Petitioner’s argument and evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Chu, Choi 2010, and Hanington with the technique from Myers and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Pet. 79–81 (providing supporting argument and testimony regarding battery and boosted voltage efficiency as taught by Myers). We find that Petitioner’s argument and evidence provide sufficient rationales with articulated reasoning to support the application of the Myers selection technique with the amplifiers of Chu and Choi 2010 to achieve battery efficiency during described operating modes. Pet. 57–61 77–82. Indeed, Dr. Kelley’s testimony supports the applicability of the techniques in Myers. See Ex. 1330, 270:13–271:5, 281:6–282:2, 284:6–12; Ex. 1312, 9:18–21 (discussing Myers’ teaching of choosing power source for operation efficiency). Based on our review of the full record, Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence an articulated rationale with articulated reasons to combine Chu, Choi 2010, Hanington, and Myers. In addition, Petitioner demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Chu, Choi 2010, Hanington, and Myers teach the limitations of dependent claim 11.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 8,698,558 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,698,558
• Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm IncorporatedRehearing denied
  PTAB · Mar 14, 2019 · IPR2018-01280 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Apple’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution because it had not overlooked or misapprehended material facts about Brown or the prosecution history.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing that the decision from which rehearing is sought should be modified and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “Dec. 8–9 (emphasis added). Similarly, when weighting the Becton factors, we explicitly found that although the Examiner originally rejected the claims based on Brown, “[f]ollowing an amendment to the claims adding the prompting step along with arguments by the applicant explaining why Brown did not teach that new limitation, the Examiner shifted to new references and no longer relied on Brown.” Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 1002, 142– 149, 156–168, 178–181). In other words, twice we explicitly acknowledged what Petitioner now argues we overlooked.” slip op. at 5

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedOther

    “For the reasons explained above, we are not persuaded that we misapprehended or overlooked any material facts. Moreover, Petitioner never explicitly nor implicitly addressed the Becton factors in the Petition, and new arguments are not permitted in a request for rehearing absent exceptional circumstances, of which none have been identified here.” slip op. at 8

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,844,037
• Delphi Technologies, LLC v. Microchip Technology Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Dec 11, 2018 · IPR2017-00864 · APJ Daniel N Fishman · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving claims 1, 3–5, 7–9, 11–15, and 18–21 unpatentable because their scope did not require the buffer to store the specified information.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “party challenging the decision,” and, “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed” in the record. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). III. DISCUSSION Patent Owner’s Request does not identify any arguments that we “misapprehended or overlooked” let alone “specifically identify” all such matters. Thus, Patent Owner’s Request fails to comply with our rules. Despite this failure of Patent Owner’s Request, we address the substance of Patent Owner’s argument as follows.” slip op. at 2

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

    “misapprehended any argument. Furthermore, we are unpersuaded that our Decision was in error regarding independent claims 1, 3, 7, 18, and 23 because these claims have a different scope than claims 17, 22, and 24. As Patent Owner correctly noted, our construction of “dedicated USB connection” is “a USB connection that may include some shared physical communication path and includes a buffer for maintaining dedicated address, configuration and response information for the connection.” Dec. 33. Thus, a dedicated USB connection must include a buffer that is capable of storing/maintaining “dedicated address, configuration and response information” regardless of whether such data is actually stored/maintained therein.” slip op. at 3

  Claim construction
  Patents in suitUS 7,523,243
• Coastal Industries, Inc. v. Shower Enclosures America, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 19, 2018 · IPR2017-00573 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5, 7–9, 11–14, and 16–26 are unpatentable; claims 4, 6, 10, and 15 are not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 33 and 34 are granted.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “invention. Pet. 26. Patent Owner sets forth many assertions related to the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. PO Resp. 3–14, 20–30; PO Supp. Resp. 15–20. Petitioner responds to those assertions. Pet. Reply 2–4, 9–18; Pet. Supp. Reply 15–16. While we will address each of those assertions, as a substantive matter, Petitioner asserts that “PO does not dispute the definition of a PHOSITA, offer a contrary definition, explain how a different definition might affect the Board’s analysis, nor contest the Board’s specific interpretation of the prior art references to put the PHOSITA determination at issue.” Pet. Reply 16–18; Pet. Supp. Reply 15– 16. We agree with that assessment. Moreover, we note that the level of ordinary skill in the art is often reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Accordingly, as an initial matter, we address Petitioner’s unopposed substantive assertion with respect to the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other

    “1. “track members” Independent claims 1, 12, 19, and 22 each recite “track members.”” slip op. at 28

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted

    “B. Patentability of Substitute Claims 33 and 34 Petitioner asserts that various claim limitations are disclosed in the” slip op. at 100

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “701, 702 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that Mr. Poenariu’s testimony is entirely based on his finding as to the level of ordinary skill in the art, and because Mr. Poenariu did not articulate a sufficient factual basis for his conclusion as to the level of ordinary skill in the art, his entire testimony us unreliable and should be excluded. PO Mot. 5–6. Petitioner responds that Mr. Poenariu discloses more than a sufficient amount of underlying facts on which to base his testimony, and, thus, Patent Owner’s assertions go to weight and not admissibility. Pet. Opp. 6–9. We agree with Petitioner.” slip op. at 105

  Patent outcomesUS 7,174,944 mixed
  Claim constructioncites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,174,944
• Motorola Mobility LLC v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · Nov 16, 2018 · IPR2014-00504 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Patent Owner’s request for rehearing of the SAS Order, leaving review instituted on all challenged claims and all grounds in the Petition.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). In particular, “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id.” slip op. at 3

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)New argument disregardedDenied

    “overlooked express statutory requirements that the Board was obligated to assess before considering the Petition for re-institution.” Reh. Req. 10 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)). Specifically, Patent Owner argues “the Petition fails to meet the particularity requirement [of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)] at least with respect to the multiple grounds identified on pages 47–59 of the Petition” because of the “vague formulation” (i.e., Veeck in view of Kellerer, Boehm, and/or Mitchell). Id. at 12. Patent Owner, however, does not identify where this “matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply,” as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). We could not have misapprehended or overlooked something that was not presented previously. A Request for Rehearing is not an opportunity to raise new arguments against a petition. To the extent Patent Owner believes the grounds newly instituted in the SAS Order lack sufficient particularity under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3), it can make such arguments in its supplemental briefing.” slip op. at 10

  • Director reviewOther

    “The standard operating procedure exemplifies some of the reasons for which the Chief Judge may expand a panel. PTAB SOP 1, 15 (§ III.M). For example, the Chief Judge may expand a panel “where appropriate, to secure and maintain uniformity of the Board’s decisions, e.g., in related cases ordinarily involving different three judge panels.” Id. (§ III.M.1). In this case, the acting-Chief Judge has considered Patent Owner’s suggestion for an expanded panel, but has determined that an expanded panel is not warranted.” slip op. at 12

  None
  Patents in suitUS 7,382,771
• Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 10, 2018 · PGR2017-00015 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · PGR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–4 not unpatentable: the obviousness grounds failed to establish the claimed elastic fastener limitation, and claim 3 was not shown indefinite or lacking written-description support.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner and determine that a POSA would have been a person having a general knowledge about, and experience with, expandable containers, including, without limitation, balloons, and at least an associate’s degree in mechanical engineering, or the equivalent. This level of skill is consistent with the types of problems and solutions described in the ’612 patent and cited prior art. For example, the ’612 patent describes a fluid inflatable system that uses elastic valve 20A (e.g., mechanical gasket, O-ring, etc.) for sealing fluid inside multiple containers (e.g., water balloons). See Ex. 1001, 1:22–24, 3:10–16. In any event, none of the issues in this case turn on the definition of a POSA, and the prior art of record provides ample evidence of the level of skill in the art. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (finding that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not err in concluding that the level of ordinary skill was best determined by the references of record); see also Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”’) (internal citation omitted).” slip op. at 13

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

    “1. Terms Construed in the Institution Decision We construed the term “elastic fastener” in our Decision on Institution, which is set forth in the following table. Inst. Dec. 14. Claim Term Construction in Institution Decision elastic fastener “an elastic element for attaching things together” Neither party disputes the language of this construction. See generally Prelim Resp. 17; Reply. We adopt them for this Final Written Decision. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting Rodale Press, Inc. v. FTC, 407 F.2d 1252, 1256–57 (D.C. Cir. 1968)) (“‘an agency may not change theories in midstream without giving respondents reasonable notice of the change’ and ‘the opportunity to present argument under the new theory.’”)” slip op. at 14

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

    “While the terms “unfilled state” and “filled state” describe the fullness for a container, we do not agree with Petitioner that the claim language requires determining the precise amount of fluid for each state. Section 112(b) requires that we read claim terms in the context of the surrounding claim language, not in isolation. Telebrands, 733 F. App’x at 1020. When we look at the entire claim phrase—“regardless whether the first and second ones of the plurality of containers are in a filled state or an unfilled state”— the plain language is clear that regardless of whether the balloons are in either state, the “at least first and second ones of the plurality of containers are disposed sufficiently close to each other such that they press against each other.” In other words, the exact volume of fluid or water needed to reach a “filled state” does not need to be determined in order to understand the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement. We are further persuaded because this is consistent with the district court’s construction of this term. See Ex. 1023, 19–20.” slip op. at 17

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

    “Based upon our review of the specification, and consideration of the arguments and evidence presented, Petitioner’s position is not persuasive. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to show that the ’612 patent does not provide such adequate guidance to a person of ordinary skill in the art. On its face, Figure 1 of the ’612 patent (reproduced below) shows containers 18 in contact or pressing against one another with the reasonable clarity required by Vas–Cath Inc. Figure 1 of the ’612 patent is reproduced above. Although the ’612 patent describes, as Petitioner notes, that tubes 16 can be different lengths, we are not persuaded that the ’612 patent’s disclosure of an embodiment with different tube lengths detracts from the concurrent disclosure in Figure 1 of an embodiment, where it is difficult to describe containers 18 as being not in contact with each other. Additionally, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to show adequately that a person of ordinary skill would not have understood the ’612 patent as describing the containers in Figure 1 as pressing against one another in an unfilled state. The ’612 patent indicates Figure 1 shows elastic valve 20A in an open configuration when container 18A is attached to tube 16A to allow container 18A to fill with fluid. Ex. 1001, 3:14–18. In this open configuration, container 18A is to be filled with fluid, after which, “it may be removed from tube 16A, whereupon elastic valve 20A closes, thereby closing the neck of container 18A and sealing the fluid inside.” Id. at 3:18–21 (emphasis omitted). The ’612 patent refers to Figure 1 to describe an embodiment where elastic valve 20A is in an open configuration to fill a container that has not been filled (i.e., unfilled) and removed from tube 16A. Thus, we are persuaded that, at least, Figure 1 and this accompanying description of Figure 1 in the ’612 patent provides sufficient written description for the recited limitation that “at least first and second ones of the plurality of containers are disposed sufficiently close to each other such that they press against each other . . . in a filled state or an unfilled state.”” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 9,527,612 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,527,612

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.