• 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 IncorporatedNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 22, 2020 · IPR2018-01252 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision

  Apple did not prove claims 1–6 and 8–20 unpatentable as obvious over Jin and Elias because it failed to show Jin teaches moving a card with directional contact.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “art include (1) educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of workers active in the field. Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 713 F.2d 693, 696–697 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Not all such factors may be present in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case. Id. Moreover, these factors are not exhaustive but are merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art. Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007).” slip op. at 7

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

    “[W]e need only construe those claim limitations ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 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)). Because the parties did not request the construction of any limitation and no express constructions are necessary to resolve a controversy, we do not construe any of the limitations. slip op. at 11

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “prima facie case of unpatentability.” Trial Practice Guide Update (August 2018), 14, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ 2018_Revised_Trial_Practice_Guide.pdf. As the Federal Circuit has explained, [i]t is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify “with particularity” the “evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). “All arguments for the relief requested in a motion must be made in the motion. A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition or patent owner response.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Once the Board identifies new issues presented for the first time in reply, neither this court nor the Board must parse the reply brief to determine which, if any, parts of that brief are responsive and which are improper. As the Board noted, “it will not attempt to sort proper from improper portions of the reply.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012). Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 775 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting same). Based on that standard, the Federal Circuit determined that the PTAB properly refused to consider a new theory raised for the first time in a reply brief:” slip op. at 23

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

    “preliminary,” “based on the evidentiary record developed thus far,” and that “[o]ur final decision will be based on the record as fully developed during trial.” Id. at 32. We further advised the parties that we were not “determin[ing] whether an individual asserted fact is indisputable or whether a preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner.” Id. at 31. Having conducted the trial, for the reasons discussed below, our preliminary finding is not supported by the entirety of the record. Instead, we agree with Patent Owner that Jin does not teach or suggest “directional contact of moving the [selected] card along . . . the touch-sensitive display screen” and agree that the combination of Jin and Elias does not teach or suggest “dismissing the selected first card or second card from the touch-sensitive display screen in the second direction so that the corresponding first application or second application is closed” as recited in claim 1. Specifically, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that Jin teaches or suggests that the processor responds to directional contact moving the selected card in the second direction on the display screen. Jin’s Figures 9C shows a finger moving along the screen—directional contact. Ex. 1005, Fig. 9C. However, Jin’s Figure 9C does not illustrate the card moving along with the finger. Id. Rather, Jin’s Figure 9E simply shows the cards in a new position without describing what happened on the display while the location of the cards were changed. See id. at Fig. 9E. Accordingly, Petitioner has not proven that Jin teaches directional contact moving the selected card in the second direction on the display screen.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 8,683,362 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,683,362
• Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm IncorporatedNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 2, 2020 · IPR2018-01279 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14 and 16–18 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not teach composing a message after the incoming call; the contingent motion to amend was dismissed as moot.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s formulation. Inst. Dec. 17. Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s formulation. See PO Resp. 12–13; Ex. 2004 ¶ 57 (Jeffay Decl.) (“[F]or the purposes of this declaration, I have applied Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.”). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, except that we delete the qualifier “or more” to eliminate vagueness as to the amount of practical experience. The qualifier expands the range indefinitely without an upper bound, and thus precludes a meaningful indication of the the art would have had either (1) a Master of Science Degree in an academic area emphasizing electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or an equivalent field (or a similar technical Master’s Degree, or higher degree) with a concentration in wireless communication and networking systems or (2) a Bachelor’s Degree (or higher degree) in an academic area emphasizing electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science and having two years of experience in wireless communication and networking systems. Moreover, additional education in a relevant field, such as computer engineering, or electrical engineering, or industry experience may compensate for a deficit in one of the other aspects of the requirements stated above.” slip op. at 7

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

    “recited in claim 1 means generating a message and does not encompass using pre-composed messages. That construction is consistent with the language recited in the claims, the ’037 patent, and the use of “composing” in a related patent. We begin with the words of claim 1. Claim 1 recites “in response to receiving an incoming call, prompting a user of the first computing device to incoming call by composing, while not answering the incoming call, a message to a user of the second computing device.” Ex. 1001, 10:7–11. Based on the ordinary meaning of the claim language, the claim requires prompting a user to enter user input and that the entered user input “instructs the first computing device to handle the incoming call by composing . . . a message.” See id. That is, it is the user input—which itself is in response to an incoming call—which causes the composing to take place. Thus, the language of the claim requires that the composing takes place after the incoming call is received and the user input is entered. Therefore, the language of the claim precludes using content composed prior to the call and user input, i.e., a precomposed message. See Ex. 2004 ¶ 73 (Jeffay Decl.). This construction is also consistent with the written description of the ’037 patent. The ’037 patent describes two different ways of generating messages. First, the ’037 patent describes how a device may be configured to respond to all incoming calls with a precomposed message, such as “on vacation.” Ex. 1001, 5:18–23. However, claim 1 was amended during prosecution to exclude automatically responding with a precomposed message, thus excluding that embodiment from the scope of claim 1. See Ex. 1002, 157 (amendment to claim 1), 165–68 (prosecution history of the ’037 patent) (distinguishing prior art references which automatically responded with a precomposed message); see also Ex. 2004 ¶ 70 (Jeffay Decl.) (“Accordingly, the Applicant amended the claims to distinguish over Brown and clearly disclaimed claim scope corresponding to the embodiments in which an incoming call is automatically responded to with a message.” (citing Ex. 1002, 166–68)). response to a trigger—user input—from the user. See Ex. 1001, 5:24–54, 7:52–8:2, Fig. 4 (step 470 (“address message body”) is after steps 410 (“receive incoming call”) and 435 (“message response?”)). Because the message is generated in response to the user input, it does not exist prior to user input being entered. That is, a precomposed message is not being used.” slip op. at 11

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Our rules require the Petition to include “[a] full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing law, rules, and precedent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) (2017). Additionally, the Petition “must identify . . . [h]ow the construed claim is unpatentable under must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) (2017). Our rules further provide for a petitioner to file a reply to respond to arguments made in the patent owner’s response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (2019). Petitioner choose neither option to set forth its arguments regarding Mäkelä’s claim 28. We decline Petitioner’s invitation to consider arguments presented in papers outside of the Petition and Petitioner’s Reply. We treat Petitioner’s request that we consider arguments only presented in the Opposition to the Motion to Amend as a request for incorporation by reference. However, our rules prohibit “incorporat[ion] by reference from one document into another document.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (2019); see also DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866–67 (7th Cir. 1999) (Incorporation “by reference amounts to a self-help increase in the length of the [ ] brief[,]” and “is a pointless imposition on the court’s time. A brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archeologist with the record.”)). Petitioner has not persuasively argued why we should not apply Rule 42.6(a)(3) in these circumstances. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b) (2019) (“The Board may waive or suspend a requirement of parts 1, 41, and 42 and may place conditions on the waiver or suspension.”). Although Petitioner may have intended to make the argument in both Petitioner’s Reply and the Opposition to the Motion to Amend (Tr. 58–59), it did not do so.8” slip op. at 17

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “With regard to the merits, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown how Mäkelä teaches “composing . . . a message” as recited in claim 1. Neither the Petition nor Petitioner’s Reply specifically addresses when the reply message is prepared. See Pet. 16–17; Pet. Reply 14. Moreover, Dr. Mandayam—Petitioner’s expert witness— conceded that the messages in Mäkelä are composed and stored prior to the incoming call being received: Q. So I think just to repeat the question, is there any disclosure in Mäkelä that the message sent by the user in response to an incoming call is anything other than a message previously stored by the user before the incoming call? Yes or no, please. . . . that have been composed ahead -- previously by the user with the ability to choose them. . . . . Q. The modes of response listed in Claim 27, that is a voice message, an e-mail message, a facsimile, and an SMS message in the form of a character string are all limited to precomposed messages. Do you agree with that? . . . THE WITNESS: So the messages have been composed by the user and stored, as we have gone through this already a few times. So that is stored and composed and resides in the device. And the user is making the choice in response to a call to send whichever their preferred option is. And there is some dynamism if you read through the specifications where there are responses you can fine-tune based on the amount of time you want to be not disturbed or the amount of time your meeting is in session. So there are things like that. But this is the characterization, and I think this is something I agree. . . . Q. So I think we agree that the user selects a message that is to be transmitted in response to an incoming call. The question is would you agree that in Mäkelä the user’s selection of the message in response to an incoming call is limited to precomposed messages? . . .” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 7,844,037 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,844,037
• Google LLC v. Alex Is The Best, LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · Mar 18, 2019 · IPR2017-02058 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Google’s rehearing request and left in place the denial of institution for claims 1–3, 10–14, and 21 because the Petition did not sufficiently show the cited references taught the claimed limitations.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. STANDARD OF REVIEW “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision,” and the challenging party “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed” in a paper of record. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Because Petitioner seeks rehearing of our Decision denying institution of trial based on the Petition, it must show an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) (“When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.”). An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988).” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “certain teachings in Inoue about the claimed “WSARC.” Req. Reh’g 3. In the Decision, we found that, although the Petition appears to map Inoue’s file server to the claimed “WSARC” by mentioning “WSARC (Inoue’s file server)” (Dec. 16–17 (citing Pet. 17)), aside from that single mention, the Petition does not discuss the term “WSARC” or “website archive and review center” in relation to Inoue, and does not explain adequately why Inoue’s file server teaches or suggests the “WSARC” recited in the claims (id. at 17, 19 (citing Pet. 15–18)). Thus, based on the record presented, we determined that simply stating “a WSARC (Inoue’s file server)” in the Petition without any elaboration does not satisfy Petitioner’s burden required for institution of a review in this case (id. at 19–20 (citations omitted)).” slip op. at 3

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “At best, Petitioner’s arguments in its Request for Rehearing attempt to remedy the deficiencies in the Petition our Decision identified, by supplementing the arguments in the Petition. A request for rehearing is not a supplemental petition. Nor is it an opportunity to present new arguments or evidence that could have been presented and developed in the first instance in the Petition. As explained in the Decision (Dec. 19–20), it was Petitioner’s 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) (emphases added) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)); see Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he expedited nature of IPRs bring with it an obligation for petitioners to make their case in their petition to institute.” (emphases added)). The record shows that, rather than overlooking any teachings of Inoue or any “background” discussion by Dr. Madisetti, the Decision simply considered the arguments and explanations of the evidence Petitioner presented in the four corners of the Petition, and properly determined that the Petition did not meet this burden required on Petitioner. Dec. 19–20.” slip op. at 7

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “certain teachings in Inoue about the claimed “WSARC.” Req. Reh’g 3. In the Decision, we found that, although the Petition appears to map Inoue’s file server to the claimed “WSARC” by mentioning “WSARC (Inoue’s file server)” (Dec. 16–17 (citing Pet. 17)), aside from that single mention, the Petition does not discuss the term “WSARC” or “website archive and review center” in relation to Inoue, and does not explain adequately why Inoue’s file server teaches or suggests the “WSARC” recited in the claims (id. at 17, 19 (citing Pet. 15–18)). Thus, based on the record presented, we determined that simply stating “a WSARC (Inoue’s file server)” in the Petition without any elaboration does not satisfy Petitioner’s burden required for institution of a review in this case (id. at 19–20 (citations omitted)).” slip op. at 3

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,581,991
• Apple Inc. v. Saint Lawrence Communications, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 25, 2017 · IPR2017-01244 · APJ Daniel N Fishman · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Apple did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–21 and 29–42 were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “For at least the above reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing any of claims 1, 8, 15, 29, and 36 are unpatentable as obvious over the proposed combination of Salami and Kroon.” slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “encoding device of, for example, claim 1. However, we agree with Patent Owner that Salami does not disclose that the preemphasized input speech signal is used as an input to a perceptual weighting filter as recited in claim 1. See PO Resp. 35–37. Specifically, claim 1 specifies both the synthesis filter calculator and the perceptual weighting filter are responsive to the preemphasized signal generated by the preemphasis filter, which is, in turn, responsive to the input wideband speech signal, and further specifies that the perceptual weighting filter is also responsive to the coefficients generated by the synthesis filter calculator. In other words, the claim requires an arrangement of the various elements of an encoder in which the output of the preemphasis filter (the preemphasized signal) is applied to the synthesis filter calculator and applied to the perceptual weighting filter, and the coefficients generated by the synthesis filter calculator are applied to the perceptual weighting filter. An excerpt of Figure 1 of the ’524 patent, reproduced below, shows a block diagram of relevant portions of such an encoder arrangement. The above excerpt of Figure 1 of the ’524 patent depicts preemphasis filter 103, coupled to receive wideband speech signals (“Sp”) and configured to generate preemphasized speech signal (“S”). Ex. 1001, 7:64–8:18. The output of preemphasis filter 103 (“S”) is applied to LP analysis quantization and interpolation calculator 104 and perceptual weighting filter 105. Id. at 8:19–9:45. Petitioner directs us to no disclosure in Salami of such an arrangement of filters in an encoding device.” slip op. at 17

  • BurdenInstitution denied

    “Ex. 1008, 23. We discern no teaching or suggestion in this text of Salami that the preemphasized signal is used on a perceptual weighting filter. We find no support in the cited portions of Salami for Petitioner’s assertion that the preemphasized signal is first applied to LP analysis and then the same preemphasized signal is perceptually weighted (i.e., applied to a perceptually weighted filter). Petitioner’s argument in the Petition does not explain specifically how the cited text teaches the identified claim limitations and, thus, amounts to little more than an unsupported conclusory remark. Dr. Cohen merely repeats the same argument without providing any further explanation. Ex. 1003, 65 (the portion of the claim chart of paragraph 114 for this element of claim 1).” slip op. at 19

  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,807,524
• On Semiconductor Corporation / Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC (D/B/A On Semiconductor) v. Power Integrations, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 22, 2017 · IPR2016-00809 · APJ Daniel N Fishman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 31, 32, 34, 38, 39, and 42 are unpatentable as obvious over Oda and Nakamura because the combination teaches the claimed features, including varying pulse frequency and on-time in the second feedback range.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner

    “Panels of the Board have interpreted 315(b) (and our associated rule 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b)) to mean that “it is only privity relationships up until the time a petition is filed that matter.” Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics 5 Patent Owner entered the Merger Agreement into the record as Exhibit 2018. Corp., Case IPR2012-00042, slip op. at 12 (PTAB Feb. 19, 2014) (Paper 60); see also ARRIS Group, Inc. v. TQ Delta LLC, Case IPR2016-00430, slip op. at 6 (PTAB July 1, 2016) (Paper 9). Although not the exclusive factor for establishing privity, control of the requested review procedure is an important factor to establish privity in this context. Our Office Patent Trial Practice Guide explains that “[w]hether a party who is not a named participant in a given proceeding nonetheless constitutes a . . . ‘privy’ to that proceeding is a highly fact-dependent question.” 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759 (Aug. 14, 2012). “There are multiple factors relevant to the question of whether a non-party may be recognized as a . . . ‘privy.’” Id. “A common consideration is whether the non-party exercised or could have exercised control over a party’s participation in a proceeding.” Id. However, it is recognized that there is no definitive test regarding the degree of participation required to establish such control and, hence, to establish a privity relationship. Id.” slip op. at 11

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “Similarly, Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the Confidentiality Agreement (Ex. 2026) are insufficient to demonstrate that Fairchild exercised, or could have exercised, any control over this proceeding. PO Resp. 65. The mere exchange of unidentified confidential information and recitations of the Confidentiality Agreement that the parties could be joint defendants in the future, without more, do not provide sufficient evidence that Fairchild has exercised, or could have exercised, any control over this proceeding. Thus, the record lacks sufficient evidence to demonstrate even the opportunity to control this review and, thus, to establish privity between Petitioner and Fairchild.” slip op. at 13

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

    “In our Decision on Institution, we agreed with Petitioner that nothing in the claims or the specification of the ’079 patent limits the term “energy transfer element” to only transformers in a flyback architecture converter and, more specifically, nothing in the claims defines a particular direction of current flow through the terminals of the power switch. Dec. 15–16. Thus, we determined that, in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation, “energy transfer element” should not be construed so narrowly as to include only a transformer (flyback topology converter) and to exclude an inductor (buck topology converter). Id. at 16. Instead, we determined “energy transfer element” is at least as broad as to encompass either a transformer or an inductor as utilized in flyback and buck architecture power converters, respectively. Id. After considering all evidence and assertions anew, we discern no persuasive reason to alter our preliminary interpretation and conclude, for the reasons given in our Decision on Institution and this Decision, that “energy transfer element” is at least as broad as to encompass either a transformer or an inductor as utilized in flyback and buck architecture power converters, respectively. See id. at 14–16.” slip op. at 20

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

    “Thus, although we discern no need to expressly construe the phrase “corresponds to” as used in the claims, we determine “corresponds to” as used in the claims is at least as broad as to encompass non-overlapping first 9 Patent Owner’s narrow interpretation demands a one-to-one relationship between the feedback values and the pulse on-time values, i.e., a reversible function in mathematical terms. The ’079 patent Specification does not support such a narrow interpretation. and second ranges of feedback values corresponding to first and second ranges of on-time values regardless of overlap of feedback values in the first and second ranges of feedback values.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 6,212,079 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,212,079
• Smart Microwave Sensors GmbH v. Wavetronix LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 17, 2017 · IPR2016-00488 · APJ Daniel N Fishman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 9, 10, 12, 13, 22, 23, and 25 are unpatentable, including as anticipated by Boles or Farmer and obvious over combinations including Boles, Farmer, Herman, and others.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted

    “1. Exhibits 1002, 1008, 1009, and 1012 Patent Owner argues the date printed on each of Exhibits 1002, 1008, 1009, and 1012, is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 as out of court statement offered to prove that truth of the matter asserted—that each document was a printed publication as of the date printed on that document (i.e., that it was sufficiently publicly accessible). Paper 45, 2–3 (citing Standard Innovation Corp. v. Lelo, Inc., Case IPR2014-00148, Paper 41 (PTAB April 23, 2015)). As discussed supra, we agree with Patent Owner that the dates printed on these Exhibits are hearsay with no applicable exception. Thus, we grant Patent Owner’s motion requesting that we exclude the copyright notice date from each of Exhibits 1008, 1009, and 1012, and exclude the date of the EuMC conference on Exhibit 1002. However, we note that the documents per se are not excluded from the record as hearsay—only the date imprinted on each as proof of the printed publication status of each document. The underlying documents of these Exhibits are offered not to prove the publication dates thereof but, instead, are statements offered to demonstrate the knowledge of persons of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner may rely on other evidence to establish the date of public accessibility of each of these documents, the analysis of which we have set forth supra. See Section II.B.1–4.” slip op. at 54

  • Skill levelNot reached
  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “data about multiple vehicles on a particular section of roadway (PO Resp. 7– 8), Petitioner counters by identifying references in the field of traffic engineering that use mobile sensors (i.e., not at a fixed location) for acquiring “traffic data.” Pet. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1031 ¶¶ 6, 22, 181–183). Referring to pages 7–13 of Exhibit 1031 (Texas Highway Operations Manual discussing “Vehicle-based Equipment”), Patent Owner’s expert testified, on cross-examination, as follows: Q In view of the paragraph, would it be accurate to note that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the equipment located in a vehicle can be used to measure the speed of the traffic stream? A It says that a vehicle-mounted radar unit can be used to measure the timing speed of other vehicles in the traffic stream. It does not say it is used to measure the traffic stream. Q I said measure the speed of the traffic. A Yes. This says it is measuring the speed of vehicles in the traffic stream. Q So one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the equipment located in a vehicle can be used to measure the speed of vehicles in a traffic stream? A That is how it’s worded, the speed of other vehicles in the traffic stream. Ex. 1036, 98:21–99:13. In light of that testimony, we determine that Patent Owner’s expert testimony in support of their assertion is not credible.” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Id. at 49:19–50:10. Given, at best, significant ambiguity as to whether the Specification and other evidence requires that “traffic data” must refer to “all or substantially all vehicles,” we are persuaded that such a requirement would not be proper under a broadest reasonable construction. Regarding Patent Owner’s assertion that “traffic data” is limited to data about multiple vehicles on a particular section of roadway (PO Resp. 7– 8), Petitioner counters by identifying references in the field of traffic engineering that use mobile sensors (i.e., not at a fixed location) for acquiring “traffic data.” Pet. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1031 ¶¶ 6, 22, 181–183). Referring to pages 7–13 of Exhibit 1031 (Texas Highway Operations Manual discussing “Vehicle-based Equipment”), Patent Owner’s expert testified, on cross-examination, as follows: Q In view of the paragraph, would it be accurate to note that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the equipment located in a vehicle can be used to measure the speed of the traffic stream? A It says that a vehicle-mounted radar unit can be used to measure the timing speed of other vehicles in the traffic stream. It does not say it is used to measure the traffic stream. Q I said measure the speed of the traffic. A Yes. This says it is measuring the speed of vehicles in the traffic stream. Q So one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the equipment located in a vehicle can be used to measure the speed of vehicles in a traffic stream? A That is how it’s worded, the speed of other vehicles in the traffic stream.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 6,693,557 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,693,557
• Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc. v. Novadaq Technologies, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 8, 2017 · IPR2015-01847 · APJ Daniel N Fishman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 are unpatentable: all are obvious over Yabe; claims 10, 12, and 14 are also anticipated by Krauter.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “1. Level of Ordinary Skill Mr. Gunday testified, In my opinion, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of the alleged invention is a person with a Bachelor of Science degree in Physics, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or other similar degree, and two ([2]) to three (3) years of work experience relating to medical endoscopic imaging. Such a person would have had an understanding of, or experience in, designing, implementing, and using endoscopic imaging systems, including light sources and endoscopic video and image processing. Ex. 1011 ¶ 76. Mr. Jaggi agrees with Mr. Gunday’s opinion in this regard, adding only that degrees in “Electrical engineering or Engineering Physics” would each qualify as Mr. Gunday’s “other similar degree.” Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 53–54. We agree with and adopt the view of the parties regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 22

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Initially, we note bodily incorporation of the features of the embodiments is not the test of obviousness; rather, the test lies in what is taught or suggested to the ordinarily skilled artisan by the proposed combination of embodiments of Yabe. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Furthermore, “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. “If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. at 417. Yabe discloses multiple embodiments and expressly discloses interchangeability of rotary (“surface-sequential-type”) filters as disclosed in Yabe’s second embodiment (Figure 2) and mosaic (“built-in”) filters as disclosed in Yabe’s first and third embodiments (Figures 1a and 10). Ex. 1007, 18:17–21. Yabe’s express disclosures outweigh the unsupported assertions of Patent Owner’s expert regarding the complexity of constructing the proposed combination of embodiments. “Combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness.” Boston Sci. Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Therefore, we are persuaded, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have had reason to combine the embodiments of Yabe, as proposed by Petitioner, “because it would serve the same purpose as the existing rotary filter/CCD arrangement and lead to predictable results.” See Pet. 20; see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.” slip op. at 28

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

    “We are disinclined to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of this phrase, as recited in claim 1, to require mathematical manipulation. Claim 1 recites “calculates” in a self-defining manner, specifically reciting calculating the image signals “by minimizing the contribution from signals produced by the image sensor in response to red illumination light.” Thus, claim 1 is clear on its face that the calculation to be performed is by minimizing the contribution from red light. Therefore, our analysis shifts to determining the meaning of “minimizing” as recited in claim 1. The ’151 patent discloses a variety of embodiments for “minimizing” the contribution of red light.5 For example, in support of the Patent Owner’s 5 Additionally we observe that “minimizing” appears only once in the ’151 patent—in claim 1 (and, thereby, also in its dependent claims 2–9). construction, the ’151 patent does disclose exemplary embodiments that minimize red light contribution utilizing mathematical manipulations including, for example, CMYG filter computations that are “considered to be well known to those of ordinary skill in the art” (Ex. 1001, 4:66–7:59) and averaging blue and green signals to “compute” a cyan signal (id. at 4:21–24). The ’151 patent, however, also specifically recites, Because the passbands of the red mosaic filters do not significantly overlap with the pass bands of the other filters for a short wavelength imaging mode, the contribution of the image signals due to red illumination light can be reduced or largely eliminated by not assigning the image signals produced by image sensor pixels that are sensitive to red light to their corresponding display pixels. Id. at 4:5–12 (emphasis added). The ’151 patent further states “a short wave-length image (or the color components of such an image) can be computed from a subset of image sensor signals (i.e. excluding the signal data from red light).” Id. at 8:29–32 (emphasis added). Thus, the ’151 patent also encompasses the contribution of red light in the image being” slip op. at 12

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

    “Although the ’151 patent does not address “analog” or “digital” in reference to “memory,” we agree with Patent Owner, based primarily on the cross-examination testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Gunday, that the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of the ’151 patent filing would have understood “memory,” in the context of the ’151 patent, to be referring to digital memory rather than analog buffers. The signals stored in Krauter’s analog buffers are transitory, analog signals propagating from circuits that calculate a value, through the analog buffer, to an analog input of a display monitor. We are persuaded that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have considered such analog buffers to be a memory in the context of the ’151 patent. Thus, we determine “memory,” as recited in claim 1, means any digital memory capable of storing image signals that minimize the contribution of red light.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 7,420,151 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,420,151
• C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Medical Components, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 9, 2016 · IPR2015-01660 · APJ Kerry Begley · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 5–13, 15–19, 21, and 22 were obvious over any asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . 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.” Having considered the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that the information presented does not show that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that any of the challenged claims of the ’325 patent are unpatentable. Therefore, we deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached

    “E. REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST Patent Owner argues in its Preliminary Response that the Petition should have named Bard Access Systems, Inc. as a real party-in-interest in addition to C.R. Bard, Inc. Prelim. Resp. 54–59. In view of our determination that Petitioner has not made a sufficient showing that it would prevail in establishing that any of the challenged claims are unpatentable, we do not reach this issue.” slip op. at 19

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

    “First, we agree with Patent Owner that the Petition does not provide adequate reasoning with rational underpinning for why it would have been obvious in view of Powers to modify the Titanium Implanted Port of PORTS—which Petitioner does not allege is indicated for power injection— to be rated for power injection. See id. at 8–11; Pet. 24–25, 31. Although claim 1 does not require the recited port assembly to be rated for power injection, modifying the Titanium Implanted Port to handle power injection is an important first step in Petitioner’s obviousness analysis. See Pet. 31. Specifically, as noted above, Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known that the Titanium Implanted Port “could be constructed to handle power injection” by modifying it “in view of Powers to handle the higher pressures and flow rates associated with power injection.” Id. (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 147–48). This assertion, however, is conclusory, and relies exclusively on Mr. Tallarida’s declaration testimony, which merely repeats the conclusory statements in the Petition without citation to the asserted prior art references or any other evidence. See id.; Ex. 1009 ¶ 148. Accordingly, his testimony has little, if any, probative value. 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.”); see Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Nothing in the [federal] rules [of evidence] or in our jurisprudence requires the fact finder to credit the unsupported assertions of an expert witness.”). The Petition and Mr. Tallarida’s cited testimony do not explain how the Titanium Implanted Port of PORTS would have been modified so as to be rated for power injection, nor do they point to any disclosure in Powers that would have suggested how such a modification would have been made. See Pet. 31; Ex. 1009 ¶ 148.” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNon analogous art

    “asserted ground based on PORTS, Powers, PowerPort, and Hickman, Petitioner has not provided adequate reasoning with rational underpinning for combining PORTS, Powers, Meyer, and Hickman to arrive at the invention recited in the challenged claims. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown that Meyer cures the deficiencies of PORTS and Powers. See Prelim. Resp. 35–37. Petitioner alleges that the alphanumeric cutouts in the plastic collar of Meyer would be visible under X-ray examination, yet neither Meyer nor the cited paragraphs from Mr. Tallarida’s declaration testimony sufficiently support this assertion, particularly in light of contradictory evidence in the record. See Pet. 55 (citing Ex. 1006; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 278–84); see also Ex. 1009 ¶ 193 (opining that silicone is radiotransparent); Ex. 1001, [57], 2:13–17, 4:61–5:3 (explaining that radiopaque agent can be applied to plastic material, such as silicone elastomer, to allow indicia to appear under X-ray examination). Moreover, even if the collar in Meyer can be considered a flange,4 it is not a flange of anything resembling a venous access port. Petitioner also has not shown adequately that Meyer, which discloses collars for containers, is “from the same field of endeavor” or “reasonably pertinent to the particular problem” 4 We note that Meyer’s collar does not meet Petitioner’s proffered construction of the term “flange,” “a rim extending outwardly from the base for attachment of the port to a patient.” Pet. 5; see Prelim. Resp. 36. addressed by the inventors of the ’325 patent in developing the venous access ports recited in the challenged claims, as required to be prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); see Ex. 1006, 3 (Summary); Prelim. Resp. 35. Therefore, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Meyer “emphasize[s]” the obviousness of including X-ray discernable indicia in the form of cutouts or voids in the flange of the Titanium Implanted Port of PORTS. See Pet. 57.” slip op. at 18

  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,257,325
• C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Medical Components, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 4, 2016 · IPR2015-01654 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–22 obvious over any of the three asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “the Petition fails to provide adequate reasoning for combining the references in the manner asserted to arrive at the claimed subject matter. Prelim. Resp. 7–38. Having reviewed both parties’ arguments and evidence, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not articulated sufficient rationale with support in the record for modifying the Titanium Implanted Port of PORTS as suggested in the Petition. In particular, we are persuaded by the following arguments presented by Patent Owner. First, we agree with Patent Owner that the Petition does not provide adequate reasoning based on rational underpinnings for why it would have been obvious in view of Powers to modify the Titanium Implanted Port of PORTS—which Petitioner does not allege can handle power injection—to be rated for power injection. See id. at 8–11. Although claim 1 does not require the recited port assembly actually be rated for power injection, modifying the Titanium Implanted Port to handle power injection is an important first step in Petitioner’s obviousness analysis. See Pet. 29. Specifically, as noted above, Petitioner states that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known the Titanium Implanted Port could be constructed to handle power injection by modifying it in view of Powers to handle higher pressures and flow rates associated with power injection. Id. Petitioner’s assertion, however, is conclusory, and relies only on Mr. Tallarida’s declaration testimony, which merely repeats the conclusory statements in the Petition without citation to the asserted prior art references or any other evidence. See Ex. 1009 ¶ 139. Accordingly, his testimony has little, if any, probative value. 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.”). Moreover, neither the Petition nor Mr. Tallarida’s testimony explains how the Titanium Implanted Port would have been modified so as to be rated for power injection, nor do they point to any disclosure in Powers that would have suggested how such a modification would have been made. See Pet. 29; Ex. 1009 ¶ 139.” slip op. at 11

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

    “First, we agree with Patent Owner that the Petition does not provide adequate reasoning based on rational underpinnings for why it would have been obvious in view of Powers to modify the Titanium Implanted Port of PORTS—which Petitioner does not allege can handle power injection—to be rated for power injection. See id. at 8–11. Although claim 1 does not require the recited port assembly actually be rated for power injection, modifying the Titanium Implanted Port to handle power injection is an important first step in Petitioner’s obviousness analysis. See Pet. 29. Specifically, as noted above, Petitioner states that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known the Titanium Implanted Port could be constructed to handle power injection by modifying it in view of Powers to handle higher pressures and flow rates associated with power injection. Id. Petitioner’s assertion, however, is conclusory, and relies only on Mr. Tallarida’s declaration testimony, which merely repeats the conclusory statements in the Petition without citation to the asserted prior art references or any other evidence. See Ex. 1009 ¶ 139. Accordingly, his testimony has little, if any, probative value. 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.”). Moreover, neither the Petition nor Mr. Tallarida’s testimony explains how the Titanium Implanted Port would have been modified so as to be rated for power injection, nor do they point to any disclosure in Powers that would have suggested how such a modification would have been made. See Pet. 29; Ex. 1009 ¶ 139.” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNon analogous artDecided for patent owner

    “For substantially the same reasons discussed above with respect to the asserted obviousness ground based on PORTS, Powers, PowerPort, and Hickman, Petitioner has not provided adequate reasoning based on rational underpinnings for combining the references to arrive at the claimed invention. With regard to Meyer, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown Meyer cures the deficiencies of PORTS and Powers. See Prelim. Resp. 35–38. Petitioner alleges the alphanumeric cutouts in Meyer would be visible under X-ray examination, yet neither Meyer nor the cited paragraphs from Mr. Tallarida’s declaration testimony sufficiently support such a statement. See Pet. 50–51 (citing Ex. 1006; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 227–31). Moreover, even if the collar in Meyer can be considered a flange, it is not a flange of anything resembling a venous access port. Petitioner has not shown adequately that Meyer, which discloses collars for containers, is “from the same field of endeavor” or “reasonably pertinent to the particular problem” addressed by the inventors of the ’160 patent in developing the recited venous access port, as required to be prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); see Ex. 1006, 3 (summary). Therefore, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Meyer “emphasize[s]” the obviousness of including X-ray discernable indicia in the form of voids in the flange of the Titanium Implanted Port of PORTS. See Pet. 53.” slip op. at 17

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached

    “E. Real Party-in-Interest Patent Owner alleges in its Preliminary Response that the Petition should have named Bard Access Systems, Inc. as a real party-in-interest in addition to C.R. Bard, Inc. Prelim. Resp. 54–59. In view of our determination that the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims, we do not reach this issue.” slip op. at 18

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,852,160

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.